14 MAY 2002

7:00 P.M.


  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Acting Chairman David Okum.

  4. Members Present: Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Robert Sherry, Councilman Tom Vanover and David Whitaker

    Members Absent Chairman William Syfert

    Councilman Steve Galster

    Mr. Okum said Mr. Syfert is on vacation and Mr. Galster is in Chicago on business.

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner


  6. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and the Minutes were approved with five affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Zoning Bulletin Ė April 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin Ė April 25, 2002
    4. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes Ė April 16, 2002
    5. 4/10/02 Letter to President of Council from David Whitaker re changes to Section153.496(A) of the Springdale Zoning Code (keeping of pets and other animals)
    6. 4/10/02 Letter to President of Council from David Whitaker re miscellaneous changes to Springdale Zoning Code
    1. Building Elevation Change Ė Globe Furniture Ė 11745 Commons Drive (tabled 4/9/02)

Tom Schroeder of FRCH reported that we are addressing some last-minute comments from our latest submittal. Yesterday I sent some follow-up to the comments, hoping to clarify a couple of last-minute notes on the drawings with respect to sign dimension, a landscape note and from the architectural standpoint.

Mr. Okum stated we had no resubmission at the last meting from your previous comments. On April 9, there was no discussion of your resubmittal. Anything you sent back to staff was not brought up because you were not here.


14 MAY 2002



Mr. Okum said so we have to go back a month to your previous responses, not just what was most current and what you responded to. So, we will move to staff review and comments and then maybe those questions will be answered.

Mr. McErlane reported that information was sent in yesterday and there was not enough time to review it so the comments from staff tonight pertains to what was submitted on April 30th.

To date we have still not received revised covenants that would address the requirement that adjusts warehouse area in the former Roberds space. There were specific square footages that were spelled out in the covenants with respect to particular uses in the Roberds space. With the proposed use, the warehouse area exceeds the amount spelled out in the covenants. We had recommended a change to the covenants that would allow retail area to be traded off for warehouse. The intent of putting those in the code was to limit traffic numbers, and warehouse doesnít generate the kind of traffic that office or showroom does.

The plan shows 43,960 s.f. of showroom, 5,160 s.f. office and 74,400 s.f. of warehouse for a total of 125,520 s.f. This is a slight modification from the previous plan, less office and more warehouse.

With the Globe Furniture Rental space, the total warehouse area exceeds the 72,500 s.f. permitted in the covenants, so there will need to be a covenant change.

Parking required for this use is 173 spaces and there is adequate parking in the front of the building. The Globe Furniture Rental space requires 102, and there is adequate parking to accommodate both of those.

Under this plan there are two proposed new loading docks shown on the rear of the building. One is immediately at the south end of the space, and one that is tucked into the corner of the building on the backside. They are shown on the elevation drawings and in outline on the site plan, but there are no details with respect to drainage grading or retaining walls.

The plans show two areas for wall signs. The previous plan didnít indicate any dimensions and this plan only indicates one dimension for each of the signs so we are still not able to determine what the proposed sign area is. The total allowable sign area for the building is 457 s.f., and we have estimated that based on what we could scale off the drawings, because there are no dimensions indicated on the drawings.

Mr. Okum said so office and furniture sales for the combined uses are 74,620 and the warehouse is 106,400. Mr. McErlane said I think it is approximately the same size as this space, 125,000 s.f. which is left. Mr. Okum said Globe Rentals has 74,620 in office furniture sales, and warehouse has106,400.



14 MAY 2002



Mr. Larry Bergman of The Bergman Group said a large portion of the 125,000s.f. would be unusable because the area in the back is deeper and would not be marketable for a retail use. Mr. Bergman showed the site plan, adding that we have the challenge of marketing the balance because we are limited with the signage on Kemper Road. Mr. Okum said so we are at 106,400 s.f. of warehouse rather than 72,000 s.f.

Mr. Bergman stated that the reason why the covenants have not been submitted is because we want to make sure they are written the right way for the City. The way I see it is that we are trading retail space for warehouse space.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if the warehouse distribution numbers change and Mr. Shvegzda answered that the only thing would be the fact that there would be less of a traffic impact with the warehouse numbers as opposed to the retail and that is the way we would prefer to go. We just have to recognize that in the covenants.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is an issue of how the old striping will be removed and new striping placed on the parking lot. Concerning the south parking lot, there are nine prying spaces that are shown to be eliminated but a lot of information has not been included to date, including the dimensions and geometric information, what the pavement consists of, where the curbs are, grading, both existing and proposed, property line information just beyond the property line so we can see how the two developments interact. There is some question about how the alignment of old Commons and new Commons are intersected there.

There needs to be information supplied as to how the trucks will access back to he loading docks and how those will affect the remaining 99 parking spaces in that area.

There is additional impervious surface that will be there, about 8% surplus in the existing detention basin, but we donít know how much would be required of this particular improvement.

There is nothing in terms of the effect on the storm sewer and catch basins that are in place. Currently there is a 15-inch and 24-inch that leads underneath the building and drain out to the north, but there is nothing verifying what impact this would have on the existing storm sewer system.

Mr. Bergman said my goal is to get their use approved tonight. There are a lot of engineering issues and the tenant and the landlord want to make sure that we abide by the requirements of the City. We donít want to put anything there that canít meet the engineering that needs to be done. Our engineers will work with the City to get all approvals. What we request is that approvals be made contingent on any necessary information that the City needs.





14 MAY 2002



Mr. Bergman stated that the tenant was not responsible for the docks . The landlord is responsible for the cost of the docks, and we have a separate engineer designing that right now. I would rather be the one penalized than the tenant, because it is our responsibility.

Mr. Sherry asked the purpose of the two separate locations of the docks. Peter Levick of Globe Furniture Galleries answered that they need at least six dock doors, but they need separation. They have receiving and shipping. It was difficult to get six doors in there with enough space for the staging areas and separation of shipping and receiving, especially because in the middle of that space you have coolers and transformers and a mechanical room, so we couldnít put it in the ideal location. Therefore, we had to split them four and two.

Mr. Sherry asked about the number of trucks per day, and Mr. Levick answered we currently operate three or four trucks a day, and I am hoping that it will be four trucks five days a week. With the way the docks are configured, we have room to do a fifth or sixth truck. The way we operate is our deliveries go out Tuesday through Saturday. They usually leave our facilities by about 8 in the morning and are back by 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Our trucks arenít semi trailers, they are 30-foot trucks.

In terms of incoming traffic, we will have one or two semi-trailers a day, some days none, Monday through Friday. They get there in the mornings, and there is not much semi-trailer traffic after 4 p.m. because we close our warehouse at 4 p.m.

Ms. McBride reported that there is an area on the floor plan labeled as Globe Furniture future warehouse area that is not defined in the square footage and is not included in the parking calculations. We donít want to give the applicant any thought that it might be approved at this point, because we donít know what it is.

Ms. McBride said on the signage, we have asked repeatedly for square footage and we have not been able to get that. We received a portion of an overall site plan Sheet A 2.11 and Iím not sure why we received it. We only received a portion of the sheet, so I am recommending that the Commission not approve that.

The required parking is 172 spaces and they are providing 179 spaces in the northeast portion of the parking field, so they are okay with that. There are 119 spaces in the rear that are labeled as employee parking and this part of staff is concurring with the other members that we not approve that at this point of time because we really donít know how many of those spaces will be affected or taken out by the use of those truck docks. Although they label it as 119, only 99 of those spaces are solidly striped, and of those, you donít know how many will be usable given the maneuverability for the semis to utilize the truck docks. That portion of the parking shouldnít be approved now, but they do have enough parking in the front portion to move forward.



14 MAY 2002



Ms. McBride said we have asked for information about waste receptacles. There was something shown on the southwest corner of the building; the label wasnít legible but I think it might say compactor. If that is the compactor we need to see what kind of screening or details will be provided for that area.

We havenít asked but we do need to know if there will be any customer merchandise pickup.

At the March meeting, Planning indicated that they wanted to see more than a red stripe defining one use from another, in particular the Globe Furniture Gallery space as it transitions to the former Roberds space and then to Globe Furniture Rental space. The applicant is proposing brushed aluminum columns with fluorescent lights on them, so Planning needs to determine if that is a sufficient transition between these uses.

We had requested only two minor revisions to the landscape plan, and neither was addressed. One was that there be a note that there would be three inches of hardwood mulch added to the landscape beds and we had suggested that the sweet bay magnolia at the south corner of the east building elevation be increased in size (it was shown at six to seven feet). The applicant removed the sweet bay magnolia and did not address the mulch comment.

Our recommendation to the commission is that if we want to move forward with this tonight, it would be appropriate to approve the proposed use and the exterior elevations for the north and east elevations, and the landscape plan subject to not approving that Globe Furniture future warehouse area, no signage be approved, no approval be given to the Sheet A-2-11 (overall plan sheet), n o approval be given to the rear employee parking area, no approval be given to the waste removal, and that the landscape plan be approved subject to the inclusion of three inches of hardwood mulch and that the sweet bay magnolia be put back on the plan at eight to 10 feet in height.

Mr. Huddleston asked if the applicant had seen all the staff comments, from the previous discussion several months ago to date, and they indicated they had received them. Mr. Huddleston continued that the response has been less than overwhelming. I recognize that this is a lot of detail.

First I would put our commission to task and say that I think it is in the best interests of the City of Springdale to get this deal done. Mr. Bergman continues on his creative path of trying to do that and I mean that with all due respect for the strong effort.

This is a very unique piece of property, and even to the extent of the commission possibly having to give up not only the current warehouse space versus retail tradeoff, but even in the future, to get the deal done, because of the unique depth of the building when you are trying to peddle it to a retail storefront.


14 MAY 2002



Mr. Huddleston added having said that, I would challenge you gentlemen to get your act together. You need to get this deal done, and we want to get it done, but you need to get your submittals lined up. I know it is cumbersome, but our staff is more than willing to work with you if you will respond to their comments.

Mr. Levick said I take exception to what you said. We have been working with your staff. It has been a little bit slower than we all would have liked. The reason tabled the meeting on April 9th, was because we knew our plans were not complete. We knew we couldnít meet the deadline to get the plans to you and we didnít want to submit them and make the staff go through the whole approval process and tell us what we didnít have because we already knew we didnít have a lot.

So we went to the next step and tried to get as much as we could submitted by April 30th, and I hope you would agree that we came a long way since that first meeting in March. We did get your responses back a week or so afterwards, and we tried to respond to those as quickly as we could. Mr. McErlane reported that he received the response yesterday but did not have time to look at it. I think that will answer a lot of the questions that you are bringing up this evening.

The extra 15,000 s.f. warehouse space is included in the 74,000 feet of warehouse space. There are some things that are still open, and we are working on those. Believe me I want to get this store open as quickly as I can too, but I know that there are still a lot of details.

Mr. Huddleston commented I donít mean to be overbearing about it. My point is that I think it is in everybodyís best interests to get this done and for that we need a positive response in fairness to our staff to do that. We are encumbered by these regulations and we have to abide by them, whether we all like them or not.

Mr. Bergman said we respect the responsibility of the City to make sure that this is done right, and in no way as a developer do we want to do something that is not correct. Of course we want these approvals; we all want Globe and I want to keep this deal. From the questions brought up tonight, I think many of the answers were given in the submittal yesterday. Mr. Schroeder suggested reading the letter, and Mr. Bergman said he thought it would be helpful.

Mr. Okum responded that staff hasnít had the opportunity to review this, and it would be inappropriate. For them to come to us yesterday and expect staff to have reviewed them by now is ridiculous, and far beyond what is required or acceptable. This is a PUD and Mr. Bergman you know very clearly the standards are for the PUD. This has been piecemealed together. I questioned whether we should allow it on the agenda at our staff review, because there was a two month period from the last Planning meeting until last Thursday, and there still were things that had not been submitted. I stretched it by allowing this on the agenda, because it didnít meet all the criteria.



14 MAY 2002



Mr. Okum said I agree with Mr. Huddleston. I would like to see Globe there. I think it would be a good match for the development, but on the other hand, it has been poorly done and I am not pleased with how it has come about.

Mr. Sherry said I also am disappointed, but I have some questions. Addressing Mr. Levick, he asked about the 15,000 s.f. of additional warehouse area. I thought the space was 125,560 s.f.

Mr. McErlane responded I was dyslexic and there are a couple of errors in my report. The number today is 123,970 s.f. The last submittal was 125,560 s.f., so it did decrease in square footage.

Mr. Sherry commented it would appear that the leased area hasnít changed from two months ago. Mr. McErlane reported that it is configured a little differently.

Mr. Sherry said on the brushed aluminum column that you are using as separation, there is mention of fluorescent light. Is that a wall sconce, and Mr. Schroeder indicated that it was.

Mr. Okum asked if the cranberry stripe next to the aluminum column exactly the same color as the column and Mr. Schroeder answered no, it is a straight red and then there is cranberry.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum commented if we carry this forward and make a recommendation this evening, it would require five affirmative votes, and there are just five members present. There are six items that Ms. McBride recommends be excluded from approval.

Ms. McBride said in comparing the March 29th submittal with the

One received April 30th, the decrease in square footage is largely in the office space going from 7440 to 5610 by your calculations. The floor plan hasnít changed.

Mr. Schroeder responded that had to do with the designations of the sales in the office because the floor plan hasnít changed that much at all.

Ms. McBride commented that the area marked offices hasnít changed, and the area marked retail/sales area hasnít changed on the floor plan but the square footages have. The total box that is Globe Furniture Galleries hasnít changed, but the total square footage has. I didnít know if there was a mistake on the calculations on March 29th.

Mr. Levick said the total square footage could have to do with the mechanical room in the warehouse. Originally we might have assumed that it was a part of the warehouse space, but now it is common area.

Ms. McBride said this is a difference in the offices area, so which square footage is correct? Mr. Schroeder answered the current one.


14 MAY 2002



Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride if she were comfortable with that. Ms. McBride answered yes, basically I think what the applicant is saying is that the numbers that we used for the March and April reviews are wrong, that their drawings were wrong, and that the numbers that we have tonight are supposed to be correct.

Mr. Okum said so the numbers on your sheet are correct. Ms. McBride responded on the first sheet it shows two tables. The numbers to the left, the 125, 560 never existed, and all they were ever taking was 123,970. Mr. Okum said so the 74,400 does include the future warehouse.

Mr. Schroeder reported that there was actually a change in the definition of how the warehouse was being labeled, and we created this area as a future warehouse area. That is really the biggest change from the previous indication of the warehouse.

Addressing Mr. Levick, Mr. Okum asked if he were leasing the future warehouse space. Mr. Levick answered that he has an option on the space and wonít be using it right away. Mr. Schroeder added that it does factor into our parking calculations.

Mr. McErlane said the difference that we see in the total area, the 125,520 that you had on your previous plan and the 123,970 on the current plan, is the difference the mechanical rooms that you might have taken out? Ms. McBride said between the March and April submittals, the footprint has changed. A portion of the building now included in Globe Furniture Gallery was previously marked remaining unused former Roberds space.

Mr. Schroeder reported that the configuration of the warehouse did change by two bays. That was the redefinition we went through. Ms. McBride said so actually the March-April numbers should have been lower than 123,970 because you have added square footage. They shouldnít be the same.

Mr. Okum asked if those two additional areas that you built for the docks, were considered as warehouse space? Mr. Schroeder answered it was not part of our calculations and wasnít indicated initially. Mr. Okum added that it would add to your square footage on warehouse, two 1600 s.f. bays.

Mr. Schroeder said I understand that you did not want to go through and deal with each item and that is fine, because most of them involve development of the rear of the building with the parking and the grading and detention calculations.

With respect to some of the comments made by staff concerning on items we are missing from landscaping and signage drawings, we submitted a complete package of details for signage and the only thing inadvertently left off were the dimensions, the one additional dimension to help understand that area. What additional signage details do you need? Mr. Okum answered that dimension is pretty important. Mr. Schroeder said it is a big one, and we tried to follow up on that. We received their comments on the 10th and I tried to address that and submit it to you as soon as I could on Monday.


14 MAY 2002



On the landscape comment, the original suggestion was to change the height of the sweet bay magnolia and we moved it over; we did not delete it from the plan. It was conflicting with the height of the juniper next to it and it also was in front of our valance light so it is now in the middle of the elevation area.

Ms. McBride said that on the drawing I have, it is gone. Mr. Schroeder responded that initially we took it out because it was conflicting with the light fixture. It is now in the plan relocated. Mr. Okum said you understand that the plan that staff reviewed doesnít show it there at all. Mr. Schroeder answered I didnít realize they had that plan, because my personnel said it was always there. In terms of the mulch, we thought the landscape architect had indicated that note, and it had not been done. We followed up with that on the submittal yesterday. From a signage and landscape standpoint, we certainly were trying to meet any of the requirements you had.

Mr. McErlane said to respond to the short time frame that the applicant keeps mentioning from last Friday until todayís meeting to try to respond to those things, we have given some of the comments three times previously, as far back as February 22nd. For example on the sign information, the three previous comments, the most recent April 9th, we asked for enough detail on the sign dimensions to determine compliance with the code, and where we stand on it. The most recent one submitted for tonightís meeting had half of the information.

Mr. Schroeder said I believe the signage information was submitted to your previous months, two months ago when we followed up the day before, like we did yesterday.

Mr. McErlane reported that February 22nd, he had indicated that only one sign was shown with no details. On March 8th, he indicated that two wall signs were shown and dimensions were only provided for one of them. On April 5th, he indicated that two areas were shown for wall signs, but no details or dimensions. The submittal from April 30th gave one dimension for each sign. In all four sets of comments, I have asked for covenants and we havenít seen a covenant modification yet. Eight or nine days ago, Mr. Bergmanís office called and asked for a copy of the most current covenants.

Mr. Bergman said things donít sound very good now, and I would like to clear the air about where the developer stands and where Globe stands, because it is important. This is Peterís first time coming before Planning Commission to get his store in Springdale. This is not our first time. Peter has spent a tremendous amount of money so far to get engineers and architects to do what he would be required to do to get his approval.







14 MAY 2002



Mr. Bergman added our group also is still waiting for a lease to be executed. He is not going to sign a lease if he canít get the approval. We have to spend a substantial amount of money for our responsibilities, which is to provide dock access for them. An estimated cost would be $300,000, and a large part of that is the cost of engineering. We absolutely want to abide by whatever is required within the city by the city engineers. It is a Catch 22. Should we spend the money on the engineering for the back docks without a lease? I donít think Peter is comfortable with executing a lease not knowing if he is going to have signage there. I donít know where to go with it; we could table it another month and try to get through all this.

I was hoping that tonight would go smoothly, but it is not. Iím not involved in the day to day engineering; I am a salesman and bring tenants in. I was not aware of the conversations with Steve Adler or the architect, but I do know that I want to get someone into Springdale and we want to do it right and within the requirements of the City. We understand that you have certain duties to the public. If we can all sit down and figure out how we can at least move forward with this, we know what the problems are now. I just donít know the right way of doing it. What is your recommendation on how to approach this? The whole idea tonight is to get this thing accomplished and done right.

Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Huddlestonís comments earlier in the meeting were very clear. He would like to try to make this thing work, but there is due diligence here on the part of the other parties that havenít been brought forward. At this point, we have five Planning Commission members, needing to make consideration on an incomplete submission.

Addressing Mr. Levick, he said we appreciate the fact that businesses have kept Springdale healthy and vital. Businesses are very important to our community, but on the other hand our staff has really made an effort to inform people of what they needed, and unfortunately that wasnít provided to the City. We have a situation here where we have to have all five members present vote in favor of this or it is denied. We would like to help you make this happen, and I donít see anything here that is insurmountable. There are six items on Ms. McBrideís list that pretty much addresses everything. Itís not going to bankrupt anybody; it is a matter of bringing this in together and answering the questions.

Mr. Levick wondered if a valid option would be to table this for one more month and let us work a little more closely with the staff and make real sure we have staff totally on board a full week before that next meeting. This means getting the answers to these questions within the next week so you have time to look at it and get comments back and get those revised so we can get this done. I think you are right that we only have a handful of issues.






14 MAY 2002



Mr. Levick said the dock area might be a little more involved. Mr. Okum commented that conceptually staff can help Mr. Bergman through that and as far as I am concerned, I see a need for it and I donít see a problem with it. I donít think any of us have a major problem with it; they just need the detail, and we can help you make this project a success. I know that staff will do what they can to assist you.

Mr. Levick said we do have time, and if itís okay with you letís take another month and make sure that we have answered all staffís questions for the next meeting. Mr. Okum commented I appreciate your willingness to do that, and I think it can make it a good project for you.

Mr. McErlane said I would like to bring up the option that if it is beneficial to obtain a partial approval for the building elevations and if Planning Commission is acceptable to that, with conditions on landscaping, and then come back in with the proper sign package and information on the loading dock area, would that benefit you?

Mr. Levick answered it is somewhat of a benefit, but the signs are very important to me, and I want to make sure that I am getting the sign package I want before I sign a lease. I donít see a problem with that, but I would like to know that itís going to be signed off on so there are no surprises. I donít need to know today; I am fine with knowing in 30 days.

Mr. McErlane added I was going to suggest the concept of Planning Commission approving your signs in concept provided they met the maximum area permitted by the Zoning Code.

Mr. Okum said I think I would like to see it; Iíd like to have the numbers tied to the package. I would feel more comfortable, and I think the applicant would want to know what he is getting. I think it is a fair way to deal with it, and if that is your wish we will entertain a motion to table this.

At the request of the applicant, Mr. Vanover moved to table the item to the June meeting and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and it was tabled to June 11th.

Mr. Okum said I need to read this into the record:

"To The City of Springdale:

It is my regret that I inform you that June 11, 2002 will be my last official meeting with the Planning Commission of the City of Springdale. I have had the pleasure of serving with what I feel are the finest committee members since the fall of 1997. While I will miss seeing my friends at the monthly meetings, I know that our paths will cross again. I wish you all the best.

Yours truly,

David Whitaker"


14 MAY 2002


Mr. Okum asked Mr. Vanover to give this information to City Council so they can nominate a member for the remainder of Mr. Whitakerís term.

    1. Comprehensive Plan

Ms. McBride said it was the intention of Jonathan Wocher, who was the project manager, to be here this evening with his power point display. Unfortunately this afternoon he had a family medical emergency and is unable to be here. I donít have the power point display, but I would like to walk you through some of his thoughts.

We have been working on this project for about 18 months and a number of you have served on our steering committee and we appreciate that very much.

The plan was set up to provide a vision for the City and where we were going to go in the future to guide both infrastructure decisions as well as land use and zoning decisions and to provide some defensibility should we ever be challenged on a planning or zoning decision.

We created a series of base maps for the plan. We looked at the planning history of Springdale. We did a physical land use survey parcel by parcel. We looked at the existing zoning patterns and what kind of zone changes we have been seeing in recent years. We reviewed the population data, the housing trends and other physical planning issues that we have been experiencing in the City as well as the transportation issues.

We found that residential was the predominant land use; 35% of the City is in residential use. The next largest land use category is commercial at 19%, followed by office, industrial and parks and recreation. Only 6.4% of the City is currently vacant land, and that is important when you are doing a comprehensive plan. That, and with the fact that our population numbers are steady. That poses some interesting challenges with regards to the Comprehensive Plan.

We also found that we are not experiencing a population growth at this time. About 60% of the housing units are owner occupied and 31.4% are multi-family units.

One interesting characteristic that is very important is that in addition to providing for our residents, we have a daytime population of over 51,000 people. So, we have a real obligation to provide them with the personal services that they need, places to eat lunch and to be able to get them in and out of the City as needed.






14 MAY 2002



Ms. McBride added that our steering committee was charged with coming up a list of assets of the City as well as the challenges the City faced. In addition to the Steering Committee, we did a number of interviews with key leaders in the City, long-time residents, new residents, and business leaders in the City.

Some of the assets listed were the quality of City services, the amount of business in the City that reduces the tax burden of the residents, quality neighborhoods, low crime rate, recreation center and municipal complex were rated very highly, location of Springdale with regards to the Greater Cincinnati area and the city leadership.

Some of the identified challenges were that folks wanted to see more residential choices, new homes and larger homes. The challenge of the impact of the business community on the neighborhoods to preserve those, property maintenance, image of the Springfield Pike Corridor, and the need for more parks and recreation area, our competition with other communities, and the Kemper Road challenge and traffic.

We looked at some of the specific planning areas. We had our residential neighborhoods, the Springdale commerce area, our industrial area to the north in the Crescentville/Progress Place area, the GEAA Park area and the Oak Hills Cemetery and golf course.

We created a series of land use categories. There are a variety of residential, commercial, industrial, office, support services that we have prepared with definitions of each category. These were applied to a future land use map, which is probably the most used document of any comprehensive plan. That is Figure 5 in your book, and if someone came in asking for a zone change, I would hope that this commission would look at to determine if it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. It is something that your planning staff will be looking at.

In terms of community priorities, these rankings came out of public hearings and meetings with different leaders in the community and our steering committee itself. Community priorities include quality of city services and facilities, to create strong residential neighborhoods, top quality business districts, improve community mobility, strength of diversity and the identity of Springdale.

Some of the things we identified in terms of priority strategies that we wanted to see improved were to utilize quality design review, encourage reuse and redevelopment of commercial areas, establish high standards for development, improve the appearance of the community, maintain our balanced tax base and encourage alternative transportation.






14 MAY 2002



Ms. McBride said let me take you briefly through the process. We had a steering committee and have worked 18 months with that committee. We went out into the community and did a series of interviews. We have had several public hearings, one of which we were very pleased with. We had over 100 residents in this chamber, and that is absolutely incredible. We do six comprehensive plans a year at our firm, and to have that kind of turnout was incredible. They had a lot of input and a lot of good things to say. If you have questions, I would be happy to try to answer them.

Mr. Okum said I had a question on Page 16, to "Encourage and facilitate development of fiber optic lines throughout the City, and develop a mechanism or mechanisms to map the fiber optic infrastructure within the City; establishing a procedure to measure the amount of fiber optic infrastructure by mileage." Frankly that didnít make a bit of sense to me. As a lay person, I didnít understand that.

Ms. McBride responded the base of that statement is to encourage the foundation of the fiber optic lines. That is the way so many of the businesses are going, and most communities now are adopting that thought process. If you want to attract the high tech businesses and office research, you have to have that kind of a gro8ndwork. That is an overall goal that we would like to see the City pursue. Do we want that mapping done by the end of July? No, but that is something that would be listed as a goal. Mr. Okum said I didnít understand infrastructure by mileage or accessibility. Ms. McBride answered that apparently is how they measure or calculate that.

Mr. Okum said on Page 19 where it says investigate the creation of infra-city transit or shuttle system that can provides on-demand services to Springdale residents, I thought it should be expanded to investigate a shared program with adjacent communities. Maybe Springdale by itself is not large enough to support that infrastructure but for example the Fairfield transportation comes through Springdale to go to our mall. Perhaps we could share that program with some of the other local communities.

On Figure 5, if you will notice where Chamberlin Park is, there is a brown high density residential that cuts across the park. I think that is a printing area and is not truly there. The apartments donít cut across the park against the interstate. Mr. McErlane reported that there are apartments on the interstate. Ms. McBride said we will double-check that.

There was a recommendation on the Glenmary Mission Property that a buffering or park area be provided for all that area. We have not really added a green space for that. There also was a recommendation for separation of that residential area from the interstate burden. I thought you might show a designated green space up there





14 MAY 2002



Ms. McBride responded I would not suggest that. We have verbalized that, and it would be up to someone looking to develop that to incorporate that in his or her plan. I would discourage you from locking it in.

Mr. Huddleston said I would compliment the members of the committee and the staff who put this together; it is phenomenal. There are a couple of typos. On Page 14, "approval" should be "approved". At the top of the same page what does it mean when it says "Ensure that development projects have adequate public facilities to meet anticipated demands". Is that infrastructure? Ms. McBride answered yes, that would be everything from water, sewer, and roadways, etc.

Mr. Huddleston asked what traffic calming methods are (page 18). Ms. McBride said instead of using a street that is straight through, it would have some curves that would break the vista. There might be a reduced pavement width and bumped out with some landscaping to slow cars down. It can be things like speed tables but typically it would be more in the actual design concept.

Mr. Huddleston said on page 22, you left my neighborhood out of the list of residential neighborhoods. I didnít know if you wanted all the neighbors listed or not. Ms. McBride answered we want to have all the subdivision neighborhoods listed there.

On Page 23, I would take exception to "Monitor housing conditions and periodically assess the need for targeted building and zoning code enforcement." I think we should monitor housing conditions and maintain a high level of targeted buildings. Ms. McBride responded I donít disagree with that, and we actually heard quite a bit of that at the public hearing. There was a lot of concern about ongoing condition of the housing etc.

Mr. Huddleston said my point is that rather than a periodic assessment, there should be an ongoing maintenance of a high level of enforcement. It is a great report.

Mr. Huddleston moved to recommend the report to Council for consideration and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the report was recommended with five affirmative votes.

Ms. McBride said I would very much like to thank the people who served on the steering committee. Eighteen months worth of hard work; thank you very much.

Mr. Okum said this is a very important plan that Council should act on as quickly as possible. It is something that we will have at every meeting here, and staff will use it as a tool in their review.

Mr. Sherry said I think both Anne and Jonathan did a fabulous job. They went above and beyond getting this together, especially Jonathan. He spent hours and hours on this.



14 MAY 2002



Mr. Vanover added not only that, but keeping the meetings on task. The point that was really amazing was the level of discussion.

Mr. Okum asked if everyone would be present at the June 11th meeting and all present indicated that they would be.

    1. Consolidated Container Co. Ė 95 W. Crescentville Ė Ground Sign
    2. At Wix End Ė 11806 A Springfield Pike Ė Wall Sign
    3. C.A.R.S., 1492 Springfield Pike Ė Window Sign
    4. Wok Express Ė 320 Northland Blvd. Ė Window Sign

Mr. Huddleston moved to adjourn and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. All present voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,2002 __________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



____________________,2002 __________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary