13 APRIL 1999

7:00 P.M.


Chairman William G. Syfert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m..


MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Steve Galster, Dick Huddleston, David Okum, Robert Seaman, Councilman Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert.


OTHERS PRESENT: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert stated Mr.Young is out of town and will not be here tonight.


Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote, al l present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.


    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster said Council received correspondence from Tipton Interests which they asked me to read to this Commission.

      "I have been developing property in various parts of the country for over 30 years. In doing so I have worked with many administrations and have been before many Planning Commissions and Councils. Never have I seen more professionally run or better organized Council meetings or more curious or professional people starting with Cecil Osborn and his staff and extending through each council member. It was indeed a pleasure working with everyone and if you would please give my thanks to all involved.


      Dave Tipton"

      Mr. Galster said the next item was on the newsracks before Planning Commission, which was approved by Council and will be going out for bids to get the enclosures together. The final item was an update on Commons Drive/Century Boulevard. There was a concern regarding the name change to Century Boulevard because of the businesses located on Commons Drive. There was a request from those businesses and the administration to consider keeping the Commons Drive name on the north side of Kemper Road where it intersects with Century Boulevard. Council felt that most people know it by location rather than street name anyway, and the expense to change it would be tremendous. That hasnít been acted on by Council yet.

    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė February 25, 1999
    4. Zoning Bulletin Ė March 10, 1999
    5. Zoning Bulletin Ė March 25, 1999
    6. 3/19 Letter from Architect, 5-Star Car Wash


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Two

    1. Final Approval of Tri-County Golf Center, 455 East Tri-County Parkway (Oak Hills Cemetery property) Ė tabled 3/9/99
    2. Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant called yesterday and asked to be moved to the end of the agenda.

    3. Conditional Use Permit, Car Wash Ė 1333 East Kemper Road Public Hearing Ė continued 3/9/99
    4. Mr. Syfert said we received the letter in which they requested that this be moved back to May. Is there anyone here this evening that wishes to speak before the Planning Commission? One individual was, and Mr. Syfert opened the Public Hearing.

      Lawrence Bergman of The Bergman Group reported our group was the broker involved in the transaction with 5-Star. I understand from talking to one of my agents that they have dropped the purchase contract on the site. I understand there was a 200 foot setback problem and they wouldnít be able to meet those conditions. Mr. McErlane responded there were some setback issues, but not 200 feet. Mr. Bergman continued I can confirm this tomorrow and send a letter to Planning Commission. Mr. McErlane said I would advise that we continue this until we hear something from the applicant.

      Mr. Syfert closed the Public Hearing and Mr. Vanover moved and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion to continue to the May meeting. All present voted aye, and the item was continued to May 11th.

    5. Building Addition, Recker & Boerger and Proposed Garage, Enterprise Rent A Car, 169 Northland Boulevard Ė tabled 3/9/99

Allen Boerger said with me today is Tom Woebkenberg, and the architect is supposed to be here with us; he is running behind.. Mr. McErlane said it may be appropriate that you fill this board in on what you are proposing to do and what the addition is for.

Mr. Boerger stated Enterprise needs a place in the bad weather to clean up the vehicles prior to renting them. They can pull underneath and clean up the vehicles.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if they would prefer to be tabled to the end of the meeting since the architect was not present. Mr. Boerger indicated that he would, and Mr. Huddleston moved to move the item to the end of the meeting and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was moved to the end of the meeting.


A. Proposed Building Expansion, The Sheakley Group Ė 100 Merchant Street

Dan Wheeler, Owner of Target Management, and Larry Sheakley the owner of 100 Merchant Street approached the commission. Mr. Wheeler said that Mr. Sheakley purchased this property six to seven years ago. There was an additional three acres of parking lot on the site which we have leased to various car lots for parking new cars. The Sheakley Group now needs a little more space in their building. We looked at putting a free standing building on the property and met with Bill McErlane and put costs together and determined that a building addition would be more prudent than a free-standing building.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Three


We are proposing putting 23,500 square feet on the back side of 100 Merchant Street. It will be a three story addition and will be approximately 90í x 90í. There will be 468 parking spaces with the handicapped spaces that will be required and based on the directives we have received, we will have no problem putting the required storm water detention in either an underground vault or some piping. The existing parking lot is already drained and the perimeter of the site is already landscaped. The construction will be limited to a 120í x 120í area and there will be an additional elevator put in the back of the building. The addition will be done to match the exact brick so it looks the same. In the back of the building it does come off a single ply rubber roof membrane in two or three different spots, and we are keeping the same kind of look so it comes off straight in the back. We will still have the slate roof on the top; it does not get up to the third level; it stops at the top of the second floor.

At this time we are seeking approval with comments. We want to

cooperate with the city to make a building addition that everybody will be happy with.

Mr. Galster said then is this a preliminary plan approval? Mr. Wheeler responded we will come back with the final plan. I want to make sure before we go into the final work that this meets with your satisfaction. Mr. McErlane added I donít think we have enough detail to recommend a final plan approval. Mr. Wheeler added at that time we will come back with a signage request as well.

Mr. Shvegzda reported on the storm water management, way back when detention was required for the whole area back there. Now we have a different situation, and downspouts should be tied directly into the storm sewer system. We are looking at water and sanitary sewer availability to be obtained by the appropriate utilities. There was a question concerning the additional number of employees; we have various different uses that utilize the same access points; it is a matter of looking at the whole picture.

Mr. Vanover wondered if the MSD still had a moratorium on new taps. Mr. Shvegzda answered it is my understanding that they are still evaluating each site. The city has a number of credits which have not been totally utilized at this point. One of the big things we are waiting for is the replacement for the existing sanitary sewer 915. Mr. Galster added the moratorium is off; efforts of Springdale and Sharonville have caused them to look further north for the problem.

Mr. Wheeler added the water tap we have in the building is satisfactory for the addition we are doing. On the sewer, I donít know if they are going to charge us for increased capacity, but we already have a six inch lateral going into the building.

Ms. McBride reported the property is zoned OB, Offices Building, and one of the requirements is that the building coverage not exceed 25%. Iím sure that is not a problem, but we will need site acreage and building coverage to verify that for the records. We did not receive any information regarding the existing number of parking spaces existing square footage, proposed square footage, parking spaces that will be lost for construction, and without that we cannot verify that there is adequate parking for the proposed addition. We did not receive a landscape plan, and I assume there will be new landscaping around the building addition. We also did not receive information signage or on site lighting.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Four


Mr. Wheeler responded site lighting will remain as is. The poles will be replaced where they are existing. The landscaping plan has not been developed, but it will be forthcoming with the final set of plans. We did not have the drawing done on the sign, so we did not ask for sign approval at this time.

Ms. McBride added as part of final approval, we will want to see where those poles will be relocated and the landscaping and signage.

Mr. Syfert asked about parking requirements. Mr. Wheeler answered with the expansion, we will have a little more than five spaces per thousand square feet of usable leasable space, so I donít believe there will be a problem with parking on the site.

Mr. McErlane reported my comments have been covered, and the only question I had concerned the existing dumpster locations. I noticed they were on one side of the driveway when you come in off Tri-County Parkway and I donít know if there is a way to tuck those in against the

building and build a enclosure around them. There are two pretty sizeable dumpsters there. Mr. Wheeler responded we can put a screen around it to match the brick, either at the same location or we would be happy to look at it at different sites. There is nothing magical about where it is now.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they would be able to match the brick, and Mr. Wheeler answered as close as we can. They have two different companies looking at it right now; there will be a little shading difference. They said they still make it, but itís a different cast of colors, so it will be slightly different. The building is only about 50 years old; it'í not as old as it looks. Mr. McErlane added my understanding is that it was built in the '50ís. Mr. Wheeler added almost half of the expansion will be for The Sheakley Group.

Mr. Syfert commented when I first saw this my primary concern was how are we going to make it blend in and look compatible with the building, but you already have sections back there that blend in quite well.

Mr. Okum wondered if the cornicing would be matched, and Mr. Wheeler indicated that it would be, all the way around to the rear on all three sides.

Mr. Syfert said this is a preliminary approval. Mr. Huddleston moved to

Grant preliminary approval, subject to the comments of staff and if there is drop in elevation, that the brick match, and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Voting aye were Messrs. Huddleston, Vanover, Galster, Seaman and Syfert. Preliminary approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Quadrelle Realty Services Requests Approval for Proposed Monument Sign to be Located at Kemper Road and Century Boulevard

Lani Wess of Woolpert representing SKA stated here with me is Larry Bergman of The Bergman Group and representatives of Roberds Furniture, Dave & Busterís, MARS Music and Golf Galaxy.

Commons Drive is going to a right in right out only, and there is an existing sign out there that measurers 130 s.f., 14í4" high. Your plan says this sign is to be relocated, but we want to keep this sign, because it is really important to this group. They want to keep that sign and propose another sign on Century Boulevard, which will be the main access to their property.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Five


Ms. Wess added the proposed sign is 20í high and 123 square feet. It is 18 inches from the bottom to the first sign and 20 feet to the top. You have a color rendering.

We show the sign in two locations, Alternate A would be alongside the Target Sign, and Alternate B would be on the east side of Century Boulevard.

One of the comments of staff was landscaping. Today I faxed to Bill McErlane a landscape plan. The sign is internally illuminated with steel or aluminum framing. The copy panels are aluminum Plexiglas on Fiberglas. We want your approval of the existing sign and the alternative locations either A or B to go back to Target and get an agreement.

Mr. Syfert wondered whether they preferred A or B. Ms. Wess answered we would like the opportunity to have either location available to go back to Target and negotiate.

Larry Bergman said at the time the City was going to help us go back to Target for signage. Iíll leave it to my brother Tom to discuss easements with Target. We have met with Bill and Cecil Osborn to discuss it, and I would like to share some of our thoughts.

We have a situation that is rather unique in marketing the property. This has been teamwork between the city the developer and all the tenants all along. Everyone wants to work together to make this development a winner. To make it sucessful, signage is extremely important. We have heard a number of times how important it is to have signage on 275. There have been arguments and compromises, and everyone in that project today is very happy with the visibility from 275.

However the property is unique in that it has limited visibility from Kemper Road. The only one you could see from Kemper is that signage for Dave & Busterís. We still have 120,000 feet of building that is warehousing that is vacant. We do have people interested in the space; we want to work with the same terms with the city being sensitive to traffic and attracting a retail type use into the building with limited impact on the traffic in the area. This always has been the focus on my part, to try to stay within that parameter.

We have a problem, and it is signage. All the tenants currently in the building have representatives here. One of the biggest problems they all have is people canít find their facilities. Many of these customers are out of towners; they are not familiar with the area, and are trying to find Kemper Commons; signage is extremely important. Driving up and down Kemper Road, we can alleviate the problem as a team by providing adequate signage. We need to help the project and help the tenants be successful. We have vacant space so we need more signage to provide panels for the tenants, and we need visibility for the tenants. This is the reason why we would like to have the two signs if we still can. However, we are listening to what the city needs, and of course w e will follow the city requirements. If we can have the signage at either A or B and also retain the signage at what is currently Kemper Commons, we wold like that very much, and I think it would benefit all of us, including the City.

Tom Bergman reported there is no written agreement; we donít have a binding agreement with Target but the staff has indicated they would help us coordinate this with them. Obviously we need something that would work with their existing sign that would not cause a problem. From the first in the covenants, it was suggested that the City would work with us on the signage as part of the package of helping with the Century Boulevard extension.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Six


Mr. Bergman added we are confident we will get that; we would like to get either site approved if possible. Obviously if the City suggests one over the other we would try to obtain that as best as we could in dealing with Target.

Mr. Galster commented with Commons Drive becoming a right in and right out only, I do not see the need for the sign to remain there. If somebody is coming westbound, which is the only way they will be able to turn in there, they already have passed their first sign, and it is confusing to the motoring public. When it comes to Alternates A or B, If you put it on A, you will have a conflict with the Target sign, so I think B is the best place for it. My other concern is I donít want to see a space put there for future tenants. I would like to have a sign be expanded down and added to as required or approved. Mr. Bergman commented I donít see that as a problem.

Ms. McBride reported that the existing sign has 130 s.f. at 11í-4" and the proposed sign is 123 s.f. but it is 20 feet in height. Both Location A and B are 10 feet off the right of way as required by Code. We did not receive a landscaping plan for the base of the sign. The sign itself will be internally illuminated and we did not receive materials as to what that sign will be constructed of. We did not consider the alternative of leaving the existing sign; it was not submitted that way and we did not consider that, nor would it be our recommendation. Between Alternative A and B, we would recommend Alternative B because of the confusion of the Target sign and the overall image of sign clutter that the city is trying to get away from.

Mr. McErlane said the applicant has already indicated that they are still negotiating with Target so if any approval comes tonight, it would need to be contingent on Targetís approval of either a lease agreement or approval to locate the sign on their property.

I did include a copy of the Covenants, and you will note that they do indicate the sign at Commons Drive and Kemper Road would be removed and we would recommend that as well just because it does not serve a purpose for eastbound traffic and for the westbound traffic, you already have missed the main entrance by the time you get to that point.

As Ms. McBride indicated, I agree the location on the east side of Century Boulevard (Alternative B) is preferable. However if it works out that the west side is the only location it can go on, I would recommend that it be placed north of the current location so it doesnít interfere with the Target sign. This is primarily because they are proposing a 20 foot sign and the bottom of the Target sign is 18í-2" and Iím sure Target will not approve a sign that would obscure theirs.

Mr. Okum said I also feel the reasoning for elimination of the sign was to eliminate the confusion. The site seems to be doing well; parking lot seems to be full and people seem to be finding it. I donít necessarily agree that the signage is all that is getting people there but they are finding it.

I do have some concerns regarding space allotment on the sign and what is necessary. If Roberds is 250,000 s.f. and Dave & Busterís is 63,000 s.f. and MARS is 36,000 s.f. and Golf Galaxy is 25,000 s.f., I think we have a proportional scale that doesnít seem to be fair and equitable. Additionally I have some concerns that we are going from what was approved originally on the sign of six potential locations to this, which is nine potential businesses.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Seven


Mr. Okum continued we had stated that for any future development within that site we would have to quantify our calculations because we are at a point where the development has evolved and changed. If we relocate the existing sign, then we are saying six uses versus nine uses, that would change the trafffic counts. I think we are close to the maximum on the existing parking lot.

Mr. Larry Bergman said I have a different opinion. I have been marketing the property for several years, and you are absolutely correct with your comments about signage and how things evolved. Unfortunately we do not know what tenants will be coming into this building. What we do know is that there is no other signage available to accommodate any other tenants.

Right now there is a tremendous amount of truck traffic feeding out of that warehouse, and I donít think it is in the best interests of the City to have all that trailer traffic running up and down Kemper Commons and Kemper Road. I think a retail use helps in eliminating part of the traffic problem.

Secondly, you indicated that everyone is finding the location. They are, but they are driving up and down Kemper Road trying to find it, and that is not a good solution for the City. I brought the managers of these properties because they are experiencing this all the time. What is happening is they are getting phone calls continuously. MARS gets people from the region, Ohio Kentucky and Indiana as is Dave & Busterís and Roberds. Signage is a key to this location, and we all have to work together to make this a winner.

We are developers and we want to make money on this project. We could put a warehouser in and get a good rate, but it is not in the best interests of the City, and we need help from you to get the signage that is adequate to bring other tenants similar to the fine ones we have today.

Keli Gemrich representing Dave & Busterís said people are finding us with a little bit of difficulty. We get many calls each night from the cell phones asking how to get to us. We estimate 20 to 30% of our business is conventions, with people who do not live in the area or know their way around, so the additional larger sign would alleviate some of that.

Mr. Okum commented getting to your development was always anticipated to be a problem. Iím not overly confident that leaving the one sign will help you any, except confuse your pedestrians.

On the other sign, I have a problem with the proportional scale. MARS has approximately half of your space, and why should MARS have a sign as big as yours? If we know the intent of the development, and we design the signage to accommodate that, we will be a lot better off and have a little more balance to the signage. Mr. Okum added I also am a little concerned about nine users versus six in terms of traffic, which I would think would create a problem. Ms. McBride commented it would depend on the users.

Mr. Okum continued I would like to see some breakage between the panels. We did it on the Comp USA sign, and I think it helps the separation between users. It would add depth and dimension. I wonder why we need nine panels versus the number of panels we have on the existing sign. Mr. Bergman commented I think Steve came up with a great idea, to put the panels up as we develop the new customers. As we get tenants, we would add the panels, but we need the room between the poles to put new tenants in.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Eight


Mr. Bergman added the proportion of signs is difficult, we never know who the tenant will be or the square footage, and we canít keep changing proportions of everyoneís signs to accommodate what will happen.

Mr. Tom Bergman commented I think the issue in part is to avoid confusion, and if we do too much micromanagement of the individual panels, Iím not sure that will help the traffic and make this more saleable. We have worked with staff in terms of allocations, and this is a concept plan now. As far as future traffic and the number of panels, remember this is a PUD zone, and every single user has to come in here. We have to bring in the traffic flow count, and this board will get the opportunity to make a decision at that time. If you would give us flexibility in terms of allocation among the tenants, we are confident that we will end up with something that works for the city and works for them.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said so your indication is that the sign allotment spaces to be considered for Vintage Videos, On The Rocks, The Sports Connection and Runners World would be deleted from this submission, and our consideration would be only for what you have there.

Mr. Tom Bergman answered we would like to have the panels; remember that Champion is also off this drive, and is not shown here. Mr. Okum said so you wold need a panel for Champion. Mr. Bergman responded yes, and the thought was we would have a blank panel there. As we have additional users, we would bring those in for approval. So, you are not preapproving anybody in the future; you are approving those existing tenants and this existing sign. Mr. Okum responded so we are changing a panel space for Champion to have the allocated space. Mr. Bergman answered we would want that opportunity to talk to them, because they are off this road. Mr. Okum said and to allow you one additional space for a future tenant. Mr. Bergman responded no, we would want the same number of panels on here. Mr. Okum said I understand what you are requesting, but not knowing what you are planning to expand to, I canít honestly do that and feel comfortable about it.

Mr. Bergman said I think the answer is that we ask this panel to approve it as currently submitted.

Ms. Wess said I want to clarify that Tom is in agreement to approving a maximum of 123 s.f. as shown on the plans, and up to now approving those businesses already out there. Later on, as more development goes out there, the remainder of the sign will be filled, but those will come to Planning Commission to be approved. So, we would have a maximum of 123 s.f. on the sign, and that I believe is what they are requesting.

Mr. Bergman commented I think that is accurate. At a basic negotiation level, we go to a potential tenant and can say, here is a spot. You have to get PUD approval and all the city approvals, but we can put you on the spot if Planning Commission approves your use. Mr. Okum added but the panels donít go in until the use is approved, those sections of panels would not go be inserted into the sign; we would not have blank panels setting there. Mr. Bergman confirmed that.

Mr. Galster commented I think you have done a great job of advertising as a group, and the proportionate amount of space on the sign is between the tenants. Target will open and you can say you turn at Target when you give directions. I donít think you will have a major problem with people running back and forth looking for the street at that point.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Nine


Mr. Huddleston asked the staff if there is a legal method to permit this sign off site; what do we need? Mr. McErlane answered we would need either a copy of the lease agreement or something from Target to allow them saying that they can locate the sign.

Mr. Huddleston commented while I agree with some of the members concerning visual pollution created by signage, as Mr. Bergman indicated, I think we do need to work together with the development side of this as the city has in the past to try to achieve something that is a good balance and give us a quality as well as a viable tenancy back there. Having said that, Iím not sure signage is the only ingredient to all of that. But I will say if anything, I would rather see us increase the height of this sign to give these people some flexibility in marketing the property. I go along with the suggestion of having spacing between the signs, but if they are going to do that, we need to give them space to do that in. I think there is a reasonable balance that we can achieve with that.

Also, if we give this off premise sign to what is now an open corner, what kind of curtailment on future signage and/or development does that impose on that corner? The other thing I would like to see them do is explore an option of redoing the Target sign and locating all of this under the Target sign.

Mr. Vanover said in the year 2,000 Champion is going to Sharonville, so they will be gone. Traffic is a big headache; I would tend to agree with Mr. Bergman that I would rather have four or five cars than one semi-trailer.

In terms or signage, I would not be amenable to leaving the existing sign in place. I think Site B would be the choice, and I would agree with Mr. Huddleston concerning the height of the sign to give them space to deal with. The break up between panels is very good, but you have to have the growth there. When Dave & Busterís was here initially, I was vehemently against the neon sun that is out there now. The sun rises and the sun sets entering and exiting my neighborhood. I agree that it is in our best interests to put a class project out there, and in the past we have shown our ability to negotiate and compromise, but it is a two way street, and that is the way it should be approached.

Mr. Seaman said I agree with the comments, but I wonder if we are considering 25 feet in height to allow spacing between tenant signage? Mr. Okum said I was thinking 24 feet. Mr. Seaman continued I would like some comments on the height; I think we are getting to some consensus on the concept of the overall sign. I also donít think the existing sign needs to stay.

Mr. Parham commented I believe the agreement between the City and SKA was signed in 1993. At that point of time, we were aware that there was going to be a proposal coming before this Commission to place a sign at that location once the extension was there.. We understood that SKA probably would not own that property, and that they would have to gain some type of approval from the property owner to place a sign at that location. We decided that there would be an extension there, and that the property ownerís current sign would be relocated. Our statement in that Covenant was that we would try to work with that property owner to relocate the sign in that vicinity. What we are talking about tonight is just that, just what the discussion was in 1993.

My second point is if the commission feels comfortable, simply grant a maximum usage for the signage. It doesnít matter how it is proportioned or divided. That is Mr. Bergmanís problem.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Ten


Mr. Parham continued his business is in Springdale, and we try to work with the businesses in the City of Springdale. They provide a lot of revenue and it is incumbent upon us to work with them. I donít think we should try to design how they proportion that sign. Let him handle that situation.

The other point I would like to make concerns the type of development that has come to that center. What is currently there now, none of us imagined would be there, and I think most of us feel pretty excited about. Both at Planning Commission and City Council level we let them know that traffic is a sensitive issue in this community, and will come into play when you bring a potential tenant to this location. I think Mr. Bergman has done an outstanding job. He continues to take that concern into consideration and has been very sensitive to the demand on this development, and I hope we will take that into consideration this evening.

Finally in response to Mr. Vanoverís comment relative to Champion leaving the City, they will be leaving, but whoever they sell or lease that property to is going to want that same type of identification. They will want their clientele to be able to find them also. Identification of that location will be just as important for us as it will be for whoever goes back there, because if they donít have identification, we may not get anybody back there.

Mr. Okum said you have other property there that is marketable plus the rest of the warehouse area, so there is still more land back there that you have potential of development. Mr. Bergman said there is one piece on the former Commons Drive and because of the right in and right out and depth of the drive down, that will be a difficult site to market. Thatís another reason why we need more square footage.

Mr. Bergman added I think everything was pretty well clarified when we addressed the total square footage rather than the number of signs in the area.

Mr. Okum said I think we are close to a motion, and I would like to get a feeling from the commission on the question of height.

Mr. Syfert said you mentioned 24 feet; does anyone have any problem with that?

Mr. Huddleston commented I thought 30 feet, which is the same height as the existing Target sign on the adjacent site. I would prefer them to work with the Target sign, if that is a negotiating option. Thirty feet would be my recommendation with the stipulation that they have something like a minimum of six inches between the horizontal sign bars to leave that opening.

Mr. Vanover commented I can live with 30 feet.

Mr. Syfert said I would like to see it under the Target sign; it makes good sense, but I donít believe they would go for that. I also donít believe they would go for your Alternate A on the same corner. Alternate B probably is the only one they would go along with, and they may not go along with 30 feet. You have to know that we are looking for a relocation, not an additional sign. I believe we have to give them a lot of flexibility, because I donít believe Target will be that easy to deal with on this.





Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Eleven


Tom Bergman answered they did give us pretty good reason to hope about three months ago, but at this point it has not been consummated.

Larry Bergman commented as you mentioned we are a team, and we feel we are coming with you to work things out. Target still has a considerable amount of development to do themselves, and it would be in their interest as well to work with all of us. to get this accomplished.

Mr. Huddleston said I would agree with that, and when this development first started, we tried to cooperate with Target and I would hope the City could carry the banner in legitimate support of whatever the proper effort needs to be. That is one issue, and the other issue is that we need to be careful of how we encumber that property in the future with what you are doing; that will be critical for the future.

Mr. Okum responded my intention in making the motion would be to give you the flexibility of up to 30 feet, and up to 123 square feet and that there be a break of separation of six inches between each panel, and that we would encourage the incorporation of the sign into the Target sign, or Location B. Mr. Huddleston suggested incorporating that the existing sign must be abandoned.

Mr. Galster commented we are going 10 feet in height over what they proposed, and we are only going six inches between panels, but we havenít increased the allowable square footage. I donít have any problem with the additional square footage if weíre going to give them the additional height. Ultimately we donít know what it will look like because we donít know what the negotiation with Target will be, so I would like to see the final project even for a 10 minute review before this board although that probably wonít happen.

Mr. Okum responded the only problem I would have with that is we are in a situation where our covenants allow for relocation of an existing sign. By staying within that perimeter, 130 square feet, we are not doing anything more than what was approved in the original covenants. Mr. Galster said if we are just adding 10 feet, we might as well make the gap a foot and a half. Mr. Syfert commented it is up to them what they want to do with it. Mr. Okum said they need the room to negotiate; if they need to increase the height, they would have to increase the vegetation and landscaping. Mr. Galster said we are tying down the height, we are trying down the spacing, and we are keeping the square footage the same. That equation doesnít make sense to me.

Mr. Syfert commented we are giving them the prerogative to do what they want. We are trying to design a sign, and I donít believe that is our job.

Ms. McBride said I have some concern if the sign is going to go an additional 10 feet in height and remain at 123 square feet. That is proportionally not going to look right. If you are talking about the six inch space, and I understand the commissionís desire to provide some flexibility, but I would suggest that if we keep the 123 square feet, we go with 25 feet in height because that will allow for some spacing between those panels.

Mr. Okum said could we go up to 130 square feet? Ms. McBride answered that is up to the commission.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree with everything that has been said here, but I want to restate the 30 foot height and that I think there should be some proportionate balanced increase to that; that was my intent.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twelve


Mr. Huddleston added I have some confidence in the integrity of this developer and how they have tried to put this together, which has been very difficult. I believe they will come back and treat us fairly in this equation. I think there should be some proportionate increase; that was my intent. I donít want to severely limit their opportunity to go to the marketplace and try to bring in viable tenants for that development under the already severe restrictions they operate under. From a marketing standpoint and with the sense of creating viable ongoing businesses there, it will be important, and I recommend we go to 140 or 145 s.f., whatever the proportionate amount of square footage of signage is.

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride what a proportionate amount would be, and Ms. McBride answered if probably 15 square feet, to 138 or 140 square feet.

Mr. Okum moved for approval of the monument sign to be located at Kemper Road and Century Boulevard with the following conditions:

    1. That the sign sections are to be added as uses are approved, up to 140 square feet of total signage;
    2. That the sign be up to 30 feet in height, including the top of the sign;;
    3. That there break and separation of a minimum of 6 inches between usage panels;
    4. That we encourage the incorporation of the sign into the Target sign or that it be located at Location B;
    5. That the existing monument sign on Commons Drive be removed when the new sign is placed;
    6. That landscaping appropriate around the perimeter of the sign be approved by our landscaping planner.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion, adding that he would request that the developer not attempt to increase any of the existing signage that is already there in working within the sign restriction.

Mr. Galster asked if with this approval the sign would come back to Planning, because we donít know what is going to happen with Target. We donít know where this sign will go.

Mr. Bergman said we will notify the city and keep you all informed as we negotiate with Target, and as the sign evolves. I will see that the city gets copies of the sign. Mr. Syfert added there will have to be an application for a permit for the sign.

Mr. Galster continued whatever the ultimate sign is, I still think we should require that we take a look at it; otherwise, who knows what could happen.

Mr. Okum responded so you feel that the motion should say "and final sign approval be submitted to the Commission" Mr. Syfert commented as chairman of the commission, I would see the sign. Mr. Galster continued and if Mr. Syfert feels that it is not a change from this boardís comments, I have no problem with your ruling on that in the review process and not having it come here, but I donít like the idea of leaving it so open that I donít know what is going out there.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if it were procedure that the chairman would see the sign, and Mr. McErlane reported that typically Mr. Syfert looks at new signs if they are in compliance with code and signs off on them as a representative of this commission.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Thirteen

Mr. McErlane continued it is something he does in the normal course of business, if you feel comfortable with him doing that in this instance. Mr. Galster said I have no problem with that.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Galster and Chairman Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

C. Wal-Mart, 600 Kemper Commons Circle requests approval of the display of bicycles and swing sets in the front against the building.

Romey Reynolds, Store Manager of the Springdale Wal-Mart said what I am asking for is permission to display bicycles on the front sidewalk and swing sets against the front wall of the building through the month of July in the recessed area of the sidewalk. The approximate depth of the sidewalk is 23 feet from the blacktop to wall; the approximate length of the bicycles would be five feet, and the swing sets would be about the same, so the front of the sidewalk would be wide open past that point for customer egress.

Mr. McErlane reported our Zoning Code does allow for seasonal sales. The reason this request is in before the Commission is that there is a specific covenant that says unless approved by the Planning Commission on the approved plans of the PUD, the only permitted outside storage of equipment or material has to be screened from view. We have an approved plan for Wal-Martís garden center behind the fenced area, but this would be outside that and it requires Planning Commission approval to do that. One of the things that Planning could consider if they feel this is an appropriate request is to allow this to happen on an annual basis for a period of time, and we could issue it similar to what we do for seasonal sales permits.

There was a similar request made in June of 1996 for outside storage and sales of a number of items, and it was denied at that point of time. However, it was considerably more extensive than this request. I have included pictures of what was in place at that time. It appears that the bicycles are there currently, prior to approval of this request. The photographs attached to my comments are the ones from 1996. The photographs attached with the zoning certificate application are what is in place right now. In addition to that photograph, there are some of the small swimming pools out there at this point, and that was not included in the request.

Ms. McBride said the applicant did not provide any justification for this request, so we cannot say whether or not it is appropriate in terms of why they feel they need it. We did not receive any kind of diagram indicating square footage, so if the commission is looking to approve this, I think you should ask for a scaled drawing that would show the specific area of outdoor sales,. As Mr. McErlane indicated, some of the outdoor storage exists today. The commission already has approved one addition onto the garden area.

I have to caution the commission; if I were representing a retailer going up the road, I would be here next month looking for similar consideration, so we need to be aware of any kind of precedence we might be setting.

Mr. Huddleston said I am not in favor of this. We have attempted to curtail that activity in other areas; it is very unsightly and in some cases very unsafe. Since we granted them additional retail space with their outside garden center, I believe that is adequate on our part to attempt to accommodate their seasonal requirement, so I would not vote for this request.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum confirmed that the request was just for bicycles and swing sets, and not swimming pools or anything else.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Fourteen

VI C Wal-Mart 600 Kemper Commons Circle Ė Outdoor Display Ė continued

Mr. Reynolds added I did see the pictures from 1996 and that was a mess. I can understand why it was denied totally. My intentions are bicycles and swing sets. The bicycles are there to show that awe will maintain that same line. Mr. Okum asked how many swing sets he was planning on putting out, and Mr. Reynolds answered three. Mr. Okum asked the difference between the coca cola machine and your marquee area. Mr. Reynolds did not know. Mr. Okum continued the reason I am bringing this up is because one item is a display. When you stock in front and have 30 bicycles, that is merchandising. I think I go along with Mr. Huddlestonís feelings regarding the merchandising. I think the coke machines are identical to that. When you have one of a coke machine, one of a Pepsi and one of an other brand, it is one thing, but when you put masses of them out there, it is a billboard or sign for the purposes of selling. I do have some hesitation about your merchandising out front.

Mr. Reynolds responded with the magnitude of bike sales in the summer, it is to allow us to free up some space inside the store and to show the customer what we have.

Mr. Galster said I have a problem with going against the covenants that everybody in that shopping center has agreed to when it says no tables shall be stored outside the building without being screened from view unless expressly approved in the final plans, and the final plans were approved along time ago with no outside storage.

Mr. McErlane reported this request is a modification to those final plans. Mr. Galster continued which I believe is unfair to all the other tenants that have signed onto these covenants. Also because it is a final plan change, wouldnít it have to get the approval of all those people in the shopping center? It would change the covenants that they agreed to. Mr. McErlane responded this hasnít come into play. The law director has reviewed the covenant changes that have occurred due to Roberds and Dave & Busterís which have only been agreed to between the property owner and the City. Legitimately since Wal-Mart really doesnít own the property, it should involve North American Properties in an approval request.

Mr. Galster said I have a hard time going against what is basically the expressed wishes and desires of all the tenants in that development.

Mr. Huddleston moved to deny the request and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Request for outside storage was denied by six votes.

The Commission took a 10-minute recess at 8:45 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 8:55 p.m.

Mr. Syfert said we will go back to the first item under Old Business.

A. Final Approval of Tri-County Golf Center, 455 East Tri-County Parkway (Oak Hills Cemetery property) Ė tabled 3/9/99

Jose Castrejon said with me is Lee Shaven of The Shaven Group and Peter Koenig, Attorney for the project.

We are coming back with this project being a one phase project and putting both the par 3 golf course and the driving range together. We have modified the drawings to accommodate that. It is our intent to develop both as one phase.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Fifteen

V A Final Approval Ė Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 E. Tri-County Parkway

Mr. Castrejon added we also have addressed some of the comments the staff had with the first submittal. I know you have more comments, and we are willing to work with you to remedy those.

The driving range and parking area have stayed in relatively the same location with one exception. Due to the change of not doing the second phase, we reduced the size of the covered tees from 60 to 40.

The golf course starts with Hole #1 adjacent to the driving range and looping through the proposed lakes and back and finishing up at the clubhouse. The intent is to utilize the design of the golf course to do several things, to excite the user by providing interesting play and to accommodate Oak Hills Cemetery Master Plan by providing the lakes in the areas that they prefer. We also have gone around some of the larger trees to create nice settings, and that is why you see some of these arrangements.

In addition to that, we have reduced the size of the parking. With our professional experience as golf course developers, and in reviewing other sites, we donít want to create a sea of parking that will set empty a lot; we feel what we have is appropriate.

One of the examples is the clubhouse itself, which doesnít fit the mold of a country club or a normal golf course. We will not have a sit down dinner or showers or lockers. People will not hang out at the clubhouse, so the number of people utilizing this is not the same as people utilizing the normal golf course, and we would like you to take that into consideration. We feel this combined plan works well and complements each other in one package that fits well

Mr. Galster asked if the cemetery property would be leased, and Mr. Shaven answered we have a 25 year lease with two 5-year renewal options. Mr. Galster continued say the cemetery expands into the lower portion, once they start their expansion into your leased space, is that null and void completely? Mr. Castrejon responded we worked with their planning staff, and for the next 25 years, they have enough empty ground that they can expand; that is how we set that line. Mr. Galster continued but once they start coming into this area, does that null and void the whole lease? Mr. Shaven answered within the option period they cannot come in, but at the end of that if they came in, the lease would be null and void.

Mr. Galster commented I like that this is a complete project again. Maybe Iím looking too far down the road, but what if they want to occupy a certain portion of the land, and then we would be back with just the driving range?

Mr. Castrejon responded if we would do any modification to the approved plat, we would have to come back to you anyway. Our intent is to limit the amount of development to match the Master Plan, and that is why we set aside 25 to 30 years worth of future planning that wouldnít touch this, and the cemetery is confident with that.

Mr. Syfert commented from a practical standpoint, there are fewer people demanding large plots for burial today than there were 20 years ago. Mr. Castrejon added we do the planning and engineering for the cemetery as well; we have done work for them for a long time, and we feel comfortable that they have plenty of room to expand.

Mr. Shvegzda reported the revised plans indicate the proper amount of detention volume. There was an initial question as to a segment of 46 foot wide rock channel area that led from the outlet of the detention basin.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Sixteen

V A Final Approval Ė Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 E. Tri-County Parkway

Basically the outlet has been extended and that rock channel has been eliminated. They will need to provide the detail on the concrete channel.

Another concern was that they had indicated the major storm routing for the flow that would run from the furthest extreme of the tributary to the detention basin. The storm sewer is only sized for 10 year, and the high end of the storm for the detention is 100 year. Therefore, the overland flow must make up the difference and it much reach the detention basin. The plans are indicating that it is bypassing the detention basin, so that needs to be addressed.

In terms of storm sewers there is a proposed 15" culvert on the private driveway. However, it does not note what the depth of headwater will be at the inlet end of it, so it is not clear whether it is contained on that area or flows left or right at that point.

Regarding the drivewayís intersection with Tri-County Parkway, there is an indication of 225í of 6" conduit in that area, but it is unclear as to the purpose of that conduit. There also is a low point noted in the ditch line, but there is no catch basin that outlets that area, so that needs to be clarified.

In terms of erosion control, at that 15" culvert there is a nine acre tributary area. Currently the plans show staked straw bales to control the sediment through that ravine, but with nine acres, there is too much flow for simply straw bales to keep the sediment on site. There will need to be additional silt fence added along the north property line.

On utilities, the service branch for the water is now shown coming from the water main that runs south of the Home Quarters site; it comes off Kemper Road and runs around the south side of the Home Quarters property. They are indicating that they need to go under Tri-County Parkway to tie into this, and one of the things we need to do is insure that they buoy that under; we donít want to open cut Tri-County Parkway.

The six inch sanitary force main is shown outside Tri-County Parkway right of way on the south side, and that ties into the gravity sanitary sewer that is within 747. The question is how physically that will be connected into there in terms of the limits of the pavement. Unfortunately, there is no way we can bore and tie into that sanitary sewer. We will need sanitary and water works from MSD and Cincinnati Water Works respectively.

On the proposed driveway, there needs to be additional information provided to insure that the water that flows down the driveway is intercepted before it reaches the public right of way. It indicated a 50 foot radius for the concrete drive apron which is in excess of what normally is provided for in that situation; a radius of 20 foot would be acceptable. The driveway drains to one side, which is acceptable but there needs to be additional clarification as to how that drainage is intercepted, either by a ditch or whether that flows into the existing ravine that the culvert handles.

Mr. Castrejon commented I believe our engineer called your office today, and we agreed with everything and will work with your office to handle the final details.

Ms. McBride reported we had asked for a parking summary, and the applicant provided that. The APA Guidelines were used in providing the requirement calculations. That document is a mixture of different communities that send in their parking standards, and the applicant chose to take the lowest numbers for everyone.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Seventeen

V A Final Approval Ė Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 E. Tri-County Parkway

When I use the Guidelines I will take an average. Doing that, I came up with different numbers from theirs.

They have provided parking for a miniature golf course, and there is no miniature golf course shown, so that takes the parking down to 191 spaces, which is closer to what they are showing. I donít know that will be a problem, but it is something the Commission needs to think about in terms of parking.

We need the detail for the enclosure for their waste facility and sand pile storage area. They provided that, but we donít know if that will be on one side two sides or three sides and if itís going to have gates on the fourth side, so we need additional information.

Since it is to be located in a front yard, they will need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.

They have no signage proposed for the development, so none will be approved as part of any action the Commission might take this evening.

We received the additional information on the lighting, and it was satisfactory, and we have a few minor comments regarding the landscape plan

On the lighting, Mr. Okum commented I have a concern about glare caused by lighting, and I wonder if the lighting people took into consideration the grade change along Tri-County Parkway. I also note that the Detail B lights will be going towards the driving range and would not be obtrusive or affecting the neighbors on the properties to the south, would they?

Ms. McBride answered I donít believe so; we only reviewed the information that the applicant had submitted; they did not take the photometrics all the way out to the property line. Mr. Okum responded I think they should since we have adjacent property owners to consider. They had assured us when they made the original presentation that they would not impact the residential neighborhood to the south, and I would like to see that shown on the photometrics. The Detail D lights appear to be focusing upward. Mr. Castrejon reported those are recessed on the ground and will shine straight out on the surface. You want us to extend the photometrics? Mr. Okum said yes, I want to see how far it goes to be sure that it doesnít impact the residences, whether they be in Springdale or Glendale. Additionally I want to make sure that whatever lights placed on the buildings or in the area will have no glare effect on the public right of way or adjacent properties. Mr. Castrejon commented the lights have the shields and with the driving range lights, we used lighting that has special shields that direct the light accordingly.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum said you had initially made comments about breaking the parking field with more landscaping. Do you feel this has been adequately addressed with this last submission? Ms. McBride responded we have asked for additional landscaping in our comments; some of the islands do not indicate any landscaping. Mr. Castrejon added we will agree to that.

Mr. McErlane said I think it is important because we are talking about a force main for sanitary. The water line issue is still a little fuzzy because I believe the water line we are tying into is actually behind the right of way on the north side of the street. It is in a public easement, but it is on Cassinelli property and not in the right of way, so it is important to get with Water Works and make sure you have access to it.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Eighteen

V A Final Approval Ė Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 E. Tri-County Parkway

Mr. McErlane added I know there is also sanitary, and I believe it is in a public easement as well on the north side of the street, but I donít know that you have the appropriate fall to even make that connection. Mr. Castrejon commented we will look at that.

Ms. McBride stated that there were no signs shown, but there is some kind of a rectangle shown next to the entrance, and our recommendation would be to withhold approval of signs until we get details on them.

With respect to trees, the agreement that Planning Commission gave is outlined on the second sheet and indicates that 250 2 Ĺ caliper inch trees would be planted, 150 at the time of construction and 100 more over a five-year period. However, the planting plan shows 150 2 inch caliper trees, but also shows some additional plantings of pines and crabapples. Mr. Castrejon probably can give a better estimate of what a 10 foot pine tree would be diameter wise. Mr. Castrejon said that is basically about six inches, depending on the type of pine. Mr. McErlane continued we are coming up a little bit short of what was proposed at Planning, only because you are using two inch caliper trees. Mr. Castrejon responded it was our mistake; we intended to use 2 Ĺ inch caliper, and we will amend that to 2 Ĺ inch caliper for all the shade trees, which is what we agreed to at the beginning.

Mr. McErlane said there is a force main shown behind the fence along Tri-County Parkway. How many trees will that impact? Mr. Castrejon answered the engineer hasnít designed the force main yet, but I believe he was thinking of a two inch force main and from our field observations, we feel we can snake that two inch force main between those trees. Obviously if we start getting into a situation where trees will be affected, we will have to come back and discuss that with you. Mr. McErlane commented in some areas it is pretty heavily forested up to the fence line, and even if you can get the force main in and around the roots, the equipment will have to go over that. Mr. Castrejon added we will be happy to work with you on that.

Mr. Okum said if there are going to be outdoor light packs on your buildings for safety, they also should be shielded and included in your plan.

The garage door on the back of the maintenance building is fairly open and in clear view of the parking lot. I would suggest some screening of evergreens would be appropriate for that. Mr. Castrejon responded the elevation from the parking lot goes from 695 down to 684, which makes the door difficult to see. If you want us to, we can add screening. Mr. Okum said if it is viewed from the parking area, some evergreens might help.

Mr. Okum said you have your legal counsel here, and I would like to make sure that Mr. Galsterís comment concerning the common use of the combined driving range and golf course is comparable with what our code calls for in terms of recreational for this use. There was not a question in this boardís mind that a combination of both creates a recreational facility, and that it should remain as both a golf course and driving range throughout all its use. It should be included in some type of text or be a part of the motion to tie it all together.

Mr. Okum added I understand we need approval of the dumpster enclosure. Ms. McBride added we need details, whether it will be enclosed on how many sides. Mr. Okum commented I think the BZA would also want that. Mr. Castrejon asked if that were for the BZA review or part of this review.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Nineteen

V A Final Approval Ė Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 E. Tri-County Parkway

Mr. Okum responded the full enclosure on all four sides would be a condition of this board; it would be up to the BZA whether the front yard location is approved. It would be better coming out of this commission with the recommendation and the agreement that it will be enclosed on all four sides before it goes to the zoning board. Mr. Shaven agreed to that.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if the Par 3 course were lighted. Mr. Castrejon answered that it is not, adding the only thing that would be lighted is the area where people would be teeing off, minimal lighting so they can see the landing zone. There are groupings of evergreens so that we believe we have done enough to accommodate for that. Mr. Huddleston responded if you are telling me that we can make a condition of this approval that the Par 3 will not be lighted, I will agree with that. Iím not trying to impose restrictions on you, but I do have a concern. Mr. Castrejon responded if it saves time for us to redo the photometrics, we can agree to not light this. That was our initial intent.

Mr. Huddleston asked about the future putt putt, and Mr. Castrejon answered it is something that can go here as another piece of this recreational facility, but we are not sure whether that will happen. If we would want to do that, we would have to come back for your approval.

Mr. Huddleston wondered how the recreational area would be secured from the cemetery area. Mr. Shaven answered we will leave a natural buffer zone with trees. The cemetery doesnít want any additional fence up.

Mr. Huddleston commented I would be concerned if we are creating significant public access to that area, that we not have any vandalism problems within the cemetery. Mr. Castrejon responded we will discuss that with Oak Hill.

Mr. Huddleston continued I agree with Mr. Okumís comments relative to the clause in this approval that says you will continuously operate the Par 3 and the driving range, with the possible exception of a seasonal limitation that might go on the Par 3 course. Also, that the night lighting will not be permitted at any time. When you originally came forward, we gave you some concessions relative to the tree replacement ordinance. There was considerable discussion on how that should be handled and we said educational programs, which was defined as horticultural landscape design. I would like to see that enumerated on a little further to say that would go within the local school district area, whether public or private, but within the boundaries of the Princeton School District. You also might want to consider some in-kind donation for the physical ed programs, maybe making the tees available to the schools. I also would like to have established a monetary amount on an annual basis.

Mr. Shaven responded we would have no problem in opening up the Par 3 to the children. Mr. Huddleston wondered if an in-kind donation of $5,000 a year seemed reasonable, and Mr. Castrejon answered the cemetery already has a lot of the classroom set up, and that was part of educating the public. I then would teach arrangement of plant materials for good design. We can put something in writing and submit it to Bill.

Mr. Castrejon said we agreed to no lighting here. DO we still need the photometrics? Mr. Okum answered I donít need them if you assure us that when this project is done we will have non glare in the light spillage. Mr. Castrejon added we are downlighting with ground mounted lights. Winton Woods has them in place.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twenty

V A Final Approval Ė Tri-County Golf Center Ė 455 E. Tri-County Parkway

Mr. Okum moved for approval with the following conditions:

    1. That all recommendations and comments by the city planner, the engineer and building official are incorporated into this motion;
    2. That the plans reflecting 2 Ĺ inch hardwoods be incorporated in the plan;
    3. That non glare lighting be utilized in all areas to adjacent property owners or public right of way;
    4. That the trees be replaced and provided for as presented in the oriiginal variance request;
    5. That it also be quantified with a letter of intent and dedication of resources to provide horticultural educational programs acceptable to the city and the applicant;
    6. That there be break in the field of parking;
    7. That the site shall not change and shall remain and be operated as a combined golfing and driving range through its use as a recreational use;
    8. That evergreens be placed to screen the maintenance building and garage door;
    9. That there be no sign approval at this time;
    10. That par 3 shall not be lighted;
    11. The future putt putt is not approved at this time;

This is all pending the Board of Zoning Appealsí variance requesting Dumpster enclosure and its location, and that the dumpster enclosure be surrounded on all four sides and landscaped appropriately.

Mr. Castrejon said on the parking issue, we feel that 161 is an appropriate number, and are comfortable with it. Ms. McBride said when you take out the miniature golf course, the applicant used the lowest parking requirements and we used the middle and came up with 191. Mr. Castrejon commented I wanted to make sure it didnít go to 223. Mr. Okum responded that was not the intent. She had indicated in her verbal recommendation that without the putt putt, she felt we were fairly close.

Mr. Shaven commented it is going to take us longer to build the golf course than the driving range. Mr. Huddleston wondered how much longer it would take, and Mr. Shaven answered typically to get a golf course up, it probably will be next spring before the grass is ready. With the driving range, I can probably have it ready in the wintertime because we are hitting off mats. Mr. Galster wondered if it would be a question of six months. Mr. Castrejon added the reason we have these lakes is to provide fill here for these pads, so yes construction will happen, but the actual finished product will not be there until the grass matures. Mr. Huddleston wondered if giving nine months beyond the opening of the driving range would be sufficient, and Mr. Shaven answered it should be; I hate committing to a number. Mr. Huddleston answered I think the operation should cease if you donít have it going in nine months. If there is a peculiar condition that you need to come back to us for relief, I can understand it. The strong understanding is that you operate both these facilities. Mr. Shaven answered absolutely. Mr. Galster added if there were a special condition, I donít think you would have any trouble getting relief.

Mr. Okum amended his motion to include the Par 3 facility open within nine months of activation of the driving range. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion to amend.

On the motion for approval, voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes,.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twenty-One

    1. Building Addition, Recker & Boerger, and Proposed Garage, Enterprise Rent A Car, 169 Northland Boulevard Ė tabled 3/9/99

Allan Boerger reported this would be an addition to Recker & Boerger and a proposed car wash for Enterprise. On the addition to Recker & Boerger, GE Appliance has come up with a new program which is a depot for uncrated goods, so we have to use part of our existing building with the lower roof. We have the exclusive right to this, and we need to increase what we can have in terms of cube space, to stack goods up higher.

On the Enterprise Car Rental, they need a prepping area outside of the weather so they take care of the vehicles and get them ready for car rental.

Mr. Galster wondered if the fenced in trash area would be removed, and Mr. Boerger answered that it would not. Mr. Galster continued so there is no room inside to store the material? Mr. Boerger answered we have an offsite location on Kemper Road. Based on approval of this, we have an estimate on the fencing with new gates and attice work between it to shelter that, but Iím not going to spend an additional $11, 000 on that, until I have approval on these buildings. Mr. Galster wondered if he would have a problem with making that a part of this approval, and Mr. Boerger answered I have no problem with making sure that this is completely sheltered. Mr. Galster added previously the addition would have taken up some of that trash area but it has moved off to the side. Mr. Boerger answered when you face Enterprise Car Rentalís building, as you look to the left, the fencing line is almost directly off that corner behind Enterprise. It is straight down the side.

Ms. McBride said I have to admit I am frustrated; we have repeatedly asked the applicant for a parking summary; only they can give it to us in terms of what is warehouse, what is retail, what is office, square footage versus parking required and parking provided. Last month we provided them with a draft summary and we still did not get that. I would urge the commission to give serious consideration to the fact that we do not know if they have enough parking under our current parking requirements.

Their plans continue to label the Enterprise expansion as a car wash; a car wash is a conditional use within the GB district. If that is the case, they will need to get a conditional use permit .

We did receive elevations for all four sides of the Enterprise building; we did not receive any building materials or color samples.

We need details for the screening of the waste area and we have not received the landscape plan that we have asked for, and the existing landscaping is going to be impacted given the detention area that is planned.

We did receive information regarding lighting. It was very difficult to understand. There were several different fixture informations, and some photometrics; maybe the applicant can help us understand this evening exactly what they are proposing.

Additionally they do have outdoor storage on the eastern portion of the site today. That also requires conditional use. We have made them aware of that on a number of other occasions through staff reports.

Mr. Huddleston said on the parking, they have a submittal made on the drawing. Are you saying that is not sufficient? Ms. McBride answered yes that is correct. Last month we provided them with a summary as to how it needs to be broken out based on our parking requirements.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Woebkenberg reported we do have the number of cars and the summation at the bottom of Sheet A-0 We have 156 on site car parking, the building area, sales and office area and 67 cars required, which is taken from the formula we got from Mr. McErlane. We did show a landscaping plan with hemlocks and trees in front of the show windows. Obviously we didnít want to cover up the show windows with large trees, so they are small locust trees, very nice trees. Mr. Boerger added we received a landscaping award last year from the city. We plan to continue to change flowers with each season as we have been doing.

Mr. Woebkenberg continued the lighting would continue on the building, just about the same as what is there but better, because it will be downlighting. We added five lights which we think is adequate.

Mr. Okum said Iíve never noticed your lot really full, but Enterprise has on site cars that we have to account for. I donít think the cars they have there for rental should be utilized as parking spaces for customers.

I am a little confused because your drawings show a north elevation with a garage door, and I am assuming that garage door is facing Northland Boulevard. Mr. Boerger answered that is correct. Mr. Okum continued so the face of the building will have a garage door and access door. You have done no additional landscaping that I can see on the east elevation against the landscaping business next to you.

Mr. Boerger responded actually we have a letter from him and he is concerned because the wall is falling down and he wants us to take that dirt off there. What is up there right now is mixed in with chain link fence from 12 years ago, and quite frankly it is pushing his wall down. We are working with him in terms of taking it down and what needs to be done from there.

Mr. Okum said since you are building it closer, I would like to see it denser along that side in terms of evergreens. Hemlocks are only green in the summer; what is the size of the hemlocks? Mr. Boerger answered they will be 3 feet to start. Mr. Okum wondered if there was a reason that their fenced in trash area needs to go to the other property line. Mr. Boerger answered those were existing , and that is the only reason it is there. If we do the chain link fence, we will bring it back. Mr. Okum wondered if they would bring it back even with the building, and Mr. Boerger answered I would have to double check exactly on the building, but we do have a gate up there right now that the dumpster goes in; it is probably 10 feet from where the bank is right now.

Mr. Okum said if you are going to continue to have the fenced in area, I would like to see it behind that building entirely. Mr. Boerger answered that wouldnít be a problem; we are talking about moving the dumpster about two feet from where it is now because we donít have access to that side of the dumpster anyway.

Mr. Okum wondered if three-foot hemlocks would be enough, and asked Ms. McBride what the landscape architect would recommend as a buffer. Ms. McBride answered because we were not aware that t his was their landscape plan, I would like to have our landscape architect look at it and make recommendations in a letter form to the applicant.

Mr. Woebkenberg responded these trees wouldnít even be seen because the retaining wall probably will still remain unless the owner tears it down. We are just taking the dirt behind it to keep it from falling over. Mr. Boerger commented we donít have a problem with that; we currently line our back lot with pine trees, and they are filling in nicely. What we need to do in terms of landscaping is not a big concern.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Shvegzda said in the letter from the adjoining property owner, as part of their approval to do that work on their property, they are requesting that a cedar screening fence be erected in that vicinity. I donít know if that has any direct bearing on what type of landscape screening is placed.

Mr. Huddleston said there are a number of issues. First, you are very successful, and I think you have done a great job there, but I do have a concern with the density we are beginning to create on the site. This ties back somewhat to Ms. McBrideís concern about validating the parking issue. I feel many of the parking spaces that you are showing there as being utilized are basically non-functional. Iím not going to debate that, but Iíll leave that to the experts.

The addition that you are proposing to the Recker & Boerger store is a metal curtain wall panel. With the extremely tight parking maneuvering situation, it will look like a beatup tin can in a very short order of time, and. I have a concern about that deteriorating condition. I think you need some hard wall, perhaps masonry wainscot as a minimum, and possibly even a guardrail protection on the outside. If you have to add the guardrail protection, you further minimize that maneuvering/parking area around the building.

You also are showing as your north elevation (which I believe is the east elevation) a drive in door or some sort of a loading area. Iím not sure how you plan to access that or what kind of radius you would need to get in and out of there. It doesnít seem to be very functional, especially if you are saying that is functional angular parking. My concerns are the density of the parking, and how much of that parking would be functional.

The last time you were in I requested that you turn around the garage door on the proposed car rental operation. Itís not a commercial car wash so I would consider it an auxiliary kind of use but I would strongly recommend for my approval that the door be turned around and enter from the Recker & Boerger side of the operation. Whether that costs you a few parking places Iím not sure how you would have to work that out, but that would be a condition of my approval.

The other ongoing problem that I see is I would much prefer to see some sort of a hard wall fence enclosure there, and if we do additional metal slats, that they not look as bad as what is there in another six months. Iím not sure what the solution is; I leave that for you to decide, but I have a difficult time approving a very messy trash area and just putting a Band-Aid on it.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum commented it appears that there are a good number of issues. Did you want us to act on this tonight? Mr. Boerger answered I donít think so.

Mr. Okum wondered if the garage door could be on the back of the building rather than the front. Mr. Boerger answered that is where the garage doors is now. Mr. Okum responded it also is 30 feet back. Mr. Boerger continued all you are talking about is a man with a cart to take something out to his vehicle. We are trying to keep our garage door directly in line with where our current garage door is so if we have merchandise in there, we still have an open path to go from the existing building into the new addition.

Mr. Galster commented there are two garage doors there, one in the existing metal additional and one in the masonry addition, wend we have them lined up for a straight shot. Mr. Woebkenberg said there will be a total of three garage doors in a row. Mr. Okum said I am a little confused with your A-4 drawing that shows the north elevation with a garage door.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. McErlane said if you look at the last sheet, the garage doors are not at the front of the building.

Mr. Okum said you heard recommendations from Mr. Huddleston, and I agree with him, that we donít want the garage doors for the service area of the Enterprise facility facing Northland Boulevard.

Mr. Galster for the Enterprise addition, is it possible to match the brick that is there? Mr. Boerger answered it is a siding, but it is the exact same building material that is there now.

Mr. Boerger commented the problem is the depth. This way we can go back to where the dumpster area is. With the size of that station that they are trying to put on there, if we try to come out this way, I donít think I can get tractor-trailers into our lot. Mr. Galster suggested putting it in the back. Mr. Boerger continued we do have to deal with this in order to operate our business. If a 53 foot trailer coming into our lot, and Iím talking about moving that dumpster area back, by the time it comes in and turns toward the bank behind the dumpster area, to be able to hit one of our three docks there heíll have to be Houdini to do it.

Mr. Okum said you are saying is basically your parking lot is one foot onto your neighborís property, and I would encourage some collaboration so you can work that out and we can have some type of recommendation from both of you on how it is to be resolved.

Mr. Okum moved to table to next month, and Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the item was tabled to May 13th.

Mr. Galster asked if there were enough parking calculations on the drawing, and Ms. McBride indicated no, adding we are not so much interested in the number of cars Enterprise is storing, although that is useful information. We would like the square footage breakdown of your building, what is retail, what is warehouse, what is office, number of parking spaces required for that space, number of parking spaces provided for that space. Mr. Woebkenberg stated it is at the bottom of that sheet, and Ms. McBride said it is not correct; it is not broken out. Where is the warehouse space accounted for? Weíll send you a copy of the staff report from last month so you can see exactly our concerns.


Mr. Vanover said this Saturday is the groundbreaking for the Community Center expansion at 10 a.m., after the Opening Day Parade.

Mr. Syfert stated Jim Young was out of town this evening, and I have a letter dated April 13, 1999 addressed to me:

"Dear Bill,

It is with sadness that I tender my resignation as a member of the Springdale Planning Commission. At the end of June my wife and I will be moving into a new home that is not located within the City limits.

My time in service of the City has been very rewarding for me and, I hope, the job I have done has been good for the City. I have always considered it an important job and enjoyed being a part of the Commission.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 April 1999

Page Twenty-Five

VII Ė Letter of Resignation from Jim Young Ė continued

"I would like to thank you for the job you have done as Chairperson. It certainly made mine easier. Please pass on my appreciation to the other members, the City staff, Cecil Osborn and Betty. Over the years each has taught me something that enabled me to be a better participant.

I would especially like to thank Steve Galster and Dave Okum. Many times I have asked for land received much needed information from these two. Their experience has been invaluable to me.

Additionally, I will be forever grateful to Ron Pitman who first appointed me to sit on the Board of Zoning Appeals and got me started serving my community.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank Doyle Webster, a friend for longer than I want to remember, for allowing me to make the transfer from BZA to the Planning Commission.

I am willing to serve through the June meeting, but will understand if you need this to be effective prior to that date.




James H. Young"

    1. Jordan Lake Factory Direct, 710 Keeper Commons Ė wall sign
    2. Consignments Home Furnishings & Accessories Ė 11818 Springfield Pike (Wimbledons Plaza) Ė wall sign

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be present on May 11th., adding that he would not be here.

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_________________________,1999 _____________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



__________________________,1999 _____________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary