Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, David Okum, Robert Seaman, Councilman Robert Wilson, James Young, and Chairman


Members Absent: Richard Huddleston

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Anne McBride, City Planner

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Kenneth Schneider, Law Director (arrived at 7:50 p.m.)


Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative



A. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes - 18 March 1997

B. 4/30/97 Letter to Bill McErlane from Bob Gilhart re Princeton Plaza


C. 4/30/97 Memo to Doyle H. Webster re Amending Section 153.217

of the Zoning Code

D. Planning Commissioners Journal #26 - Spring 1997

E. 5/6/97 Memo from Bill McErlane and Regional Planning Commission



A. Judith Muehlenhard of Pine Garden Landominium requests approval of screened in patios and screened in decks for their development on Princewood Court (tabled 4/8/97)

Stan Messerly of Messco Co. stated a few of the future residents of our site would like to express their concerns about not having screened in patios. Mr. Syfert stated I will entertain one.

Marie Smith said I will be buying one of the homes back there, and I would like to have a screened in patio if you would allow it. I have a lot of plants, and I would just love it.

Mr. Messerly continued I would like to review the staff comments I received today. The first dealt with the mounding relative to the proposed mounding on the grading plan that was submitted. It indicated the mound top elevation of 702.5. That was misunderstood or misrepresented by myself. Half a foot was intended to give you a better feel as to exactly how high we would be after we added mulching around the landscaping that would go on top of the mound. It would give an added height to the mound and further enhance the screening of the residential neighborhood.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Two


Mr. Messerly continued we do intend to top that out at the proposed elevation with a two foot wide flat top.

Mr. Messerly stated Item B addresses a concern with a 2 to 1 slope on the landscaped mound relative to the ease of mowing that area. We would agree that it is not the easiest thing to do, but that was something we had worked out through the Planning Commission and a 2 to 1 slope was approved on the final drawing.

Continuing, Mr. Messerly stated Item C dealing with the height of the finished elevations of the back row of houses relative to the proposed landscaped mound. It has been noted here that the finished floor will now be between one-half foot and 3.3 feet above the proposed landscaped mound. We appreciate that comment, but we understood that the important issue here was the traffic on that road, and the traffic lights that would be projected across into those yards. We had set it up so the traffic and oncoming lights were what was important, which we had received from staff comments in earlier meetings.

Mr. Messerly reported these comments deal with what we have done with the revisions. Number 6 dealt with our moving a landscaped mound and decrease the height from four foot to three foot. We are in a position to put that back at the four foot height, the original height on the final plan. It would be a different elevation, a foot higher, but the overall height of the mound would be the four foot height shown on the final plan.

Mr. Messerly added we donít have any problem relocating that mound, and would ask that we be permitted to put in a screened in enclosure back there and relocate that mound as shown. I realize that staff has some concerns with that, but we would like to relocate that mound such that we could put the screened in porch in the rear of Units 7 and 8. We had proposed to put that mound centered between the two buildings but now it is closer to Unit 8.

Mr. Messerly continued we discussed throughout the earlier Planning Commission meetings, that we would have a 10 foot deck or patio outside. It was not identified at that time as being an enclosed structure, but we feel we had addressed the setback requirement relative to the property line in our previous meetings.

Ms. McBride stated the staff report is a summary of what has been presented before. Basically it addresses most of the concerns that we have regarding the porch enclosures or the additions onto the units themselves. Originally when the final plan was approved for the 16 units, they did not indicate any decks or patios, but we had assumed they would have some type of outdoor living area because the rear elevations showed patio doors going out to the rear of the units. They are now back before us for the deck or patio enclosures. We had some concerns regarding whether or not the enclosures would have glass or windows, and the applicant has indicated that they will not have glass or window panels.

Ms. McBride reported previously we had provided the Commission with definitions concerning what constituted an extension of the home, an enclosed room versus an open use of the area. Basically those definitions indicated that they needed to be at least 50% open, could not be heated or air conditioned and had to be directly connected to the unit. By our calculations the proposal is only about 42% open. The applicant has indicated that they will not be heated or air conditioned.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Three


Ms. McBride continued we also had some prior concerns regarding the exterior appearance of the enclosure and the applicant previously indicated that they would put vinyl siding on these enclosures to match the balance of the unit.

Regarding, the setbacks, Ms. McBride stated we had established series of setbacks for the buildings on all four perameters. The proposed enclosed deck is encroaching into all those setbacks that the Commission and Council had established. Section 153.037(C) of our Code indicates that any enclosed entry or porch shall not project into any required yard area. What that is saying is if these had remained as open patios or decks, they could have encroached into that setback requirement we established, but now that they are literally an extension or an enclosure of the unit, they cannot by the Code. Obviously this is a PUD and the Commission can take liberties with that.

Ms. McBride stated what we have suggested for your consideration is that the enclosures as proposed be permitted on Units 9 10 and 11, which do not directly impact any of the exterior setbacks. Another thought would be to allow the enclosures on the units with the exception of those immediately adjacent to the existing single family homes. Those setbacks were created with the idea of protecting those existing single family homes, and I think we have to honor what was represented to those homeowners.

Ms. McBride added the applicant has talked about the issue of the earth and berming in particular as it relates to the berm behind Units 7 and 8. It was reduced in height and length and shifted, and we would like to see that go back to exactly what Planning and Council had approved.

Ms. McBride stated if you choose to approve the request that the applicant has to permit the porch and deck enclosures, that they not be heated or air conditioned, that they be a minimum of 50% of open wall area, and that they be open with screens only, no glass. You also may determine that they would be acceptable only on Units 9 10 or 11 or that they might be acceptable on all the units except 7 and 8, that the berm behind Units 7 and 8 must be constructed as approved with regards to length height and location, that the building materials be compatible with the balance of the building and that any buffering represented on the plan has to be constructed as approved by this Commission.

Mr. Okum said there was a note on the applicantís resubmission for removal of 10 trees. I know our Code doesnít require replacement because they are within 10 feet of the footprint, so we are losing 10 trees that are not required to be replaced, and that disappoints me that they arbitrarily want to remove them. What about these trees that you want to remove? Mr. Messerly responded those are the cedars that are under 12 inch diameter and are well within the 10 foot requirement that would not need replacement. Mr. Okum asked what they planned on replacing them with, and Mr. Messerly answered we hadnít planned on replacing them due to the regulations.

Mr. Shvegzda stated on the issue of the height of the mound, it was staffís understanding that the four foot height was from the newly constructed grade, not just in the vicinity of the driveway area. In terms of the driveway area, we have two sections that are taken in that area. One is including the additional six inches that you described before, 3.3 feet, and the other is 1.8 feet in height. So, they both are less than the four foot required height.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Four


Mr. Messerly responded the intent would be to abide by the final approval and make the berm four feet high. Does the staff have any preference or requirement for the minimum distance from the property line to the toe of the bank? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed that he was speaking of the area near the residential homes, and added that the minimum would have to be enough to be maintained and the drainage course could continue through that area. Mr. Messerly stated we are talking about putting the four foot berm at all locations along that residential line, correct? Mr. Shvegzda answered that was our understanding of the intent of the berm. I realize that initially some problems occurred because the site is about two feet higher than originally intended, but the berm height is still a requirement. Mr. Messerly stated we would intend to make that berm four foot tall. Mr. Shvegzda said we havenít seen that in a plan form as yet. Mr. Messerly commented I have to verify why I showed this here when we have a minimum setback requirement of 35 feet. I would request of the Commission that we would be allowed to work through the staff on this issue relative to resubmitting this to Planning at the next meeting. We would agree to create the mound as approved.

Mr. Galster wondered if the Unit 16 and 11 ground floor heights been raised, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that they have. Mr. Messerly added Unit 16 is up one and one-half feet and Unit 11 is up a foot. That is the result of more exposure on the vertical face of concrete than lifting up of the entire site. Mr. Galster asked if the building were a foot and a half higher than it was going to be before, and Mr. Messerly answered yes. Mr. Galster continued if I am a resident and am sitting out and have a four foot berm designed to block so much view of a building that is relatively close to my piece of property, and all of a sudden you put that building on top of the hill, my four foot berm didnít do it. Instead of having a four foot buffer, I have a two and one-half foot buffer. I donít necessarily agree with the idea that the four foot berm stays four feet and we raise the buildings up. I donít see the purpose of keeping a four foot berm if we are raising the building up a foot and a half. I think the berm needs to go up to five or six feet. Mr. Messerly responded Iím not saying it canít be done, but we either would have to change the 2 to 1 slope to a steeper slope because we only have so much horizontal distance to work with or have to provide some type of vertical buffer, a wood fence potentially. Mr. Galster commented I donít want to discount that berm as four foot because four feet was proposed based on the building heights as they were. They have changed and a four foot berm in my mind is not satisfactory. Mr. Messerly stated we were working off the staff comment that dealt with the mounding at the first preliminary approval. We were more concerned with buffering the lighting. Mr. Galster said I am buffering the whole thing; we came to that four foot berm height based on the elevations that we had. The elevations have changed, and I believe it fair that the berm height should change.

Mr. Galster continued regarding the trees across the back of Units 14 15 and 16, were they shown as part of the landscaping plan of this project? Mr. Messerly answered they were shown to stay. Mr. Galster continued again, you are making another change to the final plan for whatever reason, and we look at it as the total landscaping plan for the whole site. Now all of a sudden you will eliminate them because they are within 10 feet and you donít need to replace them with half the caliper inches. That doesnít mean that you can take them down and we would approve the fact. I donít think it is fair to present them in the final plan as trees that are going to stay and then say they are within the 10 feet and we donít have to keep them so we are taking them down. I have a major problem with that.


Planing Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Five


Mr. Messerly said I know it has been stated that decks were never talked about, but one of the staff comments on our final approval stated that conditions should be added to the covenants precluding any deck from extending more than ten feet from Unit 16, 11 8 or 7 to reserve a minimum 25 foot setback to the property line, which would be the ones along the residential line. From that statement we had assumed that meant that the other decks were indeed permissible to even encroach potentially further than the 10 foot minimum. Mr. Galster said I want to make sure that you are clear on where I am coming from.

Mr. Galster said getting back to the decks, especially the ones that back up to the residents, I think that is a major difference. If suddenly you erect a wall 20 feet from my property, that is changing my perception of the building. When we originally approved this, I knew we were putting a lot of units on a very small site, that it would be tight. These issues about site lines from the other residents were extremely critical. Now not only are we eliminating trees, we are adding walls 10 feet closer to their houses. If I am looking out my window, I donít see your concrete patio or wooden deck as an intrusion to my visual enjoyment of my back yard. You start building walls there it is a different story; it is a major change.

Judith Muehlenhard said some of you were not here when the original PUD was approved, but that piece of property was zoned multi-family and there was a party interested in putting a high rise on that property. When we purchased it, we did so contingent upon our being able to rezone to a PUD. Also as a courtesy to the residents along the residential side we agreed to put a fence up because there was an old farm fence on both property lines and they had wanted it removed and replaced over the years. We understand the need for privacy for the residents who already live there for car lights and the fact that they donít want to look at the development; I can understand the consideration to the people there. Everyone that I have talked to has been very happy with us; I have received a lot of compliments about the buildings; they are very pleased with what we have done.

Ms. Muehlenhard continued the cedar trees that were on the property were pretty rough looking trees; we didnít realize how bad they were until we got in there. While we are not obligated to replace those, maybe additional trees added to that side would be a solution to this. It would assure the residents that they have privacy and they would see a nice well maintained fence and beautiful trees. Would that be acceptable to Council? That way, everybody will be happy.

Ms. Muehlenhard added most of my residents who are wanting to buy in or have bought are asking for the privacy of the screened in porches or patios if possible. They would appreciate that. Everyone knows that we canít turn it into living space; we would be very pleased to put it into our homeownerís association documents that it may never be turned into living space. That way it is an association declaration and doesnít ever have to be dealt with by the City of Springdale.

Chris Smith added on the berm, it seems like you are under the impression that we were going to put up a berm to create a fence like barrier. The berm that we have doesnít go down the whole side of the residences. I didnít think we were trying to put up a barrier.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Six


Mr. Galster commented I think the berm idea was to take away from the mass of structure. Every one of the berms was pretty much located in front of the buildings. It is to ease the visual impact of looking at the wall of a home 20 feet away.

Mr. Smith commented even if everything was at the original elevation, this four foot berm would not cover much of the building. I thought the berm was to block the traffic coming out the road so the light wouldnít bother the residents. Mr. Syfert said that is part of it. The berm was approved on the final plans, and that one you have changed. If it was approved at four feet it was done for a reason, and I donít think that is to be discussed now why that is there or not. There was a lot more that went into it than just blocking car lights. What Mr. Galster is saying is that you have changed the game plan on us and he is not very happy about it.

Mr. Messerly said relative to the vertical height off the new roadway, it is going to be impossible to get four foot above that 699 elevation which would make us 703. I want to look at these crossections again and I would like to get a feel from the Commission as to what if anything they can give us as a satisfactory solution, what vertical face fence -wall type item that would give that same height would be acceptable to the Commission.

Mr. Galster answered I understand that your elevation and building has changed and we need to continue to address that berm, but I donít think it needs to be changed to something else. I think it needs to be what it was that we approved.

Mr. Okum said I was not on the Commission when this was approved but my understanding is that the berm was a separation, a break a softening of the residential area from this new development. The height of the buildings and the berm were relative. Putting a vertical wall up there was not the intent or the purpose of the berm. I am hearing some things that you will not be able to achieve even with the four foot berm. Mr. Messerly responded it looks like we had almost as much as three foot in some locations so you are looking at 705. You are looking at a seven foot tall mound which would coincide with a two foot raise in the road. The reason why it was proposed as an up and down was an attempt to be a cost savings as opposed to providing the fill material on this road here.

Mr. Okum responded but the comment concerns the relative height of the mound in perspective to the height of your buildings, and you have breached that by the way you have done the site. You are not offering us anything to soften that or change it. You are saying we will take it to four feet; we will drop out the 10 trees. You must understand that what this Commission is looking at is there is going to have to be a move on your part to soften the edge of this development and bring it back into relative perspective with what was originally approved. Not a wall or a six foot fence on top of a mound and if you take a very strong position, this Commission will take a very strong position about your other requests for these room enclosures that you want to bring closer to that property line.

Mr. Smith said what if we use more evergreens or pines? I donít want to see a fence go up. Ms. Muehlenhard commented I would like to see it pretty and green and that could easily be done and added to the area along the residential side.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Seven


Mr. Okum said there are some problems with the grading that have to be addressed to make that all work. For three months this Commission has been asking for a site plan revision, that grading plans be submitted. We have been asking for this to be resolved. I think you have to get the grade issue with Mr. Shvegzdza straightened out before you can take care of the architectural landscape and mounding issues because the underlying issue is will it drain and is the grading right for the development. Once you get that, you will have to go into the mounding and finish. Mr. Shvegzdaís concern to make sure that the grading is exactly the way it needs to be is important so that these buildings donít have flooded basements, that the water drains away from the buildings and not into the buildings. After that, we bring in the fact that you need to do something to meet the original intent to make this softness and buffer.

Mr. Smith said I think it is fair to say that we can raise the mounding up a foot more than what we have. What was proposed there was one row of pine trees but we could add twice as many pines to give a staggering effect to have that all year round and keep that barrier tighter. Mr. Okum commented a mixing of trees and evergreens is a direction I have seen done in many developments, but I also have seen mounds with a row of trees where the evergreens are turning brown and it looks like a mound with a row of trees so you might as well have a chain link fence. Now the building is two feet higher; the view is different and the residentsí perspective is different. We have a PUD here and a plan that we need to work with. I think the issues of the city engineer and your development need to mesh so that he is in total agreement with what you are submitting. This is primary over anything, and then the landscaping has to be built on top of that to handle the separation and softness and buffering.

Mr. Wilson wondered if Mrs. Smith or anyone in the audience contemplating purchasing Units 9 10 or 11. Ms. Muehlenhard answered Unit 10 has an owner here and 9 and 11 are not sold. To the owner, Mr. Wilson continued when you purchased your unit, was it with the condition that there be this enclosure on it? She answered a deck was a condition. I am neutral on the enclosure issue. Mr. Wilson wondered if the purchaser of Unit 11 where the elevations are in question, asking if the change in elevation was due to a design change that you requested or did you look at another plan and later it was elevated? Mr. Smith stated that unit has not been purchased, and Mr. Wilson asked why the elevation had been changed. Mr. Messerly answered the road changed and the concern was the water drainage. Mr. Wilson continued we agreed to a certain elevation and now we have a problem. Didnít we know that before? Mr. Messerly said no, explaining that initially it was proposed that the road be two foot longer than it is and now it goes straight uphill with the high point at the end of the road. Mr. Wilson wondered the cause for that and Mr. Smith answered it was something we did not catch with the contractor who was excavating.

Mr. McErlane reported relative to the cedar trees that were taken out, initially when I reviewed the site relative to the Tree Preservation Ordinance I questioned whether or not those trees would remain because of their close proximity to those buildings. The cedars you typically see along the interstate did form a pretty nice buffer for the area, but they were about six feet off the building and it was hard to believe they could keep those in place while they built those units. Mr. Syfert said so you are saying that taking them out was probably the prudent thing to do.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Eight


Mr. Syfert said it would appear that we have a major problem that we have not overcome yet, and Iím not exactly sure what the Commission wants to do about it. I believe there is no question but what they want to have the proper berming and/or screening provided, and they want to see that before they move on anything else. We have spent a lot of time here and I donít know we are going to accomplish a whole lot more discussing anything further. What does the applicant want to do?

Mr. Smith answered we would like to get permission to put the screened in patios and decks in. If we have to put up additional screening by way of evergreens or trees, we do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Syfert responded it seems to me that there are a number of members of the Commission that are very concerned about this elevation thing that we have been fighting for months, and nothing has been done with it. In my opinion for you to stand there and say weíll put more pine trees in is fine, but how are we going to get that four foot berm up there. I believe Iím going to have to see something, and itís no different than what we have been asking for I donít believe.

Mr. Okum said the applicant wants some comments regarding the porch enclosures. I think Mr. Galsterís comments are valid on the sites adjacent to the residential homes concerning how those become closer to the property line. I also made the comment at the previous meeting that I have a real problem with shed roof on a porch enclosure versus a gabled roof which can be put on there and done very nicely. From looking at the drawing, I think you are going down to almost a 3:12 pitch on the porch roof which means it will be a maintenance issue over time. A gabled roof has a lot more character, goes along with your buildings and doesnít look like an add-on shed roof. I do think Mr. Syfert is exactly right; the issues have to be resolved on the grading separation, berming and screening. You have offered no separation of screening for those units that you want to put porch enclosures on. I think you need to resolve the issue with Mr. Shvegzda on the grading and then tie everything in with a landscaping plan. You will have to resubmit a landscaping plan with the enclosures if you plan on putting the enclosures on. It needs to be brought to us as a complete package for those items up for discussion instead of piecemeal.

Mr. Young said so you have some idea of how the rest of us are thinking, I would tend to agree with what Ms. McBride has proposed concerning the patio enclosures. We have been asking for this grading information for several months and every time you come in and donít have the information we have requested, your credibility is lacking and that is a reason we are having some problems. My suggestion would be to have the information that staff is looking for so that when you meet with us we have the information we need to make a decision.

Mr. Wilson commented the final decision is based on the berming issue and the removal of those 10 trees. We are not going to try to tell you how to design your area, but it would be incumbent upon you to work on that mound, whether it would be putting vegetation up there to get the required height. In the area where you are removing the trees, I would suggest some type of landscaping. Those residents are used to those trees; when you cut them down they have a straight shot at your development, and maybe they have a concern.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Nine


Mr. Wilson said we have been an hour discussing this and I would like some closure. I would like something from you saying you recognize the problem and what you are proposing to correct it. If it takes until next month to get closure, weíd like to see you next month. If it is something you can get resolved in a shorter period of time and you would like for us to give you permission to review it with staff and get approval through them, we need feedback in terms of what you are going to do to address these problems.

Mr. Syfert stated staff will not rule on this; this will be voted on by the Planning Commission. I think what he is suggesting is that you request that this be tabled.

Mr. Smith said so we should bring our drawings to the staff first, get their approval and come to the meting. Mr. Syfert confirmed this, adding that as soon as you can et those to staff, the better off we would be. As you know, Mr. Shvegzda has very serious concerns which concern all of the Commission. There is no doubt that we have to work with a berm area. It would be my suggestion that you ask that it be tabled again.

Mr. Smith responded I will request that it be tabled but on the other hand we were hoping to get to another issue on a plat we are trying to get recorded. I was hoping we could quickly go through that so we could get that recorded downtown. We have people staying in hotels waiting to move in. Mr. Wilson wondered what units he was referring to and Ms. Muehlenhard answered Units 12 and 13. Mr. Messerly stated this is a copy of the revised plat. I know that staff has a couple of comments on that, and we would like to request from the Commission approval contingent upon staffís revisions. Mr. Wilson commented I see that you are requesting an enclosed patio on Units 12 and 13. Mr. Syfert stated that doesnít have anything to do with this at this point.

Mr. Galster said you say staff has h ad an opportunity to review this but we havenít gotten any information, so I would assume because our staff is pretty expedient about getting information to us, they havenít had more than a couple of days to review this. Mr. Messerly stated staff received a revised plat Monday morning. On Friday when the comments were submitted to my office, the letter said that the Planning Commission chairman had reviewed the comments and decided it would be premature to review that plat at this time. A member of the staff felt that a lot of that was due to the staff rereviewing that plat prior to this meeting. He did rereview it, and we are down from 12 items to two small items.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Shvegzda to report on this. Mr. Shvegzda stated we did have comments substantially addressed by this latest submittal, although there are some items that need to be revised. The major concerns have been addressed. We did receive the revised plat yesterday about noon and looked t it late this morning. There are still some items that need to be addressed but they are minor concerns.

Mr. Galster said as other members have said, we have waited two and one half to three months to get this elevation stuff worked out, but when you get our comments on Friday on Monday or Tuesday you have a drawing back in here addressing those concerns. Iíd like to see that response for the things that we need as opposed to just the things you need. If it had gone that way, you wouldnít be here this evening. This would have been done a month or two ago. Please keep that in mind, and I would appreciate your consideration for the material we require as well as the material you would like to have.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Ten


Mr. Wilson asked some of the issues that would prevent them from moving forward. Mr. Shvegzda stated some of the issues are misspellings, but there is one issue that regards a highway easement that is called out on the end of Princewood. That in fact was never recorded so it has to be removed from the plat. There was an additional detail on one of the lots as it moved out into the easement area for the drive. Those are the major items that still exist. Mr. Messerly added originally there was a concern with the clarity in this area, and I tried to clarify as best I could.

Mr. Syfert asked if they can proceed further without our signature. Mr. Shvegzda indicated that they could not, adding that it has to be recorded and one of the steps would be the signature of the secretary of Planing Commission. Mr. Syfert continued I donít see a real problem with our approving this particular part of it, but Mr. Shvegzda has to be convinced before the secretary will be signing it. Perhaps they could proceed along if that is the pleasure of the Commission.

Mr. Okum wondered if the recording of this plat has anything to do with the recording of the Covenants. Mr. Shvegzda answered the Covenants will be referred to on the plat. Mr. McErlane added we have received the executed Covenants and as far as I know they have met all the requested changes that our law director asked for. We also have a copy of the Declaration of Covenants for the condominium association. We will record the developerís covenants that the city is party to. If everything is okay we will send them down to the law director and he will have them recorded. With respect to the condominium association covenants, those need to be recorded along with the plat because they are referred to on the plat.

Ms. Muehlenhard stated those are ready to go but if you like we can write into those documents the fact that no enclosed porch or patio may ever be converted into living space to safeguard it ever coming up again if you wish us to do this. Mr. McErlane stated the City really does not have any control of these, nor are they a party to them. Ms. Muehlenhard said if that is your preference, I have no problem with it. That might avoid any difficulties 10 years down the road; I would be happy to make that a part of the document right now. Itís up to you. Mr. Syfert stated I think that probably would be a prudent thing to do. Ms. Muehlenhard said I will revise that.

Mr. Galster said any reference to screened in porches that havenít been approved being in the Covenants leaves that gray area that I donít like. I donít want any reference to those attachments to that building if in fact we havenít approved them. I have a problem with that. Mr. Syfert said I agree; I had the cart before the horse.

Ms. Muehlenhard said in an effort to get the first plat recorded, we can record those Covenants as they stand, and if it pleases council we could revise that later if this becomes an issue. That way if itís approved and everyone is in agreement on how it should look we could go back and revise the Covenants

Mr. Galster said I believe it is proper to address the piece of old business first, and I assume that is to table, so I will make a motion to table to the June 10th meeting the issue in reference to the request on screened in patios and screened in decks at Princewood Court. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr.Young, Mr. Okum, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Item was tabled with six affirmative votes.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Eleven


Mr. Okum moved that the recorded plat for Units 12, 13, 7 and 8 be brought on the floor for consideration. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All present voted aye.

Mr. Okum commented I heard discussion on Units 12 and 13, but not on Units 7 and 8. On the screened in patio issue, Ms. Muehlenhard said they would not say anything about that; we can go back and revise it at such time when we have approval. That wouldnít have anything to do with the recording of the plat. Mr. Okum added the plat would be submitted and recorded as it was originally approved.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any comments on Units 7 and 8. Mr. Shvegzda stated I canít recall there being any concerns for grading issues for 12 and 13, and the only issue for 7 and 8 was the other mound in that area. Mr. McErlane added the mound in that area was changed a little bit; not to any great degree. Mr. Messerly commented the mound would not affect that property line. We would not be able to occupy, get an occupancy permit until all staff comments were addressed. Mr. Shvegzda stated he is correct in regards to their being issues that have to be resolved for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if there were any problems with the plat recording, and Mr. McErlane indicated there were not as long as the covenants were recorded.

Mr. Okum moved approval for recording of plots along with the covenants for Units 7, 8 12 and 13. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Galster voted no, and the motion was granted with five affirmative and one negative votes.

B. Concept Discussion of Proposed Holiday Inn Express, 12037 Sheraton Lane (previous Pizza Hut ) - tabled 4/8/97

Mr. John Kingston stated I tried to take into consideration some of your comments from the last meeting. This was what we presented at the last meeting and this is what we are proposing. We went to all brick, moved the canopy to the center and lowered and eliminated the tower effect and created more of a dormer for a more residential look. In effect we have softened the impact of the size of the building and created a more residential appeal that you were looking for. We also went to the building you mentioned, and it is similar . By going to a single material, it is not as obtrusive.

Mr. Syfert wondered how many rooms they are proposing and Mr. Kingston answered the building is the same size as it was, and there were 48 rooms before. It would probably end up being 47 rooms. However, he would like to have as many as he can to attract the best franchise that he can. He is still talking to Holiday Inn Express, but he is not 100% certain about getting it.

Mr. Wilson commented everything on the concept plan says Holiday Inn, but you do not know for sure it is going to be a Holiday Inn. Who are some of the other franchises you are trying to get? Mr. Patel responded the others are Days Inn, and Sleep Inn. Mr. Wilson wondered about the room cost, wondering if he would be competitive with Econolodge? Mr. Patel answered I would be competing more with the Cross Country Inn or the Budgetel, but at a better rate. The Sleep Inn average rate is $50 per night.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twelve


Mr. Galster commented I think the applicant has shown a great desire to do whatever it is possible to get us to go along with his idea conceptually. There are a couple of fundamental issues that Council may have a problem with, but with where we started where we are now and where we have room to head, I have no problem with this conceptual plan.

Mr. Syfert commented I think the staff reviews are straightforward and very thorough. Addressing Ms. McBride, he asked if she would like to add anything to her report. Ms. McBride said I think the applicant has tried to address all my comments in terms of adding landscaping and shifting parking, etc. I feel real comfortable with the proposed use and the proposed site plan.

Mr. Syfert stated we do not have any concept of signs or lighting plan, but that is not an issue at this point.

Mr. McErlane reported the only thing that needs to be clarified is that this is a PUD and we need to know whether it needs to go back through Council. Mr. Syfert stated I think Mr. Galster made that clear last month that this does need to go back through Council.

Mr. Okum said Iíll also compliment the applicant on his work to bring in this good presentation. I am looking forward to the preliminary plan review process where we can get into more detail, but on a conceptual basis I think you have done a fine job. Fundamentally there are some things we need to work out, but I think you have made a great effort to redevelop that site and I donít have any objections to what you intend to do.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the concept plan and Mr.Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the concept plan was approved with six affirmative votes.


A. Wal-Mart requests approval of Garden Center Addition at 600 Kemper Commons Circle

Gordon Shackelford, Store Manager stated we want to take the wrought iron part of the garden center on the west side of the building and do a 63-70 foot expansion out towards Tri-County, making it like an ell. The wrought iron would be matching the slab and the slope would be the same. It will look exactly like the one we have now except expanding it about 4,000 feet. The materials and everything else will basically be the same. What we are losing when we go out that space is about 12 parking spaces by our auto center. All the existing fire hydrants will remain where they are.

Mr. Wilson wondered if he planned to use this area for holiday items. Mr. Shackelford indicated that he did not, adding that they used Samís Club last year to store a lot of holiday merchandise so they did not have trailers. It is possible we will have cut Christmas trees in there, but it will not be used to store pallets and merchandise. Mr. Wilson continued with Christmas trees up there, there might be a concern about traffic flow and people stopping to pick up trees. Mr. Shackelford answered there will not be any more traffic than there is now.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Thirteen


Mr.Young said it says seasonal sales; how many months of the year are we talking about? Mr. Shackelford answered itís for use 12 months per year. Mr.Young wondered if there were any way of getting into the addition from the outside, and Mr. Shackelford indicated that there was not.

Mr. Galster said with the seasonable items you have, where will it be loaded? Mr. Shackelford showed the eight foot sliding gate. Mr. Galster wondered if anything was stored in this area for people to drive up. Mr. Shackelford indicated that nothing was stored in this area.

Mr. Okum said I hate to go into your main part of your store; will there be another entrance for customers to come in on the back side? Mr. Shackelford answered that there is another entrance here right now, but it is kept locked. Really we donít have any traffic coming through the back of the store. This is primarily for Tire Lube people to come in here. Mr. Okum commented it appears that you are totally screening your auto center from view. Mr. Shackelford indicated that they are. Mr. Okum wondered if there would be pallets or storage of your seasonal merchandise against the fence line, and Mr. Shackelford answered we might have pallets of black mulch or something like that along there, but not outside. We store it inside.

Mr. Okum wondered if he had considered any landscaping around the perimeter to soften it? Mr. Shackelford stated it goes right to blacktop. Mr. Okum continued as an example Frankís has a landscaped area in front of their entrance to the garden center which is very tastefully done and softens that wall. It is closer to Commons Drive and will be well traveled in the next year with the development coming in (Dave & Busterís). Would you have a problem with doing something like that? Mr. Shackelford said I donít believe so. Mr. Okum said now the question is would the Commission have any problem, referring to Ms. McBride. Ms. McBride stated it has not been done on the prior piece but if you could it would be a nice feature since it is a landscape area and maybe you could use it as a promotion for some of the material you are selling in that area.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is a six inch water main that should be verified as far as location, care and working around it when the construction takes place. Obviously there is no increase in impervious area there would be no need for increase in detention. The one edge of the area will be right at the end of the travel aisle; have you considered some provisions for providing some type of pipe guards to protect that? Mr. Shackelford stated right now there are six existing pipe guards around the fire hydrant on the south side, and I would say that would be a wise thing to do. Mr. Shvegzda added that would be on the west side, and it could be any number of things, but pipe guards would be one. Mr. Shackelford added Iím taking all these ideas back to propose them.

Mr. Syfert stated Mr. McErlane had a note for us that he hadnít received approval of the property owner for the proposed project. Mr. McErlane reported that he had a discussion with Lori Wendling of North American Properties this afternoon, and she indicated that everything is okay provided the fencing around the enclosure matches what is currently there. Mr. Syfert added which the applicant indicated would match.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Fourteen


Mr. Young moved to approve with the recommendations of staff and putting landscaping on the south end of the center. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Rebecca Crowe & Jason W. Paul request transfer of variance to allow partial conversion of garage at 478 Maple Circle Drive

Ms. Crowe stated we bought the condo unit and would like to have the variance on the garage transferred to our names permanently. In 1985 the previous owner (Susan Young) was granted this variance. At that time she had to have a letter from The Crossings Condo Association. We are not able to find that letter at this time. Each year she had to return to the zoning committee to have it approved again. In 1989 she came before the Planning Commission and was granted a permanent variance until the time that she sold the unit when it would have to be converted back to a garage. Ms. Carter of Coldwell Banker is here to represent Ms. Young who lives in Florida.

Ms. Pam Carter stated I have a copy of a letter from Ms. Young directed to the City of Springdale Building Department and Planning Commission.

"I was granted a temporary variance to convert one-half of my garage into living space on January 15, 1985. This variance was renewed annually by the zoning commission until January of 1989 when the matter was referred to the Planning Commission, which granted a permanent variance with the stipulation that the space be reconverted to a garage upon sale of the property. I was utilizing the space for a family room home office area.

"In October of 1996 I accepted a position with a company in Miami Florida and departed for Miami five days later. We agreed on a 90-day probationary period, and at the end of that time I was offered and accepted a full time permanent position in Miami, at which time I contacted Pam Carter of Coldwell Banker and listed my property. I am sure you can appreciate the fact that I could not undertake the reconversion in October when I was not sure that I would like the position in Miami or even living in Miami for that matter, and might have chosen to return to Cincinnati and continue to operate my franchise business.

"When I accepted the positon in Miami I needed to sell the property and it would have been extremely difficult to arrange the reconversion from this distance. I did however apprise Miss Carter of the situation and she subsequently contacted the City of Springdale in regard to this matter. The buyer of the property, Miss Rebecca Crowe, was also made fully aware of this situation by Miss Carter.

"The conversion of the garage was done with the full knowledge and consent of The Crossings of Springdale Condo Association Board, letter on file with the City, and the City of Springdale Building Department. Necessary permits were obtained, construction was done to code and inspections were conducted and passed (documentation on file). Although Miss Crowe is aware of the condition to reconvert, she would naturally prefer to retain the area as living space. It is in this regard that I appeal to the Commission for a continuation of the variance.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Fifteen


Letter from Ms. Susan Young - continued

"The room is nicely finished and carpeted. There is adequate garage space for Miss Croweís vehicle, and additional parking space in the driveway. The exterior of the building remains unchanged. There have been no other conversions in The Crossings as a result of the conversion within my unit or for the other reason that I suspect that the majority of The Crossing residents are unaware of the conversion. The conversion was considered an improvement by the Real Estate Department of Hamilton County and my property taxes increased as a result (documentation is enclosed).

"Every attempt has been made by myself as the seller, Miss Carter as the agent and Miss crowe as the buyer to conduct business with integrity and to act in good faith. In this regard and in the fact that the conversion has for 12 years created no adverse conditions for the residents of The Crossings or the City of Springdale, I would ask that the Commission take a favorable position towards Miss Croweís request in this matter."

Miss Carter added as the realtor involved in this, when Miss Young listed the property, I contacted Mr. McErlaneís office and expressed a concern about the variance and what we needed to do. He indicated that as long as you advise the buyer that there is a variance, she just needs to come to the board and have it transferred. That was the information conveyed to them and I guess there were conversations between the buyer and Mr. McErlane during the process but they have since bought the condo and are coming before the board now asking that they can continue forward with that variance and leave this intact.

Ms. Crowe added one of the reasons we bought the condo was the extra space and we would like to be able to utilize that in the future. One of the largest concerns at the time the variance was granted was parking. The other side of the garage is used for parking, and we only have two automobiles between us. Each of the units has two spaces in the driveway in front of the garages, so there is one space available for guests. In addition, The Crossings does have guest parking. As Miss Carter has stated there has been no physical alteration to the outside of the building. The old garage door is still there intact. The inside has been nicely refinished; it is heated and we will be able to make use of that space if we can retain the variance.

Mr. Galster asked if they had received a copy of the letter from The Crossings of Springdale Condo Owners Association dated May 12th? Ms. Crowe and Mr. Paul indicated that they had. Mr. Paul added there is a letter dated November 26 1984 from the Building Department, stating in part, "It will be necessary to supply this office with a letter from The Association granting approval of you proposal." That was a stipulation on getting this thing going in the first place. At this point of time we cannot locate anything from The Association. I am assuming when the variance was granted somewhere in your filing system there is a letter from the Condo Association Board. I donít know if any of the members on the board now were on the board at the time. A question I have is where is that to be filed? Mr. Syfert responded it should be a part of the Board of Zoning Appeals records originally.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May1997

Page Sixteen


Mr. Galster said it was extremely clear that once you sold the property it was supposed to revert back to the garage, so whether or not we have a letter from 1984 okaying it at that time, we have a letter from the current board indicating that they wouldnít give an okay at this time. That one was granted and expired, and basically you are asking for a new variance. That is the way I have to view it, because that is the way it was stipulated from ground zero.

Mr. McErlane reported I pulled the Minutes from the December 1984 meeting which was the first occasion that Miss Young appeared before the Board of Zoning Appeals and also the January 1985 meeting when they granted the variance. The beginning of the discussion on this request indicates that the approval of this conversion of the Condo Association was read by Mr. Syfert who was chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals at that time, so there was one in our possession at the time, and I cannot find the file on the variance at this point.

Mr. Okum said I know the wishes of the Board and it makes it a very difficult situation. On the one hand I think that they have allowed it since 1984 and it hasnít adversely affected anybody; so why not. However, I think the concern at The Crossings is that there would be a multitude of these occurring in multiple units and when that happens it becomes a problem. One of the features that sold these units was the two car garages so it makes it even more difficult. There is a lot of expense that went into this. Looking at this letter from The Crossings Association, I donít know whether it is a favorable or unfavorable; it says at the end "I offer these statements for consideration of the Planning Commission as factual representations." Does it say they donít want it?

Mr. Syfert asked the applicants if they went before the board and Ms. Crowe answered we attended a meeting last evening.

From the audience Jerry Cabe President of The Crossings Board indicated at our board meeting last night we addressed this issue. As you can understand, boards change peopleís opinions change and we looked at Mrs. Youngís previous application for the variance, and nobody on the board had any recollection of it. We looked back in he Minutes for that time period and could find nothing. She indicated that she had a letter from them that she presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals but she did not give us a copy of it and checking with Mr. McErlane we could not find it either. That is not to say it doesnít exist; we just couldnít find it. That is one fact.

Mr. Cabe continued the second fact is we had a rather heated vocal discussion in the meeting last night about whether we would approve it today and the consensus in the end was no. The Board Managers are responsible for the 69 unit owners and interpreting our declaration bylaws for the good of those owners. I think everybody at the meeting last night had a lot of sympathy for the situation here but the variance in the beginning created that situation.

Mr. Wilson said this variance indicates that it would terminate when the unit was sold and converted back to living space. I quote from the Planning Commission Minutes of Janury 10, 1989, "Mr. Hermann felt that this would be the best way to go instead of leaving permanent with the property should Mrs. Young sell it it would have to convert back to its originally condition at the time of the sale. He asked Mrs. Young if there were any problems with this and Mrs. Young responded by saying it was her understanding at the time that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved it."

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Seventeen


Mr. Wilson continued so at this point she is stating that when she sold the unit she would be willing to convert it back. We are almost starting all over again with this because it was to be converted when the unit was sold. If there was a financial consideration on her part, that should not be an issue here.

Ms. Carter stated in the letter I read from, Mrs. Young was aware of that, but due to the situation of her quick move to Florida she did not have time to convert it back prior to the sale. The buyer was fully aware of that at purchase time and the fact that it was their responsibility to come before the board and ask that it be transferred to them. Obviously it has not caused any problems in The Condo Association; they have not had any complaints over 12 years, nor has anyone else asked for a variance to be granted to convert one of the two car garages. It is not a case of causing any concern; probably nobody is aware of it because from the outside there is no change.

Mr. Wilson responded I understand that but there was a meeting last night and it was voted down. Ms. Carter stated I understand that if she brought it up today, they would not favor it, but 12 years ago the Board approved it. Mr. Cabe added our concern is about setting a precedent. We are not aware of any problems in this unit, but there have been other unit owners who wanted to convert their garages into office space and we declined their requests.

Mr. Wilson commented we have two issues here. One is that Mrs. Young has agreed to convert it back at time of sale, and the other issue is that the Board is not recommending the transfer. In effect what you are asking us to do is override your Board and set a precedent and I am never in favor of setting precedents because they come back to haunt you. I think you probably need to get the Associationís blessings first and then come back.

Mr. Galster said Iím sure that when you looked at this place it was extremely well done and a nice attraction to that condominium. I just hope you understand that if everybody was able to do that they would do that to sell theirs quicker, and if suddenly we had 69 of them trying to make sure they are compatible parking would become a problem eventually. I do agree to a certain extent that if you could get them to look at it as grandfathered in so to speak because an old board approved it maybe I would look at it a little bit differently, but I donít want to even give you that hope because I do believe it is a separate issue. It was granted for her then with the idea that it would stop and they had everybodyís blessings. You are asking us to grant it to you now without their blessings, and I just canít do that.

Mr. Wilson suggested that the applicant request that we table this. This would give you an opportunity to talk with as many of the other owners as possible and do whatever it takes so when they have their next meeting, talk with them and see if they as a group will consider altering their decision. If you get their blessings, come back and request the variance again. I think that would be better, because at this point I donít think any of us will be in favor of it. It is up to you.

Ms. Crowe said that makes sense. Mr. Wilson moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye and the matter was tabled to June 10th.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:18 p.m.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Eighteen


VI - NEW BUSINESS - continued

C. Concept Discussion of Proposed Target Store to be located at Century Boulevard and East Kemper Road

Tom Bonneville, of the Real Estate Department of Target Stores, Division of Dayton-Hudson Corporation stated with me tonight are Art Harden of Woolpert Consultants and Steve Brandt of Linder Company representing us in this transaction. Target Stores operate 750 stores around the United States and are expanding at about 75 stores per year. We are a family oriented company and is very active in every market that we are located. We are good corporate citizens. As an example of that, some of you have read about the recent floods in North Dakota and Minnesota and as one of several gestures, we got together with Northwest Airlines and loaded up a 747 with 225 pounds of basic supplies needed by the families and shipped them to Grand Forks North Dakota. We give 5% of our pretax income to worthy community agencies.

Mr. Bonneville continued we are new to the Cincinnati Metropolitan area. This would be our fourth project in the area because we are under construction in Glen Crossing, Beechmont Avenue and Fields-Ertel Road. We hope to have more projects in this area and also in the Dayton area.

Mr. Bonneville stated we would like to talk to you about the site that the Paffe family owns presently which is adjacent to the Wal-Mart and Samís locations. We would like to locate a store that would be customized to fit it best into this site. One of the things we would like to do in our presentation is to have Art explain the topography and how we will need to modify it so this works. Grading is very important, so I would like to go right into that..

Mr. Syfert stated there are a number of people in the audience who live adjacent to this on McClellans Lane. Do you have extra photos that you could pass out to them? I would like for them to be able to follow along with the presentation. A number of the aerial photographs were passed out and the easel was moved so the residents could better see the presentation.

Mr. Harden stated as you can see by the aerial photo there is commercial and industrial development[ to the east of us all the way to the west behind the property. The only thing left as residential is the strip of land here and the Paffe property.

Mr. Harden continued one of the reasons why this is left over is because it is a very difficult piece of property. There are a lot of things happening on the property, in particular on the topography. For example, at the intersection, the elevation is 710 feet above sea level but at the end of this road we are proposing to tie into Commons Drive it is 652 feet, so you are looking at a 60 foot differential from one end of the project to the other which is a lot of grade to take up. In addition these dark green areas are two to one slopes and there is quite a bit of difference in elevation from the back property off Commons Drive up to the Paffe property.

Mr. Harden stated a couple of things that restrict us is the parking lot is tied to the Century Boulevard Extension which in turn is tied to Kemper Road elevations. By the time we have something that would be safe for all the customers, we would have a finished pour elevation of 695 feet. That is 15 feet below the roadway, and that is just to get the building in and in place.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May1997

Page Nineteen


Mr. Bonneville continued behind the building, we also are looking at taking a step down around the building of an additional four feet, because we have a two to one slope that is very tight. That would add to the cost of the building, but it is an area where we are trying to pick up some of the grade differential. Even with that elevation behind the building, where it is 691 feet, right at the property line where the elevation is 660 feet, that is what we would have to tie to in order to get our grades to work out. That is a 30 foot differential between the outside of the building and the property line. We are trying to give you some feel for the magnitude of the difference in these grades that are affecting the development of this property.

Mr. Harden continued in looking at the grades, we have found there may be some small areas toward the front where we may have some two to one slopes we have to contend with. In these type areas, we try to put low maintenance vegetation in, like crown vetch or trees that establish themselves on slopes and are hardy enough to survive.

Mr. Harden stated there are essentially three drainage basins, two of which run back onto Kemper Commons property. The third one drains out across the McClellans Lane. We are proposing to develop an underground storm system to collect the storm water and the majority of the storm water will be collected into a detention basin here and routed out into the down stream properties. On the plan, there is shown a second basin, but that is shown as concept and based on our calculations, we have been able to control all our development within the confines of the Paffe property and not extend beyond that.

Mr. Bonneville stated one of the things we needed to cope with was the fact that this road was needed at all. If nothing else was changed, Target was viewing this site initially without knowing about a PUD requirement on Lot 7 of Springdale Kemper Associates (SKA) which is to the rear of us, and that we needed to address an overlay that was placed on the Paffe property at the time the PUD was agreed to by SKA. In order to cope with that, we had several meetings with staff and we have been developing this plan which extends on the same alignment on Kemper with Century Boulevard that comes in from the south so we align perfectly with that and a traffic signal would work there.

Mr.Bonneville continued in the agreement the City has with SKA, the last page has a drawing, which gives a conceptual picture of where that alignment is. That picture only shows a dashed line; in fact it is not really aligned the way it is shown with Century Boulevard to the south, so therefore we know it is conceptual only. Besides that being a dashed line with no dimensions, we know it is conceptual and we know its intent is to align with Century to the south and approximately hit the point that we have on the north. Then we have to conceive what happens to road once it leaves us. Even though we have no right to draw that line on there; it is their property and they have the right to talk to the City about that and they should be represented here tonight, but I am not sure that they are.

Mr. Bonneville stated we attempted to maximize the real-estate value of their property, in that once it exited from our property, it is having to reach the point shown on the agreement plan and not interfere too much with Champion Windows. Three months ago we met with Champion and discussed our interference with the corner point of their property. We talked to them about that and they have agreed to allow us to present our plans and do it this way. We will have to work out details with them if you eventually agree to our alignment.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty


Mr. Harden added in trying to look at this project, we tried to look at the property as a master plan including the Cityís concerns with the extension of Century Boulevard. Champion has an existing detention basin in this area and there would be a new dentition basin, primarily for the SKA development. It would need to go into this location because this is the low point of the property. As part of this, we also looked talked with staff of possibly combining the basins so that for this type of alignment, Champion could proclaim part of their detention area by assisting everyone and getting some compensation for their participation in the right of way.

Mr. Bonneville added that would be done at a future date if Champion so chooses to do that. They could come forward, excavate our pond make it larger and the volume would increase dramatically, so the area of excavation would be smaller than the area of their pond. Then if they wished, they could come to the City and request an expansion of their parking lot, because right now it is very tight, and they could expand toward their own boundary.

Mr. Bonneville stated there are two other items involved here. One is one pond would be on SKAís property, and that portion of their property as seen from our viewpoint, is encapsulated in the corner. This road is dropping at about an 8% slip from the end of our property heading north. If that road were to be projected so the end point to the north were more than the middle, in an attempt to make two lots there, we felt that we would decrease the value and taxable value of the property as well because it would be hidden from sight for any building that was behind that as seen from Commons. You could not see a building back there; if it were 25 feet high you would only see a little part of the roof sticking up.

Mr. Bonneville continued the other aspect is that as you push that road toward the detention ponds, it is all grades in there and it would not have access to Century Boulevard. There would not be a way you could climb from there onto Century Boulevard, nor can you climb onto Century from Lot 7 even where we put it. The only access Lot 7 would have is to go out on Commons and go around the corner and come up Century to Kemper. We hopes this helps the understanding as to why we pushed the road over to the alignment that we are suggesting.

Mr. Bonneville called on Mr. Brandt for his comment as a real estate broker on the value of a piece of property that is larger as opposed to two small ones. Mr. Brandt stated in our industry the more frontage you have along the road, the more value the property has and the larger continuous piece of dirt you have the more value it would have as well. Mr. Bonneville said that is the methodology we chose to try to make the best deal we could for SKA.

Mr. Bonneville added in grading this property, we are shaving off the front of the property. We are sloping down at three to one, maintainable so it can be cut by a lawn mower, at an angle so the lot in the front has been lowered down so the slopes in the parking lot from there to our building are down around 3%, sloping toward our building so it is a reasonable slope you can deal with and becomes safer. Also and importantly that cross drive shown in your agreement with SKA needs to be at the existing grade that we are tying into. It is very important to us that this go across there and that it is somewhat continuous and flat, that we donít angle across it in anyway. The minute you start angling across it, you lose parking that is in front of our front door.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Bonneville stated in shaving all this earth off, we are getting quite a few thousand cubic yards of good buildable material that is excess to this property. Now that the main property of the Target site works, as well as the outlots, now we have cubic yards left over that are excess to our needs. They normally would be hauled off and sold. We would like to make this an opportunity and try to meet the Cityís own objective of having this road go through. We thought we could extend the road embankment to the north of us at virtually no cost to anyone but us. If SKA is willing, we could take that 7,000 cubic yard stockpile that Mr. Stewart Lichter of SKA says is excess to their needs, remove it from that site and put it in the road embankment as part of meeting the objective of getting a road. We are planning to meet our Target objectives of building and engineering the road all the way to our back property line and meeting the specifications of the City. Secondly, we can talk about what we could do on the SKA property that would become City property because in your agreement with SKA it says that upon this development taking place, they will dedicate at no cost to the city the road alignment and road right of way for that pathway. We would need to have some grading easements in order to have the rights to do the embankments that go out beyond the slope lines and pick up any earth that they would contribute perhaps that we would use in building the embankment leading down to Commons Drive.

Mr. Bonneville continued the results are that we would be able to develop the road embankment to 100% of what is needed to get there if we did these things plus if we used the earth from the detention pond area in the northeast corner of the SKA property which is landlocked and is virtually of no value. Otherwise, even if the road wasnít there they would have to have some place to put their water because they donít have a right to the pond on the Champion property. We would provide for a pipe that would lead underneath this road. What I am proposing that they do is provide for the rest of the obligations that are left in the agreement with you. They are:

1) road surfaces;

2) curb and gutter;

3) sidewalk

4) final engineering costs;

5) lighting required by the city;

6) any other things the City would add to that, administrative

charges or whatever it might be.

Mr. Harden added there is a water line south of Kemper Road. Cincinnati Water Works requires that since this will be a public road, we will have to construct a new 12 inch water main along the roadway to the property line.

Mr. Bonneville added if you read the report that the City has outlined on parking and landscaping, we are prepared to answer a number of those things and we would like to go through some of that with you so we can have this nailed down as much as possible.

Mr. Bonneville continued looking at page 1, of Exhibit A we have recalculated the square footage at 125082. The square footages of the buildings on the outlots are concept in size because they could be restaurant or something like that. We have come up with what those lots can support for the parking that is there, not as viewed by the City because you would allow bigger buildings on those lots but as viewed by us because we have our own parking ratios that we would enforce.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Bonneville said for example, for restaurants we require that they have higher parking ratios than you do. Eight thousand would be our maximum is what I am saying. The other comments on parking look approximately right to us.

Mr. Bonneville added for Item 3 having to do with future development, we would need to draft these easements or receive easements. We would like to talk to you about the access to McClellans Lane.

Mr. Harden added the City has asked to provide some type of easements for any development of properties back to this site. On the grades and topography, McClellans falls off down on this side as well as this property. Target has no problem with granting easements, but our concern is how they actually would function, would they be operational. We would not want to go with eight or 10 or 12% slopes.

Mr. Bonneville added right now we are not showing any access to McClellan Lane for this development as we see it today because there is a steep drop from what we need to do it in order to flatten those sites enough for a building to operate on so we donít have a steep side slope for a building to be stuck into. We can improve the value and function of the lot if it has slopes on it that are more in the three to four percent range instead of 12 to 14%. Mr. Harden added to give you an idea of elevation differences, it is approximately 680 feet around the property line, and the proposed buildings and parking lot will be around 694 feet.

Mr. Bonneville added people in the audience need to understand that there are several lots that North American Properties has been talking to and has made some offers to them. We cannot as Target Stores address that at this time, other than that if those lots were to be sold; the proposal by North American Properties would be to have commercial use there, like retail stores similar to ours only on a smaller scale. We would welcome them into the development, because we have had these conversations with North American Properties for some time, but it wasnít going well and now perhaps it might be. They are at least two or three months behind where we are with you at this moment. I think everybody needs to understand that, so we are going to stay with this proposal for now. We wish to develop it like you see it, and if that happens, we will come forth with additional adjustments to the plan. However, the Target building part would not change either way, but everything to the east of the road alignment may go through some change. The roadway alignment would stay the same also.

Mr. Bonneville continued on Item #5 location of the compactor and trash dumpsters has not been indicated. We have a compactor only right there. It is totally enclosed; there is a wall on the dock that helps screen the view. If you are coming down the extension of the road, you would not see it, plus there is landscaping in the island that helps to screen out what is at the dock, so we have three ways of screening it. Screening it as you come southbound up the hill is much harder to do. You would see the end of the compactor and it is about as high as I can reach and it is the same color as the building. However it is clean; there isnít debris all over the place because it is loaded from inside the building and a machine pushes it inside that compactor. A truck comes approximately every couple of weeks and pulls off that box and inserts another box into a slot.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Bonneville continued in 1997 only about 20% of our trash as such is put into dumpsters, maybe less than that. We actually are considering not having dumpsters on our buildings because we are bailing all our paper and paper products for recycling (80%) and working with all our vendors so that the boxes that are opened in the store are recyclable and we donít have very much compaction to do.

Mr. Bonneville stated on landscaping, we could go with conifers to help screen the dock areas if that would be your preference or a mix of conifers and deciduous trees and bushes. We can adjust on that to make it fit well. We would like to note that even if the people who own the houses were to remain in their homes, the distance from our truck area to their lots is about 180 feet and if you measured it from our truck area to their houses, it would be about 380 feet. That is more than a football field away.

Mr. Bonneville stated we we donít have outdoor display or storage areas as such. Every spring about this time, we probably will want to come to the City to get a temporary permit to sell flowers along the storefront, actually on the sidewalk. We do want to be able to have some of our carts outside; they are locked together in a row and would be next to our front door. Mr. Syfert wondered if that normally is an enclosed area and Mr. Bonneville answered that it is not, but they are locked together and chained to the building overnight and unlocked in the morning for use. Some are stored inside, some outside so they are rotating.

Mr. Bonneville said Item #8 indicates that calculations need to be provided. We have to meet a total of 20%. Mr. Harden added we plan around 25% greenspace.

Mr. Bonneville said Item #9 plan indicates a portion of the parking area landscaping and potential directional signage to be located off the subject property. There is an existing sign that is not ours. It belongs to North American Properties, because they currently own a 40 foot strip all the way down the length of our property. They developed Commons Drive and held it off of the Paffe property by that much. It was required as part of their development that landscaping be put in on part of that drive on both sides. You have received a letter from Lori Wendling as an officer of North American Properties indicating that North American Properties is willing to dedicate that strip all the way up to that entrance point. They would like to maintain ownership of the strip where the sign is. I donít have control of that since it is off our property.

Mr. Bonneville added in our plan if you look very closely the edge of the blacktop is invading the 18 foot stall a little bit, because the line needs to be straight and the property line isnít exactly straight right there. So it is our duty to see North American Properties and get an easement to allow us to have that parking overlapping the property line at that point.

Mr. Bonneville said the signs are shown graphically larger than life; the two outlots and the Target sign are intended to obey the setback rules and there is a comment about the 10 foot setback, and naturally we will obey that. They really are not going over into the right of way.

Mr. Bonneville said under landscaping, it says that additional landscape material should be added to Century Boulevard to create an entranceway approach. I wasnít quite sure what was intended by that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Four


Ms. McBride reported it would be to create some entranceway onto Century Boulevard that would mark that as an entrance into the development. With the closing of Commons, this will serve as the entryway not only to your development but also to the developments north of yours. We wanted to create that entryway feeling.

Mr. Bonneville said we were being careful with that, not thinking along those lines but thinking about pure safety, because Kemper Road is also a hill with not long sight distances. We didnít want a car to be hidden in any way by shrubs. However, we would be glad to work with you; weíll take a look at that. I think we can probably do that by raising canopies a little bit, maybe up to about the top of the roof of a car.

Mr. Bonneville said on Item 2, street trees should be provided every 40 feet along Kemper Road. Weíre saying okay to that, but want to mention that in our experience, in a few years the canopies will probably be touching and that starts to be unhealthy when they start touching each other. We are willing to do this because it is part of your criteria. Mr. Harden added I have a question on that. There are some existing trees along East Kemper Road. We would assume we could keep that same spacing, but they appear to be a little more than 40 feet apart. Mr. Bonneville added when we get the final plans together we can show them more adequately and on a bigger scale than this.

Mr. Bonneville continued regarding spacing on the new Century Boulevard, we tried to do a true landscape plan approach to it rather than

the formality of exactly 40 feet apart. We wanted to create some softening where corners occur, where there are wide areas we can do more, we can change variety and give it a more interesting and handsome look. We would like to present a plan and work it out. In other words, it might not be the exact 40 foot spacing, but we would do the equivalent of that. Mr. Syfert commented I think we are amenable to looking at that. Forty feet is not set in concrete.

Mr. Bonneville added on the additional screening and buffering provided, all three of those questions are okay. Mr. Harden added we are trying to get mounding or screening where the parking lot is 15 feet higher, so that looking out your door you are not going to see the parking lot; you will see a hillside. Mr. Bonneville said if we put trees in there you would see something as high as the middle of the door, the base of the trees, the canopy way up there and the building right through it. So if we put something in there we need to be inventive about what we do to screen the back of the building.

Mr. Bonneville said number 5 additional tree landscaped islands need to be added to the southern portion of the Target parking area, I would like to know more about that. I think you might be looking for more landscaping on those islands. Ms. McBride indicated that was correct, or the addition of islands that would be landscaped. Mr. Bonneville responded we can do that; it will mean the subtraction of a few parking stalls. Ms. McBride said I personally would much rather see the landscaped islands than the stalls.

Mr. Bonneville continued on number 6, landscaping needs to be provided in the parking areas for the two retail outlets, we agree with the proviso that these are lots that will be for sale and wonít be developed necessarily at exactly the same time as Target. So, for a little while we may agree to a concept plan or a final plan and the next developer might want to come in and say my building is shaped differently and I have my dock over here, etc.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Bonneville continued theyíll be back, and we need to understand that while Target agrees and we would require of them ourselves that their landscaping is the equivalent of what we do on our site and what is required by the City, they will be in with their own plan to present to the City for your further approval at that item. That is just the natural flow of events.

Mr. Bonneville stated on number 7, evergreens must be planted at a 10 foot height; It costs more for 10 foot trees than it does for six foot trees and we are willing to do that, but in certain places if you place these trees it would not be altogether healthy. Mr. Harden added we are considering being selective specifically on the two to one slope. Some of those trees might be six feet in height, but a large tree does take a lot of maintenance and to try to do that on the back slope would be difficult.

Mr. Bonneville said the signs are on a scale with this building. Even though they are fairly large, when they are back 300 feet, a little further than the crossroad, this is the way the sign would look. As you can see the sign is not garish or oversigning at all. We would propose to have that sign on the front of the building and the smaller sign which says Pharmacy on the right hand side. We would have the same size sign on the left side of the building facing west toward Commons Drive. We would have an additional sign on the back of our building that people might get a glimpse of from the freeway. In addition to that we have a pylon sign that has the bullseye and the word Target underneath it. That sign would be an exclusive Target sign and would be either next to the entrance or down a little bit and is 12í x 12í and meets all criteria. When you add up all these square footages, we are up by 13 square feet or 1.6%. Because of the fact that these are pretty scientifically laid out, the letters are spaced and are already manufactured in these sizes, we are begging you to approve conceptually these signs to be allowed even though we are 1.6% high.

Mr. Bonneville said we did not supply building elevations and materials but I can tell you that the materials are split face block, chocolate color on the base. The top part is a split face block of another kind all textured and tan-beige color. There are stripes on the building, one divider stripe and two other colors with the red and green going all the way around the building.

Mr. j. Bonneville reported the building height where the storefront is approximately 27 feet. The building height on the long extension and most of the sides is 23 feet. The lowest point of the building is at the rear where the top of the parapet is 22 feet and the roof line is about 20í-6". Because we set pretty high compared to what is at the rear of Target, if you got way back by Champion Windows with binoculars, you probably would se the top of the rooftop units which are colored the same as the building. Otherwise, you would not see them.

Concerning the recommendations, Mr. Bonneville said on the lighting plan submission, we have one. It was prepared and is between Mississippi and here, but it will be in two or three days. Mr. Harden added the 40 foot pole spaced throughout the parking lot is adequate for lighting and security. Target is concerned about foot-candles and security in the parking lot as well, and typically use a downward lighting fixture so there is not excessive spillage. Mr. Bonneville added we will place our bulb in a vertical box so it spreads the light more evenly.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Bonneville stated that the actual mounting height will be 38 feet; there will be a three foot base of concrete and we will achieve a light level that is good for security. In addition our employees will be parked diagonally opposite but still visible from the front door. When we have any work done after hours, we have a separately controlled lighting circuit that goes to an employee parking lot and the area will have a pathway of lights leading out to it, and cameras that watch the lot and the supervisors who watch persons in pairs leave the store so they are safe after hours.

Mr. Harden said on the minimum width of the roadway, we anticipate a 30 foot wide roadway with two 15 foot lanes typical for industrial type park. The comment is to increase it to 37 feet. The only thing we would ask the engineer is if he is looking at two 18 foot lanes or three 12 foot lanes. Mr. Shvegzda stated that requirement is a subdivision regulation in terms of the width and depending on how future driveways would be configured, it could be arranged to be a reversible left turn lane or whatever.

Mr. Harden continued the next comment is revise the radius from 250í to 300í and we would have no objections to that. WE would like to flatten this out to 300 feet.

Mr. Harden stated the modification to Century Boulevard/Commons Drive intersection is required based on the results of the traffic study. Basically we took the Commons Drive intersection moved it over and added an additional in bound lane. We understand that the City is doing an overall regional traffic study. We are doing a site specific traffic study and we will coordinate that information with the city engineer. We recognize that there may be some improvements off Kemper, but at this time we are anticipating a left turn off Kemper into this development. Mr. Bonneville commented the additional westbound lane on Kemper is almost impossible. I donít know how that could be accomplished, but I understand you are putting together a list and that can be addressed at another time with both studies.

Mr. Harden continued the maximum grading of Century Boulevard extension is 8%; we concur; we donít want it any steeper than that. On the installation of guard rails, we recognize this and are willing to add that as part of the final design. Currently we have the driveway offset in this direction, and part of the comment was to move this intersection south. The location we set up was to show this going straight on through. By doing that, we have created a straight through instead of a meandering path through the parking lot. We would like to reserve the decision on that to hear what the traffic study says on this. Mr. Bonneville added strictly from a Target standpoint, people do not like to cross a drive with their parking so we want to make this outer lot almost like an overflow lot when we have a lot of business. The south part will be the least parked in. To move that at an angle pitches that toward our store and chops off all those islands in a bad way. It is n not a clean safe way of crossing the lot. From my experience, to tie in at a t is better because people are required to stop and not flow through. The shopping that is done at a Target Store is different from the shopping that is done when you go to a restaurant. There are two different kinds of trips, and I would like to see them separated, and I would like to see that not be a continuous flow.

Mr. Bonneville continued on the driveway aprons, we would prefer they be asphalt but if necessary we will put in the aprons as you wish. These are more like what happens at intersections in cities than they are aprons that go into houses, so we need to look at this is from a physical standpoint of driving in there, bouncing around and breaking up concrete whereas the asphalt will move over the seasons.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. Bonneville said we think we can do a better job better looking and better engineered job if we use asphalt cross overs and use concrete for curbs gutters and things like that. We would like you to agree with us that wherever these things might be proposed that a geotechnical engineer have a look at what the subgrade is for not only the intersections but the heavy duty and light duty areas so awe know what is needed there in reality for engineering. We have employed H. C. Nutting to give us a report on that matter.

Mr. Harden commented you recommend that sidewalks be put in on Century Boulevard and we have no problem with that. It was requested that there be 20 foot radii for the Century Boulevard Extension with Kemper Road, and we will comply with that. On McClellans Lane, youíve asked for a 12 1/2 foot radius and we will also comply. Mr. Harden reported on storm water management, this past week we delivered a report to Don Shvegzda and I think you will find that we basically complied with your recommendations.

Mr. Syfert called on Ms. McBride, asking if she were comfortable with this based on her report. Ms. McBride responded I am pleased to learn that they are willing to work on some of the items such as landscaping, and we recognize that this is a concept review and you are in preliminary stages. Recommendation #2 on easements for ingress and egress for the lots to the north for future development are very important and doable in terms of topography. The City needs to provide for that development or redevelopment at a later date, so I would urge the Commission to strongly consider making that provision at this point of time.

Ms. McBride stated Item #7 in terms of calculations for the open space, if there is 25%, we will need to see how that is broken down. We didnít have any discussion with regards to the two ground mounted signs, but they would need to be 10 feet back from the right of way, and it is the Commissionís pleasure as to how you choose to do those in terms of the height. I wanted to point out the error in calculating the signage. They are proposing 977 square feet compared to the 952 they would be permitted so those numbers need to be adjusted in my report. The percentage change is about the same.

Ms. McBride said Recommendation #11 goes to the entire development being contained within their property. It is up to the Commission, but part of the parking is shown off their site, as is all their landscaping on the western portion of the site and I would bet that they will have some type of directional signage to get you into that only access point on Commons Drive. That is a concern if all those items are going to be done off site as easements and how they will be maintained. If that is not on your property, you probably are not calculating that in your open space calculations either.

Mr.Shvegzda reported that a lot of issues such as types of improvements of Kemper Road and locations of driveways onto the Century extension will be somewhat dictated by the results of the traffic study.

Mr. Shvegzda stated that the other issue is in regards to the detention requirements. Mr. Osborn asked us to go ahead and look more in depth on the downstream conditions to see whether there was any requirement that would be more stringent with the detention. We have looked at it and it seemed to be adequate and our recommendation was to utilize the normal requirements for detention.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Eight


Mr. McErlane added there were a couple of issues brought up concerning North American Properties dedicating a piece of property along Commons Drive to the City. That is still a questionable area, and I donít think the City has agreed that is the way to handle that at this point, but it is something to consider relative to how to accommodate your grading and the setback requirements.

Mr. McErlane continued I think the City has considered that the extension of Century Boulevard needs to occur before this development can be completed. The roadway needs to go through for this project to go in. We recognize that Springdale Kemper Associates has the responsibility to pay for the section that is on their property, but for your development to go in, you wouldnít be able to just build your section of it. The entire roadway would need to be completed for the whole project to go forward.

Mr. McErlane stated to clarify the roadway situation, as it stands in the covenants, Commons Drive is to be closed at that intersection with Kemper Road. We are discussing with North American Properties the possibility of that being right in right out and put an island in Kemper Road and removing the signal. I am sure that Don can attest to the fact that it would not be in the Cityís best interest to add additional retail there with the bottleneck that the light causes at Commons Drive. That needs to be removed for any additional retail to occur in the area. For that to happen, the extension of Century Boulevard needs to be complete.

Mr. Schneider reported I discussed the issues with Mr. Bonneville earlier and I also discussed with Tom Bergman the attorney for SKA some of those issues. It appears to me that there is a commitment for the roadway to be put in by SKA Group and they certainly are going to meet their commitment. It depends timewise and what the design would be on the proposed plan here and the plan they have been moving forward on, and their commitment was a different plan. Those two plans have to be reconciled somehow and the cost divided somehow. Mr. Bonneville stated to me that he certainly was gong to meet the commitments of any excess costs that would occur as a result of his development in the project and there should be some provision in the covenants to provide for that. Before that occurs, it appears to me that there has to be issues worked out between SKA and Target in terms of detention basins being placed on SKAís property, the relocation of the roadway which creates an unbuildable lot but merges it into a larger single lot. I donít know the values, but to me that is a matter that has to be worked out with the property owners. The construction of the roadway, the timing and location are all issues that need to be worked out between them before this project can move forward.

Mr. Schneider continued I think it was expressed by Ms. McBride that there needs to be some accommodation on the McClellans properties, if not into the plan certainly some ingress or egress. There were four properties mentioned; my understanding is there are seven properties on that side of McClellans all the way to the end. I think there has to be some question as to how that will be accommodated. I think Planning in its overall view is going to want to look at that and try and assess what the situation is and when the proper time is to focus on that total area, maybe both sides of McClellans, but certainly the west side of the street. Should that be planned as part of this planning process on this property or is there some overall plan that will look at that?



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Twenty-Nine


Mr. Syfert stated historically Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals and Council have always has a protective code or covenant involving McClellans Lane, and I was kind of surprised to hear that three or four parcels were considering selling. I thought that was a pretty tight knit community.

Mr. Syfert said this is a concept discussion, and I do think the applicant has presented a good picture of what they are intending to do. We know that there are some things that have to be worked out. This is not a public hearing as such, but with the number of people here from McClellans Lane, does any one person want to say anything that represents the opinion of all of you?

Mr. Robert Keith of 11724 McClellans Lane said I thought we were residential zoning. How can they build this? Mr. Syfert answered they are applying for a rezoning to a PUD. Mr. Keith added they are talking about putting an entrance on McClellans Lane. We live on McClellans, and we probably have 400 years or better total living there. If they are going to put an entrance on McClellans Lane, we cannot get out now.

Mr. Syfert responded I donít believe that was ever proposed. Mr. Harden added there was a comment of extending McClellans on through and we are not proposing anything at all. We donít see that it is physically possible. However, the City has asked for easements in order to do that at some time in the future.

Mr. Keith added unless they put this divider in like they were talking about, youíll never get out of there. The traffic is so heavy that people are running over each other now. Mr. Syfert said we are shutting off one drive and moving it over to the light at Century Boulevard Mr. Keith commented when the light is red at the Wal-Mart entry, they are backed up beyond McClellans Lane, and we have had to sit there many times. I have sat there five minutes trying to get out.

Mrs. Rose Potraffke of 11742 McClellans Lane added we need some consideration on how to get out. Let them buy the whole thing. We have 43 years invested there. Mr. Syfert responded I appreciate that very much, and we have tried to protect McClellans Lane for a long time. Ms. Potraffke commented I keep hearing whatís good for Target whatís good for Wal-Mart; I never hear what is really good for us.

Mr. Roger Potraffke of 11742 McClellans Lane stated I talked to Steve Galster earlier today on the phone and asked him to address these people on this whole situation, and I havenít heard him say anything. I would like for you to say something to these people on what I talked to you about. Mr. Galster responded I understand and I have my light on to speak. It is only proper to let them give their case and hear staff reports and then Planing members speak. I apologize for the late hour, but we are about to get to that. Mr. Syfert added none of us except me have spoken at this point.

Mr. Galster stated I have a couple of basic major concerns. At the top of the list is traffic. I think we need to make sure our traffic analysis is done properly. The area cannot take any additional traffic; as it is right now it is bottlenecked and we need to make sure we have a solid plan for completing the road as we envision it going back in on a timely basis, and separating the lights properly so we can get the proper staging. That will be a major issue, not only here at Planning but in Council.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Thirty


Mr. Galster continued right now we have an island of residential area that is McClellans Lane. What you are proposing without acquiring any additional property is taking up one-third of what is now residential and that is a major impact on the viability of the residential community as it will exist if you create this project. I am concerned about the ability of all the residents to recoup or even maintain the value of their residences. I donít know that it should be rezoned. Until we look at the bigger picture I have a problem with it especially if we are looking at these four pieces, the three that are left are stuck out in the middle of nowhere. Even if you donít acquire these, I still have a problem that out of this piece of land that is zoned residential, 30 to 50% is taken up with this so all of a sudden the island that was setting out there with residents that have been there along time is sinking and you are taking up a major portion of that. I donít know that it leaves the residential area viable and that is a concern.

Mr. Galster continued I do share their concern with their ability to get out of the street as it is. Right now they canít. I would like to see some type of access that would provide them the ability to get to a light inside your development. Ms. McBride had stated that it is possible to do it here so they would have access to get back inside; I want to look at every possibility of giving them at least a safe exit from their homes. I know they are not going to look forward to driving through your parking lot every time they have to go in and out. I understand that, but at least they will have the ability to move. Not only are we taking away 30 to 50% of the land that is residential there, but we are going to make the rest of the people who are left behind literally have to drive through a parking lot to come home every day. I think that is a major inconvenience and burden and adjustment. Mr. Harden responded we know if we were to open up a way to have access on McClellans Lane the traffic would come both ways, and there could be more traffic on McClellans as a result. People from the east might choose to use McClellans Lane to go into the site. We know that is a two-edged sword and that may not be what you want. We do not show that. Mr. Galster said maybe itís cutting across at a different point into Century Boulevard; whatever it is I believe it is a legitimate concern to provide access to that whether or not it stays residential or goes commercial.

Mr. Young stated I concur pretty much with what Steve has said, but the big problem I have is traffic in that area. Now it is impossible at certain times. My concern is does Springdale need more retail; I donít think we do. For people that have to travel those areas, it is extremely frustrating. I think the discussion you have put on was fabulous but for myself, I canít agree with more retail in that area.

Mr. Okum commented I concur 100% with Ms. McBrideís comments except I think your parking is well over where it needs to be. Iím still not sure if a retail development is right and how that will impact on the residential area. I think Mr. Galster is exactly right; you will take 25 to 34% of the residential area out of there by this development. They always have been an island and it is unfortunate.

Mr. Okum added if the development were to go forward, I think McClellans needs another source of entry, but not off Kemper Road. At the bottom of McClellans there is a turnaround radius which bottoms out onto the south portion of the Kroger Dairy Plant. If there were a public right of way put across the bottom of that property over to Chesterdale Road, deadending McClellans Lane at Kemper, that would give your residential neighborhood an isolation from the commercial development.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 May 1997

Page Thirty-One



Mr. Okum continued it also would give you an access onto Chesterdale Road away from the commercial development and a safe way to access a road that does have a signal. Itís not perfect but it would be a solution. Weíve raised the grade at the entrance onto Kemper Road to try to make it easier for the residents to get out onto Kemper. If this development or another development on the other side of the street continues to develop, McClellans will be worse and worse.

Mr. Okum continued I have a question for the gentleman from Target. Is it similar to the development on Bryce Road in Columbus? I have distributed photos of that development and it is very vast and open. The building is not that bad; ;your signage on the building is similar and