PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
12 JUNE 2007
7:00 P.M.
I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Tony Butrum, David Okum, Lawrence Hawkins III, Tom
Vanover, Bob Diehl, and Mr. Syfert.
Members Absent: Steve Galster
Others Present: Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
Bill McErlane, Building Official
Don Shvegzda, City Engineer
Anne McBride, City Planner
:
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 8 MAY 2007
Mr. Butrum moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all
present voted aye, and the minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Report on Council
Mr. Vanover reported that the public hearing for the zoning code recommendations has been
set for the July meeting.
B. Zoning Bulletin – April 15, 2007
C. Zoning Bulletin – May 1, 2007
D. Zoning Bulletin – May 15, 2007
E. Zoning Code Supplement 2006 S-8
V. OLD BUSINESS
VI. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Seating, Bargo’s
12140 Springfield Pike
Joe Nicholson owner of Bargo’s said we have been here for three
years and the smoking ban causes me to ask for this outdoor patio. When people go outside
and smoke, they appear to be loitering, and this patio will make it easier to keep it
clean as well.
There has been an issue in that patrons cannot leave the building with
their drinks in hand. I spoke with the Liquor Control, and they said that with this patio,
as long as it is completely enclosed, the patrons can walk out with their liquor.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12 June 2007
Page Two
VI. OUTDOOR SEATING FOR BARGO’S 12140 SPRINGFIELD PIKE-
Mr. McErlane reported that initially there was a seating plan and this
does not show any seating. The current area is a 5 foot landscaped area and 5 foot walk
between that and the parking lot.
Ms. McBride reported that the proposed enclosure is in two sections of
280 square feet which is a total of 560 s.f. The building has a total of 6,937 s.f. which
requires 93 parking spaces. If the new enclosed patio area is for seating, it would
require 11 additional parking spaces, and presently there are 90 parking spaces
The applicant has indicated that the patio area would be using 2’
x 2’ stamped concrete pavers and the enclosure is to be made of 4’ x 43’
lumber posts with 2’ x 4’ rails.
On the south elevation, there are day lilies that the applicant has
indicated that he will relocate to the east and west sides. The landscaping on the east
side is rough, and w would rather see more plantings on the west side.
Mr. Shvegzda said there is no change to any of the parking spaces or
drive aisles. The existing parking lot surface is in poor condition and they have
indicated that they will be repairing the pot holes.
Previously there were issues with the drainage problems in the back area and they have
been repaired.
Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing for the conditional use permit. No one came forward,
and he closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hawkins asked if they would use the seating area or not. Mr. Nicholson answered we
will not have servers out there. My architect suggested that I do that. The only plan was
for four additional tables. This is not intended to increase my business. It is to keep my
business going. I am down 19% since the smoking ban went into effect.
Mr. Hawkins asked if he anticipated people taking their drinks out. Mr. Nicholson answered
primarily it would be a standing area. There might be some high seats that I would put out
but it will not be a sit down dining area.
Mr. Hawkins asked if there would be someone at the front door. Mr. Nicholson answered that
since the smoking ban has been in place, I have had additional staff to keep order and
make sure that people are not bringing drinks out and keeping the area acceptable. I will
have staff at the door; it is critical.
The landlord has made sure I am going to do enough landscsaping. I have anupdated proposal
and plan on an additional 10 plants on the west and east sides of the building. He told me
to fill up those areas, and I will do it.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12 June 2007
Page Three
VII. OUTDOOR SEATING FOR BARGO’S 12140 SPRINGFIELD PIKE-
Mr. Butrum asked if he wanted something specific on the railing. Mr. Nicholson answered
the 2’ x 2’ pavers railings will be standard treated wood and not painted.
Mr. Okum asked if there should be a space between the entryway and the
smoking area. Mr. Nicholson answered there is no distance as long as the smoke cannot
float freely. I have two doors. When you walk out to smoke, they have to walk to the right
or left, so guests can walk in without going through smoke.
Mr. Okum said I would like to see more information on the railing
system. I also would like to see metal instead of wood for the elements between the
columns.
Mr. Okum said your dumpster enclosure gates are open all the time and
you can see that from the street, so that will need to be fixed.
Mr. Diehl asked if there is a buffer between the porch and the parking
lot. Mr. Nicholson answered there will be parking blocks. Mr. Diehl responded I would like
to know the height for safety. Mr. Syfert wondered if they could comply with what is
required, and Mr. Nicholson confirmed this. Mr. Nicholson added that there will be a ramp
for the handicapped. Mr. Diehl asked if the porch would be open all the time and Mr.
Nicholson indicated that it would be.
Mr. Butrum said it looks like the only way into the building will be
through gates. Does that comply with the handicapped regulations? Mr. McErlane said our
previous comments concerned the handicapped and they have addressed those concerns.
Mr. Vanover said for the record, do you have any intention of having
music outside. Mr. Nicholson said no.
Mr. Okum moved to grant the conditional use permit, including staff,
city engineer city planner recommendations. The landscaping shall be approved with staff
recommendations, review and approval of the final landscape plan. The patio area surface
shall be masonry pavers, camel buff as submitted. The railings system and gates shall be
similar to those depicted on the drawings or in an architectural design to be reviewed and
approved by staff. No outdoor music and speakers shall be allowed.
Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the
conditional use permit was granted with six affirmative votes.
B. Approval of Signage on Awning – Mirror Imaging, 11530 Springfield Pike
Jeff Baumgarth of Myers Y. Cooper said Mirror Imaging asked us to consider this sign,
which is not in compliance with our lease or the
Covenants. We told them we would allow them to do that provided they got the city’s
approval to use this sign until they could put up the permanent wall sign.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12 June 2 007
Page Four
SIGNAGE ON AWNING – MIRROR IMAGING (SPRINGDALE TOWN CENTER)
Mr. Baumgarth added somehow this communication got lost, and they put the letters on the
awning without a permit. The letters are 9 s.f., less than they would be allowed for a
wall mounted sign. We feel this is a tasteful representation for their type of business
for a short time until they can afford a wall mounted sign.
Mr. McErlane reported that this is a PUD zone in Subarea C of the Springdale Route 4
Corridor District. The applicant is requesting that the existing lettering be allowed to
remain on the awning. This was applied before filing for a permit. The covenants for the
Springdale Town Center indicate that all building signs shall be individual letter type
signs. The overall length and height of the sign message needs to be indicated.
Mr. Butrum asked if they would be open to approval of some duration to give them time to
switch over to the permanent wall sign. Mr. Baumgarth answered it is tasteful, but not
what we wanted or what we expected. Mr. Diehl wondered how long they would want this. Mr.
Baumgarth responded they did not say; they want to use it until the business is well
established.
Mr. Baumgarth added that the letters are 9 s.f., less than what they would be allowed for
a wall mounted sign. We feel this is a tasteful representation for their type of business
for a short time, until they can afford a wall mounted sign.
Mr. Syfert said I think the covenants should be honored. What do you think would be a
reasonable time?
Mr. Baumgarth answered our lease is for five years. I would say it would be reasonable to
expect them to have established their business by the end of the first year.
Mr. Okum commented I would hate to see the other tenants want the same thing. We
don’t want to se a precedent and we should set a time line that is reasonable (treat
it like a temporary banner.
Mr. Okum said the awnings are nice, and I think it probably would be helpful to the
business. I would support approving this for one year to give the business time to
establish itself.
Mr. Diehl asked the percentage of the center that is occupied and Mr. Baumgarth answered
we are 52% leased. Mr. Diehl responded after they have 75 or 80% occupied, they would need
to change the signage immediately.
Mr. Okum commented they do have a pretty big financial commitment, and the developer has
indicated that they have a five-year lease.
Mr. Butrum moved to temporarily grant the permission to keep the signage on the awning as
it is until June 1, 2008 whereupon it must revert to the signage granted by the covenants.
Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six
affirmative votes.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12 June 2007
Page Five
C. Approval of Tri-County Mall Redevelopment Minor Modification to South Elevation (Ethan
Allen)
Nicholas Link of Thor Development introduced Jose Pimentel of Ethan Allen who showed
drawings what was originally approved with four atmospheric panels with blue awnings. He
added that we are proposing this more upscale design of the company (showed drawing) which
shows we are selling high class products
Mr. Link said our project was approved November 17, 2006, and was slightly different and
more colorful. We spoke to the Ethan Allen people, met with them and asked them to come up
with something more upscale. This is it, and we like the changes. We think it is a big
upgrade and we hope you approve it.
Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant proposes to remove the “atmospheric graphic
panels” on the south side of the building and make the finish in the area scored
EIFS.
An EIFS cornice treatment will go on four of the six pilasters on the south side. We would
recommend that the cornice treatment be extended to all six columns.
The only changes in color are to the awnings and the door, which is more of a reddish wood
finish. The awnings are close to the same as was approved for BJ’s Pub, so there is
consistency. Only those awnings within the two bays on each side of the “Ethan
Allen” entrance are shown to have these awnings. We recommend that the awnings be
consistent along the building to the east end.
Mr. Link said to have the awnings, we want them to stand out differently for Ethan Allen.
I would ask you to let us come up with something for staff approval.
Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant agreed with the tops on the pilasters and Mr. Link
answered yes.
Mr. Okum said so you are saying that on the remaining two awnings for the additional two
bays you would like to work with staff. There should be some black in the two awnings to
tie in. I have noticed that over the past five months on the upper element of the JC
Penney building there are holes in there from the original façade. I would not like to
see it just painted out.
Mr. Pimentel said there will be paneling again. Mr. Link said we also do not like it and
are working on a solution for it.
Mr. Okum said it appears that the mechanical units are not concealed, and they must be
screened from public view.
Mr. Syfert asked their projected finish date, and Mr. Link answered that it is to be
turned over to them on July 1 and they will open on November 1st. Mr. Pimental added we
will be closing the existing Ethan Allen.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12 June 2007
Page Six
Tri-County Mall Minor Modification to South Elevation – Ethan Allen
Mr. Okum moved to approve the project, including all staff, city engineer and city planner
commendations. The mechanical units on the elevation must be screened from view and the
remaining awnings are to be color coordinated with those approved by t his review. The
façade over the EIFS shall be remedied and finished with an architecturally finish
compatible with the remaining lower level elevation.
Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with
six affirmative votes.
VIII. DISCUSSION
A. Zoning Code Amendment – Variances
Mr. Okum reported that as part of the Board of Zoning Appeals directions and review, there
has been an ongoing issue with the interpretation and what the BZA is trying to accomplish
with variances.
We have brought forward recommendations for Planning to consider. I have submitted a copy
to everyone that was approved by the two council members on the BZA and the other five
members.
There are very simple wording changes under B to make it clear for the board and public to
understand their role.
We are still looking at the shed issue. We will deal with it based on the lot size and the
existing structure on the lot. Hopefully by the next meeting we will have something
brought forward something that will deal with the unusual lots we have and the building
heights.
We would like this to be considered. If Planning would like to review this, the B section
is the only change. and we would like to have Planning recommend this t o Council for a
public hearing.
Mr. McErlane reported that a copy of this has been forwarded to the law director for their
review. Some of these standards are based on previous case law.
Ms. McBride added there are the Duncan standards which our code does not reflect. In those
standards, you haves to meet all five of the questions, and it is my understanding that is
the way the courts are heading
Ms. McBride added I have been before BZAs that use those five and most courts are getting
much tougher. I ill am very interested in what the law director has to say.
Mr. Syfert said so we have to get a reading from the law director before we act on this.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
12 June 2007
Page Seven
IX. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
A. First Watch – 80 West Kemper Road – Wall and Pole Signs
B. Gamestop – 11700 Princeton Pike #201 – Wall Sign
C. Karma Salon – 11562 Springfield Pike – Wall Sign
D. Kerry Mitsubishi – 150 Northland Blvd. – Wall Sign
E. David’s Bridal – 720 Kemper Commons Circle – Wall Sign
F. AT&T – 11711 Princeton Pike – Wall & Directional Signs
G. Regency Beauty Institute – 11489 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote all present
voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
___________________, 2007 __________________________
William
G. Syfert, Chairman
___________________,2007 __________________________
Lawrence
Hawkins III Secretary