PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 9, 2010
7:00 P.M.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

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


II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Carolyn Ghantous, David Okum, Richard Bauer, Don Darby,
Tom Vanover, Steve Galster, Chairman Tony Butrum

Others Present: Anne McBride, City Planner; William McErlane, Building Official; Don Shvegzda, City Engineer; Pat Madl, Assistant City Engineer


III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 2010

Ms. Ghantous moved to adopt the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting minutes, Mr. Galster seconded the motion and the minutes were adopted with six “aye” votes, (Mr. Vanover abstained).


IV. REPORT ON COUNCIL

Mr. Galster: No report on Council; I did want to make the Planning Commission aware that I did have a communication with Tri-County Towne Center before the meeting just in reference to cross-access agreement and trying to get some input and have a sit-down discussion with City Officials and try to plan for the future in reference to that property and the neighboring property, I did want to disclose that.


V. CORRESPONDENCE

(No correspondence presented at this meeting.)

VI. OLD BUSINESS

A. Chairman Butrum: Item “A” under Old Business, we have Front Room Furniture, the wall sign on beam discussed July 13, 2010.
   
Mary Miller: I am with Branham Sign Company. Front Room could not be here tonight; hopefully we can get things worked out. We submitted an example of what Front Room would like to do, some graphic panels with exterior illumination on them. We reviewed Staff’s letter and they thought the panels were perhaps a little plain, you wanted to see something a little more jazzy out there; we did at the last minute put together another option for the design on the panel (at this time Ms. Miller distributed to each of the Planning Commission Members a handout of the new design.) Front room really needs to keep that beam in place for the future tenant in that building and they want to work with you to get something that is cost effective yet something you will be happy with.

Mr. Galster: The truss work that is over that beam, is that all gone?

Ms. Miller: All that has come down; it has been painted.

Mr. Galster: I kind of originally proposed doing something with that beam so that it could be something other than just a pole sticking out into nowhere; but given the examples that were in our packet but also what we are shown here on this handout, it is not what I had in mind and now that I have seen the beam by itself with the idea that we are waiting for a new tenant, I am having second thoughts about proposing to do anything to that beam. I am leaning toward just leaving it be because I do believe that it changed tremendously when that truss work was eliminated. I don’t think that these two examples are going down a line that I had envisioned and I think I would prefer to see nothing and leave the beam there to be used at some future date for any additional tenant that would go in the building. At least subject to review, at some distant future, a year or two years to see if in fact we have come up with a way of utilizing it without going to the expense of removing it.

(At this time Mr. McErlane and Ms. McBride read their Staff comments.)

Mr. Okum: I tend to agree with the comments. I was thinking back to Steinberg’s; they had a refrigerator, washing machines and sewing machines on the outside of the building. Frankly I looked at the beam and find it to be just a structural element of the building and it doesn’t really serve any purpose in the appearance of it. I would not support any change to it; additionally I would be very concerned about approving a total square footage of 1, 091.75 s.f. in signage on that elevation. I will be making a motion in a positive nature to bring it to the floor once we get to the point of deciding on it.

Mr. Galster: Speaking for the applicant, do you have any issue if in fact the signs are withdrawn and the beam is allowed to remain as is?

Ms. Miller: They would be very happy.

Mr. Galster: Not to try to create an additional burden on the applicant, in putting another time frame for review of this, I don’t know if that even needs to happen.

Chairman Butrum: You would want it maintained in its current state?

Mr. Galster: Yes, until such time that there is another use.

Mr. Okum: I would like to make a motion that we approve Front Room Furniture at 11750 Commons Drive, signage that was originally permitted to be placed on the structural beam that extends out from the masonry building, not be replaced and that the structural beam shall remain in its location and painted as it currently exists without signage.
Mr. Galster seconded the motion and with a unanimous “aye” vote from the Planning Commission Members the motion was approved.


B. Chairman Butrum: The next item of Old Business on the agenda, Tri-County Towne
landscaping at 11711 Princeton Pike; this was tabled September 14, 2010.

Mr. Rick Gilhart: We have landscaping that we are trying to get approved for the main part of the shopping center and we ask that you also look at a sign change that we have for a message board. This is a minor change to the PUD for Tri-County Towne Center. The representatives for us in the audience tonight are some of the Gilhart family, Lou Santoro and some of the tenant representatives and contractor representatives. The proposed changes that we talked about last time were the addition of 11 landscaped areas, 7 benches and 10 waste receptacles; the addition of pedestrian cross-walks and vehicle direction stripes in front of the former Border’s store adjacent to Kemper Road and removal of 4 old existing landscaping islands at the end of the parking row along the east elevation of the main building. The other item we wanted to have changed was to replace the existing message display sign panels with individual tenant sign panels on the existing Princeton Pike pole sign.
(Mr. Rick Gilhart and Mr. Clark Gilhart presented a short Power Point presentation.)

(Mr. McErlane, Ms. McBride and Mr. Shvegzda read their Staff comments.)

Mr. Okum: Mr. Gilhart, the last discussion we had was to try to bring some exposure to the businesses that don’t face 747 and we had quite a bit of discussion on additional signage that your investors and family want to put on the back side of that building; my strongest feelings about the purpose of that sign is to enhance that outbuilding on the site. I foresee you coming back again for more signage for that building again and that concerns me. We also discussed bringing the sign down lower to a monument or lower sign and you basically kept it up pretty high. I still have a feeling that it is going to obstruct the view of your digital sign and there is going to be some negative effect to that and I am not sure of that.

Mr. Rick Gilhart: Currently, yes it does block and as we move it the line of site would be pretty clear, if not completely clear is what we are thinking.

Mr. Okum: Is there a reason that it needs to be up as high as it is?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: That was what was approved and what was concluded.

Mr. Okum: I seem to recall bringing it down to a monument sign to focus on those businesses.

Mr. Rick Gilhart: I am sorry, people tampering with it was the reason to have it “X” amount of feet in the air.

Mr. Clark Gilhart: I think we based the height off of the Princeton Bowl sign because in the past years they had problems with people stealing letters and putting gum on the sign.

Mr. Okum: The only other question I have is there has been comment from several people outside of these Chambers from the public in regards to the Bowling Alley relocating into that building; it is not part of this submission but would that relocation of the Bowling Alley or new retail tenant into that building be utilized on that sign?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: That, I don’t know and I don’t know about the relocation as far as timing, if it is going to happen, when it is going to happen, we are not sure.

Mr. Okum: Let’s go back to the space that is unoccupied in that building, where is that signage going to go?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: A new tenant I assume would be on the back because it is permitted.

Mr. Okum: That would be the only signage that you think that business would need?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: I don’t know that for a fact; maybe on this board or maybe on the big board if a different one comes down, I don’t know that. The reason we have three blank panels is that we currently have three potential tenants looking at our shopping center right now. The people who are looking at our center have this picture and before we even made that picture up, they demanded that they have signage out on the main road – Princeton Pike as part of their lease negotiations.

Mr. Clark Gilhart: One brief note, one difference from the prior moving of the sign, is basically at the last meeting we said because it is a message board we were not going to do a landscape island because we needed to get a scissor lift up there to change letters; we also propose a landscape island on this, something decorative.

Mr. Okum: The other sign on Kemper Road is going to be built, as well?

Mr. Clark Gilhart: Correct, it is going to get the stone work as per what we asked for last time.

Mr. Okum: It still has changeable content?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: Correct.

Mr. Galster: It is kind of my understanding that this sign will take away, for at least the near future, the continued request for off-site signage on the back of the building?

Mr. Clark Gilhart: Yes, this is kind of a compromise; a solution.

Mr. Galster: We would anticipate that if in fact this sign is approved, that we won’t see additional submittals for off-site signage on the back of that building?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: Correct, yes.

Mr. Galster: That was my understanding that if we were to allow this to happen we would eliminate the continued requests for the off-premise signs and give the exposure to those tenants that were submitting those applications. I also have a concern about the white panels and I would need to make part of this motion that if there is a changeover in tenants that these panels do not remain white or flipped around.

Mr. Rick Gilhart: Yes, they look horrible.

Mr. Galster: Right now your height is 16’; do we have any idea if that 16’ is actually level with the roadway?

Ms. McBride: The 16’ is from the base of the sign, which is below grade. It shows that top of that gray is labeled as asphalt grade and that would be the asphalt that the sign is located on.

Mr. Galster: So, do we know what that dimension is or how much of a grade that is from 747, how tall is the sign?

Mr. Clark Gilhart: Not off-hand.

Mr. Galster: How much of a difference is the 747 grade to the bottom of that sign?

Ms. McBride: Three to four feet.

Mr. Galster: I am also concerned about the overall height and I am just trying to visualize what it is going to seem like at the street, because I don’t know that it needs to be that tall in that location to be effective. I think it will be more effective at a lower height.

Ms. Ghantous: It will seem like 12’.

Mr. Clark Gilhart: I believe that the Princeton Bowl sign at the entrance of 747 is 8’ in height and I believe that is right at road grade. We did take a scissor lift and took a 7’ board and raised it up to this height to get a visual representation for ourselves.

Mr. Galster: The height is a concern for me; I am thinking 6’ to 8’ – quite a ways up there compared to what we were talking about at our last meeting.

Mr. Okum: I was thinking more of a monument-type sign, but on the other hand I still like to have the idea that you can see through it, and that is a positive, I think.

Mr. Rick Gilhart: We did everything we could to decide on a correct height, because we don’t want anything too high or bulky that would interfere with the other sign. We want the correct dimension and in the correct place.

Mr. Clark Gilhart: Was this height previously approved for the move, because I was thinking it was similar dimensions that we had before?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: Yes, we are approved for the current move and the height and everything; it is just that we are changing the sign panels to this, versus the other.
Mr. Galster: Originally when we approved the relocation of that sign, was it moving all the way to the north, as this one is predicted?

Mr. Clark Gilhart: It is actually going to be back several feet from what is superimposed here on the picture.

Mr. Galster: Is that the same location that you are proposing?

Mr. Clark Gilhart: Correct, yes.

Mr. Galster: Where we vacated the parking spaces pulling into the Skeffington's, can we get that cleaned up and re-marked so that intersection works properly?

Mr. Clark Gilhart: We believe that the option is to just get rid of them and put the three parallel spots in.

Mr. Galster: Can you work out the stripes / lines with the City Engineer?

Mr. Rick Gilhart: We met with Mr. Shvegzda a few months ago and we talked about spacing and I think he said we had 81’ there to get three stalls in.

Mr. Shvegzda: Yes.

Mr. Galster: Right now we just have burned off lines and the roadway needs to be reconfigured to use that space as it was intended.

Mr. Shvegzda: Yes, to designate the parking spaces plus the actual remaining space for the drive aisle.

Mr. Okum: I sat there the other day and ate lunch watching the cars turning; there wasn’t one car that didn’t make that left turn there that didn’t swing into where all those parking spaces were. If we could have some of the same planter effect that they are placing on the rest of the development in that area; in addition to some parking spaces that would be permitted.

Mr. Rick Gilhart: I think part of that, and I think Mr. Galster mentioned, is trying to figure out cross-access through there.

Mr. Galster: It was my understanding that part of the “L” was going to be brought forth in an additional stage for landscaping, because we were talking about outdoor dining and all that. Even though I think it is important for them to look at that when they submit that phase, it was my understanding that pretty much the main building was all that they were landscaping now and there was going to be additional landscaping on the restaurant side building, no disrespect to Red Squirrel. I don’t have any trouble waiting until that part of it happens.

Mr. Bauer: What we agreed to before, this is in the same location and the same height but the dimensions are a little bit different. We are putting panel signs on, is that correct?

Mr. Galster: That is correct.

Ms. McBride: I will suggest that you might want to put into any motion, that the applicant work with Staff to achieve a suitable landscaping plan for the base of that sign.

Mr. Okum: I would like to make a motion to approve Tri-County Towne Center, 11711 Princeton Pike for landscaping planters as submitted and approved by Staff; which includes walkways, crosswalks and furniture items and the final review by Staff. I move also to approve the pole sign nearest the entrance near Eye-Mart entrance drive, the additional sign panels shall eliminate off-site signage that has been previously submitted and requested to this Commission. Change in tenant use shall not allow blank sign panels. Panels shall convey typical retail space information and may contain other “on this development site” information. Landscaping for the base of the sign shall be reviewed and approved by Staff.
Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and with a unanimous “aye” vote the request was approved.


VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Chairman Butrum: Moving on to item “A”, Thompson Thrift Phase II development Plan at 1 – 65 East Kemper Road.

Mr. Chris Hake: I am with Thompson Thrift Development, joined by my teammate Ashlee Boyd and also our Civil Engineer with MSP Engineer, Richard Arnold. We are here to seek Planning Commission approval on Phase II of our Springdale Pointe Development. In February of this year we obtained approval on Phase I of our development; Phase I included the free-standing Vitamin Shoppe building located on .679 acre former BP parcel, that did have an expansion pad next to it. We are here tonight to seek to enter what we call Phase II of our development which would increase the 3500 Vitamin Shoppe building into 11,200 s.f. multi-tenant building. We would increase the overall size parcel, which would bring us a total of one parcel equaling .94 acres. We would also want to enclose the one access point on Kemper Road and then share an access point that Skyline Chili currently utilizes and the Tiffany Glass. Our expansion of the building would feature the same architectural design and materials of this Phase I, we would just be expanding the building by 7,700 s.f. We would enter into cross-access agreements with all the current tenants that would be on the 3.2 acre parcel being Skyline, our self and Ponderosa. Phase II of this project is 100% leased right now; National Credit tenants.

(At this time Mr. McErlane, Ms. McBride and Mr. Shvegzda read their Staff comments.)

Mr. Bauer: Looking at your display tonight, the dumpster location, has that changed?

Mr. Hake: Yes, it has moved around just a little bit.

Mr. Bauer: In the back driveway there are a couple indentations that I see there on the curb, can you explain what those are?

Mr. Shvegzda: If I recall right, those are indentations for existing catch basins.

Mr. Okum: Is that all level pavement back there, a flat sidewalk all the way across?

Mr. Hake: As I understand it would go through the sidewalk so that the water does not spill out onto the sidewalk and get wet and freeze on the sidewalk.

Mr. Okum: So, the walkway is continuous without any interruption, and there is not a depression that you would be walking down into?

Mr. Richard Arnold: There is no sidewalk where that 5-R is. The western ingress / egress door, you walk out and make a right hand turn and there is a 5’ landing right there. Beyond that 5’ landing, to the west is all green area.

Mr. Okum: The parapet or the elevated section is different on the display brought tonight, and there is a red band; is that an inset band?

Mr. Hake: I don’t think it is inset very far.

Mr. Okum: And will it be illuminated?

Mr. Hake: No.

Mr. Okum: Will the extension height, that space be illuminated?

Mr. Hake: It is not intended to be.

Mr. Okum: Mr. Shvegzda, that “Do not enter” sign is a little bold and it seems to be very high and out of proportion, when you come in off of Kemper Road.

Mr. Shvegzda: It will only be in the back corner.

Mr. Okum: So that one will be gone, I am fine then.

Chairman Butrum: The color on the raised parapet in the display tonight looks different from what was submitted.

Mr. Hake: What was submitted is accurate.
We have worked with Staff over the last couple of weeks and one thing we wanted to touch on, Staff commented that they wanted to make sure that these parcels would be combined; that is absolutely our intention that they would be one parcel. We talked with Staff a little bit about curb cut on Kemper Road; they wanted to see that widened out to be 26’. Talking with our Engineer, we are going to have some issues with widening that out more than it is right now; we would like to look at keeping it the same.

Mr. Shvegzda: I guess the concern would be that it would be a more frequently used driveway; 23’ is on the narrow side for that but you said 24’.

Mr. Hake: We are going to pare it back.

Chairman Butrum: You said that it would put you at 17.9’, roughly?

Mr. Hake: Yes.

Mr. Shvegzda: What was the reason again for not being able to widen it at Kemper Road?

Mr. Arnold: There is an existing apron and an existing trench drain; there is water that comes off of Kemper Road and flows across that apron into that trench drain. When you have something that works well right now from a drainage standpoint; I don’t think it will be a significant impact on motorists.

Mr. Shvegzda: I guess one saving grace in that location, as far as the width, we do have the center median there so it is right in and right out; there is no left turn traffic occurring there.

Mr. Okum: We will have more people exiting, than we currently have and I would anticipate more cars sitting there to turn right to pull out?

Mr. Shvegzda: In either scenario one thing that should be included would be some type of center line to make sure people don’t encroach a little towards the middle of the drive; to help them stay right.

Mr. Okum: Frankly, I would like to see that opened wider than the 23’, for sure, and I think the 26’, I believe is limited. We need to have at least lines and delineation to keep people narrow but the drive lane is only 11’-6”; you are turning into an 11’-6” drive lane of space and that is fairly tight.

Mr. Arnold: If the concern is the motorist entering in off of Kemper Road and not so much the motorist’s egress out of the site, I would suggest that we would make the entering lane 12’ and an 11’ lane for the people coming out. The current code allows 22’ right now and I understand 24’ is preferred but we have an existing condition that we really don’t want to mess up.

Mr. Shvegzda: Basically offset the center line so that we have a little bit extra for the inbound traffic; that would certainly help.

Mr. Okum: I hear some hesitation from you, Mr. Shvegzda, and I think you feel that this should be wider?

Mr. Shvegzda: Ultimately 24’ is the better situation but it doesn’t mean that something less than that won’t function, granted there is not as much traffic today.

Mr. Hake: Mr. Chairman, we will get 24’ done and we can still offset, if that would please the Commission.

Chairman Butrum: So, you are talking offsetting 13’ and 11’; or what?

Mr. Hake: We can work with Staff.

Chairman Butrum: That is o.k.

Mr. Galster: We require 24’ in drive aisles, why wouldn’t we have it at the entry? It seems like that would be more critical and should be wider, not less. I am glad it’s worked out.

Mr. Okum: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to approve the Springdale Pointe
at 1 – 65 E. Kemper Road, Phase II with improvements as submitted to include
pages 1 – 17 and dated October 29th, 2010 and additional support information provided by the applicant. This motion includes Staff’s review and considerations with the recommendation from this Commission for approval of the specified variances by the Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Springdale. Requirement for tree replacement shall be held by covenant or deed restriction, as recommended in Staff’s comments Item #7; the green space requirement shall require a deed of restriction or covenant as recommended by Staff. All other recommendations by Staff shall be included, with the exception of the drive entry off Kemper Road, which shall be allowed to maintain a 24’ width with offsetting aisle widths to allow easier access to the development off Kemper Road.

Chairman Butrum: You are referring specifically to Bill’s considerations?

Mr. Okum: Yes, because of involved covenants and deeds.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and with a unanimous affirmative vote from all of the Planning Commission Members the request was granted.
   


VIII. DISCUSSION

Chairman Butrum: Moving on to Discussion, we have under Item “A”, revisions to Water Management Sediment Control Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations.

Mr. Shvegzda: Basically, one of the issues that we have in regards to the Storm Water Permit that the City has and approved with OEPA is it notes that the City will incorporate certain aspects of water quality provisions into the regulations by the end of the year. That goal is what we are involved with, in regards to the revisions both to the subdivision requirements and storm water management plan. There are several aspects to the revisions that are being proposed; one does involve specifically the MPDES provisions and the other part is just dealing with housekeeping issues and they consist of many different types. There are certain aspects of the subdivision requirements that deal with narrative descriptions of typical sections and, that kind of thing, that we are going to revise into actual standard construction drawing, typical sections. There are aspects of some of the storm water criteria that is out of date that addresses the newer software to do the analysis, and what we will need to have to review that. That is a summary of the housekeeping issues, the specific items that deal with the MPDES requirements which are basically water quality items, Mr. Madl from our office has been working with that and I would like to ask him to go through a summary of those for you and see if you have any questions on that. The ultimate goal would be for Planning Commission to review and ask to be brought before Council for final adoption. Both of these we have reviewed with the Law Director and there are numerous changes to that so these would be both basically new documents, as opposed to bits and pieces being revised.

Mr. Galster: Basically, these changes are, other than the housekeeping ones, changes that we are required to make in order to be in compliance; is that correct?

Mr. Shvegzda: That is correct.

Mr. Galster: I don’t see why we need to have a debate or a presentation if we need to make these changes in order to be in compliance. The City of Springdale entered into its own water quality management program with one other city.

Mr. Shvegzda: We are on our own.

Mr. Galster: We are on our own as opposed to all of Hamilton County, and in order for us to continue to effectively do that we need to make sure that we constantly update and comply with all the ramifications of MPDES Phase II or Phase III, once that happens; is that correct?

Mr. Shvegzda: That is correct. However, it will effect the different developments that come before us in regards to what needs to be a part of their plans.

Mr. Galster: I understand, and you will make sure that you will point those out to the applicant and it will be part of their code as to what they need to submit when they apply to come before us?

Mr. Shvegzda: Absolutely.

Mr. Galster: And any place that they are lacking, you will let us know when you give us your report?

Mr. Shvegzda: That is correct.

Mr. Galster: Not that I don’t respect and admire the work that you do, but I don’t see that there is a reason for us to waste anybody’s time to do something that we have to do to be in compliance.
I move to approve the changes as submitted by CDS, in order for us to remain in compliance, and the housekeeping items as noted; to incorporate not only these changes but any subsequently effective subparagraphs and subchapters of our codified ordinances that may need housekeeping in order to stay current with this change and other regulatory utilities under Item “B” on 150.14; upon approval to submit to Springdale City Council for their recommendation.

Mr. McErlane: One additional comment on this; if you note one of the changes that is taking place, that we are changing the subdivision regulations to the land development regulations. There are possible references to the subdivision regulations and other portions of our codified ordinances that we need to find and make sure they get changed.

Mr. Galster: So, I can make my motion to incorporate not only these changes but any subsequently effective subparagraphs and subchapters of our codified ordinances that may need housekeeping in order to stay current with this change?

Mr. McErlane: Correct.

Mr. Okum: I second the motion.
I also have a question; this is consistent with other communities and other code in other communities, so we are not just out there on our own?

Mr. Madl: Everybody’s updates may be slightly different but it is consistent with the requirements that EPA has set forth as part of the permit that the city has acquired through the EPA, but I would say 95% to 98% is probably very consistent.

Mr. Darby: Just for clarification; is there anything that was to be included in your presentation that this group could say “No” to?

Mr. Madl: Not really; what I was going to do is use a previous project as an example of how it would be different, but it will come up on a project by project basis.

Mr. Darby: Thank you.

(With a unanimous affirmative vote from the Springdale Planning Commission Members the request for revisions with conditions to Water Management Sediment Control Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations was approved to be submitted to the Springdale City Council for their recommendation.)
   


IX. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

Chairman Butrum: I approved one wall sign at CKC Good Food, 139 West Kemper Road.



X. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn; Mr. Galster seconded and with seven “aye”
votes from the Planning Commission Members, the meeting adjourned at
8:40 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________, 2010 ___________________________________
            Chairman Tony Butrum


________________________, 2010 ___________________________________
                Richard Bauer, Secretary