14 JANUARY 1997

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David

Okum, Councilman Robert Wilson, James Young

Robert Seaman and Chairman Syfert.

Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Consultant, Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Syfert stated there were minor typographical errors which will be corrected.

Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.


A. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes - 17 December, 1996

Mr. Syfert said I appreciate that being a part of our packet.


A. Final Plan Approval for Sterling House, 11320 Springfield Pike

(tabled 12/17/96)

Steve Schuer with the developer (USCC) said as you will recall at our last meeting, there was a mix-up with communication of the comments. There were several comments about comments made on the initial proposal. We submitted site development plans, site lighting plans, building elevations showing the additional brick that was added to the building, and a response letter to each comment. I think we have addressed all the issues.

Mr. Schuer continued with me tonight is a representative of Sterling House and representatives of the engineering firm that did the civil work. If there are any questions, they will be glad to answer them.

Anne McBride reported the revised submittal and documentation was very helpful. There were points I want the commission to note. If the parking lot is going to be as they are proposing, we need to make sure that it is very well signed and marked on the pavement to assure that the circulation pattern will occur as they are proposing.

Ms. McBride continued the site plan and landscaping plan donít match up. The landscaping plan shows the parking setback about 5 feet off the northern property line and the site plan shows it right on the property line. The parking lot needs to be pulled five feet off the line; they still will need a variance, but we would like to see it five feet off and an evergreen hedge put along there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Two


Ms. McBride stated if the southern access is to remain one way, it should be decreased to 16 feet in width. They are showing it at 24 feet, which is a full two lane drive, and would encourage the confusion with the circulation pattern. It also needs to be signed or directed so there would be no truck traffic in that southern access point. As we requested, they shifted the northern access point so that there was 200 feet between the two curb cuts, and they indicated the south curb cut would be one way only. I have serious reservations as to why there are two curb cuts into the development, and if there are to be two curb cuts, the northernmost curb cut should be shifted 83 feet to the north so it can be shared by the balance of that property to the north. That would provide that undeveloped tract two points of shared access, one with the city and one with Sterling House Development which makes good sense; it goes towards our Corridor Study, and is something I think that Planning Commission should seriously consider.

Ms. McBride said our code requires 89 parking spaces but it does not specifically address this type of use. I feel some reduction in the required parking is appropriate. They are proposing 31 spaces and have documented to us in terms of number of employees on full staff, the medical employees, and how many residents would have cars, so the 31 spaces probably are adequate. However, they should provide some type of parking for those overflow type days, Motherís Day, Christmas etc. That could be in the form of a shared parking agreement with the use adjacent nearby that is not used on holidays, but some type of provision should be made for those peak periods.

Ms. McBride continued some of the sidewalks on the site plan have not been fully extended to access the parking areas, and that needs to be done. The trash dumpster is located in the side yard but given the topography of the site and the fact that they are screening it, the Commission probably should consider that variance request. We are asking that some additional landscape material be added to the islands in the parking area on the northern part of the site. One of the islands near the confusion management wing doesnít have any landscaping in it and there could be some additional trees added to some of the other landscaped islands within that main parking area.

Ms. McBride stated the floor plans submitted are the reverse of what is being proposed here, so we would ask that be cleaned up before any final approvals are issued. The transformer pad was on previous plans and has been removed from these plans, but there is a note on there that it will be located wherever the architect chooses. On prior requests we asked that it be screened and it was not done. Now it isnít shown, so I have a little concern that if it goes back in, it be properly screened.

Dan Gassett of Sterling House commented I would like to comment as to why we made the changes we did. Originally we asked for approval of a 50 unit assisted living facility. We sent our marketing department to investigate, and found there were quite a large number of assisted living facilities in the immediate area and their report determined we would serve the community and ourselves better by providing an assisted living combination with confusion management. That is why we came in with a totally different plan which created confusion, and I would like to give our apologies for having to go through this process, but ultimately we think we will provide a service to the community that will be advantageous to the community and our business. We will have 30 assisted living and 12 confusion management units.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Three


Mr. Gassett continued in response to Ms. McBrideís comments on the movement of the drive, we talked about that the first time I was here. Mr. Gassett said the concern was the 200 foot separation, but we would propose to square this off at the zoning line. It is not a property line at this point; it is only a zoning line. If things go well, we probably would look at either doing a second unit to this area over here. But we propose to keep our residential feel with the one drive approach coming across the front. Access could be given to have a two way entrance coming in here with this stubbed out to the zoning line at this time. There would be a one way in and two way out, and we could work out the easements with this property owner so this would serve us very well. Concerning the recommendation of putting in a hedge along this zoning line, this is a solid parcel at this time.

Mr. Young asked Ms. McBride her feeling about doing it this way. Ms. McBride and Mr. Shvegzda came up to look at the plan and Mr. Gassett explained it to them. Ms. McBride said with the understanding that there would be no other curb cut issued other than the one to the northernmost part of the property, and the other curb cut on the Sterling House site, but that there would be no curb cut between there. As long as they are in agreement with that and they are going to provide access to what could be another parcel to the north, fine; my objective is to keep another curb cut from happening between those two. So, as long as that is very clear and is in the Minutes and understood by the owners of the property, that would be up to the Commission.

Mr. Shvegzda commented that was our concern also, that the driveway be made so that it could be utilized by whatever developed north of Sterling House. So long as it is clear that it is the access point for the property north of the Sterling House development, I think that is satisfactory.

Mr. Shvegzda reported we have seen a preliminary plat that has indicated a five foot additional easement that we requested be dedicated along Route 4. Nothing final has been submitted, but it is an important part of this.

Mr. Shvegzda added regarding the detention basin and storm sewer system, I think we have most of the questions answered. We do need the information on the existing swale that is within the Colony Apartment property in order to verify that it has capacity for the discharge of the detention basin.

Mr. Galster said even if we say there will be no curb cut on that other piece of land, given the configuration of The Sterling House northernmost entrance, if we have a lot of traffic coming into that other piece of land once it is developed, wonít it interfere with the elderly traffic? If we create so much traffic coming in and out of that entrance, there still would be a potential problem, given the fact that it is almost coming through their main entryway. So, I am not comfortable with saying if they donít put any other curb cut in, it is okay. Not knowing the future, I think we need to rearrange that parking a little bit so if we are going to make the stipulation that there is no other curb cut, even if the flow is that way it stays out of the general parking lot of The Sterling House.

Mr. Okum said Mr.Huddleston and I have been looking at Page S-4, which shows the existing drive on Springwood Office Condominiums across the street. It appears that the two driveways are not lining up with each other. It has been my experience that this tends to create confusion when you are turning, especially when you are turning across.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Four


Mr. Shvegzda responded it is better if they re either directly across from one another or separated far enough away that you donít have as much of the conflicting movements. Mr. Okum commented so by creating the 200 foot separation, they pushed the driveways off center of each other, and if the driveway were further north, it would eliminate some of the confusion. Mr. Shvegzda agreed with this statement.

Mr. Schuer said originally the drives did align but the request for the driveways being 200 feet apart threw them off. Mr. Okum commented the intent was a minimum of 200 feet, not 200 feet exactly. Mr.Schuer responded we separated the driveways by 200 feet. Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. Shvegzda if that was considered when we asked them to relocate that driveway to the 200 foot minimum. I donít really it having been discussed. Mr. Shvegzda responded not specifically; it was mentioned that it be a 200 foot minimum separation as required. Mr. Okum added there also was a recommendation to move it to the northernmost property line as well, which the applicant did not do.

Mr. Gassett said the only thing we are trying to accomplish with our circle drive is to maintain a very residential attitude towards the house itself in the circulation of the circle. We will do it if that is your wish, but if we start with a one half circle and go out on a straight line to the north, we feel like we will lose the integrity of the look that we are trying to achieve. Mr. Okum asked if they could move the southern driveway the distance needed to the north and still get your circle appearance? I donít have a problem with it being on the south side as long as it is one way in and they maintain the distance, but I donít see any reason why you couldnít carry the driveway a little bit more to the north and still bring those driveways further apart, or bring them back. Move them both; shift the whole thing over to that property line. Mr. Gassett commented we would like to maintain our parking area in the front, with the handicapped parking on the right. Again, we were trying to keep the separation between the driveways. Mr. Okum commented I have no objection to a one way in on the south side; it does give the building a residential feel, but I still think the two driveways being asked from each other will be a situation for drivers exiting, especially someone turning left out of the property going south on Route 4 and someone turning left out of Springwood Medical going north. There would be real conflicts there, and I would like to either see the driveways aligned or further apart.

Mr. McErlane reported on this new plan, the west elevation which is the front elevation is now 70% brick. One thing that needs to be clarified is that the landscaping plan shows an exterior patio off the back of the building, but the site engineering plans donít accommodate that. They show four to one and three to one slopes directly off the back of the building. We need to know if that patio will be built or not. Mr. Schuer said that it would be built.

Mr. McErlane continued since Anne has outlined the variances and recommendations on her report, I would rather you go by her recommendations than what I have here, except there is a line shown on the drawing as a future property line in the rear of the property. At the point of time that lot split occurs, a variance will be necessary for the rear yard setback, so I would recommend that Planning Commission refer this to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. The site plan shows a 30 foot setback, and the Public Facilities District requires 50 feet.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Five


Mr. Syfert stated the applicant is looking for final approval, and I believe we have a number of major issues that we have to come to an agreement on.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant intended to have light packs on the buildings for exterior safety lighting? Mr. Schuer answered I do not think it was submitted, but there is lighting at the entrance and exit. As far as general lighting on the side of the building, no. Mr. Okum continued and none of your lighting plans shows any bleedoff onto any adjacent property. Mr. Schuer responded not to any extent. There has been some lighting added in the site parking areas, but not to the extent that it will affect adjacent areas. Mr. Okum wondered what type of lighting would be used on the rear of the building for that walkway around the back in the patio area, and Mr. Schuer answered I am not sure that has been determined. Mr. Okum wondered if they then would come back to Planning for lighting in those areas, and Mr. Schuer answered no, I would think that I would submit that to Mr. McErlane. Mr. Okum commented if we approve these plans, we are approving them as they are presented to us, and it is on one plan, so we would have to consider it as submitted. Mr. Schuer stated it will be put in according to that plan. Mr. Okum said there is no lighting allowance for that area back there at all.

Mr. Gassett commented as far as lighting that would be required, if you want to put that in as a stipulation for a building permit, we will comply with any of your wishes. We want to have some type of closure tonight if possible. We will move the drive in whatever direction you want us to, but we would love to get this underway.

Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride about Item 2, a single unit vehicle being able to negotiate the parking lot. Will an ambulance get through this parking lot okay? Ms. McBride answered an ambulance probably would, but a single unit vehicle, like a food service truck that is 40 feet long, couldnít make two points on the islands, so they need to look at that a little more carefully. They are not significant changes. Mr. Galster added I assume a fire truck would come down through the Colony across the back of the property.

Mr. Seaman asked if it would be appropriate to agree to a listing of the issues, Anne McBrideís plus the variance to the rear yard setback to the future property line? Maybe we should take them item by item. I think we will find that there are a number of items where we can agree and maybe some that might be more contentious that need to be worked out. One way or the other we need to give the applicant some direction. Mr. Syfert commented I think that is an excellent idea. Planning used Ms. McBrideís list of recommendations to review. Mr. Gassett commented we are basically willing to accept all the recommendations, and would like to make a few comments to Anne on the parking spaces. We have found, especially with our confusion management group, that often on these special days people are picked up and taken to the childrenís homes so even on some of those days we donít have a problem; that would somewhat alleviate the concern. Is it my understanding that the variance on the parking would be the only variance we would need? Mr. Syfert stated there are three or four, and the variance on the parking would be one of them. I donít believe we have a real problem with the 31 spaces necessarily as long as there is some way to provide for additional on special days. I believe I am speaking on behalf of the Commission on that one.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Six


The Commission began a review of the recommendations in Ms. McBrideís report:

1. The parking lot needs to be adequate marked (posted signs and pavement markings) to indicate the proposed vehicle flow patterns. Traffic flowing to the north on the one way access should be signed to stop or yield. The proposed circulation pattern could be improved.


2. A variance should be considered to reduce the parking lot setback from the north property line to 5 feet provided an evergreen hedge (2í at planting) is planted to buffer the parking area.

Mr. Syfert stated there is a discrepancy; one of your plans show your parking right on the line and on the other you are off five feet. If it is off five feet, we have accomplished our mission, other than the greenery. Mr. Gassett commented the architect originally put it on the zoning line and through the comments, the landscape people moved it back to put in the hedge. Again, we will do whatever you wish. Mr. McErlane said to clarify, on the engineerís plan it shows a 24 foot aisle there, and for angled parking, we donít require anywhere near 24 feet so it could be pulled back five feet to accommodate it. Mr. Syfert said so they have a wider aisle than you need. Mr. Gassett stated Iíll change it. Mr. Seaman said a variance would still be needed, wouldnít it? Mr. McErlane stated my understanding is it is intended to be a future property line. Mr. Gassett said it may not be but if we do Phase II, it would be. Mr. McErlane commented if the applicant wants to come into Board of Zoning Appeals at a later date for that item, that is fine. It will have to be addressed if it becomes a property line. Mr. Okum said so the variance would be a later issue, and the hedge is not a problem.

3. If the southern access is to remain one way, it should be designed at 16í in width and truck traffic should be directed to the full access point.

Mr. Gassett said typically we do the access at 18í; would that be okay? Ms. McBride said fine, just so it discourages any possibility of two way traffic.

4. The northern full access point should be shifted 83 feet to the north to be shared by both properties with the necessary access easements provided.

Mr. Schuer stated we would like to consider our alternate to moving that. Ms. McBride stated 83 feet is what I scaled to the zoning line. Mr. Schuer stated we would move the two drives sufficiently apart to reduce any confusion. Mr. Syfert said that would take care of the cross traffic. Mr. Gassett asked if they still had the option to align the drives as we did initially? Mr. Okum responded then you would be less than the 200 foot minimum. Mr. Gassett said if those are your wishes, we will do it.

Mr. Okum commented I understand that 200 feet regulation, but on the other hand, their driveway and The Colonyís driveway is closer than 200 feet. We are looking at this one site on its own basis, and The Colony is closer than 200 feet to its common driveway. For its own purpose, this siteís development shows 200 feet between the two driveways, but the southernmost entrance is definitely closer than 200 feet to The Colony driveway. Mr. Syfert said remember that is a one way in only. Mr. Schuer said that is a right turn in, so you shouldnít see any conflict with The Colony drive.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Seven


Mr. Okum continued the applicant has indicated that they would like to move it back even with the other driveway? Mr. Syfert said they indicated they would comply with moving it north. Mr. Schuer added to the zoning line if that is sufficient. Mr. Syfert commented I think that is the spirit that the Commission and the planners are after; I think that would fit our needs best.

Mr. Seaman wondered if the curb cut would straddle the zoning line. Ms. McBride confirmed this, adding that is the intent, so it could be used by both parcels and appear to belong to both parcels. Mr. Seaman responded I agree and think that what the board and zoning laws are trying to prevent is a plethora of curb cuts. To the extent that we can mandate sharing, I believe that is in the Cityís best interests and in the applicantís best interests. If you end up doing Phase 2 or not, depending on what would go in there, you wouldnít want to have another business or office buildingís traffic going through your parking lot.

6. Additional sidewalk needs to be extended or constructed to provide clear access to entry points on the building.


7. A variance should be considered from Section 153.072(1) to allow the waste container to be located within the side yard due to the physical constraints of the site.

Mr. Syfert commented I believe where you have the dumpster now is a vast improvement over where it was and would require a variance.

8. A variety of landscape material needs to be added to the islands near the confusion management wing and the islands separating the parking area.

Mr. Gassett stated I promise you, we will want to look very nice in the area.

9. Floor Plans should be submitted that accurately represent the proposed development and building material samples should be provided.

Mr. Syfert stated the floor plans are reversed, so that should be no problem. Mr. Seaman asked about the building materials. Being new to the board, I donít know how critical it is to have those before you grant final plan approval. On the face of it I donít see it as a huge deal but I would like to hear from staff if we should proceed without looking at the building materials. Mr. McErlane reported there is a color brochure attached to the route sheet that has the colors. Mr. seaman said this is a beautiful building and I am not overly concerned but I want to make sure we have everything we need. Mr. Gassett said it is limestone material.

10. If the transformer pad is to be constructed, it should be adequately screened on all sides by landscape material.

Mr. Syfert stated this transformer pad originally was on our plans and then taken off, but it says it should be adequately screened on all sides by landscape material.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Eight


Mr. Osborn stated I wanted a clarification. At the rezoning last November, the applicant made a commitment to dedicate an additional five feet to the city along Springfield Pike, essentially taking a 30 foot highway easement and making it a 35 foot right of way dedication. While we are negotiating separately with them for acquisition of some residue property that they hold to the east, I wanted it to be on record that you are still committed to making that donation and I assume that whether or not we consummate the sale, there will be a record plat prepared by you to donate that right of way, is that correct? Mr. Gassett confirmed this.

Mr. Seaman said item 11 on my list would be a variance to be considered from Section 153.064(B) to reduce the required rear yard setback to the future property line from a minimum of 50 feet to a minimum of 30 feet. This item may not be applicable, because it was a proposed rear yard, so at this point of time, it doesnít need to be addressed.

Mr. Galster wondered if the Commission needed new drawings for moving this entryway all the way to straddle the zoning line and the reconfiguration of the parking lot. Mr. McErlane stated new drawings would be submitted and reviewed by Don and myself before we would approve that.

Mr. Okum added I think part of the motion should include that the lighting

presented on the plan be that lighting and as the applicant had indicated, that there be no light packs on the building projecting light out off their property.

Mr. Okum moved to grant final plan approval with the following conditions based on Ms. McBrideís recommendations (see earlier discussion). He added that there should be a dedication of five feet of right of way provided to the City and there should be no lighting packs on the building and no lighting for the rear courtyard as indicated on the plan.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

B. Lanco Development Requests Rezoning of Property @ Northeast Corner of Kenn Road & I-275 from PF-1 to R-1-D (tabled 12/17/96)

Preston Black of Lanco passed out new site plans. Mr. Syfert stated for the benefit of the Planning Commission, staff had not seen anything new from the applicant, but we thought we should readdress the issue, and now I see we have some new materials. What you are going to talk about, I donít know.

Mr. Black responded we can go over it together. Last time we were in we were attempting to change from PF-1 to R-1-D which crowded the site and would have been up to 67 sites. The comments from the commission concerned the overcrowding and too much traffic. After reviewing the plan and the recommendations of the commission requesting that we look at something with R-1-B, we have had the property redrawn as R-1-B zoning. R-1B allows 12,000 square foot minimum lots, and 40 home sites. Technically you could get up to 63 lots on that site, but with the topography and to make it more pleasing to the eye, especially the two sites coming in from the existing neighborhood, and straightening out the streets rather than having that additional cul de sac street that we had previously. It makes it a much cleaner more attractive neighborhood with 40 sites.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Nine


Mr. Black added we took into consideration the steeper areas, and made those sites quite a bit wider to allow for a more gradual slope and side entry garages on quite a few of them also. We would like your opinions and comments based on the new drawings.

Mr. McErlane stated that the staff has not had any opportunity to review any new plans, and it would be our recommendation that Planning discussion of the R-1-B zoning would be appropriate, but we would not recommend that you make any decision on the rezoning tonight.

Mr. Wilson said as I mentioned at the earlier meeting, you have too many houses on too small a plot of land; I still feel that way. There would be too much traffic, and it looks like you could only have one entrance in or out. I donít feel comfortable with it. Looking at the topography, I still feel there are plots there that are unusable.

Mr. Galster said at the last meeting there was discussion about getting fewer lots there but my original problem and my problem today is the zoning. It is public facilities and I think that is still the proper and viable zoning for that piece of land. I am not comfortable discussing the proposal he has without staff review, but I would be prepared to make a motion to deny the request based on the fact that the existing zoning is proper and viable. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Mr. Young said I concur exactly with Steve; I really donít see why we need to change the zoning on this land. I live in that area, and I do not agree that we need a lot more houses put in and take up that green space. It was zoned this way for a reason and I would like to see it stay this way.

Mr. Okum commented staff has not had an opportunity to review this. but the consideration before us really should be rezoning from PF-1 to R-1-D. What he brought in this evening is a variation to his original plan, but his request submitted to this commission is for R-1-D zoning. I also do not see at this point any other viable use except for public facility as it is currently zoned. For clarification, I wonder if we shouldnít have the motion based on the applicantís request. Mr. Galster responded I will amend my motion to deny the rezoning from PF-1 to R-1-D because the existing zoning is proper and viable. Mr. Young seconded the amended motion.

Mr. Wilson commented I have thought a lot about if we could put any residential houses on there at all, and my major concern was traffic and how the increase in traffic would affect the residents. To change the zoning, would be to change more than what I feel is warranted. I canít agree with having any residential zoning in that area.

Mr. Galster said we pretty much had that same discussion the last time you were in there, so all the reasons why it should remain PF-1 were said in that previous meeting.

Mr. Black responded there were comments in that meeting on some concern in changing it from PF-1. The sellers have had that property on the market for years and have had no success in having any one purchase that ground and use it as a public facility of any kind. We came in and worked out a deal with them to try to make it work with what was around it, to be contiguous with the neighborhood.


Planning commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Ten


Mr. Black continued from our last meeting there were comments from members stating that if it were changed, the only way it would be looked at would be to R-1-B and that is why we had it redrawn and are attempting to get feedback based on the new drawing. Obviously it would have to be presented and gone through Bill, and they would have to review the new plans. We got the plan back today and I wanted to get it before you so you could look at it while we are having the discussion.

Mr. Syfert commented during the initial conversation on this, I indicated that I was a part of this when it was rezoned to PF-1 which at the time made sense, and I would not be amenable to anything less than R-1-A or R-1-B. I still stand on that exact premise, and I do not believe without staff review and their comments, that this commission is treating the applicant fairly. In my opinion if this was exactly the feeling, it should have been brought out and a motion made at the prior meeting. I would not be in favor of the motion on the floor at this time. I would be in favor of a motion that staff be allowed to review this and come back with our comments next month.

Mr. Okum said at this point, I have nothing to consider besides R-1-D zoning that the applicant submitted to the city. We have had no comments or recommendations from staff; I donít even know if this would work on the site, and at this point I canít consider that. In hindsight we probably should have voted when you made your first presentation to us and finished with it so you could make a resubmission, but as an R-1-D request on this property, I have to vote against it.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree with the chairmanís comments that certainly we have nothing to review based on not having the benefit of staff review, but I donít necessarily agree with rejecting this out of hand, and if the applicant chooses to pursue it I think the Commission needs the staff review.

Mr. Young said I agree with what you are saying, Bill, but I think we as a board need to give the applicant some indication whether it will stay PF-1 in our minds, or if there is a reason to continue to do work on this. I donít want to see him do work that he doesnít need to be doing, and I really think we need to give him some indication of that. Because of that, I think the motion that has been made is something we need to vote on the way it stands.

Mr. Seaman said from my perspective, there hasnít been much discussion about the fact that itís been for sale for years. If you choose to resubmit this as R-1-B, the number one roadblock in my mind is why PF-1 is inappropriate for this parcel? I would like to hear a case as to why this rezoning would be the best and most appropriate use for this parcel.

Mr. Black responded the biggest indicator of that would be the length of time on the market with no contracts coming in that would work to make it a public facility. If it was zoned anything else other than PF and the property could not be sold, there is what is called best use of the property. Whether you would agree that it is best use or not is certainly up in the air. Since he is one of the owners of the property, Mr. Daniel may be able to shed some light on any other offers they might have received.

Mr. Seaman said I think that is appropriate when you resubmit, but that is the kind of input that I personally am looking for.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Eleven


Mr. Black answered I can respect that, but as Mr. Young said, there is no sense in my working with more engineers and having more things prepared if the Commission is not going to consider changing it from PF-1. He is here tonight and can answer any questions in terms of how long it has been on the market or any other specific questions you would have. Maybe we could get it out of the way. They as owners feel it should be changed from PF-1 since they have had no success in marketing it as that.

Mr. Seaman said I havenít made up my mind one way or the other, so from my personal perspective, it wouldnít be a waste of time to resubmit and I would welcome you to.

Mr. Huddleston added I agree with your comments, but I also would agree strongly with Mr.Youngís comments relative to not stringing the applicant out. I think unless you can show us either a compelling reason why it needs to be rezoned, or more importantly something much more appropriate than the high density plan that you have, I would not be in favor of considering this. However, I donít want to preclude you from your right to have it considered.

Mr. Wilson wondered how the property had been marketed. Had it been marketed as PF-1 and does the owner feel that it had been marketed properly? The results werenít too good; is that a result of poor marketing or no takers at the price offered?

Mr. Black answered I know the property was listed by very capable agents who have a good reputation in the industry. The property also has had billboard signs on I-275, and you donít get much better marketing than all the traffic on I-275. Personally I feel like they did all they could in trying to market the property. Any specifics Mr. Daniel could answer. In knowing how long the property was on the market, I am under the assumption that they did a good job of trying to market the property to every type of buyer, including PF buyers.

Mr. Galster said the ability of a landowner to sell a piece of property at what he considers a fair market value or a profit is not reason enough to rezone the property. I have taken that into consideration and I believe the existing zoning is proper and viable. There are a couple of instances where this type of construction has happened close to this property, and I am convinced that it is marketable in that area.

Mr. Galster restated his motion which is to deny the rezoning of this parcel, which is presently zoned PF-1 to R-1-D.

Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Okum, and Mr. Wilson. Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman and Mr. Syfert voted no. The motion to deny the rezoning was passed with four affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert added based on the comments made, it would appear your applying under R-1-B is possible.

Planning recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:43 p.m.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twelve


A. Concept Discussion of Proposed Dave & Busterís, to be located in Tri-County Commons

Mr. Huddleston excused himself from the discussion.

Dave Corriveau and Buster Corley, co-founders and co-chairmen of Dave & Busterís, Inc. passed out menus. Mr. Corriveau stated we are here to give you an outline of the proposed Dave & Busterís, an overview of the total project and the place we want to locate, and discuss our special needs and requirements so that this can become a reality.

Mr. Corley stated Dave & Busterís is in the restaurant entertainment business. Our company was founded in 1982. We employee 3,000 people and operate nine large restaurant entertainment complexes in seven cities. We were founded in Dallas and have two stores there; we are located in Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago downtown and suburban, Hollywood Florida and Bethesda Maryland. In March we will open stores in Ontario Canada and California. In all the cities we have been well received and well respected, and we like to think of ourselves as good corporate neighbors.

Mr. Corley added each of our stores is high quality. They are 50,000 to 60,000 square feet. We propose to construct a 60,000 square foot store in Springdale. Our company is publicly held, and in 1997 we expect to have in excess of $100 million in sales. Given the opportunity, we hope to come to Springdale and create 300 new jobs with sales of $12 to $14 million annually. We create a lot of jobs, pay a lot of taxes and bring good food and fun which will be conveyed by the video we have tonight. The video was shown to the commission.

Mr. Corley continued this is a fun concept, and one we are very proud of. Sixty-five percent of our guests are age 21 to 40, 60% are male and 40% are female. We do a lot of corporate business in the form of private parties and sales presentations. As a result, we have a very broad range of appeal and a diverse clientele.

Mr. Corriveau reported we do three great stores a year. Our total game plan for the United States is to do 50 great stores in 50 great cities. We also have international expansion going on, but we are concentrating on developing great stores in the United States.

Mr. Corriveau continued this store is in the Tri-County Commons area and is 60,000 square feet. It is converting warehouse space. We will make capital improvements of about $8 million in this building. It will be a very nice facility. On top of $8 million in capital improvements, we will do another $4 million in equipment. The toys in the midway are about a million and a half dollars, another $800,00 for kitchen equipment and various other equipment throughout the facility, including close circuit television in security areas and other high tech entertainment features. The total investment will be about $12 million, which is a very sizable sum and we need to be very careful with what we do and how we do it.

Mr. Corriveau stated the 60,000 square foot store will front I-275, and it is very important that we have the proper signage. As you saw in the video, our normal sign is 50 feet with a 15 foot revolving sign up front which rotates. We are not proposing that sign here because we have been told you will kick us out. But I need to impress you that we need signage; we are a regional draw.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Thirteen


Mr. Corriveau continued the visibility from I-275 is very important to us; the visibility from Kemper Road is very important to us. As you can see our location does not have the visibility of Roberds. We are in the middle, so signage is paramount for our needs, so I ask that you please give special consideration for signage, because that could make a difference whether this project happens or not.

Mr. Corriveau added our time schedule is now; we are prepared to move forward. We have negotiated a lease and are prepared to draw plans and have them to the city by the first part of March and we would like to start construction by the first of April and open this summer. We always have a big pre-opening party to benefit a local charity and always do charity events throughout the year.

Mr. Shvegzda reported there are two basic issues. The first is the actual modification of the existing storm system. Currently there is a detention basin to the west of the Roberds site. That whole area will be parking lot so that will be filled in. The idea is to modify the existing retention basin in the northwest corner of the site to accommodate the lost volume in the existing detention basin. The concept seems workable. The other issue is regarding traffic. Dave & Busterís is shown for this site, but in addition there are two retail areas which will essentially replace the warehouse area. That will require the traffic study originally done for the site and then modified or the Roberds site to be revised with the new traffic figures for the final usage of the property. The comparison here is a rough comparison of the land use for the current PUD with the modifications that have occurred, versus the proposed modification.

Ms. McBride stated there are some potential traffic concerns, although we recognize that Dave & Busterís peak hour does not coincide with the typical peak hour of the Tri-County area. Colinked with that would be parking issues. By their own calculations, their peak hour is 700 parking spaces which is a phenomenal number for a single use. Tied to all of that is the fact that they are showing the balance of the site to go retail and there would be some concern about how that would be accommodated in terms of traffic and parking and land use. The Commission probably needs to separate the two issues between the additional retail and the Dave & Busterís facility. We need to see additional information in terms of signage and those types of things, some of which we got this evening. I made a phone call to a fellow planner in Marietta, Georgia and he gave them an excellent rating, said they were wonderful corporate citizens, had worked with their Planning Commission in developing their site plan and had not had any problems with them in terms of youths hanging around the site.

Mr. McErlane stated in terms of parking requirements, this use is difficult to look at. The applicant did submit some parking numbers that they see at the Atlanta location, which is fairly close in size (50,000 square feet) to this proposed 60,000 square feet. From a zoning code standpoint it is hard to evaluate because we typically look at seating and waiting areas, and there is an awful lot of area for milling around in this location. There are 630 seats on their plan which only generates 210 parking spaces, and I know this type of use generates more of a need than that. The retail uses generate 800+ parking spaces, so from a zoning code standpoint they are providing enough to accommodate the seating and retail use even though the times donít coincide.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Fourteen


Mr. McErlane continued on the sign package, they are proposing a 50 foot high, 441 square foot pole sign. I know Planning Commission talked pretty extensively about pole signs when Roberds requested one, because there still is a pending approval for North American Properties to have a sign on the north side of this development as well. We discussed the fact that there were two pole signs previously approved on the preliminary plan and at this point, I would assume we would have to consider this to be a third pole sign. Correct me if Iím wrong, but I looked at the plans submitted for the signs, and there was a sign shown on what looks to be on the back side of that tower. To measure we square the sign off, so that sign is 225 square feet, but I donít know that it would be very visible from anywhere other than East Kemper Road on the western part of Tri-County Commons site as you come down the hill. The rest of the buildings would block that one. On the front of the building, there is a 324 square foot wall sign. There is a 25 square foot ground sign shown on the Don Pablos property; in looking at the Don Pablos site plan, it has to be difficult to fit that in there because of the grades and the minimal amount of room there is to place it. There is a little bit of grass area on the corner, but it also encompasses a 10 foot utility easement in that location. I donít know what the restrictions are in terms of building a sign structure in that location.

Mr. McErlane added the plan indicates the modification of a sign, the Roberds ground sign at Commons and East Kemper, but the plan does not indicate how it is modified. There are six directional signs shown in numerous locations around the development. One is shown on North American Propertyís site and one on Champion Windowsí site, which will require their approvals. Our Zoning Code only permits six square feet for directional signs, but as you may recall Roberds recently got 10 square feet for their directional signs. There is a 100 foot high flag pole with a 20í x 30í flag, which is not regulated by our Zoning Code. There is an additional 12 foot directional sign on the north side. The total square footage shown is 1148 square feet, and the Zoning Code allows 452.5 square feet. For comparison, Roberds has a 33 foot high pole sign with 108 square feet of signage, plus a 38 square foot panel or a total of 146 square feet on the pole. They also have two wall signs at 384 square feet each, and have a total of 867 square feet of signs.

Mr. McErlane stated because this will be a change from the original preliminary plan, it will require a modification of the PUD. It is up to the council members of Planning whether it should go back to Council, but typically that is the case.

Mr. Osborn said one of the issues was whether or not some of their activities would constitute gambling. They do have Black Jack, but in terms of their operation, it is just for fun; there is no wagering. They do have games of skill and have a payoff in terms of redemption of tokens towards prizes, but that would not constitute gambling. What they are proposing would be within the limits of the law, similar to what you find in some of the area malls.

Mr. Osborn continued we have talked to them about this site, and the fact that we have accepted specific individual type businesses like Roberds. This is a mixed use development, and one of our concerns was to maintain a diversity of use in the facility so we can scramble the peak hours.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Fifteen


Mr. Osborn added one of our concerns was that the balance of the warehouse would be retail, and we are not prepared to do that, but I think it is unfair to Dave & Busterís to tie that in with this request. Now we should discuss whether Dave & Busterís is appropriate for this location.

Mr. Okum wondered if they had discussed the directional signage with Roberds and asked if they could utilize joint directional signage. Mr. Corriveau answered we have not discussed the signs with Roberds or Don Pablos. Mr. Okum continued Roberds is a 328,000 square foot occupant in the city and warrants a certain amount of consideration for that, but you have a unique project, and I can understand your needs. I am not concerned about future retail; my consideration is your presentation as a modification to the PUD.

Mr. Okum continued your parking needs are substantial, and I would hope you would complement the type of landscaping and islanding that went into Roberds with your development. Is it your intent to tie in the west part of the roadway to your development? Mr. Corriveau answered we will develop 1200 parking spaces and put nice landscaping around there. Mr. Okum wondered if these other two potential retail spaces are part of their plan and Mr. Corriveau answered that they were not; we know nothing about that. Our parking area is 1200 square feet; the landlord will have to develop the whole parking field. Mr. Corriveau added later at night, we could use the other 1,000 square feet at Roberds, because our peak times are late Friday and Saturday. Mr. Corley added there also are 40 spaces for employee parking.

Referring to the two west fields, #403 and #250, Mr. Okum commented when you put a parking field across the development, you are saying retail. I would hesitate to put a field of parking out there when at this point it is warehouse. To be fair to you, we should be considering this on your need for parking and not what is a potential need in the future. I would like to consider your development by itself, and not by looking at a retail development. Mr. Corriveau said our development by itself is 700 acres; this total development is 1,000. Roberds does not want us to park on their lot.

Mr. Young commented in concept, I think it is a great idea. The signage bothers me in that they are asking for so much more than what is allowable and the fact that we do not know what will happen to the two pieces of property next to that. We are looking at this property by itself, but as a Planning Commission, we have to try to look at it long term. I have a concern with the amount of signage and the type of signage.

Mr. Syfert commented there could be some modification to the sign request as we look at it closer. It is possible that in some of the places where you are asking for signs, you will not get them, but I do share your concerns.

Mr. Galster said it seems like everybody wants a pole sign with the main tenant, but then every new tenant wants his own pole sign. Right now we have three future signs on that property; this would be a fourth with two more places to develop, and their square footage will be larger than yours. As you said the sign issue would be a major one, and the signage you are requesting is a tremendous amount. I am not talking about whittling; I am saying chopping. I am not comfortable with that much, and I also have a problem with the height of the sign. I do think that the concept would work in Springdale.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Sixteen


Mr. Galster continued going back to October of 1995 and Roberds, there was a concern about the whole thing going retail and the amount of traffic. I still do not know if we would have a good flow with the layout of the land. The majority of the eastern entryway has a temporary traffic light. Mr. Syfert said the permanent entrance should accommodate every bit as much traffic.

Walt Henrion of Dave & Busterís said one thing I think is important is the fact that our signs are round signs, and the staff squared our sign off which adds one-third or more to our signs in terms of square footage. Our big round sign is 280 square feet, and if it were squared, it would be a lot bigger.

Mr. Henrion continued the other thing to consider on signage is the fact that normally we do revolving signs and would be asking for that. The Mayor of Philadelphia was involved, and we had the first revolving sign in Philadelphia since 1934. Chicago amended the sign ordinance for this. Signage is important, and the reason I bring up the revolving sign is because the sign already will exist. It is a structure that is above the building, and we decided in deference to the fact that the structure is there, we would put it on the existing structure so the height was dictated by the structure there.

Mr. Henrion stated as far as directional signage is concerned, it is in the best interests of everybody in the project to have as good directional signage as we can. It would make sense to have something directional with Roberds.

Mr. Wilson asked about the signage package, Type B the pylon sign where you have your Dave & Busterís and future tenant. Are they in your building? Mr. Corriveau answered that is for whatever happens next door to us. Our request is for our logo 15 feet in diameter, or 176 square feet.

Mr. Wilson stated before we can make any type decision on signage, you first need to find out how many signs you can use. I am not sure Champion will give you permission for the sign on their property so that might be eliminated. As it stands now, we are out in left field. If that will be a determining factor on basing this as a concept, it will not fly because the signage is too far out, but you are assuming all these signs will be put in place, and I am not sure they will be.

Mr. Seaman said as far as a concept discussion is concerned, I am very much in favor of the concept. It is pretty exciting to see something like this come into a development like this. Signage will be an issue, but I do not think it is enough of an issue to discount the fact that your business will not be on the same time frame as any future retail use back there. The different peak hour times is a definite plus. I would be in favor of the discussion moving forward.

Mr. McErlane stated that the total sign area is 1148 square feet, but 216 square feet of that is indicated for future tenants, so 932 square feet is allocated for Dave & Busterís.

Mr. Okum said I am somewhat reluctant to hand out pole signs. I think one of the things that is unique is that this logo is round, which does not make this lower spot very conducive to having top billing. I would think you could discuss with North American Properties the possible use of their pole signage that has been approved, and you would be within our Code. You do have a unique type establishment.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Seventeen


Mr. Okum continued you are going to occupy a small portion of the building, and there are 189,000 square feet of warehouse space still there. You have 60,000 square feet of the facility, but you want to be one of the major anchors with the signage. Would you consider going to North American Properties to discuss this? Mr. Corriveau responded our intent was to talk to you and not them. We would consider it, but if we go to them and it takes 90 days, it would not fit our time schedule. We are looking for a green light so we can get going. Mr. Corley added we have seen that would diminish the value of their property to sublet. Mr. Okum stated they have been there four years, and have not executed anything about the sign. Mr. Corriveau stated we would be more than willing to talk to them about that, but we would like to talk about the wall signs.

Mr. Okum said I have no objection to the wall signs on the building, but I do have objection to another pole sign without consideration of the North American Properties pole sign as well. I am excited about the whole plan; the only difficulty in timing is the Saturday traffic rush.

Mr. Seaman commented in terms of the pole sign and comparing it to Roberds, in my mind you will generate a lot more traffic who will visit Dave & Busterís several times a year, whereas they will visit Roberds a few times if that. Maybe it is appropriate for us to consider the number of people who will be looking for Dave & Busterís. I do not have a problem with your having the same signage.

Mr. Syfert stated we are looking for an indication that this is a modification to the PUD and has to go to Council. Mr. Galster said it would be a change that would need to be submitted to Council. Mr. Wilson added I agree.

Mr. Galster said Council meets tomorrow night. I do not know if it should be brought up conceptually, but considering the Air Tite Windows project, I do not want to sound overencouraging to these people and have Council turn them down. Is that proper?

Mr. Osborn stated it would be up to the President of Council, and I would imagine they would be willing to entertain a presentation. We came here this evening to discuss whether or not this concept was acceptable to Planning. There are key issues on signage that need to be negotiated, but the applicant needs to know how Planning feels about this as a concept. It would have to go to Council with a Public Hearing advertised 30 days in advance. It is up to them if they want to do that, but we need to remember the time frame. They need feedback from you tonight.

Mr. Syfert said from what I have heard, it does not seem to be negative regarding the concept itself. A number of us are pretty excited about it. The main issue seems to be signage, which appears to be able to be worked out.

Mr. Wilson said I think this is enough of a change to warrant Council involvement. Would you be receptive to talking to Council tomorrow? There is positive feedback, but there also is a concern about the lighting; I see two rows of neon, so there are a lot of issues here that need to be addressed by more than just the Planning Commission. At this point, we like the idea conceptually but there are concerns about signage.

Mr. Corriveau stated for us to break ground by April 1st, we would have to feel the city wants us and we will be okay.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Eighteen


Mr. Osborn commented you all have to approve a final development plan, and that would mean that you would have to have a special meeting after the 19th of March, probably the 20th or the following week, whenever we can get you together. I have heard them indicate that they are prepared to work simultaneously on building permits. They have recognized that it is a gamble for them because if they get all the way through the process they still will have to pass the plan review but they are not going to be able to get the building permit. Even to let them do that, the best we can do is get it to Council for a public hearing on the 19th and, assuming a favorable decision, you would have to have a special meeting.

Mr. Wilson suggested as a Planning Commission member and Councilperson, it would be in your best interest for you to come to our Council meeting tomorrow. We would fit you in and give you a few minutes to review your concept with all members and get a feeling as to whether we would be receptive to have you pursue this. There are issues that we have to address. Hopefully tomorrow you can talk to your fellow tenants and see how they feel about signage, because that will be an issue. Itís your call but I donít think anyone can represent your business as well as the two of you.

Mr. Corriveau stated in the spirit of trying to get something done, I am hearing that the concept sounds good, but we have a problem with your signs. Let me propose something on the signage for tonight. We will get rid of all six of the directional signs because we donít have permission from the tenants and if we get those, we will come back and talk about it to see if you want to award those signs at that point of time. The signs we have to have are Sign A, Roberds entry sign. We donít have the drawing, but we want to have some type of tasteful logo with the Roberds sign for direction to the north side of the property. We have to have a sign on Kemper Road. The silo sign, B and C are the round sign on the silo; those are a must. On the subject of pole signs, we have to have a pole sign near the freeway because we are so far off the freeway we have to have a presence up there. We will make a good faith effort to talk to whoever has the permit for that sign; we are willing to pay a fair price for it, and I promise you we will make a good effort to try to get one of the existing permits. If you could approve those signs, that would give us enough faith to go forward and negotiate with our neighbors and go forth from there.

Mr. Wilson responded what I am suggesting is for you to do all of this and come before Council in a month or two and get shot down, it would be wasted. That is why we suggest that you come to Council tomorrow. Youíll get some feeling from us tonight, but tomorrow would let you know what Council feels and you could do that in a 24 hour period since you are already here, but it is your call.

Mr. Syfert commented I believe what Mr. Okum was saying with the North American pole sign that had been approved, I believe all of us would feel good if they would be amenable to allowing you to take over their sign.

Mr. Galster said I want a recap on what signs you are requesting. Mr. Corriveau answered Signs A, , C and D. Mr. Galster continued and you want that along with something, a pole sign at Pole Location B or the North American. So A, B, C and D, with B being flexible as far as trying to work it out with North American.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Nineteen


Mr. Galster continued I still have a concern about this parcel being able to handle all the traffic. That is something I want you to be aware of even though conceptually I like the idea and I hope Dave & Busterís locates to Springdale. I donít want to mislead you by saying itís not a problem I can live with it, because Iím not sure I can live with it at this point. On the signage if you look at A B C and D, preferably and almost assuredly going with the other pole sign (North American), I would have no problem with the signage. If in fact it boiled down to needing to have this pylon sign shown on here, with Signs A C and D in addition to that, I still think I have a little bit of a problem with the sign issue.

Mr. Corriveau responded you understand that we have to have a sign on the freeway. Mr. Galster answered I understand, but when I drive by that tower, I think it is out on the freeway. That tower with an 18 foot circle on it will darn near be a pole sign. I see that tower every time I drive by.

Mr. Okum said as a point of reference, one of the signs on Roberds face is 24 foot wide by 16 foot high and that is seen pretty well from the interstate. I still have the same concern about the pole sign. I donít know how I can help you through that any more, but I also have to consider what happens next. Roberds sign currently has a space allotted for additional signage, a 36.56 square foot two sided panel. This was approved by this Commission, so already there is a spot on another pole sign on that site for an adjacent tenant, and it is closer to your property than North Americanís would be down in the corner. So, I donít know about your pole sign. I am excited about your development, but as I commented earlier, I donít see the need for that entire parking field. I think you can reduce that down, which would cut down on your development costs. I do not have a problem with your building face sign and I also do not have a problem with the sign at Kemper Road for access into your development. I feel that once we get through the final preliminary plan, the lighting the banding your guarantees and assurances on maintenance of the lighting and all lit or not lit type covenants along with the PUD would be appropriate. As a preliminary plan, I think it is good; I also think it is a good use of the site, but I still will be very conservative on the issue of the additional pole sign, because in my mind that means three pole signs on this frontage along I-275 plus Roberds face that has been approved, so we have that to consider.

Mr. Seaman said what I am hearing is we like the use of the property but we donít like the pole sign. I think if we donít give you the approval, we are resigning ourselves to all retail. Is that what we want? This is an ideal use for this property, and if it comes down to a pole sign, that seems kind of minor to me.

Mr. Syfert stated we need some sort of an indication of approval of the concept discussion that we can pass on

Mr. Seaman responded I think we need to hear, one by one, what each member thinks about the pole sign. From what I am hearing, that is the deal breaker. From a parking standpoint, I understand Dave & Busterí contention that it probably will end up being retail, but we are not voting on that tonight. To have the rest of that parking developed while they are trying to run a business wouldnít be fair to them, so it seems to me a reasonable request at this stage to go ahead and develop that and it is ready to go with no more construction. Really what I am hearing is concerns about the pole sign. I think Dave has concerns and maybe some modifications and further negotiations as to how much parking goes in there, but in your mind, is the parking issue a deal breaker?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twenty


Mr. Okum responded no, but it always has been this Commissionís position not to overdevelop fields of asphalt when you can have fields of green until that asphalt is necessarily needed, and parking lots are expensive to build. There is a lot of earth movement that you are faced with as a result of Roberds development, and that will be a big issue in itself, but we typically have encouraged not overdeveloping the parking areas. Build what you need, and leave it green until you need it. I think by putting it all a parking field, you are saying I want retail in that corner slot, and I donít know that I want retail in number one and number two slots. Currently it is a mixed use as warehousing, and that is a good use for that area. Itís not a deal breaker, but in a planning sense I donít think it is necessary and I wouldnít support it. A big parking lot that is empty doesnít do much for your business either but on the other hand you have to have places for people to park.

Mr. Syfert commented our major hang-up seems to be the pole sign issue.

Larry Bergman representing Springdale Kemper Associates stated I handle the marketing of the property, and we have no idea what we are going to do with the balance of the property. We want to try and create value for the community and for the owners of the building. I was reading in the Wall Street Journal about Dave & Busterís and contacted them about considering Springdale. With Planning Commissionís help, they did a fantastic job with Roberds and took a big ugly warehouse and converted it into a greater asset. I think with Dave & Busterís we will take a big ugly silo and add value to that. There are certain trade offs that everyone has to make. Signage is a major issue to them, but at the same time they are going to take an area of warehousing and improve it. I donít think they are trying to get greedy; I agree about the shape of the sign, but this is a really good looking sign and I hope you will work with them to get them into Springdale. I think it would be very exciting for all of us.

Mr. Wilson commented my only response to your comment about our concern about signage would be, look at Colerain Avenue. Mr. Galster wondered if they (Dave & Buster) felt comfortable with the information we gave you? Mr. Corriveau answered if we go to Council they will want to know what Planning Commission said. Mr. Galster responded Bob and I as representatives of this board would try to relay everybodyís sentiments. They will have the same concerns that we have. They wonít get into the square footage of signs, but it will be the use. I donít think I want to be resigned to the whole thing being retail because that scares me for this piece of land. I like your concept, but there still are issues out there to be addressed.

Mr.Corriveau responded we are not here asking that the whole building be retail; we are asking for a 60,000 square foot project. If you want to send us to Council, does that mean that whatever City Council says you always abide by? Mr. Galster answered no, but City Council has the ability to override us. For example, if we recommend to City Council by a vote of 6 to 0 a change to the PUD, City Council can override that recommendation. If City Council agrees to the change to the PUD, you come back here and deal with us until you are all done. Yes, they do have that authority. Mr. Okum commented they truly are the decision maker on the PUD. Mr. Corriveau commented then I wonder why are we here.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Galster continued I would present it to Council in a very positive way based on the information that I have listened to tonight from the members of this board. I will make Council aware of the fact that there are concerns regarding signage and traffic; the other retail stuff doesnít matter because it is not before us. They would be given the opportunity to decide if in fact they agree that the change to the PUD is appropriate.

Mr. Osborn said I would suggest that the applicant is here tonight to have you respond with a vote in terms of do you approve this concept. In other words, do you think this use is appropriate for this site, caveats galore on signage certainly, and a lot of details that we have to work out before we come back to this body again. But, I think the issue is conceptually is this use appropriate for this location and that is the message they have to take to Council if indeed they are going to come to Council tomorrow night, that you voted yes or no that this concept is appropriate.

Mr. Wilson moved to approve the concept with the signage to be considered at a later date and ask you to come to Council tomorrow to talk with them. Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Syfert, Mr. Young, Mr. Galster, and Mr. Okum. Mr. Huddleston abstained and the concept approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert asked if they would be at Council tomorrow night. Mr. Corriveau and Mr. Corley indicated that they would.

Planning Commission recessed at 10:15 p.m. and reconvened at 10:25 p.m.

B. Vineyard Community Church Requests Final Plan Approval for Proposed Office Building at 11355 Century Circle East

Bill Mees of CDI said with me is Mark Davis and Jim Cochran. Mr. Mees showed the site plan, adding that it is 16,000 square feet for Phase with 9000 square feet potential future, one story office space at the northeast corner of the 48 acre Vineyard Church site. You asked us to bring the overhead photograph, so we are talking about this piece of property in this corner. We are talking about 140 car parking, a loading facility with a dock and dumpster to the rear. A temporary detention basin to the southern part of the site would disappear once the development of the church proceeds. This detention is routed to al temporary ditch, and showed the existing master detention for the Century Business Park. The engineer has forwarded all drainage calculations to Mr. Shvegzda and they meet with his approval.

Mr. Mees stated concerning the floor plan, 17% would be warehouse associated with the Outreach Program, and the rest of the space is for offices for the church. The elevations are represented on this drawing, and we have taken the front elevation and done material and color studies. Mr. Syfert asked the material and Mr. Davis responded that the primary building material is three color architectural concrete block with a mixture of brick. The band on t op is a synthetic stucco material drivitt, and the windows are custom anodized.

Mr. Mees continued also submitted with your packet is a photometric layout of the lighting for the entire parcel. There will be no light spillage outside the boundaries of the property, but we have met the 1/2 foot candle requirement.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Mees reported we have submitted a landscape plan, and will comply 100% with the Springdale tree replacement ordinance. We didnít prepare a plan per se of the location of all the trees, but we did do an extensive inventory of the trees on the site. One issue the last time was the compliance over the entire site, and we have prepared a Phase I, Phase II and Phase III diagram of what we would propose. Phase I is the office building parcel with 100% compliance; Phase II is the church project and associated parking and improvement of the retention pond which has 61% compliance; Phase III is the expansion of the church and additional parking that would be required which would be 61% compliance.

Mr. Mees stated we had a master site tree plan we prepared previously, and this is the tree plan that is in 61% compliance. Even with the 61% compliance, we are intending to create quite a bit of landscaping. These items in Phase II and Phase III are not what we are here to speak about tonight, but last time you felt we might have shifted the gears on you unfairly and we wanted to remind you that we are still thinking of the entire development of the site. Mr. Davis added based on the comments, we thought you would like to see some quantifiable plan. None of this deviates in any way from what we had proposed in the past. Mr. Davis stated if you look at that and compare it to what might have been without the office building project, we would have proposed these two parcels at 61% and now we are proposing 100% compliance; we are disturbing less area, and actually we had trouble finding places to put new trees.

Mr. Mees added Bill McErlane commented that we are putting trees in locations that you are considering undisturbed. We realize that, and the overall photograph shows that planting in the corner of the site is somewhat splotchy relative to the rest of the site, and we would be very careful to place trees in those undisturbed areas between the existing trees.

Mr. McErlane reported that there were no signs indicated for the project. Previously we approved an off premise sign at Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road; the applicant has indicated that it would be put in place at this point in time. Mr. McErlane asked if there were any intention to putting signs in conjunction with this building further back into the site. Mr. Mees reported that there are three signs that the church would like to have. Number one is at the corner of Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road, which has been approved. Number two is at the intersection of Century Boulevard where it splits off into the T-section - a ground sign, and number three is a small ground sign with the office building. Mr. McErlane stated since they are not indicated on the plan, Planning Commission can decide that they will act on those at a future date or if itís acceptable that they meet code requirements, Planning Commission chairman can act on those on his own.

Mr. McErlane reported that the building materials were not indicated on the drawings. The light fixture details werenít indicated, and I think they were distributed this evening.

Mr. McErlane stated in terms of the tree survey, there was a tree removal summary and landscaping plan was submitted. With respect to not having a tree survey, and fortunately in this case most of the trees are not sizable; the largest one indicated is 12 inches in diameter, so there are no major trees worth trying to consider saving. Obviously if they can save some around the perimeter those would be things we would look at, as well as looking at any trees around the perimeter that might be disturbed due to construction that are indicated to be saved.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. McErlane indicated the other item Mr. Mees already alluded to was the tree summary indicates areas that are to be undisturbed as part of this project, but they also are the same areas that the landscape plan shows the plantings occurring in. Itís not so much a concern as to whether or not it would disturb the existing trees, but whether or not you can actually fit them in the same locations as the existing plantings. Itís a pretty dense landscaping plan, and if itís already densely foliated, I donít know if you can actually put all those trees in the same locations. If nothing else, I think it would be worthwhile to get at least groupings of trees on a plan and show how the landscaping can fit in and around those. I donít know if it makes a lot of sense to put ornamental trees in a grove of existing locusts or something of that nature.

Mr. Syfert said are you saying it would be better to look at the landscaping plan again? Mr. McErlane responded I think it would be worthwhile for the applicant to put together a plan that shows at least the groupings of existing trees and how the landscaping plan will fit together with that. I think we probably could handle that on a staff level.

Mr. McErlane said another item is the evergreens are indicated to be six to seven feet in height, and the minimum planting height in the Tree Preservation Ordinance is 10 feet, which may up the size and diameter of your evergreen trees, so there may be fewer and larger evergreen trees. Also, I would like to recommend along the north property line there is a utility easement and it looks like a power line or telephone line. I would recommend lower growing trees in that location.

Ms. McBride reported we would like to see some evergreen trees added or substituted along that north property line to make sure that the dumpster area is screened. They have some tree coverage but we would like to see evergreens there to provide year round coverage. We also would like to see some details on the waste receptacle screening. There are landscaped islands in the parking lot which we really like, and we want to make sure those are sodded as opposed to mulched. The other one deals with the traffic impact analysis, the distribution of those trips which Don probably will comment on. We had some question about how they distributed those trips, instead of on Century, out on Lippelman, but that is something he can touch on. We did not have the opportunity to review the signage, so the Commission might want to forward that as a staff review or however you choose to do it

Mr. Galster said under general comments it says "Final plan approval is being requested to allow the construction of a 25,000 square foot office/warehouse, Phase 1 and Phase 2." I thought we were only approving Phase 1; is that correct? McBride stated I looked at it as the entire project. Mr. Galster added basically we donít have anything at all on Phase 2 other than the dotted line.

Mr. McErlane stated the parking and detention probably support that, and the plantings are not going to be impacted that greatly. The building materials probably will be consistent, so it would be up to Planning Commission. Mr. Okum asked if they took the building footprint as part of the tree planting and Mr. Mees indicated that they did.

Mr. Shvegzda stated we received a detailed design analysis on the detention basin today. It looks like all the information is there, but we have not had the time to go through it and verify the calculations. Currently, the majority of the site drains to the southeast.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Shvegzda stated there is no real good single point to discharge the detention basin into an existing storm sewer ditch in that location, so essentially the drainage area is being diverted to the southwest towards the existing detention basin that is located along the Glendale corporation line. This basin will be constructed and limited to the most possible reduction in flow towards that basin and at the construction of the main church facility the basin will be enlarged so that the current basin you see on this plan will be eliminated. We know that the basin in that location will have to be expanded so that an additional amount of volume can be provided there. The detention basin parcel has been reconfigured so that even the temporary basin will be within the parcel and the maintenance responsibility will be whoever is the owner of that parcel.

Mr. Shvegzda continued on the site layout, one of the earlier comments was when the Phase 2 expansion would take place it would prohibit usage of the dock area. The Phase 2 area now has been reduced in size so that the loading dock area still will be accessible at that time. In regards to the configuration of the parcel, it has been enlarged so that the driveway from Century Circle East is totally within the parcel.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that with regard to the traffic issues, the information we have gotten from the consultant had some assumptions in terms of traffic distribution. The majority of traffic was utilizing Lippelman as opposed to Century Boulevard. We took the square footage presented and used solely office building, a corporate headquarters figure for traffic. Based on the office and the small amount for warehouse, and utilizing all the traffic accessing from Century to Kemper, the level of service for both the p.m. weekday and a.m. peak were for the total intersection at a level of service c, which is an acceptable level of service. Again, that is based on the main church usage plus this office building; there hasnít been any usage accounted for insofar as other surplus areas of property being developed in other ways or auxiliary usage of the church facilities, i.e. day care. There are only other minor erosion sediment control items in terms of the ditch that leads away from the destination basin.

Mr. Mees stated we would probably agree that our original distribution of figures of 60% toward Lippelman and 40% toward Century Boulevard are probably incorrect, and we would like to revise that. The easement agreement to use Lippelman states it would be secondary. We would propose 60% to Kemper and 40% to Lippelman, which does not change the traffic significantly. Mr. Shvegzda reported we assumed that all the traffic would be using Century Boulevard.

Mr. Okum said if Lippelman is considered 40% of this project, what about cross traffic coming off Century Boulevard through their development and out Lippelman? A lot of people who go back into Century Boulevard may see that as an alternate route to get to Lippelman. Mr. Shvegzda wondered how many people would want to go to Lippelman. Mr. Wilson commented kids going to school and taking the shortcut. Mr. Syfert said there is a possibility of that. Mr. Okum added basically it would be utilized as a roadway across into Lippelman. Mr. Davis reported that it is a private easement and we would be happy to handle that with signage. Mr. Okum said you may end up with truck traffic cutting over there to eliminate going out on Kemper Road. Maybe when you do your church and your major development and will need that roadway for the volume of traffic. Do they need that 40% now? Mr. Shvegzda answered not with the traffic figures we have seen because the intersection of Century still operates at an acceptable level of service.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 January 1997

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Davis stated they would have to go through their parking lot, but it would not be a roadway. Mr. Mees added I donít know that it would be very encouraging to truck traffic, but even if we had the proper signage there, I donít know if you would ever discourage somebody who really wants to get from point a to point b. Mr. Shvegzda wondered if there were any intention of providing any kind of gate for what would be off hours? Mr. Cochran answered we have not thought that through. Frankly, I would be surprised if it were 40%. If we started to experience a lot of cut throughs, we would come up with some gating. Mr. Huddleston complimented the applicant on the professional and fast response to come back with these changes, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Galster said before anybody makes the motion, without having elevation drawings on Phase 2, Iím a little bit uncomfortable voting for that approval. Iíd like the motion to just consider Phase 1 at this point.

Mr. Syfert wondered if that were his only concern, because this is not uncommon for us to approve something like this. Mr. Galster responded all I have is for Phase 2 is a dotted line; I do not have anything that shows continued construction materials on Phase 2 or any elevations. We donít have any drawings at all. Mr. Syfert commented I was wondered about your concern; we have done this many times in the past.

Mr. Huddleston commented I had the same thought, only to the extent of approving it subject to their duplicating the architectural character of the first phase. Mr. Cochran stated you can be sure that will happen since you will have this other building. Mr. Galster commented I just want to make sure we have it covered.

Mr. Huddleston moved to grant the final plan approval for the proposed office building at 11355 Century Boulevard subject to Anne McBrideís report and with the understanding that Phase 2 will duplicate the architectural character of Phase 1. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye ware Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


Mr. McErlane reported that the reality is that Zaring Homes built the driveway on Lot 15 partially on their neighborís lot, but that is not the issue before you tonight. To take care of that situation, I asked them to draw up an easement and have both property owners sign it. This would allow lot 15 to use part of Lot 14 for the driveway. The issue before you is there is a subdivision regulation that says driveway apron cannot project past its extended property line to the street, which is 2.8í. The only body that can allow a deviation from that is the Planning Commission. Mr. Okum commented the concrete is already there. Mr. Huddleston asked if on some of the other issues Zaring had been cooperative. Mr. McErlane answered I think they are cooperative on the home building part, but I think they donít give their subcontractors enough direction because BZA has acted on driveway widths that are less than what is required. It typically happens when they have a new superintendent who does not know the code and doesnít pay attention to the site plan. If you want to act on it tonight fine. If not, I can have Zaring come in and make the request.

Mr. Huddleston moved to accept it as the plan shows. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum, Mr. Syfert, Mr. Galster, Mr.Young and Mr. Syfert. Motion was passed unanimously.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 January 1997

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Okum stated there was good information put together by Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane for the seminar, and I appreciate the effort you put into it because it was of value. There were some comments and recommendations and discussion that brought ideas up that we may want to look at. We all should have a copy of the rules of this commission, items such as swearing in people or a general statement before the meeting. If our legal counsel recommends that, maybe we should consider it. Mr. Galster reported that he planned on bringing that up under New Business at Council tomorrow and see if it needs to be addressed for both Council Planning BZA and all the boards in general, and have the law director look at it. If so, draft a statement to be read and an additional sign-up sheet at the podium that basically restates it. I think we have a pretty clear recommendation from the people putting on the seminar; whether our counsel (Marty Kenworthy) agrees with that I donít know, but he seemed to, I would assume we would get it drafted and implemented. Mr. Okum said I think the feeling we have at our meetings are more cooperative and not so regimented. Mr. Galster wondered if this board wanted to poll themselves as to whether or not it is required based on the seminar? Mr. Syfert answered I wouldnít have any problem with it if the law director believes we should. I think we have to look to them for guidance.

Mr. Young commented I found the seminar very educational. Having not had the background that a lot of the members have had on this board or the experience, it was quite helpful and I would like to see us do more of this in the future. I think it is beneficial and helps me feel like I know a little bit more about what I am supposed to be doing on this board.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present on February 11th and the members indicated that they would.


A. Springdale Bindery, 11411 Landan Le. - ground sign & wall sign

B. Tiffany Art Glass gallery, 65 E. Kemper Road - two wall signs

C. Brilliant Promotions, 239 Northland Blvd. - wall sign

D. Dairy Queen, 11776 Springfield Pike - wall sign

E. Dragon City Restaurant, 320 Northland Blvd. - window sign


Mr. Wilson moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



________________________,1997 ___________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



________________________,1997 ____________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary