PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 19, 2008
7:00 P.M.



I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 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: Pat Madl, City Engineer, Anne McBride, City Planner and Bill McErlane, Building Official


III. REPORT ON COUNCIL

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


IV. CORRESPONDENCE

a. Zoning Bulletin – June 10, 2008
b. Zoning Bulletin – June 25, 2008
c. Planning Commissioners Journal – Summer 2008


V. OLD BUSINESS

(Chairman Butrum stated no old business to report.)


VI. NEW BUSINESS


A. Thompson Thrift for Concept Plan review for 6200 s.f. Retail Building at 11580 Princeton Pike

Ashleigh Boyd, Vice President Thompson Thrift: Thompson Thrift was founded about 20 years ago by Paul Thrift and John Thompson. We are a full service development and construction company with in-house architecture and engineering services. We are a developer primarily focused on projects in the Mid-West, predominately throughout the state of Indiana, Chicago, Illinois and some parts of Ohio, specifically Cincinnati. We certainly understand that this site has its challenges, the size of the parcel and how it can deliver a project with the vision for this corridor, also adhering to the ordinances for such a small site.

Jeff Kanable: I am the real estate project manager for Thompson Thrift. The conditions for the property; as everyone knows it was a former B.P. gas station and it covers about .7 acres. I am pleased to say we just got back a site assessment and everything is clean; the former problems have been taken care of and closed by the regulators, so that we can move forward on the development. The proposed development that we have here is a 6200 s.f. single story retail building. It is on the southeast corner of Kemper Road and Princeton Pike. Some initial changes that you may see right up front is that we closed one of the two access points off or Princeton Pike as well as Kemper Road, so where there were two right-in and right-outs, we are proposing just one. We have 25’ drive by entrances into the site off of Princeton and Kemper Road. We have a one lane 18’ aisleway to the rear of the building. We are proposing two tenants 3500 s.f. and 2700 s.f.. We have proposed two ground signs, locating one on Kemper Road and one on Princeton Pike. We really wanted to do something different, something eye catching and we think we have gone in that direction.
(Three diagrams were presented to show the proposed plan.)

Chairman Butrum: At this point we will present the Staff reports.

(Staff reports were presented by Mr. McErlane, Ms. McBride and Pat Madl.)

Mr. Galster: I would like to find out from the applicant if they intend to have it be a separate parcel or if it is going to be part of the larger parcel.

Mr. Kanable: That is a tricky question and one of the challenges with the site; we certainly understand the City’s desire to see this whole corner redeveloped; the whole 3.2 acre parcel is in a Cassinelli Trust and is managed by Fifth/Third. We have an arrangement in place for just the corner, which was the former BP site. That arrangement is a lease situation. We are not going to be taking title to the property, which doesn’t create the need to create a simple parcel. As part of our agreement for the corner we do have future rights to the balance of the property as that becomes available. There are two operating tenants in there with three separate ground leases that go on for approximately ten years. All we can control today is the corner and so how do you develop the whole site without getting started somewhere. As the balance of the property would become available and that opportunity presented itself, expand that site consistent with the land use plan that the City of Springdale would like to see.

Mr. Galster: So, it is not going to be split up into a separate site, it is going to be part of the larger site? So we will, as things move forward, need to have answers to the questions in reference to the larger overall site.

Mr. Okum: We need to at least understand how we would deal with the storm water issue because of the whole site versus parcel.

Mr. Madl: Yes, it would be based on this portion of the site and as we move forward then additional would be required.

Mr. Vanover: Mr. McErlane, has the Fire Department looked at these, because that radius in the back with the way that the property butts out by the dumpster, I scale it out roughly by 20’ and that seems to be extremely close, plus with that corner? To get a piece of equipment back there they would need to have the access.

Mr. McErlane: The Fire Department was given plans and we have not heard anything from them. Historically, the Fire Department has particularly on smaller buildings they haven’t asked for total access around buildings. For example if you look at the Target building, there is no access to the back of the building.

(At this time the floor was opened for general discussion.)

Mr. Galster: I like the way the building looks. When you look at three out of the four sides we are needing to come up with variances in order to fit in the building that you have proposed that still doesn’t have some of the items that we would like to see in there, such as the length of the parking and the loading zone. It concerns me that we are over-packing this site; with all the infringements into the setbacks I have some major reservations about trying to fit this onto this site.

Mr. Hawkins: I also, like the way the building looks. It is important that the City have a good looking development particularly in that area in that corner. With regard to the driveway, is it going to be going both ways or is it going to be one way on the south side and the east side.

Mr. Kanable: It will be a two way drive.

Mr. Okum: When I first opened the packet I was very happy to see the building design character that you submitted, on the other hand I am looking at how a site works and how it looks from all four sides. I like the building elevations but I am very concerned about a justification why we would be asked for six variances.

Ms. McBride: I have some questions; how are you planning on accessing that dumpster, is it a roll out, I don’t think you are going to be able to get a truck in there?

Mr. Kanable: We believe a front-loading truck would be able to get back there.

Ms. McBride: How are you proposing to get merchandise or supplies into these retailers?

Mr. Kanable: We absolutely think that a box truck, which would be servicing these buildings, could fit. We think that could be serviced by box trucks.

Ms. McBride: So you are not really asking for a variance to eliminate the loading space, you are asking for a variance from the terms that say, “can’t block in other parking spaces, can’t interfere with circulation on the site? Because that really is going to be your loading space, back in the back.
Do you really think those 60 degree spaces are going to work? I drive a fairly large SUV and if I got that thing in there I would call a tow truck to get it out. They are almost 4 feet short of what the City requires.

Mr. Kanable: I think that that was actually miscalculated.

Ms. McBride: There is a diagram right in the zoning code that shows you how to calculate that and shows that it is perpendicular. I am just concerned whether they will actually, physically work.
I just want to mention that the two tenants that you are showing are the Vitamin Shop and the Dental and I understand those are just illustrative, or they may not be, I don’t know but in terms of parking what you are showing on this site is for retail uses. If you were to drop a medical use in there or a restaurant or something like that, that blows your parking count and that would not work.

Mr. Vanover: The aerial itself screams one parcel. I have a very hard time with this plan the way it is right now, supporting it; I could not. Good ideas, good building design just too much in this one spot. If we could pick up more of the parcel I would love to see that.

Mr. Okum: This is not formal; you are not going to get a motion this evening. You are going to get comments. The four parcels make the site, it really does. Frankly, if you are looking to build and eventually expand into Tiffany and incorporate the Skyline Chili it seems like a very positive thing. I don’t see the incorporation of the other parcels, with the design that we have presented here this evening.

Mr. Kanable: We thought if we could find some middle ground so that we can address some of those variances, so that you can be more comfortable with the way this site can function and that it is not going to limit the ability to develop the balance. It is our desire to develop the balance of the property.

Mr. Okum: You have other developments that leases have been brought together into a consolidated development; have you not?

Mr. Kanable: Absolutely.

Mr. Okum: My feeling is that we really should be looking at this, and you should be presenting it to us, unless we are going to have a parcel separation. You should be presenting to us, as staff indicated either all, or this specifically. We are the Planning Commission and we are here to try to give you some direction from where we are seeing it.

Mr. Galster: There really is no guarantee that we won’t have a different developer five years or ten years from now who wants to redevelop the Tiffany Art Glass place and how do we tie that all in then. Unless we look at a whole picture we end up with a bunch of different pieces; that is the challenges that this Board is going to have.

Chairman Butrum: Just for clarity I had asked staff to cover comments on both an individual parcel basis as well as looking at it from a whole, from a standpoint of being clear what the intentions of the applicant are and also we can see from a clarity standpoint, even if you look at what they are requesting in some cases some of the variances don’t apply if you look at the parcel as a whole but maybe it introduces some other concerns.

Mr. Kanable: We kind of expected this type of dialogue. We wanted to have the opportunity to present the site, so that you can get a feel for who we are and what we are trying to accomplish. We can come back in and present a revised plan that would be supported.
Would it be appropriate for us to then go ahead and just pull our agenda from the BZA at this time?

Mr. Okum: Speaking as the Chair and liaison for the BZA, if you wish to present it, it is a public hearing and it is scheduled so that anyone in the community has an opportunity to hear the request.
It would be inappropriate for us to say that you should withdraw, but if that is your intent I personally would understand that, but on the other hand we still would open the meeting and we would still allow the opportunity for the people that may have come to hear your request.
It is your decision whether you want to pursue it or not.

VII. DISCUSSION

(No items were presented for discussion.)


VIII. CHAIRMANS REPORT

Chairman Butrum: As you can see on the agenda there were a couple new signs.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Steve Galster moved to adjourn and Tom Vanover seconded the motion and the Planning Commission adjourned at 7:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________,2008 ___________________________________
            Chairman Tony Butrum


________________________,2008 ___________________________________
            Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary