PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 8, 2008
7:00 P.M.



I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Tony Butrum.


II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Richard Bauer, Tony Butrum, David Okum, Carolyn Ghantous, Lawrence Hawkins III, Steve Galster and Tom Vanover

Others Present: Don Shvegzda, City Engineer, Anne McBride, City Planner and Bill McErlane, Building Official


III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 13, 2008

A motion was made to adopt the Planning Commission Minutes from June 10, 2008 by Dave Okum, Tom Vanover seconded the motion and the Minutes were adopted with a 6 affirmative vote with Mr. Galster abstaining.


IV. REPORT ON COUNCIL

(Mr. Galster stated no business to report from the last Council Meeting.)


V. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2008


VI. OLD BUSINESS

(Chairman Butrum stated no old business to report.)


VII. NEW BUSINESS


A. Proposed Graphics Panels Dave & Busters 11775 Commons Drive

Mr. Okum disclosed that his son is an employee of the applicant and no one on the Planning Commission and/or anyone representing Dave & Busters felt that there was any conflict.

Mr. Laurence Bergman stepped forward to represent Dave & Busters: The subject tonight is graphic panels and what we are trying to do is create a little bit of flavor for the center. It is a pretty odd looking, long warehouse building. We want to add a little style and make Dave & Busters stand out. Everyone on the Planning Commission has seen the graphic panels that they are asking for.

Staff reports were read by Mr. McErlane.

Dave Okum: Mr. McErlane, when we calculated the atmospheric graphic panels for Tri-County Mall did the atmospheric panels fall into their sign calculations?
Mr. McErlane: They would have a lot more allowable signage for that site than for the 280 feet of frontage that this one does.

Mr. Galster: I believe that we did not consider them as part of their sign package, but the intent was that the atmospheric graphic panels did not have any kind of advertising on them that would advertise any particular store inside the Mall. I don’t believe we counted that in the square footage.
Ms. McBride: I would suggest to the Commission that you might want to include in any motion to approve these that they, just like the Tri-County panels, not represent any particular brand, identity, store or whatever. The second thing is that we received our first submittal which the staff sees and unfortunately that image was out of scale, however the panels themselves look to be more in-scale with the building than what is before the Commission. We might want to give some consideration if the applicant is interested in making them somewhat larger; if you would have seen the original submittal it did more of what the panels do for Tri-County.

Mr. Okum: As far as the lighting, I think it should be more of a soft hue than a bright light. I think it should not be as bright as the Dave & Buster’s sign; the focus will be on the Dave & Buster’s sign and the panels for accenting.

Chairman Butrum: Do we know what the dimensions would have been on that original submittal.

Mr. McErlane: They look to be about 11’3” X 15’; which puts each one of them at about
170 s.f. Planning Commission could make a motion to give them a maximum of a 125 s.f. and they could work with those dimensions.

Mr. Hawkins: First off, I think the panels bring the building to life. I think it looks good. I agree that the size needs to be somewhere in the middle. As far as the panels themselves, in the description it is talking about a cabinet, is it going to be the actual material that you have shown us today on the outside?

Mr. Billy Gillman: That is the face and it is wrapped in an aluminum panel on the exterior, kind of like a cabinet.

Mr. Galster: 150 s.f. is what I would consider for the size of the panels.

Mr. Billy Gillman: I think we would like to increase the size some, if we could keep this message that would be optimum for us and the budget is a little bit of a concern as well. The cost of increasing the size is minimal due to the labor to put everything together. The 125 s.f. per sign is perfect for us.

Chairman Butrum: What would the height and width be if we went 125 s.f.?

Mr. Galster: It would be about 13’ X 8’5”.

Ms. Ghantous: Has any thought been given to the size as it relates to the impact as folks are driving by on the highway?

Mr. Billy Gillman: We have not done any studies on that.

Mr. Okum: Dave & Busters agreed and part of the covenants call for the “all-lit” “not-lit” condition and I would certainly expect that this would apply on these.

Mr. Billy Gillman: Absolutely, we have a contract with Broadway National Signs and that is included in their contract to keep all the signs properly lit at all times.

Mr. Galster: I don’t have any problem with the 150 s.f. or whatever fits proportionate to the building and keeping his costs in mind, maybe a final submittal to Staff for approval to make sure the proportionate look is obtained and spacing is proper; a final look at it once you decide what size it is that fits the building.
In the motion I would like to make sure we address the overall appearance. The other thing is that this type of material loses its vivid feel and color relatively quick, quicker than a painted plexi-glass sign does.

Mr. Billy Gillman: We typically put a life of between 6 and 8 years.

Mr. Galster: No problem with submitting a final draft to the Staff for their approval?

Mr. Billy Gillman: That would be no problem. What would the review time be?
Would we have to go through the same review process or could we do an expedited review?

Ms. McBride: Typically, you would just make a submittal to the City and we will look at it and get back with you in a few days.

Chairman Butrum: What I would like to do is toss out the two sizes to the Commission,
125 s.f. and 150 s.f., I would like to ask the Commission their opinion.

Mr. Galster: 150 s.f., to allow the applicant to explore that dimension on the building.
I don’t want it to be overwhelming.
Mr. Bauer: 150 s.f.
Ms. Ghantous: 150 s.f.
Chairman Butrum: 150 s.f.
Mr. Okum: I am comfortable either way.
Mr. Hawkins: I concur with Mr. Galster.
Mr. Vanover: I agree.

Mr. Okum: I would like to make a motion for approval of the Dave & Buster submittal for modifications to the PUD to include Staff, City Planner’s recommendations in this motion; signage graphic panels shall have the following conditions:

1. Illumination: Panels shall not be lit more than approximately 80% of the brightness of the existing Dave & Buster’s building
sign.
2. Six panels shall not exceed the 150 s.f. size and shall be reviewed by Staff for a building balance and proportion.
3. Regarding maintenance: Signage facing shall be maintained to a good condition at all times. Panels shall be maintained and shall all be totally lit or turned off as per the signage neon conditions that exist on the PUD.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion

Mr. Hawkins polled the Board and with a unanimous vote the request for the graphic panels for Dave & Busters was granted.


VIII. DISCUSSION

Mr. McErlane: I forwarded a link to this newsletter. The last page indicates some upcoming training in September and October, I think these are parts of what a few years back were considered the certified Planning Commissioner’s training; and I would suggest that if you are interested in going I will send out a reminder when it gets closer to time; but if you are interested in going the City will pay for the cost of that.

Mr. Galster: The City has done our own thing in addition to that every number of years, is that something to consider again to either supplement or replace what Hamilton County is offering.

Mr. McErlane: I will try to call Greg, Anne McBride’s partner, about that.

Chairman Butrum: Did the Imaging place ever respond formally as to what they were going to do?

Mr. McErlane: No they didn’t. They are under a deadline to remove it; so we will wait and see what they will do.


IX. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Chairman Butrum: The 13th of August is the next Planning Commission meeting.
(Many Commission Planning members stated that they would not be available for the next meeting date.)

Mr. Okum: Why don’t we have the Planning Commission on the same night as BZA, August 19th at 6:00p.m.?
(Everyone agreed that they would be able to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on August 19th.)

So, with that, I’ll accept a motion for adjournment.



X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Dave Okum seconded the motion and the Planning Commission adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2008 ___________________________________
            Chairman Tony Butrum


________________________,2008 ___________________________________
            Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary