14 APRIL 1998

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.


MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Steve Galster, David Okum,

Bob Seaman, Councilman Tom Vanover,

James Young and Chairman Syfert

MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Huddleston

OTHERS PRESENT: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Mr. Syfert stated that Mr. Huddleston will not be present this evening.


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


    1. Report on Council

Mr. Galster stated Council had a special meeting last Wednesday evening with the results of the survey on the Recreation Center expansion. If it moves forward from Council, we probably will see it in Planning in three months.

Mr. Syfert commented I notice we did not have any Minutes from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and Mrs. Webb reported that was because they were not approved at the last meeting.



    1. Approval of Subdivision Plat, Paffe Subdivision (Target)

Tom Bonneville of Target Stores stated we are here hoping to find the

plat designed and brought in is in order, and the other materials

submitted also are in order. We have submitted the three bonds that

were requirements, $111,000, $95,000 and $495,000. I have with me

Greg Monnig of Woolpert our civil engineers.

Mr. Shvegzda reported we have been in contact with Greg regarding our comments and have just received the actual revised plat that addresses the two comments on my report. Mr. Syfert responded so those have been taken care of, and Mr. Shvegzda responded we havenít reviewed it, but I assume they have.

Mr. Galster wondered if that is above the proposed access easement according to the drawing we have? Mr. Shvegzda answered that is the detention basin area that is part of what would be Lot 1, but is not contiguous to any portion of the main part of that lot. It will remain part of Lot 1 but it will be a detention basin area. We wanted to clarify that it will remain with that lot.

Mr. Okum said I donít recall the proposed access easement south of the detention basin and the one north of it as part of our plan review.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 April 1998

Page Two


Mr. McErlane reported there were comments from the City Planner relative to development of the additional properties to the east on McClellan Lane, that there needed to be an access easement onto Century Boulevard through this property for future access when and if that develops. The other may have come from discussions relative to Thoroughfare Plan issues. Those easement locations may change depending on the development of the property in the future. Mr. Okum wondered if this held the developer responsible for dedicating those easements. Mr. McErlane responded they are shown on this plat as proposed, so I donít know that they are fixed at this point.

Mr. Shvegzda stated my understanding is that there will be as second document that will record the easements. Mr. Monnig added the easements will be recorded as separate documents, both the sanitary easement and access easements. This is to consolidate the parcel and then subdivide out the two different lots. Mr. Bonneville commented they still would need to got through the proper bodies, but it makes it easier to do. Larger developments generally have all easements treated as separate recorded instruments.

Mr. Okum said you as the developer are offering up these easements as part of your plan. Mr. Bonneville confirmed this, adding that they were required of us as a way to coordinate with North American Propertiesí ownership and development of that area. Mr. Okum wondered if there were commitments in the Covenants that call for you to provide two access easements? Mr. Bonneville answered I believe there are.

Mr. Okum said it is this bodyís understanding that you are committed to two access easements on the Century Boulevard off your properties. Mr. Bonneville stated our attorneys have been working together and I believe they have completed that document. Mr. Okum stated these easements could be modified or changed depending on the engineerís review. Mr. Bonneville answered I am sure they will be changed depending on how that development proceeds. In fact I think you should have a note in the record that the reason for these easements is because of the future plan to the east. That way in case that were not to happen in the future, maybe they would be eliminated. Mr. Okum said so the motion should include there shall be two access easements to properties east provided by the developer. Mr. Bonneville said you could put in language saying why it is there, for future commercial development. Mr. McErlane stated this is in the Covenants.

Mr. Galster said we really havenít approved anything on Lot 2. Even though they are proposed on this for subdivision of the plat, nothing has been approved so if the easements need to change, they havenít been submitted in the first place. Mr. Bonneville added we provided landscaped buffer areas over there which have been approved. The development of Lot 2 would occur at the time that North American Propertiesí development would be proposed, because it probably would be a part of that. Therefore, all of that fits together.

Mr. Galster said I am a little concerned about approving this part of it when we are approving something on part of the plat that hasnít been approved yet. I have no problem with the northern most easement being in question, but the southernmost one on a piece of land that we havenít approved anything for is something else.

Mr. Shvegzda reported it is basically reserving the right to cross that lot for the adjoining properties. Mr. McErlane added the purpose is to help in the development of that property in the future. It is a commitment, although the location is not fixed in stone.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 April 1998

Page Three


Mr. Okum asked if the cross easement on Kemper Commons Circle were necessary and Mr. McErlane reported it has been modified in the covenants to allow access to and from Commons Drive to Century Boulevard without defining an access drive. It is not a clearly delineated drive any more. It can be circuitous through the parking lot, but there are provisions within the covenants to allow access to and from both of those roads.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the plot plan with the following conditions: (1) that the plot be approved with the nomenclature referring to the covenants and that it include notes referring to acceptance of the covenantís need for cross easements to future development east of this project, one through Lot 2 and the other through the area of the detention basin plot. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Bonneville asked if they can bring in our final building plans for approval and permitting? Mr. McErlane responded I believe you have received conditional approval on your site plan from the city engineer as well as the roadway improvement plans. The bonds have been posted; Iím not sure about Cincinnati Water Works and MSD approvals. Mr. Monnig reported they have been resubmitted, and I have not heard back from them. Mr. McErlane continued there is no reason why you would not be able to submit. We would not be able to issue until we hear back from MSD and CWW. The covenants would need to be recorded. They should be fairly close to final form; we received a copy from the law director on Friday.

Mr. Bonneville asked what the procedure would be for recording the plat and covenants. Mr. McErlane reported the City has done that in the past, only because they get lost in the works if we donít. Once the covenants are reviewed by the consultants and the legal people, you will need to send an original executed covenant to us. The City will sign their part of it and the law director will record it for us. On the plat, once Don reviews the changes, we can have the secretary of Planning Commission sign it. Those probably should occur concurrently since this is a reference to the covenants on the plat. Mr. Bonneville said the Paffes will have to sign it once we have Donís approval.


Mr. Okum said we received the final draft of the new Zoning Code, and we are in the process of review; it is two inches thick.

Mr. Galster said we have a tree replacement policy, and we have had some developers who were not able to replant all their trees. In each of three cases they have made contributions to the Urban Forestry Fund in the City. I want to ask this board if they have any objections to allowing those funds to be used for any city beautification project rather than only trees. Now our tree fund is very well funded. Target will be contributing close to $40,000 to the Urban Forestry Fund. There has been discussion in Council concerning the landmark development sign, landscaping feature being proposed for the corner of Route 4 and Lawnview Avenue. There have been discussions about using these type funds to offset some of the costs with the idea that it is a beautification type project. Does this board have any opinions contrary to that?



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 April 1998

Page Four

VII DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Okum said I donít have any problem with that considering that the fund is flush. I would include in that consideration the landscaped entry features into the community. We currently have a Welcome To Springdale sign that doesnít appear very welcoming.

Mr. Galster continued there is no wording that prevents us from using the tree fund almost anywhere we want to, but I didnít want to make a fundamental change to the principles if there was any objection. I think the City may need to readdress that fund and attach certain restrictions and may allow beautification projects.

Mr. Seaman said I really appreciate this being communicated to the Planning Commission. I think it is an appropriate use but had it been just done at the Council level as it could have been, I would have felt a little uncomfortable. I appreciate the consult and I agree wholeheartedly with that approach.

Mr. McErlane commented the tree preservation ordinance doesnít reference the tree fund. It allows Planning Commission to grant variances to the requirements of it. Planning is the one that said donate this to the Urban Forestry Fund. The bad part is Planning is usually not in a position to direct the money for the City.

Mr. Galster said we can always set up a different fund, a Beautification Fund, and maybe we just change the name of the fund, which we can do but I believe the intent was to replant trees.

Mr. Syfert wondered if anyone had looked 10 years from now to forecast if we will be cutting some of these trees down and replacing them. Mr. Galster answered we have put the trees out and met the purpose, and now it is maintenance. The City does do some trimming and replacing and that will continue to happen.

Mr. Vanover said my only concern would be whether or not the auditors would approve this when they audit us. I would hope that some of the focus would run away from the streets and creating a boulevard effect and go into a park setting that we could create. From the audience, Derrick Parham reported the auditor should not be a problem because there is no special designation in our rules and laws that says where specifically these dollars have to be spent.

Mr. Okum said our task is to try to encourage the developer to replenish the area where they are doing the tree removal, but there are times when they cannot.


Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Young seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 7:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,1998 _____________________________

William Syfert, Chairman


___________________,1998 _____________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary