14 MAY 1996

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David

Okum, Councilman Robert Wilson, James Young and

Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent: Barry Tiffany (arrived at 7:09 P.M.)

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Kenneth Schneider, Law Director

Wayne Shuler, City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum


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

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



A. April 10, 1996 Letter from Robert Wilson, Roberds Grand to Bill Syfert

B. Planning Commissioners Journal #22 - Spring 1996


A. Compass Retail Tri-County Mall requests approval of modification to

Entrance A - tabled 1/9/96

Michael Dzaman from Compass Retail representing Tri-County Mall indicated that Jack Gehrum of Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum their traffic consultant, John McCoy their attorney and Dave Duebber the General Manager of Tri-County Mall.

Mr. Dzaman continued we have worked with the staff to provide a detailed engineering plan for this proposed driveway modification. It was conceptually approved by the Planning Commission in February, subject to detailed engineering analysis and design, as well as the drafting of a proposed agreement between the City and the owners of the Mall to restore the driveway to its existing condition should the City determine that the driveway modification that we made are having an ill effect either on the level of service on Princeton Pike or are creating additional accidents in the vicinity of Princeton Pike and the driveway access to the Mall.

Mr. Dzaman stated we have received a staff report from the City of Springdale recommending several modifications to the latest design for the driveway improvement, as well as some suggestions about the draft of our proposed agreement. In brief, I think all of the suggestions and recommendations from the city staff are acceptable to us. We are here tonight to ask the Planning Commission to approve this driveway modification.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Two


Mr. Jack Gehrum reported that we had plans very similar to this one last time, and there were very good suggestions and questions about how we could handle some of the things like signage, the division between the ingress and egress at the intersection and some of the landscaping elements. This plan is a culmination of all these changes showing the signage, access points and indicating where landscaping would occur. We also submitted a landscaping plan to complement the current landscaping. The existing planting material would be saved but used elsewhere on the Mall property. After the construction is done and any new landscaping put in, that would be new material.

Mr. Gehrum continued there are three or four staff comments that I would like to cover. There was a comment about relocated trees having branches overhanging the entranceway. The size of these trees are such that they could be trimmed as they grow to avoid any excess hanging over. They are not the original trees.

Mr. Gehrum stated last time we agreed to putting bumper blocks to avoid vehicles moving into the planting area, and we will be glad to do that. That is the area up here (indicated on the sketch) but we could extend it all the way down.

Mr. Gehrum continued there was a question regarding how the ground mounted sign may ultimately be blocked by the vegetation. There was a suggestion that overheads be considered. We feel we could position that sign so that it would be seen, and make sure to maintain that access point so it would be visible and would not be hidden by any vegetation.

Mr. Gehrum reported that there was another statement that there could be counting loops added to the main intersection of the driveway. This was something that the City had wanted to do in the past, and Compass is willing to do that at this time and make it part of this project.

Mr. Gehrum stated that we were given a copy of Exhibit B to the amendment which documents the existing traffic conditions that your engineer developed. In comparison to our numbers, they compare very well, so we would accept those as the existing conditions.

Mr. Dzaman stated Item 2 requests us to submit some type of guarantee to cover costs of restoring the entrance drive if so required by Planning Commission. I spoke with Ken Schneider and I think we reached agreement on how to handle it.

Mr. Schneider added we worked this out that if it doesnít meet the requirements of safety that the Planning Commission feels it should meet, we will have a provision inserted where they have to provide the restoration of the entrance drive. If they do not perform that in a reasonable time, 90 days or 120 days, the city will have the authority to go on the property, make the removal and charge it back to them. Mr. Dzaman commented that would be fine with us.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shuler for his comments. Mr. Shuler stated that it is a little bit difficult to make comments after the applicant already has addressed the issue. I can review it very quickly, but it may be a little easier to review where we are and how we got to this point since it has been some months since this was first before Planning Commission.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Three


Mr. Shuler continued when we made our first presentation and comments on this request, we indicated that there were two issues that Planning needed to be concerned with:

1. Was the driveway necessary; and

2. If you agreed that it was, how should the access be

constructed to have the least impact on the ring road

and on the main intersection.

Mr. Shuler reported we have a situation there which developed when

Tri-County expanded. It has worked very well, and as we told Planning Commission back in February, we do not want to do anything that is going to have a detrimental effect on the ability of that ring road to carry traffic from the S.R. 747 intersection to the parking garages. We do not want to reduce the level of service in that intersection, because it is a very busy one already, and we certainly would not want to increase the safety risk and accident potential.

Mr. Shuler continued based on the Planning Commission discussion and their request, we developed base information so that we now will be able to review what happens if in fact this driveway gets built. We have taken new traffic counts and determined level of service which is a measure that anyone can do, so it should be a nondisputable item with the data collected at various times. We also have counted on a full two-hour basis how many vehicles are turning left from S.R. 747 onto the ring road, so we can determine what level that is operating at now, the capacity and ability of that left turn to move traffic into the shopping center. We went back four years with both the Springdale Police Department and Mall Security to determine what accidents have occurred in the last four years, either in that intersection that would be attributable to vehicles making that left turn movement in conflict with either straight through or other vehicles in the intersection and accidents that have occurred in this immediate area on the ring road, so we have a base level to measure against.

Mr. Shuler continued with those items in place, they have proposed an amendment to the covenants that attaches this information to it which indicates that if the local service in the intersection falls or the proposed driveway has an adverse effect on the operation of that intersection, they will in fact remove and restore it to it original condition.

Mr. Galster said in the Amendment to the Covenants there is a statement that says we could address this every six months on a continuing basis to check the levels. Do we have any idea what this would cost? Mr. Shuler answered since we have the computer-based system in operation, we can do all the traffic counts through the computer. We do not have to send people out into the field like we used to. It is not a time consuming or expensive task to monitor that. I would say maybe four hours of time every six months to look at the data and analyze it. The six month time period is in there. I believe in previous discussion with Planning Commission we wanted to put it in place, give it time for the motorists to adjust to it before we started evaluating, and then evaluate on a regular basis. If you feel it should be three months, that could be done as well.

Mr. Galster asked if he felt there would be any adverse effect on the S.R. 747 exit lane from I-275 in conjunction with this? Should that be included in here in terms of adverse effect?

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Four


Mr. Shuler answered I think if there is an adverse effect, it will be caused by the left turn lane into the mall backing up to the point where itís blocking the through lights on S.R. 747. Since we have documented the capacity and the level of service that the left turn lane is operating at, that is the critical point that we want to watch. Certainly if we see something happening there, we would look at these other areas and make a change, but I donít anticipate that situation.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Shuler if the I-275 exit light is on the loop, and Mr. Shuler indicated that it was, adding that last year it was extended all the way to Crescentville. Since that time, we have combined the new section from the interstate signals north with the south so it is all one system on S.R. 747. It has been monitored sufficiently so that it is now on traffic responsive, which means that based on the traffic volume and where they are coming from, the system will adjust for the best traffic needs That is the reason for Comment #5 in the report; When the city built that closed loop system some years ago, Tri-County Mall was not interested in having counting loops from their driveways. This was fine, but without those counting loops, their system does not know when the traffic is backed up on all driveways and does not give them any extra time when they need it. It really is to their detriment not to have those there, and this was another opportunity for them to reevaluate this.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the review were to be every six months from today. The reason I ask is the weekend after Thanksgiving to Christmas will be the peak time, and I would be most interested in that space of time. A lot of people donít go to Tri-County Mall except for Christmastime.

Mr. Shuler reported we always monitor traffic during the Christmas season. We will be looking at it during that time period; however, to get a true evaluation may be difficult. A lot of times during that time period the levels of service may be down but we will be monitoring it during that period as well as the other periods. If this is approved, once it is built we probably would want to wait some months after that before we do our first evaluation. We certainly would like to evaluate every spring and fall and we could also add to that any specific times that Planning would feel appropriate.

Mr. Tiffany commented I am not so interested in the count, but the accidents. Mr. Shuler responded we evaluate accidents on a yearly basis and that is something we will pay very close attention to.

Mr. Tiffany said in your opening comments you asked if this were necessary and logical and wise to do this. I guess I am asking CDS opinion on that. Is it necessary? As it sets right now with the counts you have given us, is this an effective system as it is?

Mr. Shuler responded on the question is it justified, I donít think I can answer that question because I donít have the same perspective that the applicant has as to why it is necessary to put this driveway in. I see that the parking lot is full; people get to that parking lot without this driveway. I have also heard the applicant say that they are having a hard time leasing that space unless they have immediate driveway access, and I donít know how valuable or important that is. I know in the video we took on a Saturday, that parking area was full; people were getting there without this driveway.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Five


Mr. Tiffany stated I am not asking from a business standpoint, but from a technical standpoint. Are the counts down; is it not being accessed so that CDS would look at this and say we need to change this? Mr. Shuler answered no, I donít think so. I think the approach that has been taken here is if we are going to put in a driveway to give more immediate access to that one mall entrance, how and what do we do to make sure that it operates in the best situation it can under those circumstances? Thatís where most of our efforts have been, and that is why I wanted to make clear at the last meeting, and I think I did, that we have commented on how it should be done if the applicant convinces Planning Commission that it is necessary.

Mr. Okum said this is basically the plan we had the last time. I still have a major concern about cars in the 11 foot wide lane, crossing three lanes to get to the 10 foot 5 inch lane and stopping or slowing down in that process. The only thing shown in this drawing is a white line and an only arrow. As I indicated at the last meeting, I felt something should be done to maintain that traffic in that left 11 foot lane so they wouldnít try to merge to the right lane. That has not been done. I guess there was a safety issue there, or an applicantís decision.

Mr. Shuler answered Mr. Gehrum can address that. From my perspective, to try to channelize those lanes of that width on the curve I saw the potential for that causing traffic problems with somebody hitting a curb or jumping it or throwing them back and forth. It certainly will be a problem in the winter trying to plow and keep those lanes clear. I understand your question and concern because we have the same concern. That is why we wanted to look at what existing accidents were in that immediate area so we can compare that. If we are going to have a safety problem, I think that probably is what will occur, people slowing down in the left hand lane to move clear to the right and either being rear ended or having an angle accident with somebody cutting cross the lane. Iím not sure that putting any kind of a barrier between those lanes will necessarily solve that problem. Mr. Okum responded Iím not necessarily saying a barrier, maybe rubber ducks or those types of things. Mr. Shuler commented anything with that narrow a lane that is sticking up will make the motorists feel like they are in a very narrow chute and they will slow down substantially, which will adversely affect our traffic.

Mr. Okum said we have a field of parking with the parking spaces along that new improvement and an entire row of parking that appears to have a dead end. I am looking at the south side with a field of parking that dead ends into a curb so there is no turnaround. I guess you would back out and swing your car around and pull out of that area going the opposite way. Is that the plan for that area?

Mr. Shuler confirmed this, adding that there was a driveway or access from the parking into the ring road at that location. We were concerned that people coming into the mall would try to come down this new driveway and immediately try to turn into that parking field and slow down to the point that we would adversely affect entering vehicles and cause a traffic delay problem in that intersection. We wanted to get the vehicles away from that intersection before they started making turning movements. Thatís why we asked that the access be closed; we didnít consider the pedestrian area. I donít see the pedestrian issue any different now than anybody walking across the parking lot and across the ring road to the Mall now.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Six


Mr. Okum responded one difference is that it is a downhill grade towards the Mall from that area, and that field of parking people are going to be going across a through traffic area; theyíll have to dodge cars to get across. You have a stop bar on the other side of the road, but on one side of the road you have through traffic.

Mr. Shuler commented on the ring road they are stopping on both sides. Mr. Okum said I understand, but the entering traffic does not have to stop for pedestrians anywhere in that area. I think that might be some concern for pedestrians from that parking field to get to that mall entrance. If Iím right, that mall entrance is pretty close to where that stop sign is. Theyíd go across where that bend is in the ring road, so weíd have pedestrians crossing at that point, right? Mr. Shuler responded they will walk where they want to.

Mr. Okum continued I have a concern with the two lanes north and south that do have stop bars that have to cross two lanes of through in vehicular traffic, going across from Lazarus toward the main mall entrance. That car would have to cross two continuous moving flows of traffic to get across the mall entrance.

Mr. Shuler commented the problem is bringing this new driveway in; it is so short in the area between where they are cutting off the ring road that if we put a stop sign there to stop that traffic, it would back up. You are right; there are conflicting problems there that I donít know can be solved and do what they want to do.

Mr. Galster wondered if the applicant had any problems with the covenants being changed from every six months to something that says at the Cityís discretion so we can monitor at certain times. Mr. Dzaman said he had no problem with that. Mr. Galster said I think that gives the City a little more control, asking Mr. Shuler if he agreed with that. Mr. Shuler responded that would be fine; I think we probably would do that anyway. What we wanted to get in here was an acknowledgment that we would be doing this at least every six months.

Mr. Syfert commented in all fairness to the applicant, I think we have to understand that the base Wayne has made for this would not necessarily be applicable at the busiest Christmas week. Mr. Galster responded I understand, but we also are looking at total traffic accidents for the whole year so that would encompass that. Mr. Syfert repeated Wayneís base was in April, and I donít think it would be quite fair to use the weekend before Christmas as our criteria to tell the applicant tot take it out. The continuous monitoring is a good idea; I agree with that.

Mr. Huddleston asked if this should logically sunset at some point of time, if we are putting this on the applicant that they have the obligation to replace it? Secondly, what is the objective and/or subjective criteria by which some department will make this call, and will that be worked out by the legal staff, or how will that happen?

Mr. Schneider reported that they have not worked out the detail. We did not plan to have a bidding situation, but we are taking and granting the authority to allow them to do that. We have the right to make the sole decision.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Seven


Mr. Huddleston stated I would feel strongly that this has to happen, and there is no "right of appeal" civilly or otherwise, that the applicant would give up that right. By the same token, I think logically this probably would have to sunset at some point of time, whether that is two years or five years or whatever that is.

Mr. Syfert wondered if Mr. Huddlestonís concern was that other factors might affect this intersection two or three years down the line, and Mr. Huddleston answered that was not his concern, adding that the city has done a good job of establishing a benchmark; now, who and how will that benchmark be applied? That would be pretty subjective and leaves the applicant at some risk. I think it has to be subjective by its nature, and I want the authority to be on the side of the City in this case, because itís not something we want to get in a legal contest over.

Mr. Tiffany said I echo Mr. Huddlestonís concerns. I would like to know how long we go with this; when do we say enough is enough? It is very subjective and we can expect some decrease in traffic flow and increase in accidents initially, but when do we say now people have had enough time to be used to this, and now we need to look at it and say it is done. I understand from Mr. Schneider that we want to leave that open, is that correct?

Mr. Schneider responded we would intend to leave that up to the City, and Planning would act on the recommendation of the City Engineer. It would be open ended and subjective with no time limit.

Mr. Tiffany wondered if the applicant is aware of this and realizes that they will be giving up their right of appeal. If this goes through when Mr. Shulerís office and Mr. McErlaneís office says it has to come out, you folks understand that is it; itís a done deal.

Mr. Dzaman responded we are clearly of the opinion that it is the Cityís sole discretion to measure accidents, and the level of service of the existing versus the change and make the determination of whether one accident above the norm is enough or three above the norm. We are certainly comfortable with that, but I think in fairness to the owners of the shopping center, after a period of time that the City is comfortable with it, and we show that this intersection is functioning properly, and not increasing accidents or causing a failure in the level of service, after a certain period of time, and I donít know what that time is... ten or 15 years down the road some other factors may come into play which would have nothing to do with the change we are requesting now. Mr. Tiffany commented and that is why it is subjective. I donít think if it is working that the City will tell you that it has to go. If itís working itís working. Itís a case of where if it is not working, you have to understand that it has to go. As long as everybody is clear on that and it is an understanding and Iím sure there would have to be something in writing to that effect. I just want to make sure that we all are clear here as to what is happening.

Mr. Tiffany asked how long it has been since the entrance was redone. Mr. Shuler answered about five years. Mr. Tiffany continued I wish we had gone back that far with our traffic study to see the effect in terms of accident increase at that time. Mr. Shuler commented we still might be able to do that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Eight


Mr. Tiffany continued maybe that could be taken into consideration in looking at the numbers in the future. I would think there was some increase, because it was a very different pattern coming in there. Then again there may have been a decrease, because it was a lot more effective than what we had previously.

Mr. Wilson asked if they had taken into consideration the increased truck traffic as a result of new retail businesses going into that area? Do you anticipate a type of retail chain that will need truck traffic?

Mr. Gehrum responded I donít think anything going in there will generate any level of trucks. We worked with the City Engineer and asked what kind of truck design vehicle they wished us to use, and agreed to use the single unit type of vehicle as adequate, I donít think there is anything anticipated that would generate trucks above any normal activity.

Mr. Schneider said so there is no misunderstanding relative to a sunset, I am not anticipating a sunset provision. That is something that can be worked out with Planning Commission and the property owners. I would be glad to include whatever Planning Commission is agreeable to. The covenants will last forever and be filed in the court as drawn with no sunset provision. I was not advised of any sunset provision. Mr. Tiffany asked that Mr. Schneider explain the sunset provision and what it would entail.

Mr. Schneider reported that the sunset provision would make a statement within the covenants that says after a certain date or a certain period of time, the covenant would cease to be binding on the property owner. We could do that in the drafting; I understood Mike (Dzaman) to say that they were concerned about it continuing forever. Unless there is an agreement by Planning Commission in the Covenants to say it ends in a certain period of time, it will last forever. Mike should be given a chance to speak to that, and be heard on his position, and I need a clarification one way or the other. I can draft it either way; I just have to know what the majority of this body wants.

Mr.Tiffany stated the thing I would like to see in there is something in there that they give up their right of appeal if this would not work out and the City would decide to take it out. That they have no legal recourse with this issue.

Mr. Schneider stated anybody has the right to sue at any time, and they can seek to have this set aside, which is an appeal. It is an effort to get the original covenants set aside. I donít think we can prevent them from pursuing whatever legal rights they think we have. We will draw the covenants and enforce them as drawn unless they get a court order against us enjoining us from doing it. I think that is the proper way to draw it. I donít think they have to give up any other rights, other than their normal right to pursue.

Mr. Dzaman stated I want to give the City enough time to evaluate this intersection and driveway change to be satisfied that it is working properly. I would also like to ask the City to agree that at some point of time they have made the decision that it is working properly, and that this driveway has not been an unreasonable request.

Mr. Syfert commented I think that is reasonable of you to expect.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Huddleston said I certainly would agree that if we put enough language on our side that makes the discretionary powers and enforcement be the Cityís, we also should put a sunset provision in there and if itís been there for five years, it ought to go away in five years. To me that is something that would not be unreasonable on the part of the City or the applicant. Mr. Schneider commented we need to know what the majority wants in terms of a sunset provision.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the application subject to Mr. Schneider and the applicant working out the legalese in the covenant and also that it has a sunset provision at the end of five years Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster asked if the motion could be modified to include the counting loops as well and provisions on the landscaping to satisfy the engineerís report. Mr. Huddleston commented for simplicity may I defer to Mr. Galster and let that become a part of the original motion. Mr. Syfert indicated there was no problem with that, and Mr. Huddleston seconded the amended motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Voting no were Mr. Okum, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young and Mr. Galster. Motion was denied with five negative and two affirmative votes.

B. Doug and Arlene Eades request final plan approval - Phase I of Charing Cross Estates, Springfield Pike (Landominiums)

(tabled 2/13/96)

Stanley Mathews, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Eades reported we hope and believe that we are very close to having something before you that the Commission will find satisfactory. We have seen some adjustments that have been proposed by the City Planner and by the engineer. This has been here before you and you have seen the proposed changes that have been offered. We would ask that the Plan be approved subject to the amendments that the planner and engineer have proposed.

Mr. McErlane reported the applicant has submitted all required submittals for a transitional zoning. Our comments are on what was submitted April 30th. There is a new landscaping plan that shows tree plantings. The previous landscaping plan showed some typical plantings around the units, including low plantings, and this plan does not show any of those. I donít know if that would be left up to the individual buyers of the units or if there will be some additional low plantings.

Mr. McErlane continued the transition zoning require that you show all existing structures, and the plan really doesnít show the house on Lot 5. The only concern there would be what the impact of this development would be on this property until it develops relative to the new structures of Phase 1.

Mr. McErlane stated that no signs have been shown on this plan, and we would recommend that any signs come in for further review by the Planning Commission when they come in.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Ten


Mr. McErlane stated there are a total of 854 caliper inches of trees being removed from the site. Of those 854, 196 caliper inches are exempt because of their proximity to the proposed structures, which leaves 329 caliper inches of replacement required. The plans show 245 1/2 inches to be replaced; there are some notes in the covenants that the balance will be provided, but they are not included on the plans. We would require that they be shown on the plans before the development commences.

Mr. McErlane continued the building elevations that were submitted show walk out basements, but the grading plans do not reflect walk out basements. My recommendation would be that walk out basements not be included unless and until we have received grading and drainage plans that reflect them. The other item is the unit closest to the creek is close to the flood hazard boundaries, and we would have concern about openings relative to the flood hazard elevation.

Mr. McErlane reported that the covenants have been revised since the last meeting. There are some items that need to be included or revised. We need Exhibit A (Legal description of the properties involved) attached to the covenants. The estimated cost and schedule indicated in the covenants does not match the estimated cost and schedule submitted with the plan. We are recommending deleting Paragraph 14, which refers to the bridge that was to be built at the end of Smiley and which is no longer part of the plan. Also, there are some references in Paragraph 4 relating to landscaping which talks about tree removal and replacementí I would recommend that part of that paragraph be deleted because tree replacement and removal probably should be in the plan and not the covenants. As the project progresses, the number of trees may change and to set it in stone in the covenants would not be a good idea.

Mr. Tiffany commented there is a detention basin shown near Cloverdale. Is that proposed at this time? Mr. McErlane answered that it is, adding that the city engineer has questions as to whether or not the volume includes Phase 1 and Phase 2 or just Phase 1.

Mr. Tiffany asked about the proposed roadway coming up Cloverdale, wondering if it were at the bottom of the dip along the creek bed. Mr. McErlane responded it is outside of the public right of way. It is on the applicantís property, and out of the creek property, but parts of it are still within flood hazard boundaries. I think the city engineer also has some questions about that. Mr. Tiffany asked about easements, and Mr. McErlane reported that there is a copy of the easement for both the access drive and the detention basin included in our packet.

Mr. Okum asked about Page 6 of the Covenants, which refers to maintenance. It says "The Association for the project shall be responsible for all necessary maintenance" and then it says for landscaping, common areas retention basin roadway easement. Does maintenance pertain to tree replacement? Mr. McErlane stated that typically maintenance of landscaping means replacement. It is not part of our Code, but we typically require that. Mr. Okum commented that it might be simpler to say maintenance and replacement of any defective landscaping. If the applicant doesnít mind, that puts replacement back on the Association.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Okum said in the event that the developer fails to complete the project, ends up not being the developer for Phase 2, do these covenants continue with that new developer? Mr. McErlane stated that these covenants run with the property. Mr. Okum said so that developer and/or the Association becomes the responsible party. Mr. McErlane reported that under Phase 1, the Association would only have control over what is built under the easements in Phase 1 until Phase 2 is developed.

Mr. Okum continued regarding the lot line, the term landominium is used. Typically landominium means that the owner of the unit owns the land that the unit is set on. In the covenants under number 12, it refers to deck and patio setbacks and calls for 20 feet from the nearest lot line. Would that lot line be determined property line of the development or the individual unit? Mr. McErlane said we could change that to development boundaries if that is more applicable. Mr. Okum responded I think we should because lot line would refer to each of those individuals.

Mr. Shuler stated that our report is an update of the report made to Planning on April 9th, and the submittal of the applicant as of April 30th. The majority of the items were addressed, but there are still a few items that we would like to see a little more detail on before we sign off on it. First, on the channel and entrance drive, there is a question about where it comes in. It is a very critical area that we are concerned about. There are a couple of sections shown on the plan that we really want to see sections along the entire channel area to make sure that we have the banks that will be stable, and that we are not reducing in any way the capacity of that channel to carry storm water, so we would like additional detail along that channel length.

Mr. Shuler continued that the second item concerns the detention basin volume. We want to confirm that there is sufficient capacity for detention for the entire project. Even though they are building Phase 1 at this time, we want to make sure that the capabilities are there before we start construction.

Mr. Shuler stated that the third item deals with the emergency overflow of the detention basin. We would like to see details of how the control facility is going to be built. Secondly, some additional detail on erosion control for the overflow. The way the detention basin has been presented it will meet our requirements for detention and the normal discharge capacity. However, when we have a storm that exceeds the capacity of the detention basin, the overflow cross the entrance drive and down the bank is acceptable; however we do need to make sure that if that situation ever occurs that we have sufficient erosion control in place to not washout that entrance drive.

Mr. Shuler stated that the last item is a detail on how the entrance of this should be handled. Normally in a residential area a driveway is built from the rolled curb back. In this case, we have a number of residents entering on that driveway, and it would be better if we handled it as we do on a commercial driveway, where the curb is removed and a depressed curb put in so that people are not stopping going over that curb. It is a safety issue; we would like for people to be able to enter and exit that driveway as safely and quickly as they can.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. Shuler added that we still want to have a definition of a curb there for site purposes on the public brief and in planning where the water will roll in that curb and depressing it to the point that it will roll through rather than up and over and make it easier on everybody.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if all the grading for detention be done for Phase 1 and Phase 2 according to this development plan with Phase 1? Mr. Shuler answered we would not require that the entire detention basin for the project be built at this time; we would only require that sufficient detention be put in place for what is being developed now. However, as we have dealt with other projects in the past with a multi phase where they may need to enlarge their detention capacity for Phase 2, we normally have assured ourselves before any construction starts that there is that capability available for the future. They certainly would have the option to put it all in now, or just put in the amount they need for this phase. Mr. Syfert added from a practical standpoint, it would probably be better to put it all in in Phase 1, is that correct? Mr. Shuler responded if I were doing it, thatís the way I would do it.

Ms. McBride reported that most of their comments have been addressed through the submissions we have seen. Mr. Matthews indicated that they were in agreement that the HVAC equipment would be screened. I would assume that would be done as part of their landscaping plan on the individual units. I think the development overall is consistent with the intent of the Corridor Study. The access from Cloverdale is very appropriate and the landscaping that they are offering will provide a nice access drive and a great feel of coming into an entryway into the development.

Ms. McBride continued that the only other comment has to do with the landscaping plan they submitted. They were showing white pines and Norway spruce to be planted, and those types of trees are not planted on that type of scale. They are done at six foot eight foot and 10 foot intervals, and the city code requires that they be planted at minimum 10 foot height. The last two items in the staff report already have been addressed.

Concerning the covenants, Mr. Schneider stated that they would like a copy of the Landominium Association documents, which Iím sure Mr. Matthews will provide for us, and then we can better answer Mr. Okumís question as to what the result is. Normally when the developer turns it over to the owners, the majority of the owners are controlling it. Iíll check those and see what the answer is specifically. We also wanted some minor wording regarding the fact that there is no variance or regulation of zoning code, other than what is provided for in the covenants so there is no preunderstood variances granted, other than what is specifically spelled out. The covenants run with the land which is a minor correction. Paragraphs 9 10 and 13 detention basin drainage and landscaping shall be constructed by the developer, and upon the formation of and in accordance with the provisions of the Landominium Association documents, maintenance and future responsibilities may be assigned to the Landominium Association. We want provisions in there to take care of that, which we can work out. There are some other minor changes, so we would like to suggest that any approval be contingent upon final approval of the Covenants by the law director.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Thirteen


Mr. Matthews stated I have discussed it with the engineer, and some of the other comments Mr. Schneider has made, and we do not have any problem with any of those in concept. We would just like to ask that the Commission approve it subject to the final approval of these various departments.

Mr. Okum asked how the front of the future building placed on Page 4 of 6 and outlined on the plan is faced; does it face the private drive or Springfield Pike? Mr. Craig Honkomp reported that all those buildings face to the private drive. Mr. Okum responded so if there were a deck permitted on the building that faces Springfield Pike, we would have a deck that is 15 feet from the public right of way. Mr. Honkomp said I believe the requirement is that it be 20 feet. Mr. Okum continued if we approve your proposal this evening, that particular building is pretty well etched in stone. The front of that building would face the cul de sac, and the rear would be facing Springfield Pike. Mr. Matthews confirmed this, adding that it is his understanding that this Commission has authority to make modifications if it seemed appropriate. Mr. Okum responded Iím trying to catch it before it gets to the point where you already approved the plans, the building was outlined and now the back door of the building is 35 feet from the right of way on Springfield Pike. There are a lot of great things about your plan I am very impressed with, and the driveway coming off Cloverdale is a key item. I do have some concern with how that particular building would affect the Corridor in that area. We literally would be looking at the back end of that building along Springfield Pike.

Ms. McBride stated they are providing landscaping in that area, so the setback itself is appropriate from the Corridor. The Corridor Plan calls for info residential; obviously there will be a back to a building, and we certainly donít want to encourage the front of the building with access off Route 4. Given the placement and the access that we have been suggesting to the applicant, the rear of the structure is going to back to that. The elevations that we have seen indicate that the rear of the facade would be an attractive facade given that it would be up against Route 4. If the Commission felt that additional landscaping might be appropriate, it could be suggested to the applicant.

Mr. Okum responded near Parcel 9 it shows a three to four foot mound. We are at an elevation of 734 at Route 4. Where that mound is placed, we have dropped to 730, so you already have dropped the four feet where you are placing the mound at its highest point. It already will be four feet below grade line along Route 4, and putting a 10 foot tree on it would not do much. Ms. McBride answered except the line of sight from a car or a pedestrian walking, you will not be looking straight into the windows. The mound was suggested by staff. Mr. Okum continued I would think where this particular building sets that some mounding would be appropriate considering that the building is going to have a deck on it and that deck will be 20 feet from our public right of way. I would definitely like to see an enhancement along Route 4 buffering that building, not only for us as residents but for the people that buy those units and have to listen to the cars going up and down Springfield Pike. Mr. Matthews commented additional trees wouldnít be a problem, but as Ms. McBride indicated, with the requirement to face inward, we are trying to stay away from making Springfield Pike the doorway to the project.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Fourteen


Ms. McBride added the buildings I was talking about are the ones that are in here tonight on Phase 1. We have not reviewed the landscaping plan for Phase 2. When that comes in, if they are not showing what we feel is sufficient landscaping to buffer Route 4, you will be seeing that in my staff report. Mr. Okum said so Phase 2 is excluded from any landscape consideration. Ms. McBride confirmed this, adding that you will be seeing those plans when they bring in final plans for Phase 2, and if we donít feel that is sufficient, we will bring that to your attention. Mr. Okum wondered if that building could be moved to 40 or 45 feet from the street for Phase 2. Itís on the plot plan, and Iím concerned that when itís on the plot plan, once you approve that crowís foot, thatís where they can put it when they build it. I have a feeling that the building needs to be closer to the inner circle and away from the street more. Ms. McBride stated that the final location of these buildings will be dictated on that final submission. Mr. Okum said so we donít have to consider those as part of this submission. Ms. McBride answered we have set a minimum setback of 35 feet; there may be areas where we suggest an increase.

Mr. Matthews stated it was our understanding and expectation that Phase 2 is not being nailed down. Mr. Okum said my concern is that Phase 1 is working in very well, and I donít want any misunderstandings on Phase 2 that Planning Commission is approving placement of these buildings and/or any landscaping associated with this. Mr. Matthews responded we donít want any misunderstanding on Phase 2. Phase 2 is future. Mr. Okum commented if everything is built the way the plans represent it, I think Phase 2 will come about very well.

Mr. Okum said I have one other concern, and it ties in with what Mr. McErlane said referring to the walk out basements. That came about as part of my suggestion with the exposed foundation from the fall away on the lot. You do not show any step down on your site elevations; you show them straight across. I would like to see some wording or some tie that the side elevations of those buildings exposed foundation is limited to no more than three feet above grade.

Mr. Matthews stated I think that is probably workable, although Iím not the technical person. I would reiterate that our request tonight is that the Commission approve this subject to the approval of all your people, and if you want to make that one of the things that needs to be done, that would be fine. Mr. Okum asked if there were any problem with that, and Mr. Honkomp stated that there is no problem with stepping the brick down. So in essence you do not want any more than two feet of exposed concrete above the grade line. That is fine.

Mr. Tiffany asked about the 20 foot setback for the decks and patios and 35 feet on the structure. Mr. McErlane stated the 35 foot setback was set on the preliminary plan before Council. We havenít reviewed Phase 2 for grading or tree removal or landscaping at this point. It will have to come back in to Planning for final plan approval when itís developed. Mr. Tiffany commented the reason it is coming in like this is because we wanted some flow to the whole project? Mr. McErlane confirmed this adding that the number of buildings have decreased from the original plan as well. There may be some shifting of buildings when Phase 2 comes in. We asked them to show this on the plan to show how it would fit together. There may be some adjustment to these buildings also.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Fifteen


Mr. Tiffany said the roadway that comes in and across the front of the buildings just sort of fades to the north. How are we going to end this roadway? Letís say Phase 1 never happens as it stands. Mr. McErlane reported that there is a provision on the development plan for a t turnaround at the end of that. Mr. Tiffany stated recently I was here and Mr. Eades was in and there was some discussion as to leaving open the option for single family residences to be part of the covenants for Mrs. Biddleís children on the other two lots. Has that been dropped? Mr. McErlane reported that it is not included in the covenants. In discussions with Mr. Eades, it was understood that any additional development on the property would require approval by this body. Mr. Matthews added we did not intend to put much detail in Phase 2 at all. We werenít looking to put any more on there than we needed to, and we do understand that for a home to be built or for some other thing to happen that we would have to come back before this board and that this board always retains that authority. Mr. Tiffany commented my concern is that we are talking about an overall development here, and in talking with Mr. Eades the day he was in, I got the feeling that Phase 2 will not happen. I asked Mr. Eades about the future development of that, and he said that would be up to those landowners, he is not going to be responsible or involved in developing phase 2, so I have some concern with talking about an over all project that doesnít seem to be over all. Itís in a gray area in my mind, and I have a tough time with it.

Mr. Matthews said Mrs. Biddle has lived in that home for 70 years. It is her property and out of respect for her, we have dropped further discussion of how Phase 2 would happen at this time. That is why we left it open. Mr. Tiffany commented it is almost as if we are considering Phase 1 as a separate project because it doesnít appear that we can even consider Phase 2 as part of this. Mr. Matthews said this body retains ultimate power over whatever happens, so whether Phase 2 goes or some other plan goes, it is ultimately your decision. Mr. Tiffany commented the way the roadway is put in here, it is awfully close to the existing property line moving east to west at one point. Letís say Phase 2 doesnít happen, and the property sells to another person, is it fair to them to have it that close without some screening? Mr. Matthews answered there is pretty heavy screening there now with years of growth which is very thick. Mr. Tiffany responded through that area there is not much at all, and I would tend to think because of the grade and type of ground there, you will have to do quite a bit of excavation to get to compactible earth and put in a roadway, and you are going to lose some trees.

Mr. McErlane stated I think it is worthwhile to go back and look at what was originally brought in on the Eades property and what Planning Commission directed him to do. Initially he had shown some multi family development on his property alone, and Planning Commission, in looking at what the Route 4 Corridor Study had said should happen on that entire three parcels of property, stated it should be an overall development. Even if Mr. Eades wanted to develop his property alone, we wanted to see what it would look like as an overall development. That is the direction Mr. Eades took. Obviously the other parcels will not develop until the property owner decides to do that. In defense of Mrs. Biddle, I donít think it is her intention to move, so itís not going to develop until she decides that it will develop. In terms of buffering that existing residence, you need to keep in mind that there are an additional 80 caliper inches that is not shown on the plan that needs to be developed on the plan, so that could be used to help buffer that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Sixteen


Mr. Tiffany stated I agree with your comments and he has met our criteria in terms of showing us the overall development, but personally I think this Commission needs to consider this as an individual project at this point, with the potential to go all the way across. Mr. McErlane responded that we have directed how that will happen, and it is part of the covenants.

Mr. Wilson asked the contractors how thick the firewalls are between the units and what is the distance between the firewalls? Mr. McErlane commented I donít know what bearing this has on Planning Commission, but with the landominiums, there is a property line that goes through the middle of it, so there would be two one-hour walls. Mr. Honkomp added I donít see the thickness of the fire wall between the buildings but typically that would be an eight inch wall. Mr. McErlane added they have not been reviewed for building code issues at this point.

Mr. Okum said if a tractor trailer or moving van goes down this driveway, does he get out? Can our fire truck maneuver this driveway - 24 foot it can, because that is the width in Heritage Hill. This turning radius and future turning radius at the end might be al little too sharp for maneuvering. I think you need to look at that for safety purposes.

Mr. Syfert asked if any residents in the audience would like to speak to this issue? This is not a public hearing, but I thought someone might have a comment.

Doug Eades said I did not pull out of Phase 2; the Biddles pulled out and I canít do anything about that. We want to get underway; itís been delayed many times and will be well into the summer. I promise you that we will do everything you want us to do. Iíve already put a lot of money in this and we need to get going. It will be a super deluxe development for Springdale, something that you will be very proud of, so if you could get us on our way tonight, we will certainly appreciate that.

Mr. Roger Biddle, son of Mrs. Biddle and partial owner of the property stated that we are in favor of Phase 1. In order to protect my motherís interests, I want to clarify your opinion of what Phase 2 is. At this point, it would not be built against her wishes; with seventy some years on the property, and at 96, she ought to be able to live there in peace. I donít know down the road if we are locked into developing the plan as presented, or as that land becomes developable after her death, would we be able to present a plan to you at that time.

Mr. Syfert responded to answer your question there is nothing firm on Phase 2 that we are approving tonight. It is only being utilized in conjunction with Phase 1 to get the road set and the detention pond etc. So, it would have to come before this board. We certainly would anticipate something similar to what we saw, but there is no assurance of that. Mr. Biddle said I wanted for everybody to know that up front, because as a final statement of our approval of that, we have signed off on the easement. We just want to protect her interests.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the covenants were in force and effect for the other two lots also. Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding that this is so they do direct the development on that property in the future. Any changes to the preliminary plan that was shown would have to be approved by this body and possibly Council if that is decided.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Seventeen


Mr. Tiffany said with that in mind, I make a motion to approve Phase 1 with consideration of a all our comments this evening. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Mr. Syfert commented I assume your motion means contingent upon all these items we have discussed tonight being brought together. Mr. Tiffany confirmed that.

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Young, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:40 and reconvened at 8:57 p.m.

C. Approval of Conditional Use Permit, 11733 Chesterdale Road (formerly

Waltek) - tabled 4/9/96

Elizabeth Horwitz, Attorney, stated that she is representing BHE Properties Ltd. who is proposing to be the purchaser of the front parcel of the Waltek property. We also have here representatives from Waltek and since we were last here we have a contract on the back property, so we have the proposed owners of the back property here as well.

Ms. Horwitz reported there are three directives that you left us with to come back and address. One was to be more specific about the parking requirements and where we were gong to provide that parking. That was related to a specific breakdown of the interior plan for BHE Properties, and if we could more information on the back property. That is what we are going to try to do; it was provided to you, I think you have had a chance to review it, and I am going to try to hit the summary items and answer questions.

Ms. Horwitz stated we did the calculations for using the facility as principally an office use with some warehouse, and based on that and the requirements in your Code, we came up with a need for 109 spaces. Our projects needs are actually about 79 spaces, and that would be if every employee drove every day even though we have probably 30% to 40% of our people around at any one time. So, even assuming all that, we only come up with 79 spaces. We came up with a plan that gives us 108 spaces and some option areas for five spaces. The tan area shows the existing striped parking spaces. The light pink areas show proposed parking and existing areas of pavement, but it is not used for parking right now. The dark pink represents the 21 spaces on the panhandle portion of the back lot but there are easement rights exclusive for this property to use those parking spaces. We are planning to remove an existing small landscaped area to put in two more spaces, and that would give us 108 spaces. We could put in one more space in any of these green spaces, which would require removing additional landscaping.

Ms. Horwitz stated since we do not anticipate needs that are anywhere near the parking requirement, we would like you to consider approving this with a condition that we not remove the landscaping, but agree to if there is a parking problem. We think that it really isnít necessary, that we will have plenty of parking spaces there anyway and there is no need to take away landscaping. If you are amenable to that, this is the approach we would like to take, but if you ant us to put the whole 109 spaces in, we can and we will.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Eighteen


Ms. Horwitz stated that the Commission also asked us to take a look at the back parcel in terms of what parking could be put in and possible users. The tan color is the existing, the light pink areas show pavement areas where parking is in and the light green is an area that is expected to be used for loading because of the industrial use of this building. If it would go to almost all office, additional parking would be put in there. The property has 12 spaces assuming this stays as a loading area, and 128 spaces if all this loading area would become parking. The submission showed that there could be several different mixes of office and industrial that would meet with the parking requirements. The purchasers for the back building are here tonight if you would like to talk to them about their proposed use.

Mr. Syfert asked what their use is; I think it is important that we know that at this time. Norman Wood, representing BW Properties stated our intentions are to come in and Rick has a cabinet business that makes custom furniture for offices, which will use 10,000 square feet for the shop plus showroom. We are in the process of leasing the additional space. We want to lease to small office space, warehouse space, or maybe light manufacturing. We are very particular about who we want to put in there. The first thing we will do is fix the retaining walls, replace the driveway and clean it up back here. We will take the fence out; there will be no outside storage. The only thing we will have outside is a dumpster. We are more than happy to work with the city, and we are looking for good tenants. We have been approved by the bank so we do not have to rent right away; we can wait for the right tenant.

Mr. Wood continued I understand there were some issues with the people who live in the back. If there are any concerns, I would be more than happy to address them. We have talked to Mr. McErlane and we went over what we have to do in terms of improvements. When we do close on the property, we will submit that to the Board for approval. BW Properties is basically a real estate holding company. Rick has Custom Cabinets Unlimited, and I am a partner in CW Wood Machinery, which buys and sell machine tools. Right now we are talking to one group that would sell office furniture. We would not do anything that would be detrimental to the property.

Mr. Tiffany said you had mentioned cleaning up the back side and taking care of the rear property, and how there were concerns from some of the residents. They are here tonight. They do take a big interest in this development, as they should, as it has impacted on their properties considerably in the past. Mr. Wood said if they have any problems, I hope they will feel free to come and talk about them. Mr. Tiffany commented it sounds like you are what they are looking for.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane about the proposed use for the woodworking with a showroom. Is the showroom okay in that district? Mr. McErlane reported that General Industrial allows a limited amount of retail sales. However, I donít believe in that instance they are going to be walking in the door and buying retail. Mr. Tiffany continued he had mentioned an office furniture showroom where they would be walking in and buying retail. Is that considered on a site basis; is the percentage based on the building?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Nineteen


Mr. Wood reported that the people who would be using this as a showroom have some modulars. Most of their selling is done in the office. They might sell to five or six companies, wait until it all comes in and then the contractor for the company takes it all and installs it. So weíre really not doing any retail. Mr. Tiffany commented it was from the standpoint of traffic to the site; thatís what they consider to be retail. I just wanted to clarify that.

Concerning the cross easements, Mr. Okum commented it seems unusual to have a rear cross easement on a property when the main entrance is in the front. Was there a reason that it was put in the dock side door section instead of across the front where most of the vehicular traffic for that type of site would be generated?

Ms. Horwitz answered it was initially done because this facility was expected to have principally truck traffic with that maintenance responsibility. Mr. Okum continued now that we have a contract and potential purchaser, wouldnít it be better from a planning standpoint to bring that to the front so that those parcels are more tied together into those types of uses? Mr. McErlane stated the panhandle itself is to get frontage on the street right of way. I believe there are access easements on both. Ms. Horwitz commented absolutely.

Mr. Okum continued obviously these gentlemen who are going to put these businesses back there will want some type of common sign on Chesterdale Road. This would only give them permission to put that sign on the back end of the property. Am I right? Their signage would have to be where their property touches Chesterdale Road. Mr. McErlane reported that there is a proposed silgnage easement shown on the drawing. It is not actually on their property. That would be one of the items requiring variance because it is not on their property but it is along that panhandle.

Mr. Okum stated we donít know if these gentlemen will be here five or 10 years from now, and this property may be redeveloped. Although there are easements, my feeling is we would like to encourage the type of use that these gentlemen are planning for that site. Therefore I would be more comfortable with that boundary being on the front of the parcel. Also, I would feel more comfortable with their signage closer to the main driveway on the south side of the project.

Ms. Horwitz stated there actually is an additional highway easement that runs along here, so unless you are going to remove these planters, you will not have an option for a sign here. So then you are talking about putting it right in front of our building, and we have a problem with that. Mr. Okum responded I understand, but these gentlemen will need something on Chesterdale Road. Would you consider the possibility of a combined sign for both developments? Ms. Horwitz responded frankly, we thought we had it resolved with the sign easement; that was the whole purpose of the sign easement. Mr. Okum said that would be a Board of Zoning Appeals issue. If it is consistent with where Chesterdale Road highway easements were in the residential subdivision, it was five feet below those telephone poles originally.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty


Mr. Shuler indicated that this was not the case, adding that was the easement that the Department of Transportation took when they built Chesterdale and the interstate was built, and it is not parallel. He stated that the drawing shows the highway easement right where the fence takes a bend on the north side of the property and goes through the front of the existing side and maybe five feet behind the electric line on the south side. Mr. Shuler showed that to the Commission. Mr. Syfert commented if you put the sign over there, you would be directing trucks back there, and I donít believe you want that.

Mr. Okum commented the purpose of their business is not trucks. This could be a shipping entrance, and this could be an entrance into the development. I am looking at it as a development. I certainly donít think they are going to want trucks going down this front entrance either. Ms. Horwitz added this easement provides vehicular access with no trucks. Mr. Wood commented and we would have a truck entrance here for all deliveries.

Mr. Okum stated I would like to encourage the development to be pushing to the front, instead of the back end of your building. I know this complicates things, but I think by putting it in the back, you are encouraging industrial use in the future, because it is strictly a trucking port and you are encouraging it by keeping that panhandle on the north side. I would like to see the land attachment carried to the south side instead of the north side.

Ms. Horwitz stated you already have an easement, and this part of the property is actually physically a part of the Springdale Commerce Center. Mr. Okum responded I understand that, but by moving it you eliminate that easement issue that you have on the north side as well, because that would be part of your land again. Ms. Horwitz commented you would add it right here; you would take our five parking spaces that we really cared about and put them on somebody elseís property. Mr. Okum said you would have cross easements on it anyway. Ms. Horwitz answered we would rather have parking we are going to use on our property. You are affecting the economics of the deal. Mr. Okum responded I want to see that rear parcel encouraged to use its front entrance, which is your primary driveway which is their primary driveway, and I donít know how that can be brought about. I think those things will tie together and it will be one development and the entrance to it has to be to the front and not to the rear end of the buildings.

From the audience, a gentleman from BHE stated that he was confused about the concept of it being one development. We are not asking that this be one development, except for the purposes of that easement to share parking, and to help traffic flow. Mr. Okum responded when it becomes a conditional use permit on a common parcel, and you are splitting a parcel off, then it becomes a common development. What happens in the rear and in the front tie together. It is one conditional use permit for that site.

Mr. McErlane stated I think that the applicant clarified that the conditional use permit was for the front building only; the conditional use permit is for office use in an industrial district. The rear parcel will remain general industrial with typical general industrial requirements.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-One



Mr. Tiffany commented the question I would have is if you would be agreeable to combining your signs on one standard at the main entrance? It makes more sense to have it from a traffic standpoint, especially for you Mr. Woods.

Mr. Woods stated we would like to put the sign here, but my understanding is that the highway says they have an easement there and we canít put it on their easement. Mr. Tiffany showed the line on the drawing to Mr. Woods & Ms. Horwitz, adding that what it would entail is moving your sign back towards the building. The easement runs here. Here or there would be ideal positions for the signs.

The representative of BHE stated we intended to use this as our main area of parking, and we would prefer to have the back building traffic use the panhandle driveway to keep traffic away from our own parking and pedestrian entrance into the building. Mr. Tiffany added if you moved it back this way, then you would be inside the easement. I guess you would have to get with Mr. Shulerís office for the exact placement of the easement.

Ms. McBride reported that they had concerns last month on the parking calculations and if they had taken into account all of their office use versus the training facility. We have reviewed the calculations and are satisfied that the parking they are providing would be adequate. Number three on our comments stated that the parking should be based on the field calculations, and that has been done. We agree that the 108 parking spaces that they are proposing are sufficient. I would hate to see them go into any of that green area. The Commission could reserve the right to do that in the future if they needed parking.

Ms. McBride said one thing that was discussed last month is whether or not trucks would have access all the way around the building. Last month it was indicated that truck traffic would be limited to this drive only, would not be able to turn in this area. We do have some concern about that.

Mr. Shuler reported my comments are very brief and already have been discussed. As a reminder, with the split, the ingress/egress easements will be needed for the rear building across the south drive aisle to Chesterdale. The panhandle portion of the lot does not appear to be centered on the north drive aisle so an ingress/egress easement would be required for the rear building across the drive aisle to Chesterdale. The driveway north is not within the panhandle, so the driveway cross easements are needed there. The only other comment that we have is there is an existing permanent highway easement which burdens the property in addition to the dedicated right of way, and we can furnish information on exact locations. The only detriment is that it will affect sign location since we cannot allow signs in the highway right of way.

Mr. McErlane stated that the first question was relative to the conditional use permit, and Ms. Horwitz faxed me something today indicating that the conditional use permit request is for the front parcel only. The rear parcel will be handled under the standard general industrial district requirements.

Mr. McErlane reported that there will be variances required for the lot width for the rear parcel which is required to be 200 feet, and 30.05 feet is shown.


Planning Commission Meeting Minute

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. McErlane continued on the rear yard setback for the front parcel, a variance will be required from the 45 foot requirement (38.47 feet is

shown). The variances required for the easement for the signage will be because the sign would be on an adjacent parcel rather than the parcel that it pertains to. With respect to parking numbers, there is a rather exhaustive listing of parking requirements submitted with the plan. Based on the layout of the front building, the parking requirements per Code would be 109 spaces; 108 spaces are shown if they were to remove a few landscaping areas and stripe in the loading areas. However, they are indicating that their actual use is in the neighborhood of 79, based on an occasional use of their training from for outside people. In terms of the rear building parking requirements, because it is in a general industrial use, it is based on the two highest successive shifts which we donít know at this point of time. If we assume that the maximum office use of that building would be 25%, which is the trigger point for requiring a conditional use permit, the parking requirements would be in the neighborhood of 90 spaces, and they show where they can provide 112. Actually 112 would provide them slightly over 40% office space.

Mr. Tiffany commented so the only issue I see as a problem that we havenít addressed is the turn around for the trucks. How do we propose to solve that?

Ms. Horwitz responded in speaking with Mr. Wood tonight, they feel the trucks they will bring in will not have a problem turning around. They will back in the road this way, and they donít anticipate a problem. However, the parties did agree that if you want to change the easement, we will change it to allow trucks here, here and here, and go across and go back out. We want to encourage the nicest front entrance possible and keep the trucks back there. So, if you want us to change the easement, we are willing to make that change.

Mr. Tiffany asked Ms. McBride if she saw the trucks being able to make the turn to the rear of the building to get around that corner. Ms. McBride responded that they did not, adding that one of our traffic engineers looked at the turning radius and they did not see any way that even a bread truck would be able to do this. Mr. Tiffany added not so much turn around, but even to make it across the rear of the building; can they make that turn or not? She is proposing to create a loop around the rear of the building. Can they make the turn to the rear of the building? Ms. McBride answered yes, that would be acceptable. Mr. Tiffany commented if that is acceptable to both parties, I donít have a problem with it.

Directing his comment to Mr. Schneider, Mr. Okum said I have a problem with separating these parcels. We are asked to consider cross easements, land uses on the back site, and parcels intertwining by traffic, but we are only being asked to consider one part of the parcel for a conditional use permit. Should our judgment be based on that site and forget whatís back there, or should our judgment be based on the entire site as a plan?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Schneider answered I want to clarify my understanding also, which is that this is a conditional use permit for that parcel, and therefore you have to determine the impact of an office use in an industrial district on that site That is the sole thing you are looking at. There can be cross easements to accommodate some of the concerns you have on parking and turning, and that is permitted and fine, but you are looking at the impact, and has the impact on that site been accommodated by what has been done (cross easements). That is the proper way to look at it.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve the conditional use permit with the new traffic pattern for trucking to be the loop around the rear building, that the sign placement to be worked out between the two parties with an easement at a future date, and that the cross easement between the two buildings for traffic, any other issues taken care of and pending the variances being granted by BZA. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Tiffany to amend his motion to include no outside storage and Mr. Tiffany responded that is a given; it is part of the Code.

Mr. Wilson commented to Ms. Horwitz that she indicated that they did not need the entire 109 parking spaces, and that you would be willing to do some landscaping. I would encourage as much greenspace as possible. In other words, if you donít need the parking spaces, do the landscaping with the option that as space is needed, take it back. Ms. Horwitz responded right now what that affects is that we would not take out this landscaping in the yellow area, and we would not do these areas. The rest of it is in place, and we do intend to refurbish this area.

Mr. Syfert said point of clarification which Mr. Tiffany just brought up is that the parking requirement is actually a Board of Zoning Appeals issue, so that will be discussed next week.

Mr. Galster said I would like to make sure we hear from the residents before we vote.

Mr. Syfert commented although this is not a public hearing, the last time we extended the courtesy to a representative of the residents to speak. Does someone wish to speak at this time?

Ms. Rose Potraffke said while you are discussing greenbelt, we are abutting the property directly behind, and we would like to see something there because three is no greenbelt or buffer except what we have in our own yards. I hope you consider that.

Mr. Robert Keith said I canít hear everything that is being said here, and I canít see these diagrams these people are showing. Will Planning Commission see that something is done in terms of the grounds in the back adjacent to our properties? Mr. Syfert stated that Mr. Wood, the proposed new buyer, addressed that issue. He will try to clean it up and work as well as possible with the residents. That is not our issue here tonight, however. Mr. Keith responded it may not be your issue, but you said he promised to do something about this. We have had promises before and nobody has backed them up. Who has the responsibility to make sure these people do what they say they will do?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Wood showed the back building and retaining wall on the drawing, adding that they will fix the retaining wall and make improvements to the property. I have no problem with adding trees back here for the neighbors. If they have any problems in the future, please come over and talk to us.

On the motion to grant the conditional use permit, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum and Mr. Syfert voted aye. The permit was granted with seven affirmative votes, and referred to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the necessary variances.


A. Kerry Ford Subaru requests approval of revised plan for addition at

155 West Kemper Road (previously approved 2/13/96)

Mr. Barry Carney of Matrix Building Company, the contractor stated you have before you the revised plans. Under the previous submission, we had the tower in front of the facility, and found that it would cost more than the owner wanted to spend. To the right hand side of the showroom as you look at the sheet, we are proposing a 25í x 45í covered area added to the existing structure. At the same time, we would provide architectural elements as well as the reconstruction of the existing facade of the building. We have discussed this with the Building Department and we will line up some site lines from the architectural side of things. They are proposing to raise the facade one to four inches to have a site line that matches the existing masonry building. So, we will be doing a reconstruction of the entire front facade using existing materials.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if there were any problems with this? Mr. McErlane reported that the footprint of this structure is about 300 square feet less than what the tower structure was, so it is a reduction in square footage. There are the two architectural elements, they call them reveals, that contain a Ford logo and we will have to review overall signage relative to that. They are approximately 32 square feet apiece, so they may fit within their allowable signage, but we will look at that when the sign applications come in.

Mr. Galster commented I would like to make sure that the sign issue is dealt with separately, because I still have a pretty strong feeling regarding all the pole signs that are on that site. I would like to try to get the parking down to a directional sign as opposed to a pole sign and their used car sign down to at least a monument sign if not removed. When we had discussion last time about this, there was concern about it blocking the sight path coming out there, but right now it is a closed off driveway. There is no vehicular traffic coming in or out there. I would like to address all of the signage issues at some point. I donít know if we can do that now or not.

Mr. Carney responded my understanding is that from the ownerís perspective that signage that has been allowed by the City of Springdale he chooses to keep. If that means that the logos shown on the drawing will be considered signage and would not be available unless other considerations were made, he would choose to eliminate the Ford logo on these elements and retain what he currently has.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Galster said at the time he was in here, he did not have a problem getting those particular signs down to directional and monument. He agreed that he would do those but the issue failed, so he didnít agree to do anything more. Mr. Syfert suggested that they look at the structure and if you choose to, eliminate the logo signs and address those later. Mr. Galster added I would rather see the logo signs than the pole signs.

Mr. Okum asked about the score marks on the glass, and Mr. Carney answered that they were shading. The architect tried to depict the shadow lines that would happen on the glass. Mr. Okum asked if it were a color band, and Mr. Carney indicated that it was not.

Mr. Okum commented quite frankly, I think this new car delivery thing is more showroom space and not new car delivery. On the original drawings, there was a drive through. This is covered delivery, but there is no access to drive a car in. Mr. Tiffany said it is there. Mr. Okum responded but they have cars parked in front of there. What they will need to do is back cars into all those spots to make delivery. Under the canopy it says covered delivery. Mr. Tiffany said theyíll back those in. Mr. Okum said so they wonít be cars on display.

Mr. Carney said these are strictly to be identified and used for delivery of vehicles. My understanding is that in busy times on Saturday, they could end up with six or seven people pulling in at the same time to get a new car delivery. The hope is to keep people out of the elements. Mr. Okum repeated so that is not display area. Mr. Carney confirmed this, adding as we are right now under this covered area, they have display and pull in cars for delivery.

Mr. Carney continued I think the owner is concerned with the traffic patterns going through the property. We are trying to readjust the parking lot over here to square it off some with the building and make it a little more flowable. There will be larger traffic lanes and everything out in the front of the building is now considered customer parking, where before it had all been for vehicles being stored on site. Personally I see a great improvement in what he is trying to do to provide customer parking and traffic through the facility.

Mr. Wilson asked about the Ford logo signs, wondering if they were dictated by Ford Motor Company or something that the dealership owner wants to do? Mr. Carney responded I would say it is the dealers, not required by Ford, but something that they have seen come out from the Ford development people in the way of items to be placed on their buildings if they so desire.

Mr. Galster said on the east elevation it says paint 8 x 8 scored something to eliminate top band. Will that whole wall have a textured look to it? Mr. Carney answered no, currently the wall on the east elevation, the top seven feet is done in dark blue, and the bottom half is done in white. It is the architectís desire to present the owner with the current color schemes, more of a gray solid color building with multi highlighted colors. We would show him a medium gray, paint the entire walls, have all your facades around the front done in a medium gray and the reveals that are shown done in a dark blue to give it the Ford color and take away the appearance of the heavy dark blue and white color configuration.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Galster continued on the Kerry Ford sign that is shown here, we use existing signage, existing sign band, but there is a new EIFS sign band. I donít understand what that means. Mr. Carney responded this stands for exterior insulated finish. It is a product of insulation, a coating that goes on top. What the architect and we are proposing to the owner is to put a new EIFS facade on as we raise the height of the facade to comply for a new look, rather than the panels that are there right now and deteriorating. It would line up with the eyesight line of the masonry building and take the Kerry Ford signage on the existing building out, place it here and a sign band that fits on the current facade that will be eliminated. It is a blue white striped signage feature that will be removed.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the revised plan with the exception of the signage package, which needs to come back in as a complete package. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert.

Mr. Tiffany moved to go to Executive Session to discuss litigation. Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and the Commission went into Executive Session at 10 p.m.

Planning Commission reconvened at 10:17 p.m.


A. Amendment to Zoning Code RE: Political Signs & Window Signs

Mr. McErlane said to give a little bit of history on political signs, a lady placed a sign in her yard in opposition to the Gulf War and was told to remove it. She put it in her window and was cited to court. The court determined that it was a freedom of speech issue and as a result under the definition of political signs those types of free speech issues as well as regulating campaign signs a little differently.

Mr. McErlane stated I am looking at the ordinance that says signs in residential districts. The last phrase of the ordinance adds campaign signs to political signs to distinguish between political free speech and campaign signs. It redefines special event signs as banners and searchlights only in commercial districts, as opposed to what we currently call temporary signs and it redefines temporary signs to include campaign, political and special event signs.

Mr. McErlane continued that the other thing it does is increase the height of real estate signs from four to five feet maximum, and establishes a realistic setback for all signs in residential districts as 10 feet from the curb or the edge of pavement. The problem we have run into in terms of campaign signs and real estate signs in the past is nobody has a real good handle on where the right of way is, so we set it at a specific distance.

Mr. McErlane stated that any political or campaign sign cannot exceed 32 square feet. Currently our campaign signs are a maximum of 32 square feet, so that hasnít changed, but it did include political signs.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. McErlane continued that it extended the period of time you can have a campaign sign; currently it is 45 days and it would be 75 days. There was some discussion early on as to whether or not we can even limit that, so we will go with 75 days until challenged. This ordinance does not address political signs in commercial districts. However, the other ordinance, on temporary signs, incorporated it.

Mr. Okum asked if there were a penalty provision included, and Mr. McErlane reported that other than the standard in the Zoning Code, no. In the Zoning Code, it is a minor misdemeanor with maximum $100 fine, and typically the property owner is responsible for what happens on their property.

Mr. Tiffany asked if Planning needed to take any action, and Mr. McErlane answered that Planning Commission has to review any revision to the Zoning Code and make a recommendation to Council.

Mr. Okum said in (D) it says 25 feet from the nearest street right of way lot line and (E) has 15 feet from the street right of way lot line; couldnít we get those in sync? Mr. McErlane said those are different signs. Mr. Okum continued but what about project development signs? Mr. McErlane answered itís not like we have people planting these 100 at a time during campaigns. Mr. Okum said I thought while you were making it easy for people to understand where it is at..Mr. McErlane commented one would hope that if we have drawings for a building project, we can establish where the right of way is.

Mr. Galster moved to recommend to Council Planning Commissionís approval for Section 153.133 (B) Regarding Sign Definitions and Section 153.133.049 Signs in Residential Districts. Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert.

Secondly, Mr. McErlane reported that this is the temporary sign ordinance that we forwarded to Council in April of last year, with modifications. The major modifications are on the first page of the attachment. There is an inclusion for political and campaign signs in Public Facilities Districts and on Page 3 they are included in General Industrial Districts, and on Page 2, Paragraph 12 they are included in Commercial Districts. We were silent on campaign and political signs in commercial and industrial districts previously. There had been some debate as to whether or not they werenít permitted or they werenít regulated. The last reading we had from the Law Directorís office indicated that they werenít regulated, so at least this puts some regulation into the Code.

Mr. Tiffany asked for an example of a PF 1 2 or 3 district. Mr. McErlane said it would be Maple Knoll, Springdale Church of the Nazarene, the city property. Mr. Tiffany so in the next Council race, those people who are running will be permitted to put their campaign signs on the city property? Mr. McErlane responded not without city permission. Mr. Tiffany wondered if permission were to be given by the mayor, and if there wouldnít be a conflict there. It seems a little screwy to include the city property.



Planning Commission Meeting Minute

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Eight


Mr. Galster wondered if the two languages between these different ordinance have been cleaned up. Mr. McErlane reported the other changes that have occurred in these ordinances have included language for special event signs versus temporary signs. However, I do have some recommendations for changes. If you turn to Page 2, in subparagraph (a), the larger paragraph underneath that, where it says "special event signs placed in windows complying with this section shall not require a permit" . I believe that belongs in Paragraph (a). Also, I think the last line of that paragraph should be deleted, because one of the things we discussed was not putting duration on window signs. The line directly above it says if it doesnít comply with that, it falls back to the other temporary sign or special event sign and requirements as far as duration and size. Mr. Okum wondered if they ere permitted in the door, and Mr. McErlane confirmed that they were. Mr. Okum wondered about the safety of people not being able to see who is on the other side of the door, and Mr. McErlane commented that it is not any less safe than a solid door.

Mr. McErlane continued on Page 3, the last paragraph we do make reference on the previous page about signs inside windows that donít comply with that 25% that we just outlined as being regulated by this section. The lines that say inside windows and doors and on the exterior of buildings, should really remain in place. We still are going to regulate temporary signs if they are over and above the 25% of the window area, or maximum of 200 square feet. Then you are under temporary signs and you are limited to two weeks and you have to get a permit. So, it still should say inside windows and doors.

Mr. Okum asked about enforcement, and Mr. McErlane reported we did this so it could be more easily enforced. We felt we could give them some signs inside the window without having to worry about how long they have been up. The other thing we eliminated in this ordinance is painted window signs, unless you consider them as part of your permanent signage.

Mr. Tiffany wondered if there would be a mass mailing when it is approved. Mr. McErlane confirmed that there would have to be, and Mr. Tiffany commented going back to what Ken Schneider said before, if I have an illuminated open sign in my window now, am I grandfathered in by the old zoning? Mr. McErlane responded not if they werenít permitted in the first place. In terms of non-conforming use, if it was legal prior to a code change it would be grandfathered.

Mr. Young wondered how the businesses would be informed of this change. Mr. McErlane stated I probably will make a brochure, and we will hand deliver to the ones that we specifically know are in violation, and the brochure will be available to everybody else. Mr. Tiffany suggested that it be handed out with any new business coming in for an application.

Mr. Okum asked if there were anything in these changes regarding trucks on sites with signs on them. Mr. McErlane responded there was not, adding that we have tried to handle this in the past as if it were obvious they were trying to advertise something, a special or something, we called it a temporary sign. In this case, it would be a special event sign. Blue Star Laundry was an example of using the side of the van to advertise their cleaning prices, their specials of the week.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Twenty-Nine


Mr. Okum wondered about signs where the lights were blinking or they were non functioning. Mr. Galster commented once they become a flashing sign they are supposed to be turned off because they are not allowed. Mr. McErlane added we do have a sign maintenance provision in the code.

Mr. Galster commented this already has been recommended to Council one time; does it have to go back again? It already has come out of committee approved. Mr. Syfert added weíve changed it.

Mr. Tiffany moved to recommend this to Council with changes and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr. Syfert said for clarification, are we asking Bill to add into that part of the sign out, to shut it off? Mr. Okum answered no, he can handle that.

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. This was recommended to Council with seven affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert said let me explain the insert you had for Roberds. What they wanted to do was change the entrance. Where we used to have a road down through here, they wanted to make this landscaped. Mr. Tiffany commented I thought we had that and went to the boulevard. Mr. McErlane reported that initially the drive came up straight through the middle with wider green space on either side. What they have attempted to do here is close that in. Mr. Okum said we did that. There was a row down the center, and my request was this become a green space up the middle. We drew the lines in at the last Planning Commission meeting connecting those together. Mr. McErlane reported what we had prior to this was they eliminated a couple of rows of parking and wider grass strips with the drive through the middle. What they have done is lined the drives up with the semicircular drive and made that green space. The third piece of paper there with it was they have requested to stockpile their dirt on the Excel site. We discussed it with the chairman and our only concerns to make sure that Springdale Kemper has agreed to it.

Mr. Okum asked if the stockpile is there permanently. Mr. McErlane responded obviously whatever happens on that western site will have to deal with it. Mr. Okum said somebody will have to move all that dirt. Mr. Galster wandered how tall the stockpile could get and Mr. McErlane answered that it is between five and six feet. Mr. Okum wondered what you would do with the stockpile, and Mr. McErlane indicated that he did not know, adding that he didnít know if Springdale Kemper would allow it, because somebody would have to do something. Mr. Syfert commented I donít believe that is topsoil, adding that we were of the opinion that if Springdale Kemper has no problem, I donít know that we have a problem. Mr. Okum commented I think they ought to distribute it, and if they are going to stockpile it, stockpile it more evenly around the detention basin, and lower the mound to five or six feet. Mr. McErlane reported that on the east side of the detention basin they have mounded it already.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Thirty


Mr. Okum asked if the tank could come down and put it where the tank is on the east side. Mr. McErlane reported that supposedly the tank will come down when they make a connection with the water lines so they can get their pressures back up.

Mr. Tiffany said I hate to bring this up, but itís starting to be a real embarrassment; whatís going on with Pictoria Island? Have we heard anything from Dick Morris? Mr. McErlane reported Cecil just asked me about it today. Fifth/Third and Renaissance want to come in and talk to him about it. Mr. Tiffany added the lot was supposed to be reseeded, and it was supposed to be a beautiful green space; itís a brown and weed space and it looks terrible. I donít want it to get to the point where itís a real embarrassment for the city.

Mr. Syfert stated this Proposal for the Springdale Zoning Code Update was dropped off by Anne McBride tonight. Letís look at it and we will have it on the agenda for next month. Is there anyone who will not be here on June 11th? Everyone plans to be in attendance.

Mr. Galster said we had Council bring up a concern regarding a resident who basically concreted in their back yard as to whether or not we should try to regulate how large a patio or concrete pad you could have in your back yard and whether it should be based on a percentage. It is not a structure like a deck is. A concrete surface, because it is at grade, is not considered a structure.

Mr. McErlane added there is a maximum building to land coverage, and it is not a building. Mr. Tiffany said I think it should be impervious, like we do when we consider commercial projects. We consider the pervious land for runoff. If weíre going to do that for businesses with parking lots, we should do it for homes. Mr. Okum said the reason we do that is so that we have water retention and detention and green space. Mr. McErlane added in basic zoning districts we require setbacks from property lines and that is it. Mr. Young said so we canít stop this; she can pour in the front yard, too? Mr. Galster said you can put a turnaround in your front yard too. Actually they have a turnaround in the front yard and a strip of concrete between the two houses to get to the back yard, and we make that to be 10 feet wide at least, and then they have concrete almost all the way down their two flower garden areas just before the end of their property. Iím looking for this Boardís opinion.

Mr. Huddleston commented Barryís point about dealing with some percentage of impervious surface in the zoning districts would be the easiest way to handle this. Mr. Galster said if that is the case, I have a concern. My pool is concrete, and I have a privacy fence. If I hadnít built it up, I would be right at the property line with concrete and deck. So I guess the question to this board is do we want to try to look into trying to regulate concrete in a residential area, or impervious surfaces in a residential area? Mr. Okum said I think Planning Commission should act on this, and the best way to do it is use other peopleís ideas. We can find out if Blue Ash and Sharonville and some other communities have something and get simple legislation and make a recommendation.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were a land coverage regulation for buildings in residential areas. Mr. McErlane it is 35%.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 May 1996

Page Thirty-One

Mr. McErlane added there are a number of new developments with side entry garages that are all up against the property line. Mr. Galster said so are you going to address that as well? Mr. Okum said I think it should be based on percentage of the property and that is all. Mr. Galster said and not worry about the property line. Mr. Okum responded there are places all over the community where people have double widened their driveway and pushed it right against the property line.

Mr. Tiffany said what about a guy with a yard like Steveís and put decking over three quarters of the back yard? Mr. McErlane reported you can only go back 50% of your rear yard setback with a deck. Mr. Galster added but then I can go concrete the rest of the way. Mr. Okum said I thought it was a concern of the percentage of the improved surface, not a percentage of the structure on the site. A driveway and deck would be an improved impervious surface. All we would have to do is change it to a certain percentage of improved impervious surface. Mr. Tiffany added and Mr. McErlane would have to come up with the number.

Mr. Wilson commented there is a new establishment at the former Oasis. Did they do any reconstruction on their building? Mr. McErlane reported that they did not. Mr. Wilson continued so we donít have to worry about parking spaces. Mr. McErlane confirmed this


A. New Wave Swim & Sportswear - 11664 Springfield Pike (former Oasis)

wall sign

B. Shipps Yamaha - 11530 Springfield Pike - sign


Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye and Planning Commission adjourned at 11:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,


______________________,1996 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



______________________,1996 ________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary