11 OCTOBER 2005
7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Acting Chairman David Okum.


Members Present:        Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster,
                Lawrence Hawkins, Tom Vanover and Acting
                Chairman David Okum

Members Absent:        Chairman William G. Syfert

Others Present:        Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
                Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer
                Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.


A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster said the proposed insurance office at 309 West Kemper Road and recommended by Planning Commission is scheduled to come before Council on October 19th.
B. Zoning Bulletin – September 10, 2005
C. Zoning Bulletin – September 25, 2005
D. 9/14/05 Letter to President of Council re approval of Preliminary Transition Overlay Plan for Proposed Insurance Office, 309 West Kemper Road



A. Revision to Development Plan (Plantings to replace 13 trees removed) – Springdale Elementary School, 350 West Kemper Road

Amanda Baker of Steed Hammond & Paul introduced Fred Pensinger of Princeton City School District and Jennifer Larson the landscape architect for the project.

We are here to seek approval of the replanting plan for the 13 trees that we discovered needed to be removed during construction to facilitate the grading at the north end of the site.

The 8 x 11 sketches that were submitted depict this area along the property line between the ball field and the new school site where grading is sloping down towards the ball field

11 OCTOBER 2005


Ms. Baker reported we discovered that the grading would be encroaching on the dirt line of the existing trees and that they probably would not survive the grading process.

We met on site with Bill McErlane, the contractors and our engineers and discussed the various options, knowing that our building would not be moving because it was well underway and that the grading still needed to occur. We were granted verbal approval to remove 13 trees all in the same vicinity, and we were informed that we needed Planning’s approval on the replacement trees.

The tree ordinance would require that 39 trees be replanted and we are seeking approval to just simply replace tree for tree, knowing that the quality of the trees that would be replanted would be a better quality than those we removed, and due to the financial ramifications of replanting 39 trees.

Mr. Okum commented everyone has a copy of staff reports. Does anyone on staff have anything specific you need to add?

Mr. McErlane asked if there was a determination as to what might have happened, why the grading encroached underneath.

Ms. Baker answered we have not answered that question. We did a couple of measurements to confirm that the building was in the right place per the drawings and it is. We measured to verify that the building is built the right length, and it appears to be. It is tough to pinpoint and we have not identified what caused the conflict.

Mr. Okum said obviously it is costing the school district money to remedy the issue. He asked Ms. McBride if she had any recommendations on this. Ms. McBride responded there was some discussion at our staff meeting about looking to upsize the trees.

They are proposing to use 2 inch caliper trees which costs $200 to $250 per tree based on the species they are suggesting (maple linden and elm). To take those same trees to 3 inches, the cost jumps to $400 to $450.

Staff discussed whether we should ask for additional trees at 2 caliper inches and instead of placing them to the rear of the building, put them between the front of the building and West Kemper Road. We had the landscape architect look at how many 2 caliper inch trees would go in there, and her estimate was a maximum of 18 to 20. That area is light on landscaping right now.

The commission and the city tried to work with the school district understanding there is a limited budget, but if those trees are going to be re planted, the commission might want to consider locating them at the front of the building instead of the rear.

Mr. Galster asked if the school had any problem with the locating the trees in the front rather than the back where they were removed.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster added now the back of the building is a wide open green space and you don’t need trees to protect yourself from the green space.

Mr. Pensinger said those trees in the back is a nice of sight barrier between that side of the building, the cafeteria/gym side, and the athletic fields. The trees when mature do offer a fairly nice sight barrier at that point. He passed around a picture of the trees. They are along the walking path and isolate the two facilities. It makes a nice delineation there.

Mr. Galster said my personal feeling is considering the fact that there is so much green space being left with the ball field, I don’t have any problem with allowing the applicant to do that, similar to what we have done with some churches and other sites where they have left a lot of the property green, and that green space is used by the city in general. I have no problem with them planting those 13 trees at 2 inches providing we can get the location figured out.

Mr. Butrum asked Ms. McBride about the number of trees. Ms. McBride answered the question that was raised was how many trees at 2 inch caliper could be put in that front area between the building and West Kemper. The landscape architect felt 18 to 20 maximum could go in there.

Mr. Butrum responded in the request the estimated cost was $400 per tree, and you are saying $200 to $250 per tree. Based on what I am assuming you are budgeting for this, 13 trees at $400, I come out with $5,200 total. Mr. Pensinger commented it is not in the budget at all. This would be a change to add to the project because it was not included in any budget figures.

Mr. Butrum added if you were proposing 13 trees at $400, and Ms. McBride is talking 18 to 20 trees at $250, even 20 trees at $250 is $5,000, less than your estimated cost.

Ms. Baker said we are under contract with a general trades contractor who is providing landscaping and the cost will be determined by the contractor via change order, so anything is an estimate.

Jennifer Larsen said I am a landscape architect and $400 is the number we use for 2 inch caliper trees for budgeting purposes.

Mr. Okum said so nobody has looked at the cost breakdown from the landscape bidder. Ms. Baker answered no; we were waiting to get the final approval to get official pricing.

Mr. Okum said if the landscape architect for the project already has this type tree, then those unit costs should carry. Ms. Baker answered we did not receive unit prices on the trees. Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Butrum is indicating that if you are budgeting $5,000, get the most you can get out of the $5,000, whether it is 13 or 18 or 20. Ms. Baker answered it is really not a pre budgeted item.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Ms. Baker added we are trying to get a ball park figure on this, but from the school district’s standpoint, the less they have to spend on this item, the better off they are financially throughout the entire project.
Mr. Okum said looking at the Kemper Road exposure, the building elevations and what is planned for that area, it is very stark, and I would like to see a commitment to that space along Kemper Road. I understand your feelings Mr. Pensinger, but what most people see is that elevation along Kemper Road. There was an enormous amount of effort put to the frontage of the dentists’ property across the street. I believe there are only four trees planned along that front, and I would like to see some go into that space.

Mr. Pensinger responded in talking to Don, there are some additional plans along Kemper Road in that area that would move the sidewalk closer to the building than it is now, and it would make that building appear even closer to Kemper Road. And, anything we would do along there we would have to take that potential future change into account.

Mr. Okum said that is an excellent way to go about it; staff can advise you as to where that potential change will be and your landscape architect can pencil in the trees wherever they are best suited. I am like Mr. Galster; if it’s going to cost you $5,000, I’d like to see you get the best bang for the community, whether it is 13 or 18 to 20 trees.

Ms. Baker said I would assume that this would be a minimum of 13 and if you can get more than that, it’s great for x-number of dollars. It could be that the contractor would say he couldn’t get 13 for $5,000. I want to make sure we understand clearly the approval.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Galster’s suggestion was to accept the 13 trees instead of the 39 required. For the record, the school has made an enormous commitment to green space by what they have done with this project and a moratorium on development and expansion is a plus to the city as well.

Mr. Galster moved to allow the applicant to plant 13 trees to replace the trees that were removed because of the grading problem and allow them to submit the plan wherever they would like to plant them, keeping in mind that we would like to see a couple out front if possible so you can achieve what you want in the back. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

Ms. McBride suggested that the caliper of inch be stated so that there is no misunderstanding. Mr. Galster added the trees shall be a minimum of 2 caliper inches. Ms. McBride added it would be helpful to the applicant as well as the staff if you were to give more direction than a couple of trees in the front. Mr. Galster responded I am not telling them that they have to put any of them in front. I’ll leave it to them.
All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.
11 OCTOBER 2005

B. Approval of Christmas Trees on Tri-County Mall Parking Lot, 11700 Princeton Pike

Diana Canter said we want to do it again like we did it last year. There are no changes. We met all your specs last year. The only thing on here was the temporary electric pole was up there longer than necessary, but that was because of the weather. We will try our best to remove that ASAP this year and hope we don’t have that bad weather again.

Mr. Galster said rather than reading all the staff comments, I think everybody has had the opportunity to read them. I think the applicant has had the opportunity to read them, so I move that we accept staff comments into the record as a part of the Minutes and part of any motion that would come forward.

Mr. Okum said so are you making a motion to approve the request? Mr. Galster said I will move to approve the request with the staff comments as a part of the record. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the motion was approved with six affirmative votes.

C.    Approval of Final PUD Development Plan – Springdale Town Center

Randy Cooper of Myers Y. Cooper Company thanked everyone who had worked on this project over the last 18 months to make it what it is this evening.

Mr. Cooper added I think we are getting closer to a project that will meet your expectations. There has been a lot of scrutiny and careful consideration and as you review this I hope you will find that we have accomplished those successfully.

Staff has made various reports, identifying where we comply with the code and where we do not, and we are in agreement with those comments. We have a couple of issues that I would like to bring up for further discussion.

On the site plan, staff comments suggest that the sidewalk width isn’t deep enough in front of the stores. Right now it varies from five to eight feet, but at its narrowest it is five feet.

We have struggled with this. This site is narrow for the size of the project we are trying to accomplish. We are not sure how we will accomplish it, but we will continue to look at a way to expand the sidewalk one foot across the front of the building.

Our drive lanes in front of the buildings are 24 feet. To narrow it in the front would be problematic for cross traffic. In the back, however, we have 27 feet and I could probably take a foot from there, but I am still struggling with that. If you could give me some recommendations or suggestions I would welcome that.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Cooper reported that the dumpster enclosures continue to be a point of contention. We had proposed putting a screen around the one dumpster closest to Kemper Road which is visible from Kemper Road. The other ones that are almost in the middle of the site are pretty well screened from view by nature of the buildings themselves and the decorative screened wall we are building all the way along Walnut Street.

For the reasons I identified earlier, cleanliness, rodents and things like that, we would prefer not to put those screens around those dumpsters. I would suggest to you that we have a 400+ foot screen wall around those dumpsters as well as the buildings themselves, and I would further ask you who we are screening these dumpsters from.

We have incorporated the paver walks as requested from earlier comments, but we have not added a detail. That is because I haven’t found a detail yet. We are concerned about this application. It is not something I am a proponent of; I think they look great the first year you put them down, but the blacktop on either side generally will settle and the pavers will not settle at the same rate as the blacktop. So I am trying to determine how we can accomplish the paver system that we are agreeing to put in here without messing up the snow plows that will be clearing the parking lot, or creating a tripping hazard for those who are not walking within the lines of the paver system. So we will provide a detail, but we haven’t figured that out yet.

The site lighting mentioned in the staff report is the darker portions of our site where we don’t need the foot candle, at the southern end in the rear (Peach Street) and the northern area of Walnut and Kemper.

Two additional lights were recommended for those areas and we can do that, but what we would like to do is model the existing street lights into the equation in those specific areas to see if we don’t already have enough light. Our photometric design precludes street lights in the area.

We are sensitive to meeting the code with regard to how much light we are spilling out of our site, so we erred in the direction of having less light. If we had more light in that area, then we will be over the lighting requirement at our boundaries. That is something that needs your consideration and some resolution.

Another comment was the turning analysis for Peach Street, and that was provided in an earlier presentation. The turning radius for the trucks worked within our property. However, they do cross over the line on Peach Street and at the corner of Peach and Springfield Pike. We are cutting the corner to try to stay within the lane.

Mr. Shvegzda said we had this analysis, but as you recognize there are some things that need to be ironed out on that. I think that is the kind of thing we need to get into in terms of modifications of some of the radiuses there in the final staff comments.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Cooper said concerning the sign location on Peach Street, I appreciate that comment and would ask for staff to work with us to find an appropriate location within the limits of the sign regulations.

On the faux windows that we have added on certain elevations staff has suggested that we go with a spandrel glass insert. I would rather not do that; I am not a fan of the spandrel glass system. I think that the shadow lines that we have created with the brick are attractive and appropriate for the location.

Mr. Okum said so there are five items that you would like to be discussed, lighting, turning radius, sign location and dumpster screening and spandrel glass.

Mr. Galster said what about working it out at staff level? Mr. Cooper answered however you would recommend it.

Ms. McBride said some of the items are not at that level. For example, the dumpster gates. Our code requires those gates, and I do not have the power to release him from putting those gates on. If you want to modify the requirements that we recently added to our code that is up to you as the commission but I can’t work with Mr. Cooper and make them go away.

Things like the spandrel glass and location of the sign are fine, but with the lighting, the commission would have to say or give staff the ability to say that he doesn’t have to meet the requirements of the 0.5 foot candles throughout that parking lot. If you are willing to allow us to work with him, we’d be happy to do that, but I don’t have the power to release him from that requirement. So, you need to be specific in any motion that would allow staff to vary from the requirements of the code within their professional opinion.

Mr. Okum responded so those are exceptions that he is asking from your and Mr. Shvegzda’s considerations. Ms. McBride answered those are exceptions from our zoning requirements.

Mr. Cooper added in addition to the other ones in your letter. Ms. McBride responded I only included all of those because the motion for the preliminary development plan from this commission which went on to Council was a little bit vague, and I didn’t think it adequately protected you or the City as to whether or not you actually got the variance on the reduction of the parking spaces or those kinds of things. That is why I went back and specified all of that out so you knew that you had that approval and the City knew that we had granted that.

Mr. Okum said that is what we want to make sure, that the commission members all concur with staff’s recommendations especially if it is a part of the motion to include staff’s recommendations.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. McErlane added the motion that came out of the preliminary plan was that the commission recommended the plan “with all the discussion here tonight”, which didn’t clarify anything because discussions were held on both parts of every item that was up in the air. It didn’t say we agreed to or disagreed with anything.

One other item on the spandrel glass versus the treatment in the brick, I think the treatment in the brick doesn’t add anything, so if Planning Commission is agreeable to allowing deletion of the spandrel glass, there is no point in doing the brick treatment. It doesn’t add anything to the building. We required the spandrel glass on the blank walls of both UDF and CVS.

Mr. Galster said we have known for a long time that this project was going to be a little bit short on the tree replacement requirements. I want to let the commission know we anticipated a number of caliper inches being short even though we tried to plant as many trees on the site as we possibly could. It seemed like we were 150 caliper inches short and based on $100 per caliper inch, the administration has negotiated an agreement to sell the property to the applicant with that consideration put into the financial negotiations of that land purchase. I wanted the commission to know that compensation has been paid through those negotiations.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. McErlane said we did a preliminary review of the plan and sent comments to the applicant. The response back said that the planting plan showed 3 inch caliper trees to satisfy the requirement for major trees that were removed from the site, but it doesn’t. They were supposed to be 15 caliper inches of 3 inch trees but the plan doesn’t show any, and that needs to be clarified.

Mr. Cooper responded our letter confirmed that we would meet that requirement. It is not on the drawing. Mr. McErlane commented there were responses to our initial comments which indicated that there would be 3 inch trees.

Mr. Cooper added we didn’t draw the landscape plan. That was done on the instructions of the City, and we agreed to it.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the applicant’s request. All staff comments shall be included in this motion and are part of the public record, understanding that there are a few items that need to be discussed and debated. Those include:

1. The sidewalk width
2. The dumpster gates
3. Additional information from the staff on:
a. lighting
b. turning radius
c. sign location at Peach Street
d. paver details
e. Spandrel glass.

Mr. Galster added otherwise the applicant has indicated he is pretty much in compliance with all of the other staff comments.
11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Okum said so your motion includes all staff recommendations. Mr. Galster said I will keep my motion with all staff comments, no exceptions.

Mr. Okum said we have a motion on the floor to approve the request with all of staff’s recommendations. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster said on the sidewalk width, I saw that we had a couple of recommendations. Ms. McBride had seven feet and Mr. McErlane had six feet. Is there any ADA problems with the sidewalk widths?

Mr. McErlane responded there is a minimum six-foot width where handicap ramps need to be constructed so at those locations at least it needs to be six feet.

Mr. Galster asked if we know that the handicap ramp locations are at six feet. Mr. Cooper said it depends. It may be close here where the handicap stalls are located.

Ms. McBride said the commission needs to consider the fact that this development is able to have sidewalk sales. So if the sidewalks are going to stay five feet, you need to look at eliminating the possibility of sidewalk sales.

Mr. Galster asked if she were comfortable with Mr. McErlane’s six foot or do you think the seven foot needs to still happen. Ms. McBride answered if Mr. McErlane is comfortable with six feet, that is fine. Mr. Galster commented I think six foot is probably fine if that can be worked out with the applicant.

On the dumpsters, I think we should give some relief to the code. I think the intent is to screen the dumpsters from the public right of way. When we have situations similar to the old Cookers site where we have a dumpster in the middle of the parking lot that is shared and all the customers walk by it, it is important to screen those. I don’t see quite the same importance to screen dumpsters that are behind the building and nobody sees.

On the lighting plan, am I correct in saying you wanted to add the street lighting in to see in fact if it brings up the lighting in those places where it is below .5 foot candles…Mr. Cooper said right. The recommendation was for two poles with three fixtures. One pole would have two fixtures on it. We haven’t modeled that photometrically. These are in peripheral portions of the site but close to the residential neighborhood. In order for anyone to say unequivocally that those fixtures are needed or appropriate, they need to be modeled. We also have to take into account the neighbors when we are putting these poles closer towards them. I would think it would be appropriate in these peripheral locations to inventory existing street lights and see if they solved the problem for us.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster said I do agree with you. My personal recommendation to staff is that we do allow the applicant to be under if in fact we can maintain a safe environment and proper lighting. Being extremely sensitive to the residential area, I have no problem in spot areas to allow that number to be a little bit lower. I don’t want to hold the lighting across the back where it is not needed because of the residential area.

Mr. Okum responded the only thing about that is if you use street lighting as a factor, that would apply to other developments within the community for any future development. I think if you want to give relief because of the residential proximity, that is one issue as long as the life safety issues are addressed. Ms. McBride do you have a comment regarding that?

Ms. McBride answered once the development is up and running, if we as a city or a staff or a commission feel that those areas are low…Frankly I think employees are going to use those parking areas quite a bit because it is out of the way parking, and those are the people who will be there later and get there earlier. If we feel that light level is not sufficient to provide safe access, then we reserve the right to come back in and ask the developer to increase the light levels on those portions of the site.

The other issue I would like the commission to take a look at is those wall packs across the back of that building. The applicant has indicated that they are sensitive to how that impacts the single family residences (there is the wall and there is Walnut Street) to make sure that those fixtures will be shielded and there will be no glare or spillage into those single family homes, because that is not what we promised those people.

Mr. Galster said and is it your understanding that those would all be down lit and blocked? Mr. Cooper said yes, they have house side shields. I think that is appropriate with the exception that I am going to have to run the conduits in the wire out to those locations in advance, because Il don’t want to dig up the blacktop after it has been laid.

Mr. Vanover said on the lighting, we definitely need to watch the back. We talked bout putting light packs on the retaining wall and going from that direction back to the back. That is a possibility and would get the lighting in that area.

Mr. Cooper made the point that he will have to preplan the existence of those fixtures. Otherwise it would not be prudent because you would have to cut asphalt and make a mess out of a new development. We need to be pretty definitive on that issue. The applicant is looking for us to give him some direction, and I think it would be unprofessional of us not to do that. We need to nail down some of these issues more firmly rather than saying we’ll worry about it later.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Coleman said if there is not sufficient lighting at the outside and we come back and indicate there is not enough light, how do we accomplish getting the appropriate amount of lighting there. Will that be on a trial and error basis or will it be based on the code?

Ms. McBride responded one of the things that the applicant could do would be to submit a photometric plan that includes the street lights there. I don’t know that there is a street light in the vicinity of Walnut and Peach. Again, because I do think these spaces will be used, I have a little more concern than I might have. If there was an overabundance of parking on the site and this was at a far perimeter corner, I probably would not be as concerned. I think these spaces are going to be used, and on a night like tonight, if I am a single woman going out to my car, I want to make sure it is properly lit.

I know the applicant has that same concern, but they are trying to balance that with protecting our residences and not having the light in their eyes or their bedroom windows.

Mr. Cooper suggested that we allow them to revise their photometric lighting plan to include offsite lighting. Again, the commission needs to be very clear about why we are doing it in this instance, and we are not doing it in every development or in other instances. There is a special situation with regard to this property, given the proximity of the residential homes and those kinds of things. Then we would know ahead of time whether or not we could get those adequate foot candles.

Mr. Okum said so your recommendation would be to allow the applicant to revise the photometric lighting to include the on street lighting due to the proximity of the residential neighbors to the development. Ms. McBride confirmed this.

Mr. Galster asked how low the lighting actually is. Ms. McBride answered in some places it is down to 0. In the northeast corner, that last parking spaces goes from .1 to 0. The same last parking space in the southeast corner of the site is also at 0, which is below moonlight.

Mr. Galster asked the lighting of the parking space next to that. Ms. McBride answered that is at .1 in both instances. Mr. Galster asked about the third parking space, and Ms. McBride reported it is also at .1 and .1 on the other one. Mr. Galster asked how far we would have to go into the field before we get to .5? Ms. McBride answered all the way up to the last parking space on the north section and the second to the last space on the south section.

Ms. McBride added there are other areas that also do not have .5, but staff wasn’t as concerned about those. On Springfield Pike in the area adjacent to where the out lot will be, they are down in the .3-.4 range. Those will be the last spaces filled and they are adjacent to Springfield Pike. I know we have city lighting out there. Also, that will change when the applicant develops that out lot, so we are not as concerned about those areas.
11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster said my preference would be the spandrel glass. I think it breaks up a long wall with the look of a window. I agree with staff on that comment.

Mr. Okum asked if all the members agreed that it should stay within the recommendations of staff and the members indicated that they did.

On the turning radius we would need to make sure that it is safe. I have no problem with allowing the applicant to work that out with the engineer to make it happen. Mr. Okum said I think they both indicated that, so the turning radius is to be worked out with staff.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you had mentioned the paver details, but you didn’t indicate you were taking them out of the plan. Mr. Cooper answered we’ll stick with it; it’s not something I am a proponent of as the property owner, but I don’t have the details yet. We will put together a detail and submit that to staff with our final development plan.

Mr. Okum commented I have seen them in a good number of malls, and they seem to be holding up okay, so I think you can come up with a solution to that.

Mr. Okum said on the sign location, I think that Mr. Cooper agreed to work that out.

Mr. Okum said I need to understand your request. Are you asking to not have the enclosures or to not have the gates? Mr. Cooper answered the enclosures or the gates on the dumpsters located within the center, two dumpsters almost opposite Cherry Street and the dumpsters around Plum Street. The dumpster by Kemper Road will have a screen and gates.

I don’t know if they consider the decorative walls as part of our screen walls. Mr. Okum said that would be part of the enclosure. If it were extended on each side, that would be the three sides.

My understanding and I want the commission to understand, that, except for that one specific dumpster, you are requesting that relief is given on all dumpster enclosures. We will discuss that item first and then discuss the gate issue.

Mr. Hawkins said looking at the brick wall with landscaping back further, I would agree with the idea of anyone seeing those dumpsters. Unless they are working back there, it is not going to happen.

My concern would be around the accessibility of the dumpsters to people who shouldn’t be accessing. With no gates or screens, the access would be there. That is my main concern.

Ms. McBride said I think staff misunderstood, because I thought that all the relief was being asked for the gates only. The way the plans are labeled it says “enclosed dumpster”.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Okum responded I was listening to Mr. Cooper’s presentation, and that is when the comment came from him. Ms. McBride answered I understand, but what was presented and what is on the plans are two different things. Mr. Okum said you haven’t commented on the enclosures at all. Ms. McBride said no, because the plans say that all the dumpsters are going to be enclosed and only one is going to have gates on the enclosure.

Mr. Cooper asked if the wall was an enclosure. Ms. McBride answered the wall would be part of the enclosure on one of the three sides, because of the way they are angled. Mr. Galster said it might be two of the sides, and Ms. McBride responded it depends on how they are oriented. The way they are drawn on the plans, there is an enclosure that goes around them.

Mr. Butrum said I read each one of these as having two sides of an enclosure. As I look at it, there is always the back side of the fence, and there is the part that juts out on each one that seems to cover another side. It is a little different, depending on which one you are talking about, but I do see two sides of an enclosure. I guess what we are talking about is relief on one of the sides and the gate, but we will talk about the gates separately.
Regarding the rest of the enclosure, as Mr. Galster, I am actually comfortable with the dumpsters that Mr. Cooper is asking to be excluded from code because they are hidden quite well from anyone. So I would be in favor of granting that.

Mr. Cooper said I don’t mean to speak poorly of my own staff, but when we have a dumpster enclosure it seems to hide the refuse that has spilled over from our own staff. When the dumpster isn’t in an enclosure, and there is stuff spilling over the outsides of the dumpster, our guys know they are supposed to clean it up. If it is in an enclosed date hidden from my staff’s view, they will not be proactive. So I don’t want to screen these things from my own staff’s view.

Mr. Okum said every dumpster requirement for every site in the city would apply. Mr. Cooper responded I understand; I am speaking to you as a property owner.

Mr. Vanover said in my mind, your request is basically that you be allowed to pour a pad and set a dumpster on it. Mr. Cooper said right. Mr. Vanover continued I have a problem with that, and part of it is that we would be setting a precedent. We have hounded other applicants on this very issue. I know what he is saying in terms of visual lines, but the point also is if the crew is directed to keep that enclosure clean, then it will be kept clean. If it is not, they are not doing their job.

I am very leery of setting a precedent because we have another very large PUD in the area that is going through a renovation and the word will be heard. I think this is a slippery slope we would be starting down and we should be aware of what the long term ramifications may be.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster said I see this wall in a couple of different ways. When I look at the lighting plan, the wall has little v shapes and it looks like the dumpster tucks right back in there. But, when I look at Page 2 of 4 for example, I have a much bigger cutout where those two dumpsters are located as opposed to having a little spot for each dumpster. Is this an accurate representation of the rear wall?

Mr. Cooper said the wall is the double lined area close to the right of way that comes down toward the dumpster, bumps easterly and continues on a straight line all the way until it comes back up and continues on. The cutouts are the actual concrete pads with that severe angle you are referring to.

Mr. Galster added originally I thought it was covered on two sides with the little v-shaped notches in the all, but that is not an accurate representation of how the wall is done.

Instead of putting three sides of brick around each one of these dumpsters, we have built a wall and put landscaping in. That is a better screen for the back of the building, dumpsters included. I would like to see the one that is from the public right of way screened with a door on it, but I don’t have a problem with the other ones. I think the wall accomplishes that intent.

Ms. McBride said the only comment I would make to that is if that in fact is the case, then you need to look at the dumpsters that are visible from Peach Street as well.

Mr. Okum commented Peach Street is just as apparent, and the dumpster will be exposed. If you don’t have a surround, the dumpster truck doesn’t always set the dumpster as close to the back of the enclosure as it should. In my office location, I have a concrete pad that is about 24 feet long and gradually over the 2 years that I have been in the building, the dumpster has moved about 14 feet from the building out on the concrete pad. So without an enclosure you would allow that dumpster to move forward into that field.

It is pretty obvious that the first dumpster to the north (visible from Kemper Road) is pretty academic; it needs the enclosure. On the second one to the south side of there, I don’t understand why the dumpster wasn’t moved closer to the angle to utilize the angle of the wall as part of the enclosure space. If you look at it, it is probably adequate enough to be two sides of the dumpster enclosure. So, you would only have an additional one side if that dumpster was shifted further north by about 15 feet.

The only viewing area of the third dumpster further south would be from pedestrians going through the walkway between the buildings that goes to the residential neighborhood, and if you are in a car you would see it too.

The one further south is exactly the same way. If you are worried about pedestrians seeing it, that is one thing.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Okum said the one on Peach Street is academic. The wall makes a curve there and it will be seen from Peach Street so it definitely would need enclosures on it.

For the fourth one down, if it was brought more into the niche of the corner, you would have two sides of the dumpster enclosed by the wall. So basically you would be building six wall sections.

On the north side, you could integrate some of that into the corner where the wall goes straight ahead and makes a westerly turn. You cold incorporate some of that into there and utilize two sides of the screen wall for enclosure.

From what I have seen here, I will be supporting enclosures on all of the dumpsters.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said on the Peach Street side where the wall ends now in order to block some view of the back of the building as you are coming down Peach Street. What about curving the wall around a little bit so it blocks that view? Would you prefer to do that rather than building walls around the dumpster? Would it accomplish the same purpose?

Mr. Cooper answered that would be my preference. I think the debate has been pretty thorough.

Mr. Okum asked for a show of hands for enclosures around all dumpsters. Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Okum and Mr. Coleman voted aye (4), and Mr. Butrum and Mr. Galster voted no (2).

Mr. Okum polled the members on enclosures on fewer than all of the dumpsters but enclosures on some of them. Mr. Galster and Mr. Butrum raised their hands, and Mr. Butrum commented that depends on what that is. Mr. Okum commented four of the six of us would like to see enclosures on all of them.

Mr. Okum said now we will discuss the gates so we can finalize this.

Mr. Vanover said I would be willing to forego the gates on those two northern dumpsters. However, the two southern locations are visible to pedestrian traffic through the area and they definitely should be enclosed and with gates.

Mr. Okum said there are five dumpsters and you only covered four. Mr. Vanover said the one far north was proposed to have the enclosure and gate. I would be wiling to forego gates on the next two and the southernmost two need to be enclosed with gates. You have pedestrian traffic and employee or customer parking back there that will be able to see that.

Mr. Galster said I propose a gate on Dumpster #1 (north) only, which is part of the plan.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Vanover has indicated that if we are going from north to south, gates should be on Dumpsters #1, #4 and #5.
11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Coleman said I am looking at gates on all five of them.

Mr. Okum said I tend to agree with Mr. Vanover that dumpster enclosures #1, #4 and #5 should have gates.

Mr. Butrum said I would agree with #1, #4 and #5.

Mr. Hawkins said for the record, I would prefer to see gates on all of them, but I would be okay with gates for #1, #4, and #5.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said it sounds like the majority wants gates for dumpsters #1, #4 and #5.

Mr. Galster said when I look at those pads, first of all we are showing an access drives back there about 27 feet from the building to a curb line. What happens when we have to put walls with gates around these dumpsters? Are they going to stick out into that 27 feet? How much are we going to lose there? I’ll bet it would be four feet.

Mr. Cooper answered it is an issue. You decide what you are going to decide and we’ll see whether or not we can accomplish it. It may not happen. I may come back to you on this matter because of what Mr. Galster has identified, and the fact that we need to find a foot for the sidewalk and we might be running out of room. I can’t answer that specifically without looking at the design on these dumpster pads, the screens and the gates to make sure we can do everything that we need to do to make it functional.

Mr. Galster commented I think the walls coming off his back wall to enclose those dumpsters will do nothing but impede the vehicular traffic that needs to service the back of these buildings. I understand the requirement on the first one, but I don’t on the others. I think an alternative is to curve that wall around the side to help with some visual screening on #4 and #5. I also would rather see the six foot walkway than having the dumpster walls and the five-foot walkway.

Mr. Vanover said I think Mr. Galster has a viable point, but the also can be made that you can fine tune those walls to box in those dumpsters so you can have the space you need in there. That also works to help prevent what Mr. Okum had mentioned before, they have a way of walking out into the visual area when they are dumped.

I am sensitive to that, but another alternative might be digging those recesses deeper and that would give you some clearance relief back there.

If the dumpster is 10’ x 10’…Mr. Okum said it is probably 8’ x 8’ and 6’ high. That is typical for businesses.

Mr. Galster said if a dumpster company refuses to put the dumpster back up against the wall, as the owner I would be calling them every morning to get them moved out of my driveway or lose the contract.
11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Okum said considering that the traffic lane back there is narrow, it makes it more important that the dumpsters are tucked in.

Mr. Okum said we need to finalize the sidewalk width issue. I think Mr. Galster’s recommendation was to go with Mr. McErlane’s recommendation of a six-foot minimum, is that correct?

Mr. Galster answered no. I have a hard time saying that my recommendation would be for six feet if in fact that makes those walls jut out into that roadway another foot more. I don’t know that I can say that is better than having a five-foot sidewalk.

Mr. Coleman asked if six feet or seven was recommended. Mr. Okum said six feet from Mr. McErlane and seven feet from Ms. McBride.

Ms. McBride said we tried to find an industry standard, and there isn’t any. I polled a lot of my clients, and I got six foot, I got seven foot, I got eight foot. Six feet is better than five feet; I just think five feet is too small. Mr. Coleman said so you would defer to the six-foot recommendation. Ms. McBride answered absolutely.

Mr. Butrum said sidewalk sales were also mentioned as not being feasible in a five foot depth. Would six foot enable that?

Ms. McBride answered right now the site is able to have sidewalk sales as any other business would within the parameters of the Zoning Code. Six feet would be better. I have concerns anyway you go understanding that it is a narrow site, a limited site, and a redevelopment site. We are trying to work with the applicant, but we have to do that within the parameters of keeping everybody safe.

Mr. Butrum said this site is vertically challenged. We are running out of space and I understand that but in terms of these enclosures, whatever we do we are subtracting and adding and it’s all having an impact on the net of how much room is back there. How far out do the enclosures have to be for us to consider them enclosures? Does it have to be the exact length of the dumpster itself?

Mr. Okum responded physically it couldn’t be because you need bollards inside to protect the wall. Ms. McBride added it would depend on whether you had gates or not. Mr. Okum said if it has gates, you would have the depth of the dumpster plus the bollard protection within the enclosure and the gate swing assembly so you are talking probably 12 feet deep. What is the typical; Mr. Cooper you have built other developments.

Mr. Cooper said I don’t think it was 12 feet but I would have to research this. However you design it for the largest regular size box. It will be big with the bollards and protection you want to have around it. It is an issue.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster said from what I have seen, I would say that this will be a six to eight foot minimum depth. Can you tell me approximately how far it is from the curb to the back of the wall? Ms. McBride answered the drawing is dimensioned 27 feet from the back of the building to the edge of the curb of the drive. Mr. Galster answered I know that is 27 feet; what will it be from the curb to the corner of the enclosure around the dumpster. That would take three to four feet so now we are down to 24 feet back there? And then we want to take another foot or two out for the driveway?

Mr. Cooper said you would be pushing the south corner of the dumpster into the driveway

Mr. Galster said if you would lose three feet there and we need another foot to get a six-foot sidewalk, we would have 23 feet wide back there where all the deliveries will be happening and we still have service vehicles and parking for employees.

Ms. McBride reported you can lose a foot off the front access drive. The code requires 24 feet and they have 25. So there is your foot for the sidewalk.

Mr. Okum said the other option would be to make a slightly smaller building. Mr. Cooper commented it would change the economics, and Mr. Okum said we wouldn’t want you to do that.

Since we already have dealt with the issue of the dumpster enclosure, let’s stay with the sidewalk. If you take a standard three-foot door that swings out into a walkway, if a handicapped person needs to get to the handicap ramps location which is not directly in front of their store, if that wheelchair person has to negotiate around that three foot door and then go laterally across that property, I think six feet is definitely a necessity across the front.

Mr. Galster added that would be a minimum of six feet, because there are places where it is quite a bit more than that.

Mr. Okum said let’s take these one at a time as amendments to the motion.

I will entertain a motion for the first item, for dumpster and refuse enclosures to be on all units, all dumpsters and steel-framed wood faced gates shall be, from north to south, on dumpsters #1, #4 and #5. Mr. Vanover so moved and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Coleman said even though I said earlier that all gates should be on all enclosures, I am willing to acquiesce to the fact that the majority says that three or four of them are sufficient.

On the motion, all present voted aye except Mr. Galster who voted no. Amendment to the motion was approved 5 to 1.

The lighting exception to staff recommendations to allow the applicant to revise the photometric lighting to include two questionable areas due to the proximity of the residential homes.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster said so the motion is to allow them to include the street lighting into the photometric diagram to see what that number comes up with. What if it is not .5? Are we allowing staff to have the flexibility to reduce that a requirement or are we telling them that it is a hard number and they have to put a light in?

Mr. Okum said what would your recommendation be if they can’t meet it – that they have to put the light in? That was staff’s recommendation, that they increase the lighting to the minimum.

Mr. Galster responded an option has been discussed that if in fact once they revise the photometrics including the street lighting, rather than require them to automatically put it in, they would put in the electric ahead of time and if it was determined after the fact that additional lighting was required, then we would require them to put it in.

Mr. Cooper said if it doesn’t pencil out on the photometric plan, we will put it in.

Mr. Okum said so we need a motion on that amendment. Mr. Vanover so moved and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion.

Mr. Butrum asked if we were making the motion in such a way that we aren’t establishing precedence about including street lighting to achieve code. That would be my only concern.

Mr.; Okum responded every time we modify from the code, we set a precedent. In my opinion, if that precedent is deliberated with public health safety and welfare issues involved in it, and you tie that to the fact that these two lights are specifically in the proximity of the residential neighborhood, it makes it specific to this. Also, this is a PUD so I think you are at least protecting our city and the community’s interests.

Mr. Galster in looking at the photometric layout for parking, on the southeast corner the parking is pull in with the car looking south, and the parking on all the other ones are for the car looking north.

Mr. McErlane reported that the lighting plan has not been adjusted based on the current building or parking layout.

Mr. Galster said so when I was asking where that stopped, was it based on the true parking or the parking shown on the photometric.

Ms. McBride reported it is based on the photometric plan we were given. When they update that photometric plan, I would suggest that they use the current site plan. It’s not going to change the issue on the northeast corner, but I am willing to bet that there is enough lighting on the northeast corner from the street light that the issue will go away. My concern is more that southeast corner if that parking is to be constructed per the photometric plan.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster added the applicant is putting in the same kind of light fixtures that we have in our streetscape and in Phase II I believe that streetscape comes down Kemper Road to the east where there possibly might be a street light, one of our decorative streetscape lights in that parking field. Is that true, or not?

Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that the extension of the treatment on Route 4 will be extended onto Kemper Road. Mr. Galster commented so it is very possible that there would be a street light somewhere along that block in order to fulfill the requirements.

Mr. Shvegzda said that is certainly true, and there are street lights out there now, but they probably are just at intersections.

On the motion to allow the applicant to use street lighting in his photometric plan, all present voted aye, and the amendment was passed with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Okum continued the turning radiuses are to be worked out with the staff engineer. Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

All present voted aye and that motion was approved with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Okum said the last item is that the front sidewalks must be a minimum of six feet wide. Mr. Vanover so moved and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the motion was approved.

Mr. McErlane asked about the spandrel glass. Mr. Galster commented it is in the original motion because it is part of the specs and did not need an exclusion.

Mr. Cooper said in the covenants and conditions, it has been recommended that once you hang me you also get to shoot me. I am proposing that you allow staff to negotiate Paragraph 5.1 where it says that any cost or expense including reasonable attorneys’ fees or other professional services actually incurred by the City to enforce the regulations you are already allowed to enforce. I think that is a little overdone in regulations and rights you already have. I found this extremely unusual and quite common between two private individuals, but not between a city with all of its powers and jurisdictions over a private enterprise to ask for attorneys’ fees and any other costs or expense incurred. I would like to revisit that particular paragraph; I am good with everything else.

Mr. McErlane reported that language similar to that has been included in a number of the covenants that have been included in PUDs. The intent is that if we have to force the developer to comply with requirements of the covenants, the city would recover its legal fees in the process. If that means tweaking the language a little bit, we can leave it up to the law director.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Okum said so if the motion shall include staff and law director’s approval of the final covenants, would that be okay? Mr. Cooper said that is fine with me.

Mr. Okum moved to include that. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and all present voted aye and the motion was passed with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Okum said we have an amended motion with all the items just discussed. For the record, it requires five affirmative votes for this to move forward.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and Springdale Town Center was approved with six affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened at 8:57 p.m.

C. Approval of Illuminated Awning – Cingular Wireless – 11711 Princeton Pike

Dave Hoffman said we are contracted to install this and I am representing them tonight. Mr. Okum asked if he could make decisions for them, and Mr. Hoffman answered not per se. Mr. Okum asked if we had an owner’s affidavit.

Mr. McErlane reported we have an application signed by the awning people and signed by Robert Gilhart, the owner of the property, so we do.

Mr. Hoffman said the idea is to install an illuminated awning on the north elevation of their building. This is part of a national campaign of signage that Cingular is doing. They are trying to get more exposure on the one elevation of the building. They get quite a bit of parking on that side of the building and they don’t feel they have adequate exposure

Mr. Galster said so there will be an orange Cingular Wireless awning and a Cingular Wireless sign right next to it. From the parking lot, it will look like side by side signs. Right next to where you see the orange banner, it is like a three-sided canopy that covers the court. On the north elevation of the three sided covering is the regular channel letters. Granted there is some depth change, but it will have Cingular on the awning and Cingular on the existing, so it will say Cingular Cingular on the north side and on the other parking lot side the Cingular Wireless channel letters would remain as well.

Mr. Okum asked if he were familiar with staff comments and calculations. Mr. Hoffman said I knew they made a revision to it, but I don’t know exactly what they were. They scaled it back.

Mr. Galster said this applicant who is representing the applicant has not had the opportunity to read all the staff comments, so we probably need to go through them.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Ms. McBride reported that the city sent them to the applicant on the 7th. Mr. Hoffman added I was told that issues were addressed.

Mr. McErlane said there was an application for permit that came in with an awning that was larger than this which would have taken them over their allowable signage. In responding to the applicant, Connie Wilson, I indicated that she had two options. One was to apply for a variance, which would also come to this commission as a PUD. The other option was to reduce the signage on it so it would comply, but she still would have to come to this commission because it is a backlit illuminated awning and our Zoning Code requires Planning Commission approval. The changes happened before this was submitted to Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum said the allowable sign area is 126 s.f. and they are within .1 feet total, 125.9 square feet.

Mr. Vanover said it says you have a 15 foot double HO fluorescent fixture in there. The tubes are either six or eight feet so it is either 12 or 16. Mr. Hoffman said the only thing I would say is they do custom lighting. I am not manufacturing this, and I would think that is an electrical question, unless they make a 15 foot tube. Mr. Vanover said I have never seen a 15 foot tube and I have been doing this for years.

Mr. Okum asked if they overlap the fixtures. Mr. Vanover reported it shows a standard two-tube fluorescent fixture. Mr. Hoffman said typically it would go end to end. Mr. Vanover said most of the HOs are eight footers.

Mr. Galster wondered if the proper person to be here would be the owner of the mall or the individual tenant. Mr. McErlane responded it is a PUD. Mr. Galster said so we are making a change to the PUD which is to Gilhart basically. If Gilhart was here asking for this, I would ask him why he has offsite signage next to it. I think that is a part of the signage picture for the whole PUD. The Halloween place has all kind of window signs next to the Cingular Store. If the mall owner would need to be here, we would be looking at signage in general and we would be talking about that as well. I don’t have the opportunity to do that with this gentleman, because he can’t represent Gilhart.

Mr. Okum said concerning signage on awnings, I was the one who pushed for that to be tied into signage because it was illuminated and was information. The Code was changed to incorporate that. If this was not a PUD and did not have an awning and was just a sign, the total sign area is within Code and would have been signed off by the chairman of Planning.

Ms. McBride said the other overriding factor is that it is an illuminated awning which requires this commission’s approval.

Mr. McErlane reported if this was just additional signage within the square footage they are talking about, the chairman could sign off on it. You gave him that authority years ago.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Coleman moved to approve the illuminated awning as presented and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, except Mr. Galster and Mr. Vanover. The approval was denied, for lack of a majority. Our code requires five affirmative votes for an approval and you have four, so your request has been denied.

E.    Approval of Signage – Sofa Express – 11750 Commons Drive

Keith Gleason of Signage Industries Inc. said my company has the contract to design manufacture and install all signs and letters for Sofa Express. Recently they have changed their name and added the words “and more”, and we are changing their name nationwide.

When it came to the Springdale location, in our meeting at the home office, I was instructed not to take any shortcuts on this location. It is one of their premier sites. They hired a design company to come up with a rough draft of a new main i.d. sign and it was turned over to my company to set up specifications and materials and did the completed drawing.

The owners wanted the new sign to set on a block foundation. My company came up with the idea that we have a perfectly good foundation with steel pipe already and we could use what we have. So we are coming up 60 inches with a split face block around the sign line so it will set down in this a few inches, so that from the highway or from the parking lot it will look like the sign is setting on top of this. So you will have a cosmetic block wall that has no structural integrity with the sign itself. At the same time we are interested in putting plants and shrubs at the base of this split face block wall.

They wanted a 21st century look, something really sharp out front. Typically what we are doing at all their other locations is take an existing sign and add the words and more. They wanted to spend a lot of money on this, because it is one of their premier locations.

What lights up on the main i.d. sign are just the letters themselves. What you see there is Sofa Express and More and at night that is all you will see, those individual letters. Living Dining and Dreaming are the same way; they will light up individually at night time and at night you will see the silhouette of the background of the sign itself. It is metal face with routed letters.

The second part of this is the existing two sets of illuminated letters on the building. We want to add the words and more like we are doing nationwide. There are no big changes to that.

Ms. McBride said the applicant indicated that only the letters themselves would be illuminated, but the information submitted to the city says that the flat faces will be internally illuminated. That leads me to believe that the entire panel is illuminated, not just the letters.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Gleason responded this is a double faced sign and for example the word living will be an illuminated box. It will be a single faced sign mounted to the main structure. The only thing that will light up will be the word itself, living. It is routed out.

Ms. McBride said I understand what you are saying, but that is not what the drawing says.

Mr. McErlane stated I believe that Sofa Express and More is actually an acrylic total face. For one, I don’t know how well a navy blue Sofa Express routed out of a face will light up at night very well, and the red probably won’t do real well either. I believe it is a white face.

Mr. McErlane added the smaller signs are routed face. Mr. Gleason said I stand corrected; you are exactly right.

Mr. Okum said so the face panel that says Sofa Express and More on the monument sign is all translucent cover and Living Dining and Dreaming are individually routed. Is that correct? Mr. Gleason confirmed this.

Ms. McBride continued the other question has to do with the five-foot block planter on the drawings. One of staff’s questions has been if this goes in, there will be disruption to the landscape bed that the existing sign is in, and what will happen with that; what are they going to replace it with?

The applicant tonight indicated that there wouldn’t be any change to the landscape bed. There would have to be, or you couldn’t put this block planter in. The next question is what is going to go in the block planter, because we don’t have any plants in the planter.

Mr. Gleason answered it will be a gravel base and there will be drain holes inside so if water or snow gets inside, it will drain out. It’s a planter without plants. It is a cosmetic block wall. Rather than come in and start from scratch, I wanted to use the existing steel that is there.

Ms. McBride commented I understand that and I respect that. I think if the commission is going to favorably act on this, you should consider allowing staff to meet with the applicant or review the applicant’s revised landscape plan for the bed that would surround this as well as the plants that will be going into the planter.

Mr. Gleason commented I do not have any problem with that. They have an architect that lay that out, specify those plants and submit it to your staff.

Mr. Okum said I believe the current monument sign is fully surrounded with landscape material, evergreens and so forth.
Mr. Gleason said it is. There is a photograph in the bottom right corner of what is existing.

11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Okum asked the color of the raised split face block planter. Mr. Gleason said it is off white. Mr. Okum commented that seems to be awful stark.

Mr. Gleason responded I don’t think that my customer would have a problem with whatever color you would want as long as it was a masonry look. This 60 inch high wall is really cosmetic; there is no structural integrity for the sign itself.

I also could submit samples or color renderings to whomever for approval prior to this going up. We have no problem with that either.

Mr. Okum said everybody has a copy of staff comments. A copy was sent to Sofa Express regarding the proposal, and the allowed signage for that site is 694 square feet. With the changes you are proposing, you will be up to 1443 s.f. of signage, which is more than twice the allowable. Currently you are at 945 s.f, so you are requesting to go from 945 to 1443 s.f. of signage. In my opinion, that is pretty significant.

I like this design for the site, but I also like the sign that is there now. I don’t have a problem with the sign that is there now. I know that this is more dynamic and more 21st century, but on the other hand I am seeing an increase in signage on that property that is pretty significant for a single business entity in one building. Staff’s analysis is that there is a lot of signage on that building and it sticks out – it jumps out at you. Everybody knows where Sofa Express is in Springdale, and that is good. But on the other hand, you are asking to increase it to 1443 s.f. Do you have a Plan B?

Mr. Gleason said no I don’t. It is a big building with a lot of property, and I didn’t think this size sign would look bad.

Mr. McErlane reported the pylon sign itself is actually getting smaller in square footage over what was previously there. Because we box Sofa Express and More, it bumps the square footage total up.

One of the things that could be done to reduce it a little bit would be to move “And More” over a little bit underneath Sofa Express like it is on the pylon sign. However, I don’t think you can do that on the 275 side because of that red band underneath there. Is that a corporate name change for the stores? Mr. Gleason said yes, this is their new name.

Mr. Butrum commented I think this is similar to some other issues that we have had and it is predominantly because of how we measure signage. My concerns are the height of the pylon sign, nearly 29 feet tall, even though the net is actually coming down.

It is a little bit artificial to look at that huge increase that is there based on the way it is measured. If you look at that page, “And More” is pretty subtle. If we were just here and not looking at it and somebody said the signage is increasing roughly 500 square feet, it is not nearly that bad.
11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Butrum added my bigger concern is that sign is pretty tall now at 24 plus feet and the proposal is to move it up to 29 feet. I like that new pylon sign much better; it is a more contemporary look. I am less worried about the thing that is really causing the jump. The Macy’s sign was a very similar issue. If you looked at what was added there, in some ways it got smaller. I’m not saying this one is getting smaller, but I don’t think it is really adding as much as the measurements would indicate.

Mr. Okum said if you based it on their measurements versus our measurements, you are at 1,116, plus the pylon sign. Mr. Butrum, I don’t disagree because of the mass of the building, but you still would have 1116. Is there any way you can lower that pylon sign?

Mr. Gleason said absolutely. This is one of their best locations, and they want something that looks nice. Mr. Okum said personally I think if you take that block wall out of the picture and bring that sign down into a bed of landscaping; it would be a whole lot better.

Mr. Gleason said I think I can speak for the owners and say that we can eliminate that block wall tonight and move on. They would be happy with that.

Mr. Okum said if I’m right, that would make that sign 23’-8”. Mr. Gleason added actually it would be 24 feet because we don’t actually set the sign on the ground.

Mr. Galster said I don’t have any problem with the “and more” added to the signs. I think visually it looks proportionate. I think the pylon sign is an improvement and if they want to take out the brick base, I’m fine with it.

Mr. McErlane reported there are actually two dimensions on this sign; one says 23’-8” and one says 23’-11”. I picked the 23’-11” and that is the existing height.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the applicant’s request with a total overall pylon height not to exceed 24 feet, with the square footage for the individual signs as shown. This should also include the building signage as submitted, with the understanding that the applicant will need to submit the landscape plan around the pylon to meet staff approval. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

F.    Approval of Right of Way Dedication Plat – Springdale Town Center

Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Mr. Shvegzda reported that this is the consolidation and dedication plat that provides right of way at Kemper and a little corner at Peach and State Route 4 to accommodate the traffic controller box.

All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.
11 OCTOBER 2005


Mr. Galster said the Regional Planning Commission has an opening and I would like to nominate Dave Okum, to submit his name and resume to be placed on the ballot. Mr. Okum said I appreciate that. Mr. Galster said all the resumes will be sent to us and we will vote to decide who will fill the position.

Mr. Okum said I had two items that I thought we might refer to staff to look at. In the 9/25 zoning bulletin on page 8, it had “required setbacks make property development impossible”. I wanted to make sure this wouldn’t be something we would run into on some small parcels within our community.

The other item was that units in excess of 11 families should be covered by PUD requirements. It was a unique way to deal with multi-family. Is that something we might want to consider for our code?

Mr. McErlane reported you would have to evaluate why you think it should be a PUD rather than a multi-family zoning.

Mr. Okum commented the only thing that would tie into this would be the property across Route 4 that could potentially be considered for that type of zoning, the Eades property. Ms. McBride commented it is in the Route 4 Corridor District. Mr. McErlane continued if it came in for a mixed use development, it probably would be a PUD. .

Mr. Galster said at the last meeting City Council did enact legislation to buy the Bings property and a residential home for rehab at 705 Yorkhaven, which has been an eyesore for a long time.


A. Cow Halloween, 11700 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign


Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:37 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,

________________________, 2005    __________________________
                        David Okum, Acting Chairman

________________________, 2005    __________________________
                        Lawrence Hawkins III Secretary