7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David

Okum, Robert Seaman, James Young and Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent: Councilman Tom Vanover (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator (arrived at 7:25 p.m.)

William McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner


Mr. Okum moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. All present

voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that the public hearing for Pictoria Island will be held March 3rd.

    3. 1/13/99 Letter to Randy Danbury, President of Council recommending
    4. Pictoria Island

    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė December 15, 1998
    6. Planning Commissioners Journal Ė Winter 1999
    7. Zoning Bulletin Ė January 25, 1999

Mr. Syfert said eight of us attended the Ohio Planning Conference a week ago Friday, four from this Commission. I have the complete booklet if any of you who didnít attend would like to look at it. I thought it was a very very good meeting, and I thank Anne and her firm and the others who put it on.

    1. Conditional Use Permit Alphabet Soup (Day Care Center) 11285 Springfield Pike

Mr. Syfert reported that this as advertised in the Cincinnati Enquirer and the neighbors were notified, so there will be a Public Hearing a little later in the proceedings.

Tammy Barnett stated I have had an opportunity to look over the recommendations, and in terms of number one, we are looking to isolate some area for pick up and drop off. On number two, the playground area being relocated and redesigned to exclude inclusion of the trash dumpster, John Blanton will speak on that.

Mr. Syfert asked her to outline what they were planning to do and weíll work with staff reports later. Ms. Barnett stated we have changed the name from Alphabet Soup to Creative Kids World. It is myself and my partner looking to go into this business together.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Two


Ms. Barnett added my partner has five to 10 years in the day care industry and I have management background. We plan 92 students in five classrooms, one head teacher in each classroom, two teacherís assistants, one full time receptionist and two full time directors. We are looking to open on September 7th, and right now we are being licensed. Part of the process is getting approval for the property.

Mr. Syfert called on Ms. McBride for her report. Ms. McBride stated that there was no summary provided in terms of square footage of the total building or the day care center portion. Scaling off, we came up with 9,120 s.f. for use as the day7 care center. It also would include a 2,300 square foot outdoor play area.

The property is zoned OB Office Building, which does not specifically permit day care centers as a principal permitted use. However, they can be considered as a conditional use within that district. Additionally the property is located within SubArea D of our Corridor Review District.

The applicant is proposing to eliminate a total of 12 parking spaces on the northwest corner of the site to accommodate the playground area. Based on the 22,200 square feet of total building area, it would require a total of 114 parking spaces. Right now they have 139 spaces and even without the 12 they are proposing to lose, they would still be in compliance.

We expressed some concern about the provision for a drop off and pick up area. This is a peak hour generator and some provision needs to be made for this.

Our other concern has to do with the outdoor playground area which is located in the northwest corner of the parking area. It is currently proposed to be adjacent to the existing trash dumpster. In fact the enclosed fenced area includes a 15 foot 6" wide truck path to service the trash dumpster through the playground area. In addition to that there is a 12 foot drive proposed for the south side of the playground area. Both these create a very unsuitable environment for an outdoor childís playground area. We would rather the dumpster be relocated east of the proposed play area with the playground area being behind the dumpster so there is no contact between the children the dumpster and the trash truck.

There were no proposed changes to the signage for the building, to the building elevations to the landscape plan or to the lighting plan.

Mr. Galster said even if they moved the dumpster in front, is it still a paved playground area? Will that all be blacktop or another surface?

John Blanton of Toensmeyer answered the existing blacktop would be utilized to some extent. However, we are considering laying down a bed of mulch under the play equipment to provide some support should the children fall. We feel the need to leave some of the parking area so they have the ability to play different types of games.

Mr. Galster wondered if they had considered moving the play area. Mr. Blanton responded we have evaluated the site, and this seemed to be the most appropriate places for it. It was around the back side of the building, it met the setbacks from the residential area (50 feet required Ė we have 80). We did maintain the existing dumpster site to try to realize some cost savings, not realizing how you would perceive this. We understand the dumpster would come through the playground area either early in the morning or very late in the evening so there would not be any children on the site at the time of the dumpster removal. However, if this is a strong recommendation to move the dumpster, we are willing to do it.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Three


Mr. Blanton added we like the idea of placing the dumpster before you get to the playground, leaving the playground where it is and locate the dumpster somewhere before you get to it.

Mr. Galster said what about Ms. McBrideís comment on the drive that comes down the south side of the playground. Do you need to have that be there? Mr. Blanton reported we wanted to provide enough space between the sidewalk and the playground so J & R Coordinated Services could actually have a drop off for deliveries through the back side of the building. On the existing sidewalk before you get to the drive, we provided a curb cut and 3 four foot high concrete filled ballards that would stop a vehicle from behind able to cross into the pedestrian path. The childrenís entry gate would go to the existing sidewalk, a clear path. Vehicles should not be able to get back into that area. They would be stopped by these ballards.

David Cawdrey of Cline Realtors representing General Revenue Corporation who owns the building said a lot of careful thought was put into the plan in that right now the dumpster is shielded and completely surrounded on three sides by a brick wall and landscaping. One of the reasons we chose to leave the dumpster there was because it was so nicely screened; it was not visible from the parking lot or Springfield Pike. We thought that was an enhancement to the community. We had looked at bringing that dumpster forward; we are happy to do that if that is your recommendation. The reason we put the gates there is we knew the trash pickup would only be very early in the morning or late in the evening. Ms. Barnett has agreed that she never would have children in that area during those times. A maximum of 24 children would ever utilize that area at any one time.

Mr. Galster wondered if the gates would always be open and Mr. Cawdrey answered no, they would always be closed. They wouldnít necessarily be locked unless it is the recommendation of Planning, and we could give a key to the trash collector and keep it locked.

The parking lot actually has 168 parking spaces, and we are proposing to eliminate probably 11. The actual square footage of the building is 21,600, so we almost have a parking ratio of 7.9 spaces per thousand gross rentable square feet. I believe that is almost twice the code requirement (4 spaces per 1,000 s.f.)

Mr. Okum commented I would be very uncomfortable about relocating the dumpster closer to the street. This is an adequate location and it is screened properly. I rarely see dumpster gates shut; they are showing three sets of gates for the dumpster people to shut, and I sincerely think that would not be done. Was there any consideration to putting the playground area in the rear of the building?

Mr. Cawdrey answered there was, and one of the problems is there is a large drainage catch basin exactly behind the space where the day care center would be. It also is closer to a residential area. We tried to put it in a location that would be more isolated further away from the residential area and especially away from this large catch basin. The drainage goes right into the center of the rear portion of the property. We also have a mounded system to keep the water from going into the residential area.

Mr. Okum commented I understand that it would take some site work to correct that. Mr. Cawdrey answered substantial site work which would be cost prohibitive and it would be closer to the residential area. Mr. Okum said but there is 90 feet there and the requirements are 50 feet. With ample screening and some landscaping, you already have a tree line that is almost 40 feet deep.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Four


Mr. Blanton commented from the back of the building to where the grade starts to pick up it is 20 feet. I was advised that we need to keep the sidewalk clear so all tenants can utilize that. So we would have to start the actual playground past the sidewalk and go into the earth area. We are talking about at least a couple of feet of vertical height we would have to excavate and more than likely we would have to relocate or alter the actual catch basin. It is cost prohibitive for both parties and there is a concern for the children. When you have an area that has a tendency to have drainage problems, I would be concerned about water standing. Mr. Okum responded I donít disagree with that; I just donít see why you would leave it in that condition if it needs to be an improved surface. You have a dumpster truck driving through the playground also. Safety of children has been compromised by what you have planned to do.

Mr. Blanton responded this is probably not a whole lot different than a school where they have a playground and dumpsters on the playground. Mr. Okum commented I donít believe I would approve a playground with a dumpster truck going through it.

Mr. Cawdrey added GRC firsts built this building in 1988. I have been working on this project for the last year, but when I first started, I discovered that the residents on the street had considerable problems with storm water drainage going into their back yards. GRC in an effort to correct this, had spent a considerable amount of money putting this catch basin in and making the earthen mounds so that the water wouldnít flow towards the residential back yards of these three homes. That was done as a response to those residential concerns and we thought rather than change something that already had been corrected, the best location would be this area off the parking lot and away from the main traffic areas. Mr. Okum asked if those improvements were made after the development was built, and Mr. Cawdrey answered that they were.

Mr. McErlane reported there were drainage problems that existed before the building was built for the properties on Naylor Court. When the building was built it created some of its own drainage problems, not particularly pertaining to the properties behind it but I think it was flooded at one time prior to putting the storm drains in.

Mr. Okum commented there are no retaining walls along the back property; it is all mounding. Mr. McErlane stated the grading that occurred on the property stopped 20 to 30 feet behind the building. There is a swale that runs south to north to get water into the detention basin. Most of the grading occurred between the building and 30 feet beyond the building.

Mr. Okum said I can see Sheldon Rederís property being affected by an emergency exit area being blocked along the sidewalk. They could have a sidewalk off to the front parking lot on the south side as well to give them emergency egress. Besides that J & R Services would not be impacted in any way, because the playground would be behind this property. If the playground were elongated and kept within the boundaries of the dotted line area, they probably would have a 20 to 25 foot depth for the playground. They could screen it with additional landscaping and trees that would help noise, get the playground from the front or side of the building and eliminate the dumpster issue.

As it stands now, that issue with the playground area, the dumpster location and no provisions for a turn around or drop off area for children, I would like to see a lot more before I would be willing to vote in favor of it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Five


Mr. Vanover commented I would be more concerned about the residue that the dumpster trucks typically leave. You still have that driveway where there will be deliveries and the potential of small children and vehicles interacting. I am not overly excited about bringing the dumpster further up, but with proper screening it could be fit in front of that area. That driveway is a concern.

Mr. Seaman wondered how often the trash is collected from the dumpster, and Mr. Cawdrey answered to the best of my knowledge it is once a week, between 7 and 8 a.m. in the morning. Mr. Seaman commented and typically that wouldnít be a normal outside time for a day care center

Mr. Seaman continued I donít see a problem with that. I like the fact that the dumpster is already enclosed, well screened and landscaped. The big thing is you have bollards to stop traffic at the sidewalk. I think you have tried to make the most of the existing site and investment. I do have a concern with provision for drop off and pick up that I think you need to address.

What is the purpose of the three gates? Mr. Cawdrey answered the gate on the dumpster is already existing and we will be putting two control gates to contain the play area. Mr. Blanton added there is actually three to five feet of separation between the back side of the playground and the front of the dumpster, so there is no contact for the children.

Mr. Seaman stated I personally donít have a major concern with the plan as it is except for the drop off pick up issue. My sense is that if we forced you to try to relocate this to the rear, the project wouldnít go, and I think you have tried to address the majority of the concerns.

Mr. Cawdrey stated the private entrance for the day care center, which we didnít mark, will be the center entrance of the building. Those parking spaces will be designated for the use of the tenant. Those will be reserved spaces for drop off and pick up.

Mr. Syfert said so you are going to reconstruct the entire front area and take out the handicap ramp? Iím not concerned about the parking spaces; Iím concerned about how you are going to do it. Mr. Cawdrey answered they would have the first row of parking next to their front door for drop off and pick up. So, these children would walk immediately from their car to a sidewalk and into the front door. When they approach the playground area, they will always leave out of the rear, walk down the sidewalk to the play area and through a controlled gate. They would never interact in this parking area with traffic. As many spaces as the tenant would like would be allocated for their needs. They are the only ones who would be using the center entrance.

Mr. Seaman added I have first hand experience at Triangle Office Park in dropping off and picking up my daughter. They had a similar situation with shared parking and a designated drop off-pick up only. At times I still had to park a little bit away, but I really never observed an unsafe situation where the children were concerned.

Mr. Galster asked Ms. McBride what she envisioned as a safe drop off. Parents get out of their cars and take them inside. Iím trying to envision what you are looking for, other than a designated spot to be aware of. MS. McBride answered that is fine, but the applicant didnít indicate anything, and we didnít know if all three users were going to be using that center entrance, rather than just the day care as indicated tonight.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Six


Mr. Galster wondered if there were any cross access between the tenants in the building, and Mr. Cawdrey answered that there was none, adding that Sheldon-Reder is a CPA firm with seven CPAs in 6,000 square feet. They have a support staff of another six so a maximum of 13 people would be using the south entrance. J & R Coordinating Services does test marketing for Procter & Gambleís baked goods. They have people coming in late in the evening and on the weekends, the exact opposite times that the day care would be operating, Monday through Friday 7 to 6 p.m. This parking lot is not utilized anywhere near to its capacity.

Mr. Galster said my point is if we designate those as drop off points, I donít have a problem with the drop off area. As day cares go, I think this is fairly typical. The more I think about the drive through for the dumpster, providing they have a key so the gates are locked, I donít have a major problem with that. I do have a problem with the driveway. Even if you are going to have the ballards, basically you have kids coming around the corner into a driveway. The posts may stop the vehicles, but they donít stop the kids going between them. Iíd like to either have the driveway eliminated or move it to the other side. If for some reason it does need to stay there, I would like to see the entrance fence extended to at least up to the sidewalk area so the kids are not tempted to be in the parking lot and have access to the cars.

Mr. Blanton responded I think that is a good idea of putting another fence from the northwest corner of the building to the playground with a gate on the sidewalk.

Mr. Cawdrey added one of the reasons we maintained this space was to keep it away from the existing tenant. We wanted to make sure that everyone had the quiet enjoyment of their own space. Putting the playground closer to their space didnít seem to solve that problem. Mr. Galster commented just donít let cars back there. Mr. Cawdrey responded I think that is a good idea; we can put a gate up to make sure that no cars come through there. That is a reasonable solution.

Mr. Galster added I would even be amicable to saying half the distance that you are showing that drive to be, that being as far back as a car could go and sod in the rest of it. You would have them away from the tenant with a much safer situation.

Addressing Mr. Cawdrey, Mr. Huddleston said you indicated there are 168 parking spaces. We can only go by what is shown on your site plan, which is 139. I donít know who is right or wrong, but we can only go with what is on the plan.

I have a real problem with the outside play area. What are you required by law to have? Ms. Barnett answered 35 square feet per child, and we have 92 students. Mr. Blanton added there would be a maximum of 24 children out there at any given time, one class at a time.

Mr. Huddleston added I think the use is fine for the property, subject to some things being worked out. I have a real problem with that being in the dumpster location. Who knows what comes out of those dumpsters. I think that is a bad situation. I think the quality of the operator can make a difference, but we donít know long term what the quality of that operation will be. That is no reflection on anybody here this evening. To that extent Iíd prefer to do something in a more linear fashion along the back of the building. I think it is a cobbled up kind of access. I recognize you are trying to deal with the issue, but I donít like the result of it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Seven


Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane. Mr. McErlane reported I outlined where we are coming from in terms of conditional use permit. *It is not a primary permitted use in an OB District, but there is a section within the code that allows for educational type uses to be in any district except residential with a conditional use permit. As far as the discrepancy in square footages between what Ms. McBride had and what I have, I think I roughed it out a lot rougher than she did. Maybe the applicant can clarify what square footage we are talking about. Mr. Cawdrey stated there is 9,001 square feet in the day care center and the total square footage of the building is 21,600 square feet.

Mr. Syfert stated we have had the applicantís comments and comments from the staff. This was publicized as a public hearing and I would like to open it at this time. Prior to doing that I would like to state that this is a public hearing, and all testimony given in cases pending before this commission are to be made part of the public record. As such, each citizen testifying before the commission is directed to sign in take his place at the podium and state his name address and the nature of the variance. Be advised that all testimony and discussion relative to said issue is recorded. It is from this recording that our minutes are taken.

Mike Sharkey, 355 Naylor Court gave each member of the commission a copy of his comments.

My name is Mike Sharkey. My family and I have lived at 355 Naylor Court in Springdale for 26 years.

When we moved here this was a residential neighborhood and it seems that this is no longer the case.

We have had problems with the GRC Corporate Center since it was built. We were told that this would be a one-story building with a computer business that would not be a problem to the people living in its vicinity.

Looking at this building, you can see that it is not exactly a small, one-story structure. Our back yard has become a swamp because our drainage was ruined by its construction. Impeding the natural flow of water is illegal.

I complained about this problem to Mr. Bill McErlane for years. He came out several times but never informed us when he was coming and so we were never home to discuss this problem with him in person. Several years ago, the owner of the building was told in a letter by Mr. McErlane to clean up the debris on their property to help this problem but this has not been done.

Also the original plans called for a 30 foot buffer zone of greenery on the GRC property to separate the two homes adjoining it and thus separating the business from residential areas. Instead, the owners of the building cut down this greenery and there is no buffer zone.

We were told there would be no detrimental impact to the neighborhood after this building was completed. This has not been the case.

All of us in the neighborhood are often awakened at about 4:00 in the morning when the BFI truck comes to empty the dumpsters for this building and other neighborhood businesses. Why havenít we complained about it? Why bother, probably nothing would be done.

What ever happened to our RESIDENTIAL neighborhood? This building is also very close to many Maple Knoll condos. It seems that people who LIVE in this neighborhood take second place to GRC Corporate Center.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Eight


Statement from Mike Sharkey, 355 Naylor Court Ė continued

Will promises be made about this day care center that will never be kept? That seems to be the pattern so far.

Our concerns about this proposed day care center are:

    1. We love children and I wonder where their outside play area will be? Will it be fenced in so that they are safe? The back area may not be feasible because it is often soggy after it rains a lot.
    2. How many children will be there? Will they start with 25 or so and then eventually expand to 100?
    3. What are the future plans? There are now other businesses renting space there. It doesnít seem plausible to us that the other tenants would want to share the facilities with the day care children and their talking, playing, music and games. Will the entire building eventually become a day care center?
    4. What is considered "conditional use"? It all started with a computer business and now weíre talking day care center. Will it all someday evolve into a flea market?

I have been dealing with problems concerning GRC all these years. The owner has never contacted me or tried to address my concerns. Even the 30 foot green buffer zone mandated before construction was not done. I am tired of dealing with the problems associated with this building.

This is why I have strong concerns about a day care center,

Any promises made by the GRC Center and the council I want in writing.

Thank you for listening to my comments.

Mike and Shirley Sharkey

355 Naylor Court


Mr. Sharkey added you also see the letters that were sent from Mr. McErlane. You can see that at one moment yes they had a problem with drainage and then six weeks later no they didnít have a problem with drainage; it was my problem. Contrary to what Mr. McErlane says, our property always drained before this building was built.

The gentleman from Cline states that the garbage is only picked up once a week; it is picked up several times a week. He does not live 200 yards from the dumpster. They pick up garbage when they feel like it, sometimes 4 in the morning, sometimes 6 in the morning, sometimes 5 at night, whenever the mood strikes them or whenever the dumpster is full.

We have had a drainage problem. Mr. McErlane has never come out to meet me face to face. I have tried to contact him numerous times. Nothing ever gets done. We were promised they would remove the debris in the back yard. The groundskeepers throw the sticks against the fence. They accuse me of doing this. I put my trash out front. Why would I want to litter my own back yard with leaves and twigs? The groundskeepers now tell me that they are going to redo the whole back here. They are going to put all this new greenery in. They blow leaves against my fence which I put up because they were coming in with the mowers knocking down my shrubbery.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Nine


Mr. Sharkey continued they say we will come out in the spring and take care of all of this. We will make this all green and beautiful. It will be lovely. Nothingís happened yet; when is it going to start?

Rogie Vollmar & Jean Urmston, partners of J & R Coordinating, 11295 Springfield Pike said we are the tenants that would border the driveway to take our back deliveries and the playground area. We have enjoyed being at the GRC Corporate Center for one year. We do market research. We keep irregular hours and receive irregular deliveries at that back door, sometimes early, sometimes mid day. We schedule them, but we are at the mercy of delivery trucks. We canít control them.

We are concerned because we need that pathway for our deliveries to our back door in order to operate our business as was promised to us through our lease. We do a lot of videotaping and recording and group meetings. We need to enjoy the silence and the quietness of the atmosphere of the space we use.

We are concerned about the dumpster issue also, because we use the dumpster to dispose of our garbage. Sometimes it is two or three times a day that we have to visit that, taking out our garbage. We are concerned about the issues that you have addressed here, and we are glad to see that you are concerned also.

Mr. Syfert wondered if a front door would assist them with the deliveries. Ms. Vollmer answered we have a front door, and we could use it but sometimes we are entertaining clients. Ms. Urmston added we do focus groups where we audio tape and video tape. We were under the impression that our focus group rooms were going to be sound proofed with sound barrier walls. They are not, so we have to be very quiet when we are in the building and we have clients in and these groups are going on.

If we are going to have children right outside our area, we have two focus group rooms with a client area and two one on one interview rooms. In the corner where the playground area would be is our recruiting area. In the front on that same side is another focus group room. So we are really concerned about the noise. Revenue generated from the use of these rooms pays our lease.

Ms. Vollmer added on the parking issue, we do occupy that side lot quite a bit and we encourage our people to park on the side. We can use anywhere from 10 to 50 parking spaces per active session. We are working toward this, but every day we donít have a session like that. Also I know you are aware that the traffic light on Springfield Pike does not address our entrance and exit. It is a little further south. Sometimes it is a little bit inhibitive going in and out of Springfield Pike, but we donít have the traffic right now to address that.

However, if they are expecting 92 cars daily to come in and out at rush hour as ours and the CPA firm on the end, it could be kind of congested at the time children are coming and going. We usually arrive at work between 8 and 10 in the morning. We sometimes have panels starting as early as 8:30, and we leave approximately between 4:30 and 6 at night. Sometimes we have panels that start at 6, so the panelists would be arriving between 4:30 and 6. Our congestion time would be the same as their congestion time.

Mr. Okum said I want to thank both Mr. Sharkey and you ladies for coming forward That is the purpose of conditional use variance and the public hearing, for you to have an opportunity to express yourselves.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Ten


Mr. Okum added your comments are very well taken, and those are the same concerns that I have. I had a very big concern about the deliveries and type of trucks. Are these box trucks? Ms. Vollmer indicated that they were, and Mr. Okum continued so they are 10 feet wide and 12 feet high. Ms. Vollmer added sometimes they are delivery vaned. Mr. Okum asked if they were backed into the facility Ms. Vollmer answered they donít have to now because it is all open and they can just swing around and back to the door. Mr. Okum asked if they had seen the configuration and if the trucks would have to back in, and both ladies confirmed that.

Mr. Huddleston commented it sounds to me that your "quiet enjoyment" is a matter between you and the landlord and I donít want to get into that. On the other hand, you are saying you are very much at odds with the landlord in this situation? Ms. Vollmer answered no we are not. Ms. Urmston added we are going to sit down and talk with them about it to see what we can work out. In fact, we didnít know we were allowed to speak tonight; we were just coming to observe.

Ms. Vollmer said we donít want you to think that J & R is opposed to day care. We are not, but we have concerns about the children issues as you do. We at J & R sometimes have children in our facility too. Ms. Urmston added actually the day care facility could be beneficial to us as far as our panelists are concerned. Sometimes we could even ask them to baby-sit for our groups, if that would be possible. Thatís not the issue. They are the noise, the driveway, the safety issues and the dumpster. Mr. Huddleston asked if they were referring to the noise issue within the building or outside the building or both? Ms. Urmston answered both, because I donít know what this will do to our rooms in the back of the building if the playground goes in the back we have rooms in the back; if it goes on the side, we have rooms on the side. Mr. Huddleston stated that is something we canít address. Ms. Urmston responded we understand that, but I donít know how the rooms can be soundproofed because they all have windows.

Mr. Galster wondered if a side door would address their needs for deliveries. Ms. Urmston answered the only place it could come in would be into our recruiting area and thatís in the back corner. Ms. Vollmer added it still would be adjacent to the playground. Mr. Galster responded but it wouldnít be by where the walkway is to the playground.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else wished to address the commission. No one did, and Mr. Syfert closed the public hearing.

Mr. Cawdrey said I brought a diagram of J & R, and we have a meeting scheduled with Jean and Rogie tomorrow. One of the first things we did when we started to plan this project was to contact the tenants. Sheldon & Reder seems very excited about it. At my first meeting with Jeanís daughter she mentioned that she thought there could be some synergy between the day care and their business.

One of the things we have discussed and are happy to do is we have looked at J & Rís space plan, and we are trying to keep the play area as far away from their two major group rooms. The other thing we plan on doing is to build a soundproof wall so that there is no contiguous wall and opportunity for sound attenuation. We are concerned about their needs and are meeting with them tomorrow. We are happy to take the recommendations of Planning. We can make a long narrow play area. We can move it to the extreme right corner of the parking area which would be out of the traffic area for the dumpster and for deliveries.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Eleven


Mr. Cawdrey added it was my understanding that J & R deliveries would come via boxes and on hand carts. We tried to maintain that walkway so that each tenant has a secondary means of ingress and egress off the back. That is another reason why we decided not to put a playground area behind there, because Sheldon Reder has to have access to the dumpster along that walkway and for deliveries as well. That is our thinking; we are open to any suggestions. We want to be accommodating to everyone. Remember that each tenant is entitled to almost eight spaces per thousand square feet, and no one is using that parking to date. Hopefully we can develop something that will make everyone happy.

Mr. Okum said Mr. Sharkey referred to the tree line being scalped and removed and abandoned. What is your position on that? Mr. Cawdrey answered I do not have any understanding of that situation at all. I only have been working to lease the building for the last year. GRC had 360 people crammed into this site. They are now in 80,000 square feet and growing into 120,000 square foot building. They clearly had overpacked this area, and I think what we have now is a much more compatible use to the area.

Mr. Okum said so your position is that you still donít want to change the playground area. Mr. Cawdrey answered my biggest concern is we donít want to create a drainage problem. If one exists, are we going to exacerbate it and make it worse? There is a big catch basin back there and it was our understanding from the City of Springdale that it was working. If that is not the case, we certainly need to look at it.

Mr. Okum commented I agreed with Mr. Huddlestonís comments on dumpsters which typically dump debris; their trucks are constantly spilling materials out onto the ground. When those trucks are shaking that stuff out and backing up, diesel fuel leaks and transmission fluids, they will be going right into the asphalt where the kids will be playing. I think that is not a positive issue.

Right now there are too many open issues for me to be able to vote affirmatively for this. You could request a continuance if you wish. With those issues with J & R and your drop off area not being designated and the playground area still being open, that might be a good option for you. It puts you a month behind but it would allow us an opportunity to revisit the site and for you to settle your issues and address your drainage issues with Mr. Sharkey, look at your buffering issues and those type of things. I feel if you are going to have straight pull in parking areas in the front for drooping children off, widened spaces would be appreciated.

Mr. Huddleston said it was never my intent to get into the civil issues between tenants and landlord. On the other hand, I think it is important that we address those issues of the abutting property owners. Whether they have or havenít been treated fairly, I donít have any idea.

Nonetheless I would suggest the applicant deal with those issues as straightforward as they can. Whether this might require the applicant to reduce their student population in some way to make the site more overall acceptable to the tenancy, I donít know.

These kind of occupancies can coexist very peacefully. It is as great location for it and I know it works in many office and industrial parks, so I donít have any problem with that. I do have a problem with addressing the issues of retrofit use to a building designed for something else and not properly addressing those adjoining issues. That is my concern.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Twelve


Mr. Young said I tend to agree with most of what Dave stated. My question is if this is a conditional use and is voted on tonight and is approved, is this the last time we will see these people? Mr. McErlane indicated that it was, and Mr. Young said based on that information, I would tend to agree that at this point of time this is not something I can vote positively on.

Mr. Blanton said I might propose an alternate location for consideration. In the same area we take the north end of the spaces where there is 91 feet or 10 spaces 20 feet wide or an 1800 square foot area. This would push the playground as far away from the building and remove it from the path of the dumpster removal and clear up the area for the driveway for J & R. To me it meets four criteria. Is that something we could consider?

Mr. Syfert stated I think we should put things in perspective. You have heard a lot of comments, none of which appear to be positive for a vote tonight, and I believe it would be in your best interests to ask that it be continued to next month. However, I think you have to take our comments very cautiously, and you have to come back with your best plan.

Mr. Syfert continued no one has heard anything from me up to this point, but I will tell you that my preference is to keep the playground area contiguous with the classroom space. To get a dumpster operator to close three gates is impossible; he wonít even close the one that is down there now; itís standing wide open. Three gates wonít work, and I donít believe it is good planning. I could not vote with a clear conscience knowing there is a possibility of one child getting hurt to have the dumpster in the playground. In my mind, it just wonít work. We will grant you a continuance.

Mr. Galster moved to continue the public hearing until March 9th and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the item will be continued until March 9th.

Mr. Syfert added I would like to thank once again the people who spoke up in the public hearing.

    1. Exterior Alterations to Arhaus Furniture, 35 Tri-County Parkway (former Leugers)

Bill Woodward said I am one of the investors who purchased the old

Leugers store at 35 Tri-County Parkway. With me is Charles Feeney of

Arhaus Furniture. Arhaus is the anchor tenant for this project, and

Charles is a regional visual manager and is here to answer any questions

about their operations.

We plan a reuse of the existing structure. It is 20,000 square feet, and

Arhaus will lease 14,000 leaving under 6,000 square feet for another space. As of yet we have not identified who that tenant would be.

We will take off the old Ethan Allen canopy structures to completely change the appearances of the building. We will use a new more modern EFIS system over the existing masonry. The awnings over the window openings will be a custom metal awning, and the color pallet is a white and gray.

The entire site will be resurfaced with new asphalt paving. A few new parking spots will be added in the front of the building. There is a gorgeous maple tree in the front of the building that will be saved and landscaping will be put next to the building around the southeast corner where the smaller tenant will occupy the premises.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Thirteen


Mr. Woodward added the signage for Arhaus and the second tenant will be on the building. It will be aluminum backlit signage tastefully done as illustrated in your packet.

There currently is not a plan for a monument sign. One exists for Leugers, but that will be taken down. If a monument sign is desired in the future, we can come back and make a presentation.

Mr. Galster asked if the whole building would be totally redone, and Mr. Woodward answered the entire exterior will be completed at this time.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane. Mr. McErlane reported that the primary reason for Planning to review this is the major changes to the exterior of the building. The only revision to the site plan are the inclusion of six new parking spaces in the front. No grading plan was submitted. I talked with Mr. Woodward, and his intention is to grade it such that they drain back to the two catch basins that are in the entrance drives. There is a free-standing sign shown on the site plan. There is an existing free standing sign there currently, and we are not sure if it is to be modified or if a new sign will go in its place.

Addressing Mr. Woodward, Mr. Syfert asked if the free standing sign were the monument sign that he had indicated would be taken down. Mr. Woodward confirmed that it would be removed and there will not be one there unless the tenant would desire it and we would come back for approval.

Mr. Shvegzda reported regarding the additional parking spaces in front, we need additional grading plans to assure that it will drain to the existing catch basins. That additional impervious area is very minor and therefore we would recommend that detention not be required for this development. Along Tri-County Parkway there are rolled curbs that exist. That driveway in place now does not have depressed curbs and it is very difficult in leaving and entering the development. In redevelopments that have taken place along Tri-County Parkway, we have required the driveway to be depressed with a concrete apron to be placed, i.e. Cookers next door. It would be our recommendation that this be a requirement of this development.

In addition, the parking lot should have the perimeter delineated with bumper blocks. Bumper blocks are in place on the south and the east perimeter of the area. There is no curbing on the west drive back to the rear parking field so that would have to be included.

Mr. Woodward commented I think going with the depressed curb and concrete apron is a real improvement, not only functionally but aesthetically, and we would be happy to do t hat. On the curb along the west side, we are resurfacing the lot anyway and we could put in an extruded curbing along there. They are both good ideas.

Ms. McBride reported there is some concern about the parking situation that exists out there today. For user such as Arhaus, there probably wonít be a problem but we have a little concern about the other 5600 square feet. Depending on the type of user that would go in there, there could be conflicts regarding parking availability and the location of those spaces since the majority of the existing spaces are to the rear of the building.

Right now they are utilizing the one way drive aisle system around the building and we want to make sure it is adequately signed or pavement markings to make sure that people understand that it is one way.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Fourteen


Ms. McBride added we didnít get any information on the location of the screening and waste receptacle, so we will want to see that.

The applicant is proposing to create six new parking spaces in the front of the store closest to the Arhaus front door. Those spaces will be within 10 feet of the Tri-County Parkway right of way so they will need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

We did not receive any landscaping information other than what is existing and the landscaping proposed directly adjacent to the building. We would like additional landscaping material put in that area, particularly where the new parking spaces are proposed and Tri-County Parkway to offset the loss of that green space.

In terms of signage, they are proposing two 33.3 square foot signs, each saying Arhaus, and an unspecified sign that would go to the other user. They are entitled to 220 square feet of sign area, so the size of those signs probably will not be a problem.

You didnít give a rear elevation; is the back of the building going to be finished in a similar fashion? Mr. Woodward answered it will be repainted and new downspouts and gutters put on it. I have brought along a rear elevation if you would like to see it.

Mr. Huddleston commented I donít believe your elevations here match your floor plan in the packet. Mr. Woodward responded the rendering is included for the color of the product. The elevations in the plan are the actual elevations of the building. I do have a couple of copies of amore recent rendering.

Mr. Woodward stated on the parking we have spoken with the development director for Arhaus on his parking needs, and he said he probably would be happy with 10 parking spaces. The maximum they ever would have in any one store at any one is 15 cars. We are showing 56 on the site plan, so that would leave over 40 parking spaces for the 5600 square feet. Most of those are in the back of the site. We are comfortable with the parking arrangement, and Arhaus also is comfortable.

Mr. Okum asked if the awning would be illuminated and Mr. Woodward answered they will not be illuminated; there is lighting on the posts between the window openings.

Mr. Okum said the back end of the building is seen from a lot of positions. Do you have any problem with carrying your finishes around to the rear of the building? I know you canít do anything with the dock and garage door. Mr. Woodward answered we thought painting it the same color and putting new Melic coping on top of it would make it appropriate for what it is, a loading dock in the rear of the building.

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride suggested shrubby or landscaping along Tri-County Parkway. Typically when we have parking spaces that pull in towards the thoroughfare we try to get row hedge type screening and buffer as well. Mr. Woodward answered we would have no problem developing a landscape plan to include that.

Mr. Okum said I do have a real concern with the 5600 square feet. The zoning is GB, so there could be a pretty big volume user in there. I would be more comfortable if you could tie it down, because this parking lot is limited. I would want to have a firm number set in a motion this evening for this use so the potential expansion space knows the limitations.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Fifteen


Mr. McErlane reported based on office and retail, they are required to have 34 spaces for the 5600 square feet. To give you a history as to the number of parking spaces currently there, there used to be a provision in the code when this was built that allowed Planning to vary parking requirements based on the use, which was a furniture store.

Mr. Okum said you will totally update the landscaping and submit a new landscaping plan, and Mr. Woodward indicated that he would. Mr. Okum wondered about the light packs on the back of the building, asking if they could be non-glare to adjoining properties. There are some existing on the building. Mr. Woodward indicated that they can change those to accomplish that.

Mr. Huddleston wondered how the trucks would get in and out. Mr. Woodward responded the 20-foot driveway on the west side is a two way driveway. Mr. Shvegzda added they probably would have to pull in and back out. Mr. Woodward said you can go in the one way drive, circle around the back and come back out again.

Mr. McErlane asked the type of vehicle for deliveries. Mr. Feeney of Arhaus answered most trucks are 20 foot box trucks.

Mr. Huddleston commented I donít think weíll have the answer tonight, and I think it is something we need to be aware of. It is a pre-existing condition and if there is anything we can do to alleviate it we should try, but Iím not sure there is anything we can do.

Mr. McErlane said Ms. McBride pointed out that there would be a variance required for the parking spaces, and this should be included in the motion.

Mr. Okum moved to approve Arhaus Furniture with the following conditions:

    1. recommendations of the planner with the inclusion of the landscaping
    2. submittal;

    3. deletion of the monument sign;
    4. applicant will change the driveway access aprons and curbing into depressed state at both entrances;
    5. proper markings will be applied to the parking lot for flow of traffic;
    6. the awnings shall not be illuminated and should be down lit;
    7. the light packs and building lighting not glare on adjacent properties or public right of way;
    8. hedging will be used as a screening buffer for the head on parking areas onto Tri-County Parkway;
    9. grading plan be submitted to Mr. Shvegzda with curbing along the west side;
    10. variance be granted from Board of Zoning Appeals for the setback for the six parking spaces.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Young and Chairman Syfert. Variance was granted with seven affirmative votes.

C. Final Approval Tri-County Golf Center (adjacent to Oak Hills Cemetery)

Jose Castrejon of McGill Smith Punshon representing the Shaven Company said with me is Lee Shaven and Bill Shaven. You have seen this plan before. We have been here concerning the tree replacement issue.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Sixteen


Mr. Castrejon continued we are here for final approval of our site plan. This is different from our first submittal. We have broken this down into two phases. Phase I is the entry drive, parking, clubhouse/pro shop and driving range area. Phase II would be the nine-hole golf course and remaining piece of that leased property from Oak Hills Cemetery.

As part of the submittal, we have brought elevations of what the proposed building will look like. We intend to use a natural color vinyl with different types of roof patterns with covered porches to create a nice setting for the driving range.

The 60 covered tees will match in architecture to the clubhouse. In addition to the covered tees we are providing a small maintenance area where we will store mowers in the centerpiece driving area.

Since we broke this down into two phases, we need to determine how to deal with the tree preservation scenario. As part of our discussion tonight, I would like to clarify that so we can get that resolved and broken down into two phases that we can all agree to.

Mr. Galster asked how much time is between the two phases? Mr. Castrejon answered I cannot answer that at the moment. Lee Shaven added it is hard to say right now. The main goal is to have the driving range up this fall, hopefully late fall. Phase II, the nine holes is still in design phase. It is possible that it could start this summer, but not definite.

Mr. Galster wondered if there were any question to the fact that both phases are being done, and Mr. Shaven answered the final commitment to Phase II, the nine-hole course will not be made until we receive our bids for the construction costs. Mr. Galster responded so it is very much in the realm of possibility that this would be a Phase I project? Mr. Castrejon answered it could be. Sheet L-2 shows the Phase I line. The double hatched area is the only thing that is being removed as part of Phase I. The Phase II plantings will not be touched until we submit

Phase II.

Mr. Galster commented I know that will get real confusing again, because we were looking at the whole development and assumed it to carry through the whole project. What percentage of trees that will be removed from this project will be removed in Phase I?

Mr. Castrejon responded our original submittal was 250 trees with a minimum 2 Ĺ inch caliper or 625 caliper inches to be replaced. We have an error in our submittal; we put 2 inch caliper and it should be 2 Ĺ inch caliper. Of the 150 total 2 Ĺ inch trees to be replaced for the entire project, for Phase I we plan to install 69 of those trees totaling 172.5 inches. There is additional evergreen material that is not part of the tree replacement. As part of that also, a portion of the money allocated for the donation to the Urban Forestry Fund will have to happen, and we need to determine that tonight. Also, we need to discuss the educational opportunities and sessions that we agreed to in the past. What we are saying is if we can split the tree replacement, whether it is in half or a percentage, that is what we would like to do. We didnít want to submit the total tree replacement, have to remove these trees and then end up not doing the entire project.

Mr. Galster said I want to make sure that I understand that it is possible that this development could be just Phase I. Mr. Shaven responded it could be scaled back from the total package presented.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Seventeen


Mr. Galster continued I am trying to come up with a ballpark number percentagewise as to how many trees that are being removed are in Phase I. Mr. Castrejon responded a little bit less than half.

Mr. Shvegzda reported the proposed Phase I has a dry detention basin. That is handling the area that is tributary to the proposed clubhouse, parking lot and driving range area, which is about 10 acres. In reviewing the analysis for the detention basin, there were some errors that were made and we have a difference in required volume that will have to be reevaluated by the consultant on this project.

Another question we had is there is a detail for an outletting ditch that is on the east side between the detention basin and the railroad tracks. It is scaling for a 46 foot wide rock lined channel. We question the need for that massive of a rock lined channel. It certainly would be very effective in handling erosion through the channel, but we need some calculations to verify what is really necessary.

There is a culvert shown for the proposed driveway coming out of the cemetery area. Here is no size noted on that and an analysis to determine the size that will need to be submitted.

In addition, in this area the plans note a silt fence to be added around the construction areas. Because of the amount of concentrated flow coming through the ravine in this area, some additional erosion control will be needed.

Regarding utilities, the plans note that a one inch water service is coming from the proposed development out to an existing water main on Tri-County Parkway. Our records indicate that there is no water main within the public right of way of Tri-County Parkway. There is a looped water system to the north that goes around HQ which is in a public easement, so that might be the way to attack it.

On the sanitary, the plans indicate for a force main to be constructed to take it into the gravity sewer on 747. That will have to be approved by MSD. We also will need to receive sanitary and water availability from the utilities.

On the proposed driveway, it will have to have a depressed curb and concrete apron at Tri-County Parkway. We will need a proposed profile of the driveway. It is difficult to tell how it will be graded and how the

storm flow will be intercepted before it enters onto the public right of way.

In the parking lot area, there is a detail that notes curb and gutter, but it is not delineated on the plan as to where it will be, so that needs to be clarified.

Mr. Vanover said on the sanitary sewer, do we know that MSD has tap openings available?. Mr. Shvegzda responded there was a sanitary sewer overflow point located in Evendale, but there have been additional reviews of improvements that have been made to the system and additional credits have been awarded to this vicinity. I would think a development of this size would not have a major impact on their flow. Obviously that is something that the sewer availability request would have to verify.

Ms. McBride reported the applicant is proposing a total of 198 parking spaces as a part of this phase of the development. Whereas we are sure that is more than sufficient parking for this portion of the project, we would like to see a parking summary provided, more for future phases of the project than this.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Eighteen


Ms. McBride added we also were not given details as to the waste receptacle and sand enclosures, what type of materials those enclosures would be.

We had a number of minor comments on the landscape plan. The three most significant are we would want to see additional plant material added to some of the islands that currently are not landscaped; we would want to see some islands added to break up the long runs of parking existing within the parking area; and the pine trees they are proposing need to be planted at 10 feet in height.

The only reference concerning signage is a note on the landscape plan that says a monument sign to comply with zoning code. We need to see the details.

We were given a photometric lighting plan indicating that they exceed the minimum Ĺ foot candle required by our code. That is being provided by 27 foot tall fixtures, but we did not receive any photometrics for the lighting of the driving range itself or how tall those fixtures might be. Rough scale says maybe 50 feet in height, but we would want to see that information as well.

We did receive building elevations for both the clubhouse and driving range. However, we did not receive a floor plan for the clubhouse.

Mr. McErlane reported Mr. Shvegzda already talked about the importance of getting the water and sewer availability because of the difficulty in getting those utilities to the site.

I talked with the Fire Department, specifically because of the lack of the water main on Tri-County Parkway. They have a concern that at least one hydrant be installed in the vicinity of the driveway so they can use that for firefighting purposes. The closest hydrant is either on the Cassinelli property or further down along the wall between Home Quarters and Tri-County Parkway. It is too far away to service the building. Iím not sure if it will require one or more hydrants, but that is something they need to review with the Fire Department.

There are no sign details shown. This is a Public Facilities 3 District, and it allows a 50 square foot sign seven feet high and 25 feet from the right of way.

No floor plan was submitted, and typically we require that to determine parking calculations.

It sounds like if Phase I is developing half the site, they would provide half the tree replacement. Mr. Castrejon added to simplify matters, if we can agree to that, we can modify our drawings to do everything in half and proceed.

Mr. McErlane added the only other thing relative to tree replanting and removal is in the area immediately east of the covered driving ranges there are a number of trees in quite a substantial fill and cut that will not survive.

Mr. Castrejon reported that is an error. If you look at Sheet L3, the person doing the grading plan thought he was doing me a favor by creating a plateau for the entire piece. It was my mistake not noticing that the initial intent of that was to have two levels, the level for the covered tees and a slope down to the grass tee areas four feet down. So there would be a 3 to 1 slope which would save those trees.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Nineteen


Mr. McErlane commented it probably will save a few of them, but you have a couple of them in your drainage course. Mr. Castrejon responded we will modify that; we have room to the rear to shift that.

Mr. McErlane added there is one located in the grading that you are developing for the parking area. Mr. Castrejon responded we canít do anything about that one. If we need to add a few more trees to satisfy that, we can do that.

Mr. Okum asked the elevation of Tri-County Parkway at the entrance and where it turns. Mr. Castrejon answered at the entrance it is about 700 feet, the center line of the bend is 680 feet and the parking lot will be about 700 feet.

Mr. Okum said then the enclosed tees are at 685. Mr. Castrejon confirmed this, adding what we are trying to do is drop things down to limit the amount of fill. Mr. Okum added then your grass tees are at 681. Mr. Castrejon said we will drop down at the break from the covered tees to the grass tees so we can protect those trees.

Mr. Okum said with comments Ms. McBride had regarding lighting details and spillage of lights, are you prepared to answer those questions? Mr. Castrejon answered absolutely. I have looked at the comments. The biggest issue we had was the tree replacement, and if we can agree with 50%, we will be happy to submit additional information to all the other comments.

Mr. Okum responded you are submitting after we have reviewed, and it is a little difficult to do it on the blind side. We had indicated early on when you came in with the plan that we would be very concerned about how you light your fields. From what I understand, we still donít have details on how you are lighting your fields.

Mr. Castrejon responded we donít have a philometric plan, but we do have lighting details. Mr. Okum commented you just have snapshots of the light fixtures. Mr. Castrejon added on the actual grass tees, we plan to have light fixtures that will shine down to the first row of recessed ground lights. So you cannot see them from where you are teeing off; they will be ground mounted and will shine to areas for landing. The distance from the furthest ground mounted poles to the residential area is about 1200 feet or four football fields long. That is why we put the driving range far away from the residential area and closer to the railroad tracks.

Mr. Okum said so if it is 1200 feet, those people wonít be looking at the lights. Mr. Castrejon responded in addition to that if you look at drawing L2, in the middle of the page you see the darker hatch which is the tree removal area. If you can picture that last tee on the bottom side, that is the location of those lights. The distance to our south property line is about 900 feet so it is 1200 feet. Plus there are a lot of tree rows we are maintaining as part of the golf course, so there is a lot of obstruction between there. In addition to that, we have agreed to leave the natural vegetation along our property line at the request of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Okum asked if they would be doing any grading work in the Phase II area during Phase I. Mr. Castrejon answered the only thing shown is we need to create an irrigation pond. That is located there knowing that future development will happen and will have a golf hole associated with it. Mr. Okum said so you are saying that the irrigation pond will be ample enough to supply water for both Phase I and Phase II.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Twenty


Mr. Castrejon answered there will be an additional lake for Phase II at the southwest side of the proposed lake you see now. We are trying to follow the Oak Hill Master Plan, and that is where their water features were for future development.

Mr. Okum asked if they felt that the number of parking spaces is needed for a driving range? Mr. Shaven responded the parking lot is designed to include the other phase. For the driving range itself and clubhouse area, we could probably do with 100 to 120 spaces. Mr. Castrejon added we would be willing to work with staff to reduce that to a number that is allowed or required or that you feel is necessary.

Mr. Okum commented we are dealing with a public facility. A driving range does not fall in my idea of a public facility. It is more a retail business. I think we are pushing the envelope by phasing this. I think when we are talking a public facility use and we talk driving range, it will be hard for me to be positive to that. Phase II is something in the future; there is no date or time line. Mr. Shaven said I am trying to understand what makes the difference. Mr. Okum said I donít believe driving ranges are listed as a public facility use.

Mr. McErlane reported that private parks and recreation areas are a permitted use in the PF-3 District. Mr. Okum wondered if a driving range would be considered a private park, and Mr. McErlane responded I would consider it a private recreation area. Mr. Galster commented I would consider a golf course, but not a driving range.

Mr. Okum added when you separate Phase I and Phase II, I have some big concerns about that use. I donít want to see another Golden Tee here, and that is what I see.

Mr. Huddleston said I think we have an entirely different project here than what we envisioned in November when we supported it. Without some reasonable assurance that these projects are going forward concurrently, I would have difficulty supporting this as a free standing facility.

Mr. Galster added that is pretty much where I was heading. We do not have the layout of the golf course on here any more. All we are looking at tonight is approving the driving range. The tree replacement items we negotiated were all encompassing. I know that I donít have the same view on the tree replacement plan if Phase I is the only part done. Originally we said weíll save this amount of trees, weíll cut back this requirement and give you x amount of benefit because we have x number of acres untouched. I donít have that any more. I donít know what Phase II even is. Iím looking at is as an approval of the driving range. If that is the case, the considerations, the calculations for the tree replacement criteria are null and void. That all needs to be readdressed.

Mr. Shaven responded Phase II is still on hold. This was submitted in phases because of the requirements of the City and all the specifics they want. Our first intent is to get the driving range up and running and then feed off that. You are saying you want me to commit to building a nine hole golf course?

Mr. Galster responded that is what the preliminary plan was. Mr. Syfert added we n ever had any indication of a phase until tonight. We were concerned about this in staff review also. It is like bait and switch., I donít think that is the intent, but since November, we have dealt with a concept to develop this whole thing, and now you are saying until you get your estimates in, you donít know where you are going with Phase II. Where does that leave us?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Shaven responded there is no bait and switch here. We still have a driving range and the same type of user. It is a public golf facility, a practice facility. All ages use the driving range; it is a learning center.

Mr. Galster asked if a batting cage were the same as a baseball diamond? We are dealing with a driving range as opposed to a golf course. To me the view and use is totally different. I can line up 20 batting cages and say I have a recreation facility, but if I have 20 ball fields, I have a whole different expansion of space. I think they are tremendously different.

Mr. Castrejon added one of the things to show that we are looking to the future is the location of that pond. There is an additional cost to create a link between the driving range and the irrigation line, and if we were just planning to do Phase I, that irrigation pond would be directly adjacent to it. We are trying to plan ahead and take into consideration the money issue on the development costs. It comes down to a simple separation of phases, of phasing any project. The intent is still the same, to create a nice facility with nice amenities, plenty of screening, and plenty of landscaping to provide a nice setting. I think we have done something more than your standard driving range.

Mr. Huddleston said I donít pretend to say who is right or wrong, there is not a bait and switch attempt here, that is not the point. On the other hand, what we have here is significantly different from what was proposed. I think if the applicant needs to come back with a clear cut plan. If they are going to phase it, they need to show something from the bank that indicates that Phase II is in fact going to happen. I donít feel there is any assurance based on what I am hearing tonight that Phase II will happen. I think we are hearing too many ifs out there. From my standpoint, we should either table this or deny it tonight and let the applicant come back in one manner or another as they choose.

Addressing the applicants, Mr. Syfert said you have heard about four of us indicating an unwillingness to consider this as Phase I on its own merits. Mr. Huddleston probably summed the whole thing up. Where do you want to go?

Mr. Castrejon answered we would like to look at our options. If we do table it, what is the process of modifying? What do you require for an addition to this submittal? Does that mean we come back next month and amend these drawings to whatever we feel comfortable with that you might approve?

Mr. Syfert answered I think that, and some assurance that Phase II will happen. Mr. Huddleston added I would say some assurance that they will happen concurrently as the original proposal indicated. Mr. Syfert continued or if not concurrently, some type of assurance that it will happen at some predetermined time in the future.

Mr. Shaven commented what I am hearing is it is either the driving range and golf course or we canít do anything. Is it not permissible by zoning to do just this? That was never expressed to us before.

Mr. Syfert commented I donít know that Mr. McErlane said that. What we are saying is that you represented that you would have both the driving range and the golf course. That is what you sold us on, and that is what we were expecting to see tonight. In the three times we have had this in front of us, this is the first time we have ever seen anything about phasing, and we only have assurance that one phase will go in. What we want is assurance that what we originally saw and what we had our minds set on is going to happen. We donít have that right now.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Castrejon responded on the tree issue, we had to submit what our planning was, so that is the reason you saw those things up front. We had somewhat of an approval to proceed, and we then said we can move forward on the project. Maybe it was our mistake not to tell you that we were planning this in phases, because what we came for the last two times was strictly on the tree issue and to show you what we were doing. We were being up front that this was our goal. That was our reason for being here the previous two meetings. It had nothing to do with if we were going to do this all at once; it was strictly for a variance on the tree issue. With that in hand, we knew we could proceed with the project. I apologize for not clarifying that earlier.

Mr. Okum said you had questions regarding use. We were presented a plan that didnít question public facility use. Tonight we have a new plan that ultimately could involve public facility, and you are asking us to consider it. You made a very beautiful presentation to what you could do with that land.

Personally I donít know how in the world a clubhouse with the simple amenities that this clubhouse has and the driving range will generate enough revenue to pay for a golf course. I would question that as a generator to support the golf course function. Premium quality golf course facilities are bringing high dollars; they are very popular. On the other hand, we were not presented a "driving range" use for this public facility land. We have a cemetery slated for the property. For our consideration, it was a change and a shock.

Iím going to support Mr. Huddlestonís position that we would need some type of financial commitment and a sequential time line to tie the project together in order to continue that use as presented to us.

Mr. Galster said I semi-agree, but I think that even a letter of credit that says you have enough money to build it is not good enough. To me this is a whole different plan, and if we are to come forth with a plan that is a driving range and a putt putt course and a clubhouse, this should be reevaluated as a preliminary plan. This changes my view of this plan.

If you had brought this plan with just Phase I originally, I can tell you that my vote would not have been the same. My questions and concerns would not have been the same. If this is what you want to build and what you want to commit to building, thatís fine, but I want to see this as a separate preliminary plan from the plan that we previously evaluated. If you wish to build the golf course and driving range as previously submitted and as you have approval for, I have no problem with entertaining a final approval submittal. I think it is unfair to think that we went from that preliminary plan to this final plan and that there is no change to that.

Mr. Vanover said for clarification, in the new code, under Section 153.216 Permitted Uses (34)(k) Commercial Recreation, that would be what this driving range would fall under. They mention golf courses under Public Facilities, but it specifically states excluding miniature golf courses. This is where we are coming from. Mr. Castrejon asked when the new code takes effect. Mr. Vanover answered it hasnít yet; it is coming. I have been listening and my feeling is much the same. This is a different scenario than what was presented, and that is my problem. It sounds like if this doesnít go on its own, then Phase II isnít going to happen. I wish you well, but thatís not my problem. We were presented with the package. Whether or not your intent was to do it in phases, there was miscommunication along the line. I cannot support what we have in front of us right now I canít support in public facilities.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. McErlane reported personally my interpretation would allow this use on the property as a permitted use. However I think Planning Commission took the overall project into account in granting such liberal relief from the tree preservation ordinance. This first phase of the project probably clears more trees per acre on the site than the overall project does. The driving range clears more trees out of that area than the golf course holes do per acre. If we look at it from just half the acreage, relatively it is clearing more trees out than the balance of the property will be doing. From the standpoint of tree replacement, you could look at it based on the allowances given at the last approval.

Mr. Castrejon responded the interpretation of the zoning code allows the use but we would have to revisit the tree ordinance. Another option would be to come back with a different tree removal plan that strictly goes with Phase I, get approval as part of that individual stand alone project. Is it an allowed use, or is it subject to interpretation?

Mr. Galster commented I think it is subject to this commissionís interpretation. Mr. McErlane added I do not know if it is Planning Commissionís responsibility to interpret allowable uses within the code. If Planning Commission takes issue with it, they can appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals per the appeal process for the zoning administrator.

Mr. Galster commented Iím not sure.

Mr. Okum said Section 153.063 in the existing code specifically refers to private parks and recreation areas. Below that it lists golf courses and cemeteries and commercial and club pools under public facilities. It does not list driving ranges. If you go to our commercial zoning districts under 153.085 it says "parks and recreation areas and facilities including ball fields golf courses, swimming pools, tennis courts basketball courts and similar uses and structures together with structures and uses accessory thereto are not less than 5 acres. Other than 5 acres minimum size requirement, such structures and uses shall be subject to the area yard and height requirement of RS districts." I think golf courses falls there more strongly, with accessory uses to those golf courses in commercial districts. Public facilities do not in any way indicate accessory uses as driving ranges; it lists golf courses. There are accessory uses in commercial districts and retail service districts. We do have the opportunity to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration of that.

Mr. McErlane stated the section you are quoting from in the GB District was added after we rezoned GE Park to General Business so they could fit within the conditional use parameters of a GB District and make them a conforming use. This was in 1991. Private recreation facilities have been in the public facilities districts since 1978 or even earlier.

Mr. Okum said I beg to differ with you; a driving range is not a private park or recreation area. It is a driving range, a commercial enterprise. Mr. McErlane responded so what is as private recreation area?

Mr. Huddleston said if the applicant wishes to dispute our interpretation of the zoning ordinance, that is fine, he can come back and do that. This commission made an interpretation of the ordinance based on what was presented to us as a comprehensive plan to do a golf course with an accessory driving range. What we have here tonight is a driving range with no golf course. My position is I am going to ask the applicant if he would like this tabled or would you like us to vote on this tonight? Mr. Shaven answered we can table it. Mr. Huddleston moved to table and Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and this was tabled to March 9th.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

9 February 1999

Page Twenty-Four


    1. Zoning Code Draft

Ms. McBride reported we have met with representatives of the city, and are in the process of making a final round of revisions so I would like to ask the commission to hold that for one month.

Mr. Okum asked about the neon lights and signs. Mr. McErlane reported Mr. Coulter was going to review other regulations and try to determine what kinds of restrictions there are in other municipalities and try to find some way of putting it under the purview of Planning for approval process, but not put some quantitative number on it.

Mr. Galster apologized for missing the Planning and Zoning Workshop. Betty made a late reservation for me, and I really did want to attend

Mr. Okum commented that the Huff Realty sign on Glensprings is a big sign. Mr. McErlane reported that it is not at its maximum, but close.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be here March 9th? Mr. Okum responded he might be out of town; heíll let us know.



Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion., By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1999 ___________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



______________________,1999 ____________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary