11 MARCH 2003

7:00 P.M.


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

  4. Members Present: Chairman Syfert, David Okum, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Tom Vanover and Robert Sherry

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster reported that the letter recommending the changes to the Zoning Code has been submitted to Council and we anticipate that it will be on the agenda next week. Iím not sure if the public hearing will be the first week in April or the second meeting. Iím not sure if the advertisement got placed in time, so that is moving forward.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė February 10, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė February 25, 2003
    5. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė 21 January 2003
    6. 11/18/02 Letter from Robert Sherry to Kathy McNear, President of Council re recommended changes to the Zoning Code
    1. CVS Pharmacy, 11601 Springfield Pike Final PUD Development Plan

Mr. Syfert said you have before you a letter from Bear Creek Capital asking that this be tabled, so we need a motion. Mr. Galster moved to table per the applicantís request and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the item was tabled until the April 8th meeting.

Mr. Okum asked if we can make sure that they have everything together, or not put them on the agenda. Mr. Syfert said I believe that is the reason why they requested to be tabled. Mr. McErlane added that he had a meeting with representatives from CVS on Friday, and they have committed to having someone totally organize the submittal before it comes in and actually address each of the staff comments individually in writing. So hopefully we will have a complete packet next time.


11 MARCH 2003


    1. Concept Discussion of Proposed Condominiums, 309 West Kemper Road
    2. Holly Todd of EmKenn Homes said we have looked at two residential properties to combine them into a condo project. They do back up to Oldegate. We want some feedback in order to go forward with the zoning.

      Mr. Syfert said this is a concept discussion. Mr. Galster added it is my understanding that to the east and to the west you still would have single family residences. Personally, I have a problem with putting that in the middle of other residential areas. I understand that there is a multi family that backs up to the property, but these are all deep lots, and halfway down the street, someone might want to put condominiums there, and I have a problem with it. We have tried to cut the retail off at Lawnview and tried to keep it from going down and infringing on the residential area. That always has been a concern of the residents who live there. I understand that this property probably has been on the market a little bit longer than the owner would like to have it be on the market, but I donít believe that having residential single family on both sides makes it a good fit.

      Mr. Syfert said I want to call on the City Planner for her comments, but this really points itself to being spot zoning without any question.

      Ms. McBride reported that the property is zoned RSH-L, Residential Single Household Low Density District, so they would need a zone map amendment to RMH-L, Residential Multi Household Low Density District to allow for the proposed condominiums. That district would allow a maximum of eight units per acre, and they have just over two acres, so the 16 units would be permitted under this district if it were approved.

      The property to the north and to the east is zoned RSH-L, single family; the property to the south is zoned RMH-L, the Oldegate Condominiums, and the property to the west is zoned RSH-H, another single family district.

      We recently adopted the Springdale Comprehensive Plan, and that plan designates this property for low-density residential development. That is defined in our plan as single family detached homes on 7500 to 20,000 s.f. lots, depending on the underlying zoning.

      The plan that the applicant submitted indicates that there are one and one-half story units, but the typical elevations that they submitted were one story and two story buildings so we would need clarification on that and the exact height of the units, because that is how we determine the setbacks.

      I provided the setbacks in our staff report as well as the fact that the buildings would need to be a minimum of 20 feet apart.



      11 MARCH 2003



      Ms. McBride stated that right now as the plan is laid out there would be a number of variances on setbacks that would need to be obtained from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The rear yard of the north four-unit building would need a setback variance as would what would appear to be the rear yard from that eight-unit building, but it actually is a front yard because it fronts on East Alley, which is a public street. Additionally they have indicated that they would like to put on decks or patios and those also would need to have variances on both the eight unit and the northern four-unit building. We would need to see those represented, or at least some parameters established on the site plan with regards to what kind of outdoor areas are being proposed.

      We have a maximum of 25% building coverage in the RMH-L District and they are proposing building coverage at 26.5% so that also would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

      The applicant is proposing a three-bedroom unit which would contain 1600 s.f. The two bedroom unit would contain 1150 s.f. and all of the units would have basements. Our minimum unit size is 910 s.f. in that district with basements, so it does meet that requirement.

      Two-car garages are required with a minimum of 400 s.f. and a maximum of 600 s.f., and that is what the applicant has indicated.

      The 16 three and two-bedroom unit condominiums will require a total of 32 parking spaces, and those requirements are met, utilizing the driveways that are proposed for each unit in addition to the two unit garages that are proposed. There is however no guest parking, and that is something that the Commission has been concerned about with other similar developments in the area.

      Staff would require that there be no parking permitted on those private streets to allow emergency vehicles in case they ever needed to access the units. If the applicant were going to proceed with the request, we would need to see a landscape plan, a lighting plan, signage details and the details of the waste area enclosure.

      We have tried to break down the variances that would be required, as well as future issues that the applicant would need to address should they decide to proceed further with this.

      Mr. Galster said in the Comprehensive Plan, where does the single family residential zoning extend? Ms. McBride responded it is from Hickory Street east to Lawnview Avenue.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that they performed a preliminary traffic analysis to see if a left turn signal would be needed. It is kind of borderline at that location, mainly from the peak hour traffic on Kemper Road.

      The internal drive layout should be reviewed by the Fire Department in terms of fire accessibility.



      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. Shvegzda stated that on storm water management, they do show a detention basin towards the front.

      On the west side of the proposed development, there is the right of way known as East Alley that we would recommend be vacated in conjunction with this. We realize that there is an existing sanitary sewer there that would have to be accommodated within an easement. In talking with the Public Works Superintendent, there doesnít seem to be any necessity for that public right of way, other than providing an easement for the sanitary sewer.

      Mr. Galster said right now they are showing access off Kemper Road. If in fact there was a positive notes to move forward, would there be consideration to coming off Cherry into Elm Alley instead of having the main entrance to the development off Kemper coming in off the back alley or off Cherry Street?

      Mr. Shvegzda answered that certainly could be considered. I donít know what the ramifications would be for the additional traffic back in that area. I know that was an issue more from the standpoint of people cutting through from State Route 4 to Kemper. Mr. Galster commented that having lived on Kemper Road in the past, I know it is almost impossible for the residents to get out onto Kemper Road. If we were to suddenly put 16 units back there, it seems to me that we would use some of the existing roadway and possibly come out at a traffic light even if they are going back through the residential area. Also, I think if in fact that happened, you might be able to turn a building so it would look a little more residential from the street.

      Mr. McErlane reported that in addition to what Ms. McBride reported, we need to keep in mind that the next step in the process would be to file for rezoning of the property. Typically, most of the items that we have covered in terms of setbacks and density are issues that would be addressed after the rezoning of the property. Even with a rezoning request, we ask for some representation of what will occur on the property.

      Potentially there could be fewer variance issues when the site development plan comes in after the rezoning of the property.

      In addition to that, Ms. McBride talked about parking on the private drives and in checking with the Fire Department, they would insist that the private drives be posted "No Parking Fire Lane". They also would recommend a private fire hydrant close to the end of the development. The next closest fire hydrant is at Hickory Street, which is a pretty good distance to lay hose.

      Ms. Todd said if East Alley is vacated, it would solve a lot of our variance problems. We would get rid of three of the variance requests, and I know that is something that is being considered right now.

      We have looked at coming in off Cherry to East Alley and since it is a paper street and we couldnít find anything on it, we would prefer to do that. That is better for the layout, and would make it more marketable.


      11 MARCH 2003



      Ms. Todd added that there are some issues on that in that we are not sure about the status of East Alley so we didnít go any further into that until we can find out what East Alley is and how wide it is. There is some confusion on that issue.

      Most of these are minor problems and the lighting plans and landscaping plans would be submitted if we go forward. Right now we are trying to get feedback before we go any further in the process.

      Mr. Okum asked why the City would give up East Alley; what is the benefit to the City to give away the property? Mr. Shvegzda responded that really the question is what benefit does it provide as it exists right now except as an issue for maintenance. That is what I asked Dave Butsch on the function it provides to the City as it currently exists. Mr. Okum asked if we would be required to split it between the two properties, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this.

      Mr. Okum commented that the other problem I have with this proposal is that even though we have frontages to this property, really if you look at what is observed from the public right of way, .you are looking at the sides and the back ends of the buildings. If you have frontage you have frontage, and I think you need to treat that frontage for what it is, and it is not the back end or the side of the property.

      I agree with Mr. Galster about the access onto Kemper Road. If there were a potential for Cherry Street to drop into East Alley and feed this development, I would be more in favor of this type of concept. On the other hand, I have a little bit of a problem with spot zoning or postage stamp zoning of properties, and this could tend to have that type of inference.

      Mr. Okum said the property on the other side of East Alley is still single family residential, so we are postage stamp zoning if we would consider this. I do have a problem with that. Maybe if the other single family unit were brought into the package, that might be a situation, but we are looking at two lots and basically we are being asked to consider a postage stamp approach to zoning, and I donít think that is good planning. I probably would not support it.

      Mr. Huddleston said if we were to sell a paper street, do you have to offer 50% to each of the abutting owners or is that different from a straight vacation where you donate the property?

      Mr. Shvegzda answered I am not sure about those requirements. Mr. Huddleston said I would like to request that we have our solicitor answer that question. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane to check that out with Mr. Schneider.

      Mr. Huddleston added that basically as far as this project is concerned, I see spot zoning, I see a density greater than I would want to consider in an existing single family residence and I see a significant safety traffic problem on Kemper Road. They donít have a direct access to Cherry Street from this lot. Basically what the applicant has proposed I donít view favorably at all.


      11 MARCH 2003

      PAGE SIX


      Mr. Sherry said I donít have a particular problem with the use, but I do have a problem with the density. It is considerably higher than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for; it says we should be meeting the underlying zoning, which would be 3 Ĺ units per acre, in that range for a total of six or so, as compared to 16. I would be inclined to support something that would be closer to that kind of density.

      This is a difficult area with long narrow lots that are tough to work with. I think there is a lot of rental in there and a lot of applications for garages, which are bigger than the houses in some instances. Something is going on there; I donít know what it is, but your density is just too high for me.

      Ms. Todd responded that unfortunately to go with the smaller density and with the cost of the land, it wouldnít be feasible.

      Mr. Coleman said I would agree that the density is a concern, more due to the proximity of the Springdale Elementary School. I would be concerned about the amount of traffic increasing in that immediate area as a result of individuals needing to get out on Kemper Road. I am concerned about sight lines and overall safety as well. The density definitely is a concern.

      Mr. Galster added I know that there is the multi-family behind this property. Depending on how you split these two lots up, it is possible that you could come in from the Oldegate and have an extension to Oldegate off Bedford Glen and have similar units that are more tied in with the Oldegate and maybe still have a residential unit out front. That probably doesnít suit all of your interests, but it gives a potential larger scale use for the property and still keeps the residential up the street and extends Oldegate back a building or two.

      Ms. Todd responded my fear on that is that we would be getting the back of the units again, which is part of the discussion tonight. With the retention basin and landscaping and the way we are laying this out, we are trying to set it up as an old fashioned look to tie in with the new renovation. I think if we go back to an Oldegate look, we are going to get the back of the buildings and the siding type of material and itís not the concept, the look we are trying for.

      In term of safety and the number of cars that would be here, these probably will go to empty nesters. They are pretty much aiming for empty nesters. You are not going to get families with multiple cars. At the most you will have two cars, and a lot will not be leaving at 8 in the morning and getting home at 5 at night. That is the interest we have had; three or four people have expressed an interest in purchasing if we can get this project going.

      Mr. Vanover commented that the biggest problem I have is the postage stamp rezoning, but my really big concern is on the life safety issues, the fire equipment getting in and out. Unfortunately there are more negatives than positives for this application. About the only possible way would be an l-shaped development, and you still would be looking at sides and backs from the thoroughfares.


      11 MARCH 2003



      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said it appears that most of the concerns donít lend themselves to approval. I indicated earlier something regarding spot zoning and I like Mr. Sherry worked pretty hard on the Comprehensive Plan and I would hate to go away from that and go against my principles so early in the life of the plan. However, it is your prerogative to proceed with it. Are there any questions you would have for us?

      Ms. Todd responded with the East Alley issue, if we can work something out to pull it in off them, would that make the project more favorable to get the zoning change? Mr. Syfert answered not to me. You still would have the residents on Hickory. The only way it would have any appeal at all would be if they were included in this plan, and then I still probably would have some reservations about it. Without them in there, to me it is a no brainer; I would have to vote against it. Mr. McErlane will research East Alley if you would like to check back with him. As I said, the next step is yours.

    3. Zone Map Amendment for 1311 East Kemper Road Office Building (OB) to General Business (GB)
    4. Don Houpt, owner of the property said I have owned the property four or five years. About two years ago, my building burnt down. . Since then, I have torn down the building, and I decided to acquire the A-frame property next to it so I could have enough land to do something that would improve the aesthetics of the area as well as contribute to the value of the offices buildings behind this property, which I still own.

      In evaluating what to do, it is common knowledge that office space is extremely over supplied and that was not a viable option. I think commercial retail is what the marketplace wants and is compatible with that area, so that is the reason for this request.

      I have two gentlemen with me from Casler Design and Joe Dillon from CEC, the company that I have hired to engineer the site. As you may know, we donít know exactly what we are going to do there. The first step was to seek the rezoning, and from there we would work with the Building Department to apply for a site plan review.

      Mr. McErlane reported that there are two parcels shown on the concept plan that was attached to the zoning application. One is currently zoned General Business. The one that is being requested for rezoning is actually a 2.242-acre tract that they are requesting zoning from OB Office Building to General Business. The overall total property shown on the plan is 3.2 acres.

      There were two concept plans presented. Scheme 1 provides for a 20,000 s.f. retail building with 137 parking spaces. Scheme 2 provides for two separate buildings, one at 16,658 s.f. and a separate outlot building at 3500 s.f. with 128 parking spaces. Both of those meet our parking requirements, so it does illustrate that can be done.



      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. McErlane added that based on the concept plan submitted, should the rezoning take place and a development plan come in, if this were the plan it would require a variance for the rear yard setback to the property line from parking. Part of the application indicates that the materials would be masonry glass and EIFS materials.

      Ms. McBride reported the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan designates this area for regional business centers. In addition to regional and corporate office uses, we also make the provision that complementary retail service or restaurant uses can be provided in this area. The property to the south and west of the site are zoned OB, and the properties to the east and to the north across Kemper are zoned GB.

      The GB District provides a variety of retail and service uses, things like gas stations and financial institutions and fast food restaurants and car sales and funeral homes. The applicant did submit two site plans for example, but it is important for the commission to understand that they are in no way bound to either of those two site plans. Because they are not going for a plan development, the GB is pretty much a blank slate and they would come back to us for site plan review.

      With that in mind, the comments are generalized. WE would suggest a consolidation plat so that there is a total of 3.209 acres if the property is to be rezoned GB. That would eliminate a non-conforming size lot in our GB District.

      The required setbacks for the GB District are 50 feet for the front yard, 12 for the side yards and 30 for the rear yard. The maximum building height is 48 feet and maximum impervious surface area ratio is 75%. Parking would have to comply with our Zoning Code. Any variations from the code would have to go our Board of Zoning Appeals.

      Waste removal and screening would have to meet the requirements of our code. Landscaping and lighting plans would have to be prepared in conformance with our requirements, submitted for review and approval.

      The GB District has a formula for square footage of sign area that is permitted and that is the total area for the site. It can be allocated with a maximum single sign on the building of 150 s.f. They also would be entitled to a pole sign 25 feet in height with a maximum of 50 s.f. per side or two ground-mounted signs 100 s.f. at 7 feet in height. That would be a part of any site plan review in the future, and the site development plan would have to be submitted reviewed and approved by this commission before development could go forward.

      My concern is that there are uses within the GB District that do not conform with our Comprehensive plan. Similarly there are uses within the GB District that do conform, so that is something that the commission needs to consider when you start to look at this zone change request.,


      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. Okum wondered what the applicant could do to deal with that, because once you have rezoned, you have rezoned.

      Ms. McBride reported that there are two different options. One would be our PUD process, because that gives the commission much better control in terms of the types of uses. When you approve the PUD, you are approving a preliminary development plan, and if they substantially deviate from that, they will be coming all the way back through the process. We would need to modify the acreage because of the minimum acreage requirement, but we have done that on previous sites, such as the CVS site at Kemper and Route 4.

      The other option would be some type of deed restriction with regards to uses for the property. We would have to turn this over to the law director, but that would be another way to go if they did not care to use our PUD process.

      Mr. Okum asked if the property that is on the southeast corner of the site that appears to be a parking field is a part of the OB District, and Mr. McErlane confirmed that it was. Ms. McBride added that everything south of there is in the OB District, and that is a developed office park.

      Mr. Okum said so basically the only thing we have here that is GB is this corner where the old A frame is. Ms. McBride added plus across Kemper Road.

      Mr. Okum asked if the GB that is there meets the Comprehensive Plan requirements, and Ms. McBride answered that it also is included in that designation, even though it is GB because it is a smaller parcel and the types of uses that could go on there would be more likely compatible. That size of building probably would be a restaurant or some small service type use. When we did the Comprehensive Plan, we didnít just look at existing zoning; we looked at what we wanted to see in the future as well.

      Mr. Okum commented when the Comprehensive Plan was done, we had visions of an office building on that site, and unfortunately because of the fire, an office building was removed.

      Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if she had discussed with the applicant the PUD option. Ms. McBride responded that they expressed their concern about the uses, and in our initial meeting, we threw out the PUD concept as an option.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that they would recommend that a traffic impact study be done, primarily to see the effect this would have on the south leg of the Chesterdale-Kemper Road intersection, which is signalized.

      Regarding access to the site, there would be a concern with the west common drive. At this point it intersects Kemper Road very near the westernmost point of the eastbound left turn bay to Chesterdale. This would be better served if the left turn movements would be prohibited in bound and exiting the drive.


      11 MARCH 2003

      PAGE TEN


      Mr. Shvegzda added that with that in mind, the access to the Sleep Lab property would be affected, and we would request a cross access easement via the Chesterdale intersection to allow them to access the site.

      On storm water management, there was nothing indicated on the plans regarding anything with detention. We roughed out about 22,000 cubic feet of detention that would be required for the site.

      The concept plan does not show the existing topographic information 200 feet beyond the property line. It does show it to the south. Mr. Dillon said we did add one that showed the topo. Mr. Shvegzda responded yes, but that was a small scale, basically a CAGIS map.

      The pavements on some of the common drives are in poor condition, and would have to be addressed with the final plans.

      Mr. Galster asked where the existing driveway to the west of Chesterdale goes; does it go anywhere beyond this property? Mr. Houpt responded that it serves the office buildings behind it but it doesnít go through; once it enters my property, it is a private drive serving the office buildings.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if he wished to address any of the staffís concerns.

      Mr. Houpt responded that there are many good things that they raised, but my understanding is that most of those things are appropriate to be reviewed at the site plan review, rather than at the rezoning request.

      I am really sensitive to trying to upgrade that area. You can appreciate the fact that the office buildings I have remaining are worth far more than the development in front, so I have a very strong vested interest in consolidating and doing a great job with what is in front in order to protect what I have in back.

      Many of the things they have requested seem reasonable, but at this juncture in terms of a rezoning, they donít seem relevant at this time.

      Mr. Syfert responded one of the main concerns that we have is if we suggest to Council that this be rezoned to General Business, we basically open Pandoraís Box that you can do anything you want to. I believe the staff recommended PUD (Planned Unit Development) so we can control things.

      Mr. Houpt responded with all due respect, I donít think they did request a Planned Unit Development; that was not mentioned to me at any point. Also, I believe there are a tremendous number of rules that the City of Springdale has regarding what can and canít be built there. So, I donít really see it as a Pandoraís Box situation. I think there are a tremendous number of rules that we need to conform to.



      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. Syfert responded it is a concern to me; I donít know about the rest of the members.

      Mr. Houpt asked what would be inappropriate under the General Business zoning? Mr. Syfert responded that there is a broad variety of things. I am bringing up one of the concerns that I have.

      Mr. Okum said there have been other developments requesting a use on that site. We had a car wash requested for the existing GB site. Currently the zoning on it is appropriate; it is an OB site adjacent to other OB uses and with the rear property zoned OB. There is no reason that it is not a viable or proper use as OB. Why should the Planning Commission add an additional GB to an already GB dense area when there is an existing OB site there? You havenít given me a good reason, except for the fact that your building burnt down and the market is bad for OB, that OB would not be a viable use for the property, and why should I rezone it?

      Mr. Houpt asked how he felt about the A frame structure adjacent to this? Mr. Okum responded I think it I ugly and time for it to change, but besides that it is a GB use approved for a GB and is currently zoned that way.

      Mr. Houpt responded with all due respect, I am not asking for tax incentives or any unusual help from the government. I am doing what I think is an honorable step of improving the image and the modern appearance of the east end of Springdale. In fact I would be removing the A frame. At a considerable expense I acquired it in part so I could rationalize and consolidate what I think frankly is a very tired run down looking portion of Kemper Road.

      Keep in mind that I very much want to add value to that area. I own a considerable amount of the property in that area, whether I get the rezoning or not. So as a private businessman, I am very much trying to add to the image, and add to the conveniences and amenities of that area for not only my tenants who do pay taxes to the City of Springdale, but to the residents. With all due respect Mr. Okum, I think this actually would be making a very wonderful contribution to the City of Springdale, certainly far better than a vacant lot.

      Mr. Okum responded wouldnít an OB use, if OB was currently market friendly? Mr. Houpt answered that the net square footage that I am proposing under any of these schemes is the same as it was prior to the fire. So I donít think at any level that it can be seen as adding to the commercialization of that area.

      Mr. Okum commented I certainly find a definite difference in use when you go from OB to GB, and what impact that will have. Obviously our city engineer says that a traffic impact study should be done for the site. Office uses have certain ingress-egress issues that occur at certain times. Retail has a different approach in how it is handled, and I think our engineer is giving you a reason why there should be an engineering.


      11 MARCH 2003




      Mr. Okum added that I think there is a way of coming to a happy medium. I think it is a matter of working together with the staff and the City to come about with a resolution or a process to make that happen. But, for me to sit here this evening and say weíve got GB on the corner here Ė letís add another GB next to it Ė and continue on down the street changing zoning districts, we would end up with additional impact along Kemper Road. If you want to accomplish something and it is in the interests of your property, my suggestion would be to work with staff to determine a way to bring that about that can give the City some assurances of those protections. The issue would be a high traffic producing type of business that would impact that intersection which is already burdened by the other uses now in the area.

      Mr. Vanover commented Kemper Road right now is a major traffic artery, and that intersection by itself is quite sensitive. Part of the problem is that we have two abutting municipalities, and the other municipality is on our traffic loop to help control the flow through there. We are very sensitive and concerned about what is going on. Life safety issues, and additional traffic burdens may even make this proposed center unsuccessful, because if the public cannot get in and out safely and efficiently, they donítí go. With all due respect, we are offering some compromises and asking for some assurances on where you are headed. Is it a bad plan? Maybe not, but I would like to have a better feel for what we are putting out there. It is not a stripping the zoning away issue because they are very much intertwined.

      Mr. Galster asked Mr. Houpt if he had any objection to the PUD. Mr. Houpt responded frankly I am not too familiar with it. A concern that I would have is that I would be unnecessarily restricted on what could be done and the marketplace may not want that. All too often I have seen developers. All too often I have seen developers go off in directions that turn out to be very unprofitable because the City wanted it and the marketplace didnít. As a person who is attempting to use real estate as a way to make a living, I am very sensitive to something that the marketplace may not want.

      Mr. Galster responded if you have an idea of what you would like to do, you would present a plan. If in fact the market didnít support that plan, you could always come back in and change it and we could amend that PUD. Nobody wold try to tell you what restaurant to put in there for example. You are the property owner who has to make the business survive and we welcome that. I think the redevelopment of that particular corner will be great.

      The problem that I have is that right now with the GB zoning, there are items that I would not like to see come onto that corner. For example, Sexually Oriented Businesses are permitted in the GB District. Iím not saying you are planning to put one in there, but if we changed the zoning, it doesnít mean that it couldnít happen in the future. That zoning will go with the land forever.




      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. Galster added that right now you have a vested interest because of the fact that you own the properties behind, but in the future if you would sell those off, it is possible that the person in front may not have the same desires that you have to protect the rear.

      Mr. Houpt responded isnít that all the more reason for rezoning both to be a benefit?

      Mr. Galster answered with a PUD, any change in the use would still have to come here and would still have to go through an approval process. They would have to show a reasonable need for that change.

      Mr. Houpt responded obviously you are the Planning Commission and you can do what you want with my application. With all due respect to Ms. McBride, a PUD was not mentioned to me, and I feel very blind-sided. I was very excited, because I love to see private developers redeveloping a community for the better without asking for governmental bonds or governmental tax this and that. I am very much a purist in that way, and I believe I will definitely be adding to the integrity and to the image of Springdale. It will be far better than what we have now. We have an empty lot where a building burned down and a stupid A frame and I want to make things better.

      Mr. Galster responded I understand that and I agree with that. I donít like the lot as it exists today; I donít like the lot or the A-frame as they exist, but the reality is that we wonít get another chance to redevelop this for another 70 years after you do what you are going to do. But you may not be the owner forever, and different things can always happen. All the PUD allows is for us to be a little bit more aware and help define the uses that you would propose. I think you would find in all the PUDS that the City has done in the past that we have been extremely flexible. We want to have a good development there. We want you to succeed; we want every business that you put in there, every tenant that you have to be extremely successful. We would make more money; we would be happy.

      Ms. McBride commented I am not sure that Mr. Houpt was at the meeting that we had, but I know that his engineer and architect were, and at the beginning of that meeting, I started off by throwing out the PUD suggestion. I did mention it in passing; we didnít spend considerable time discussing it but it was mentioned.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston said what you have done in consolidating properties is what the City likes to see. That has been stated here by others. And I think that the reasons why the City would not give you a carte blanche there has also been very well stated by others. It is my opinion that the obvious way to go would be something under a PUD. My experience, as a developer and as a member of the commission has been that Springdale is pretty workable with their PUD. To the extent that the City has some reciprocal protection, you have your own protection in terms of what you want to do there.


      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. Huddleston commented that this Commission can act on this tonight, but it would never get by Council. Ideally you can consolidate the property and hopefully we can work together to come up with something that will work for both parties.

      Mr. Sherry said I want to go back to the Comprehensive Plan. It indicates the kinds of uses that you are proposing may or may not be appropriate. The purpose of the PUD is to determine whether or not they are appropriate for the area, rather than the General Business carte blanche approval. We have designated this scenario for a particular type of use, with retail being complementary to it. We need to work through the implementation of the plan a little better. We need some better mechanisms to help you and get what you need quicker. The plan is brand new, and Iím working my way through it. I feel your frustration, but to me the only option available is the PUD.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked what he would like the commission to do. We can table it and you can think about it and go back to the drawing board. Mr. Houpt responded I hear what everyone is saying, but I want to let you know that everyone on Council and Planning needs to be really sensitive and supportive of private individuals who are trying to work within the system in as efficient and streamlined manner as possible, and how difficult it can be with any government municipality. If there is a price to that, the price is not necessarily matching what the City may want to see happen.

      Yes, I would heartily welcome going the PUD route because of the comments made tonight. I absolutely did not expect this to happen and I am upset, obviously, because I actually thought I was doing something good that everyone would be excited about and Iím not asking for industrial revenue bonds or tax increment financing. To me that is not something that benefits the community and is not the proper way to go.

      Having said that, I appreciate your comments. We all want something excellent there. There wonít be anything there that we all wonít be delighted with.

      Mr. Syfert said you have to understand our side of it, too. Keep in mind that marketing does not drive zoning, and that is what you are trying to force on us. You will find out that we work very well with the people in this City. The inference was that we donít and we really do. There are a lot of issues on the table, but we want to work with you. That is why I think we are talking about a PUD as the best approach. Why it wasnít brought back to you I donít know, because I know Ms. McBride well enough that Iím sure it was mentioned in that meeting.

      Mr. Houpt responded the point is that it wasnít recommended to me. But thatís the past; letís move forward. Hopefully things will go well and weíll all be delighted with what is done there in the future.

      Mr. Okum moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to April 8th.


      11 MARCH 2003



      Mr. Galster commented that all we have talked about here is the zoning of the land, but I liked the building you laid out and the concept. I want to make sure that the applicant leaves with some positive notes. Mr. Houpt responded I have great expectations that this will be the best strip center in that part of town. Mr. Galster added that there is no place left to build in Springdale, and we want to redevelop the right way. We are on the same page. Mr. Okum added that you already have made the first step in the PUD process anyway.

    5. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike

Wayne Fan, Architect showed pictures of the Dunkin Donuts in the Dayton area. I was selected to do this project for them. We got the drawings 90% finished and approval from the Dunkin Donuts Corporation, but somehow there was a link broken, the Conditional Use Permit. We already have relocated a lot of things to accommodate this proposed drive through because they expect a 40% increase in sales with this drive through. .

I have great confidence that I can revise the drawings to meet all the requirements and respond to all the staff comments point by point.

Over the years, the Dunkin Donuts store chain has developed and has been pretty stable. It is a very good business and recession free. However, the new competition is very tough, from Starbucks and Krispy Kremes, for example, and Dunkin Donuts decided to update all their stores.

We finished the design last year and I missed the deadline for the February meeting. I am not an expert on this, but right now I look at the comments and I think I can make it very good.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned General Business, and is in Subarea D of the Corridor Review District, and the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to develop a drive through pick up window. In addition to that, the applicant has shown some exterior elevation changes.

Both a Conditional Use and a change in building color and material require review under the Corridor Review District Guidelines. One thing we asked the applicant to clarify is ownership of the property. Mr. Patel signed the ownerís affidavit and the application and the property is owned under the name of PZ Realty.

Mr. Fan reported that I pursued that and left messages, and I also asked Mr. Patel to contact them, and we havenít gotten feed back yet. My next efforts will be to go to Dunkin Donuts headquarters to get that letter signed. I have no difficulty with getting this nailed down. Mr. McErlane responded the question is if Mr. Patel is a principal in PZ Realty. Mr. Fan answered no. Mr. Patel leases the store.



11 MARCH 2003



Mr. McErlane continued so he is a lessee and the question would be whether or not Planning Commission can even act on a lesseeís request. I donít know that it would make sense to go through the remainder of this, because I donít think Planning Commission can act on a lesseeís request on a zoning issue on the property.

Mr. Fan reported that the contact manager of Dunkin Donuts Corporation had indicated that PZ Realty should be able to agree with everything we are requesting.

Mr. McErlane asked if Dunkin Donuts was PZ Realty? Mr. Fan responded I think that they have some direct connections. Mr. McErlane commented so we donít even know if Dunkin Donuts is PZ Realty as well. Mr. Fan added that when we tried to clear up some cut up trees in the back, we did not go to PZ Realty. We went to Dunkin Donuts, and they talked with PZ Realty to get permission to cut up the trees.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said I donít think we will be able to hear this tonight because we donít have the ownerís permission.

Mr. Fan responded that the major concern that I have is the drive through. We can revise our design to meet the other requirements easily.

Mr. Syfert reported that since we donít have the ownerís permission on this, we really shouldnít go any further with it. I would like for you to go ahead, but it wonít do any good without the ownerís permission.

Mr. McErlane said for the purposes of not having to readvertise for the hearing, it would be beneficial to open the hearing and ask for it to be continued. Mr. Syfert opened the conditional use hearing. Mr. Okum moved to continue the hearing in progress until the April 8th meeting. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and all voted aye.

Mr. Okum added that there were a number of comments from staff. I would like to see a good bit of that cleared up prior to seeing this on April 8th. As a Planning Commission member, I would appreciate those issues being resolved prior to the meeting.

Mr. Fan said he would respond by letter and point by point. Mr. Okum added that you need to do that prior to the meeting and have it back to staff in adequate time for them to review it.

Mr. McErlane added as a point of clarification, the majority of these comments were given to the applicant on February 24th to address and resubmit by the 28th, and most of them were not addressed properly.

Mr. Okum commented I sort of expected that, but I wanted to make sure that the applicant understands that is what we are looking for. Mr. Fan responded that he did not have enough time.



11 MARCH 2003



Mr. Galster said our meeting is April 8th. What date does he need to have the submittal in to staff? Mr. McErlane responded at the latest, March 28th, but if the applicant submits on the 28th, we wonít be able to respond in advance of the meeting. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said if you wait all the way until March 28th to get it to them, you wonít get any response back. Mr. Fan responded I already am working on it.

  2. A. Zoning Code Amendment Ė Post Secondary Educational Uses

    Mr. McErlane reported that a question came up about the possibility of locating a college in a General Business Zoning District. It wasnít specifically spelled out as a permitted use. However, the train occurring there was training for uses that are permitted within the district, such as office and clerical and medical assistant type of positions. This change proposes to allow post-secondary education in the fields of studies for those principally permitted uses in that district. This is a clarification.

    Mr. Galster said I am wondering why we would allow it only for what is permitted in the district. If it were a facility that provided post-secondary education in retail, would it not be permitted?

    Mr. McErlane responded I am sure that there are some retail type uses that you would have in a post secondary education. Right now we have a training facility for welding and HVAC that is in an industrial district, so that fits. I wouldnít want to see that in an office or general business district.

    Mr. Galster responded so if this change to the code were made, if somebody else wanted to come forward with hotel and motel management training, they would need a conditional use?

    Mr. McErlane reported that they could apply for a similar use in an office district, but they would be permitted in a General Business or Motor Service or those types of districts.

    Mr. Galster moved to recommend this amendment to Council and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and the item was approved and recommended to Council.

    Mr. Syfert stated that a number of you attended a planning seminar. Does anyone want to comment on it?

    Mr. Galster commented we had eight people attend the seminar and I thought Springdale was well represented and we did an excellent job of presenting our community and some of the things that we have accomplished.

    To Ms. McBride and her staff, I offer our appreciation for providing people. Overall we got to see four of the 16 presentations, and the four I attended were extremely well done. I always learn and itís always a big benefit.


    11 MARCH 2003



    Mr. Galster added that sometimes I think we miss the general things in these seminars about how to make motions and the like. Otherwise I thought it was fantastic.

    Mr. Vanover added that unfortunately I was not able to attend, but Marge Pollitt and Jim Squires reported to Council that they were very impressed and pleased with the seminar.

    Mr. Sherry said I attended also and it was a wonderful session. Last week I also attended the two-day training seminar and that was even better, particularly for being a new member. I hope Mr. Coleman can attend the next time it comes around because it was a great session. One of the best parts was what Anne put on. In the future, we are hoping to have more detailed training in site plan review and landscaping, things we donít have a lot of. They are going to look at that and hopefully we will have sessions on that.

    Mr. Okum said the interactive portion of one particular speaker was extremely good and it was helpful to bring that about instead of listening for 45 minutes to a person pointing out how well they are redesigning Miami Township. It was a very good session, and hopefully we can get more training along those lines.

    Mr. Galster added that I think we are all a little bit biased, because we know the type of presentations that are made. There is a big difference in the quality of presentations so make sure everybody on your staff understands our appreciation for their efforts. Mr. Coleman added I agree that the interactive session was particularly interesting. On the lighter side, I was very impressed by Anneís ability to do the raffles and gift giving at lunchtime. Mr. Galster added that the City of Springdale gave a coffee mug as our giveaway. If we canít talk to the administration and get something better than that when it comes to representing our City, at least let us know and maybe the eight of us that are going to be embarrassed could bring something on our own.

    1. Don Pabloís 605 Kemper Commons Ė Painted Window Signs

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


__________________,2003 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman


_____________________,2003 _________________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary