11 JUNE 1996

7:00 P.M.




The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David

Okum, Barry Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson, James

Young and Chairman Syfert.

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Amy Callow, Wood & Lamping


Mr. Tiffany moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. All voted

aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.


A. 5/15 Letter from Dick Huddleston to Randy Danbury, President of

Council re Zoning Changes concerning Political and Window Signs



A. Wal-Mart, 600 Kemper Commons Circle requests approval to use front

sidewalk for outside storage of merchandise through October

Bill Chambers, Assistant Manager with Wal-Mart said I would like to appeal to the Commission for the use of our sidewalks from March through October to display large toy items and lawn and garden merchandise. I sent you photographs of the merchandise to show you what I have in mind. It is basically bicycles, kidsí plastic swimming pools, swing sets and lawn and garden items.

Mr. Syfert wondered why this is necessary, and Mr. Chambers responded that he needs the space desperately. To put it all inside does not work at all, especially with the bags of mulch and top soil; I do not have room for it. It works out much better to have those items out on the sidewalk where you can load them right into the customersí cars.

Mr. Syfert asked how long he had been with the store, and Mr. Chambers answered since January of last year. Mr. Syfert commented so you were not here when they originally opened, and they were involved in the planning of this. Some of us were, and there were representations that were made. Part of the reason for the grading was to handle the outdoor type sales. I donít think there was any contemplation of stacking pallets and things along the sidewalks. Mr. Chambers commented Mr. McErlane supplied me with a copy of the Minutes and Iíve read through it and there is nothing that indicates we can do that at all.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Two


Mr. Tiffany said Mr. Shackelford was in last fall for outdoor storage trailers in the back for Christmas, and we had talked to him at that time. I wondered why he wasnít here this evening. Mr. Chambers said I honestly donít know. This is my area of responsibility within the store and he gave it to me to take care of.

Mr. Tiffany asked if it is merchandised at this time and Mr. Chambers indicated that it is. Mr. Tiffany wondered if it were merchandised last year, and Mr. Chambers confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany continued and the city brought this to your attention and thatís why you are here? Mr. Chambers said I have a notice of violation.

Mr. Okum commented obviously you were not part of the planning stages for the development. The space to the right of your building where there is nothing was future expansion space my understanding was that it was designed so that if Wal-Mart at any time needed to expand, they could. Had you considered utilizing that area for outdoor display? Mr. Chambers responded it has that wall across the front; I didnít know who that belonged to and I did not consider it at all.

Mr. Okum commented it seems like an awfully long period that you are looking for this. Mr. Chambers answered the reason for that is because of the bagged goods and large toy items. That is when we have those items in stock and when we would need this.

Mr. Wilson said most retail stores like yours have their lawn and garden shop in the rear. Have you thought of that as a possible solution? Mr. Chambers answered I have not considered that, but in the rear is a driveway that goes around back of the building, but there really is not very much space.

Mr. Wilson continued I am concerned about traffic. Looking at these pictures, you will have people walking in the driveway through bags and all kinds of crazy walking configurations, and traffic as well. I also have a concern about pedestrian safety. On another picture you have the handicapped spots coming right up to where the wheelbarrows are. So youíll have traffic coming right up to this spot, and kids playing on these swings and running out into traffic. I have a real problem with your location relative to parking and to the curb here. I donít feel comfortable with this as it is now for those reasons. You have all kinds of bikes here which generate children running and getting on bicycles and trying to ride them. It is a control problem you will have. I can see accidents happening and a big cleanup at the end of the day. When your customers pick up these large bags, they probably will have to drive up to this spot, which is even more traffic, for loading and unloading. Have you given some thought to this as well?

Mr. Chambers responded that he has, adding I appreciate your concerns, and have had the same concerns myself. With regard to the swing sets for example, what we have done is tied them up and they are in behind other things. The bicycles themselves are locked together so getting on one is difficult at very best. It has not been a problem. I can appreciate your concern about the wheelbarrows up close to the handicapped parking. We have considerable space between; I donít know if you can tell from the picture or not. Mr. Wilson commented it looks like you come right up on it; it looks like less than eight inches from the edge of the curb to the wheelbarrows.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Three


Mr. Wilson added I see the edge of a car here, and it looks like you have less than a foot between the edge of the tractor. You will have people walking around looking at these tractors and not paying attention and a driver will come up and could easily bump somebody.

Mr. Syfert commented going back to the original concept and the original plans with Wal-Mart, it was represented that a sidewalk would be all the way around the enclosed area for the outdoor sales. That is not there, because that is completely blocked with pallets.

Mr. Syfert continued that the other item that Bob was just alluding to is we are forcing the handicapped people, if they park here, to come back out into traffic to get into your store. That is not in the best benefit to the public, and has to stop. Mr. Tiffany commented they are violating an ADA requirement. Mr. Syfert said I think there are more violations here than what we are dealing with. Tonight I was over there for the third time since this item came up. There wasnít a handicapped car parked here because I think it is a problem for them and they recognize it. The real problem was that there are six other handicapped parking spots, and due to the weather conditions, five of them were filled with non-handicapped parking cars. If you are going to have handicapped stalls, we have to do something a little bit different with them. I am totally against this; Iíll tell you right up front.

Mr. Huddleston stated I would echo Mr. Wilsonís sentiments relative to the public safety concern. I think it is very clear that there is no public sidewalk and it forces the pedestrian out into the traffic areas and the design traffic corridors. Based on what I see here, I couldnít support this. I was not a part of the original planning, but basically this should be restored to its original condition.

Mr. Galster commented in looking at the pictures as well, I donít know if you handle the merchandise on the inside of your store the same way you handle on the outside, I am looking at 10 assembled wheelbarrows of one type, 10 of another, eight bikes of one type and 10 bikes of another. If that is the same inside where you have all these bikes assembled, I can understand running out of room. This is way overkill in my mind. I can imagine cars stopping in the front and trying to load the yard goods and creating a traffic flow problem for the whole area. I have all the same concerns, and as of now, I am in agreement that it needs to go back to the original way.

Mr. Okum stated it does concern me that there was a Planning Commission meeting on October 10 1995 and you were granted a one year extension for last Christmas. Let me read from this. "Mr. Tiffany moved to grant this for one more year, with the understanding that they have to seek other avenues next year. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion." Obviously, I hate to say it but your company has totally disregarded any direction of this commission at all. They gave you a grace period for last year, and then you just jumped on top of it come spring, and now you are expecting us to go from now to October and then according to this, it was from September 28 to December 20th so you might as well say why not allow it all year round? That is very disappointing.

Mr. Syfert said Iíd like to correct something; those were storage containers out back that we approved. Mr. Okum responded then I stand corrected; Iím sorry.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Four


Mr. Tiffany commented I think I know why Mr. Shackelford is not here and you are here in his place. To quote from the earlier Minutes, we talked about his storage problem, and he said it is a company problem, that they need to get outside storage and that this is would be the last time because from now they definitely would have to do something different. That was the outside storage, but this is the same situation, just a different time of year. I shop Wal-Mart frequently; I like the store, but I canít go with this. With that in mind, Iíll bring this up in a positive fashion and make a motion to approve. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson commented my concern is that come October you or someone from Wal-Mart will be back asking for storage and hoping that we might approve it for a third time. I would forewarn you that it wonít happen. You will have to find some way to handle that problem before it comes to us. Secondly, I cannot agree with this, and if Mr. Tiffany hadnít made the motion, I would have moved that we vote on this and let you know right now without further discussion what you can and cannot do.

Mr. Chambers stated I share your concern about the handicapped parking and safety along the sidewalk. I am not as concerned about the bagged good areas, because I know how we handle that. I am definitely concerned about the parking space and the distance that those people have to get out and get into the store. What I fully intend to do, whatever the vote of the Commission, is pull everything back.

Mr. Wilson said you might want to come back with another arrangement for your goods. We like retail and businesses to make money in our city because they stay and it helps our tax base, but our primary concern is the welfare of our citizens, in this case the pedestrians.

Mr. Huddleston added I would echo Mr. Wilsonís sentiments. It would be insensitive of this Commission not to be sensitive to your requirements. On the other hand, certainly the public safety is the overriding concern, and I suggest that you do some better long term planning in the corporation and try to address this issue up front rather than react to it.

No one voted aye, and voting no were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Tiffany and Mr. Syfert. Approval denied with seven negative votes.

Mr. Syfert commented you have some work to do. I really believe someone ought to go back to the original representations made and take a good look at it. As Mr. Okum mentioned, that common space might be something to look into.

B. Home Quarters Warehouse, 11360 Princeton Pike requests approval of outside storage of pallets

Kevin W. Reilly said in my letter I asked to discuss merchandising at the back of the building, the staging issue. It happens generally this time of year. It dwindles back through the months of July and August and comes back September and October, and in November and December I donít need it as much.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Five


Mr. Reilly continued I believe you have some pictures of the back of the building, and I did bring some others (gave them to the members). A slide of the area was shown, and Mr. Reilly said this shows the outside area, and the problem that we have of setting merchandise out for delivery on a given day. What happens is deliveries come in in the morning, and they can take up to 24 hours to clear the back area, sometimes as many as 72 hours. This doesnít show you my problem with freight that comes in. We will stage merchandise temporarily, i.e. treated lumber or commodity products that are brought into the gate as we sell down. At this time of the year, with the demands of the public, I end up in a trap. We do overbuy so we have the product, and prefer not to have out of stocks, which can be a real problem. Weíll end up with products from about the fenced area to this pole in the center of the picture. It is from the months of March 1 through June 30, and from September 1 through November 30th that I have my biggest rise in sales. The day I received this notice of violation, we did have quite a bit of merchandise back there, and it can be an eyesore. I sent a letter to my supervisor, Mr. Steve Borden (passed letter around) and my concerns were what the city wanted us to do. This has gone on since 1992, and in 1992 everybody sat down at Planning and reviewed all the potential problems and concerns. A lot of this wasnít thought of or talked about at that time. I donít think they realized the amount of business that we could do. In 1992 the store did a little over $22 million; last year it was $26 million in sales, and the year before that it was $27 million. When you can generate that kind of business out of a building, a problem arises with the product in the back.

Mr. Reilly continued my concerns were how to correct that. I called three businesses to get estimates as to what the cost would be to fence in the back area. Of the three, only one Anchor Fence submitted an estimate of $7,000 to erect a fence that would be 12 feet in height. I personally donít like this and would rather work within that three or four month period and keep it clear. I donít think I should put $7,000 into something that isnít necessary 12 months of the year.

Mr. Reilly added the second thought was to ask for the opportunity to request a permit as we do for the front sidewalk during those periods of the year when I need it most. (March 1-June 30 and September 1-November 30). During those off periods, it would be our job to insure that it would be clear of any merchandise. The only thing I canít keep clear of there are daily deliveries. We run from 15 to 25 deliveries a day; it is a lot easier for us to stage it when the trucks pull in. That would be the only concern I would have about product that would be seen by the public.

Mr. Reilly reported that my concern also was pallet storage. The container you can see (on the slide) was an attempt to get rid of pallets. Sending trucks out to try to get rid of every single pallet would cost us anywhere from 150 to 250 pallets a day. In May I spent $945 just for pallet disposal to the landfills.

Mr. Reilly continued Wal-mart has a very nice treated fenced area; I donít know if it is pallet storage or not, but I thought I might be able to do something like that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Six


Mr. Reilly stated I thought if we could come up with a fenced area that would be 32 feet long and 16 feet deep, what I would also do is have a local gentleman, Joe Massey, come in on a monthly basis to grind up the pallets so they could be recycled and reused for a cost of $350 to $400 per month. I thought that would logically be the best solution, and I would propose that to you as an alternative.

Mr. Reilly added this time of the year, if you keep the pallets clear from the back of the building, the best solution would be to take the eyesore out by putting the fence up, and dispose of them properly. I donít think taking them to a landfill is necessarily the proper answer.

Mr. Reilly reported my third concern was temporary permits. I

understand Wal-Martís dilemma. During the spring season, annual plants are very lucrative in a sense, although considering total dollar profit, it is almost minimal. It is more of a service to the customer. By getting the annual plants on the front sidewalk, and allowing the people to come in and shop it, it generates more business and increases sales, and we do use it greatly. What I am asking for is an extension to that front sidewalk. That is not a long period of time; it would be a total of eight months instead of the five months that we currently have, or March 1st thorough July 30th and September 1st through November 30th. These are my peak selling periods.

Mr. Reilly continued it is difficult to expect customers to go in, gather up 30 or 40 bags of a given item, put them on a cart and move it to the front. They would prefer to get it out front and let us move it for them. Maybe eight months is too much to ask; I am asking the Commission to at least hear me out because eight months is what I need, but I am very happy with five months if that is all I can get,.

Mr. Reilly said to summarize, the merchandise staging issue number one objective is we could put a $7,000 fence up that would hide it during those peak selling periods. Secondly, we could allow for storage of merchandise during the peak selling periods. The second situation was the pallet storage. I would beg for you to allow me to do the fence idea. I cannot control it every day so a fence area could be erected to stage the pallets until service arrived to mulch them. This would be completed monthly, or as needed. The fence area would be 32 feet wide and 16 feet deep, and would be erected with treated fence panels, six by eight sections. On the temporary permits, it is my desire to get it for eight months if I can get it.

Mr. Syfert asked if he had any problem with the placement of the fenced in area; do you have enough room for that? Mr. Chambers said that would be no problem at all.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if this is a continuous problem or is it sporadic. Mr. McErlane reported it is seasonal in nature, especially with the stock in front, and I think the same probably goes for the building materials, because they are kind of seasonal in nature. Recalling the discussions when HQ came in, we had questioned the amount of room they had for lumber storage within the walled in and fenced in area, and they indicated that typically all they do in that area is unload, unbundle and move it into the store because they sell everything off the shelf in he store, and that is why they have limited area in the back for storage. Apparently that isnít exactly how it works.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Seven


Mr. Reilly said no it is not. It is a shame at that time that they did not look at this as in depth as they probably should have. Looking at the volume of business that goes through Tri-County, you would think they would at least said that it didnít seem realistic. I did have a couple of pictures to give you an idea of the area inside the fence and how difficult it can be. This truck with 150 ladders came in. The problem is that a business like ours has to buy the minimum number of the merchandise. The amount of freight that goes through the receiving area this time of year is almost mind boggling. It is a frustrating business, because you are trying to get the product out as quickly as you can.

Mr. Okum said in regards to the pallets and your proposal for the enclosure, I think your approach with recycling and monthly changeover is a good direction to go. I would like to see that pallet storage back against the building. Is there a reason that it has to be out in the middle? Mr. Reilly replied that is considered a fire hazard. We are not allowed to put any products with flammable material against the building. The pallet area is right here, and taking it back and putting it against the wall on the opposite side of this doorway could be done very easily, as long a the fire marshall does not have a problem with it. Mr. Okum responded my suggestion would be to look for a resolve to get it out of that corner where it is at a focal point that everyone sees as they are going down the road. I would agree that the fencing is a need.

Mr. Okum continued the other question I have is in regards to your outside display merchandise. I frequent HQ constantly, but the problem is that it is dangerous. You have pushed the public into the roadway the way you have displayed your merchandise. I am concerned about the public safety across that front end.

Mr. Galster wondered if we have a permit for them to use the front storage now, and will you explain that a little more? Mr. McErlane reported that we can issue a seasonal sales permit for seasonal type materials if they canít be stored inside the building. We issued that this year for them, and it was a four month period, not five months. Mr. Reilly said you are right; it is a four month period. Mr. Galster continued so every year we have been giving them that permit. Mr. Huddleston wondered under what guidelines, adding that he is concerned about the public safety. Mr. McErlane added we have asked them to modify it already this year with respect to the pallets lined up (showed on the third slide). They are stacked up on the island and it was a pretty scary looking situation. Mr. Reilly stated when you take in the trucks that we take in on a daily basis, all you can do is get the stuff off the trucks., Generally, by the end of the day or the beginning of the next day, we will have all the merchandise in the fenced area or along the front of the building. Mr. Galster said I have a problem when people are loading along the entrance off Tri-County Parkway; you canít get through. Thereís not enough room for people to get in and out. Iíve also bought mulch there myself and when Iím there I try to hustle because I back up 10 or 15 cars; nobody can get through. Mr. Reilly added it is the same dilemma if I have the gate open and bring people through the gate. The worst thing here is they stop right in your path. Down here (showed area on slide) it is easier, because you have a a wider area to get by each other.

Mr. Galster commented you are proving my point; I donít agree with the permitting of that on a four month basis. I think it is a major hazard. I have sat out there for 10 minutes not being able to move anywhere.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Eight


Mr. Galster said if this is permitted, I would like to know what we need to do to make it not permitted, because it doesnít make sense to me. Maybe the two companies need to get together and look at an off site storage area where you an store bulk mulch. Mr. Reilly said it isnít even a question of offsite storage. That is for the service of the community. They donít want to go elsewhere. We have more people come up to the cashiers and ask to pay for it and pick it up out front. Mr. Galster continued my point is that maybe if all the other stuff that you buy in such quantities and put around back, wasnít there, some of the things that people want to pick up can be stored back there. Why have all this treated lumber back there and have to stage it out. Stage out what you have here and take the truck over to the offsite storage and finish loading and unloading. Mr. Reilly asked where, and Mr. Galster didnít know. If you donít have room here, either you need to build a bigger store or you need to find another storage area. Just because the mulch happens to be out front and people want to carry that with them, thatís fine. Something else in the back is pushing that out to the front, because there are all kinds of other storage throughout your facility creating that dilemma. Maybe if some of that stuff is moved out, the mulch can be put back in there and have a loading dock in the back for people to pick up their mulch. I donít know, but Iím saying this right here I would not approve.

Mr. Young said so far I concur with both the comments that have been made. We have talked to Wal-Mart and we are now talking to you, and it appears that you guys donít know your business, or you donít know it well enough that you move into a facility and you already know moving in that you will outgrow it as soon as you move into it and you are seeking outside storage for retail sales. I can appreciate the fact that you are re in business to make money, but in this picture, it clearly causes problems from a safety standpoint. What would happen tomorrow if the newspaper read small child hit in this area and injured or killed? The next day would we see all this removed? My concern is we should not have to get to that point. That should be something that your company has to attack as far as coming up with a solution. All we can do is give you the guidelines that you have to go by.

Mr. Young continued as far as the pallet situation in the back, I donít really see a problem with that as long as it is hidden and meets fire code requirements. I think the mulching idea is a great one to dispose of them, and I can appreciate the fact that you are getting so many of them and itís not something that you can just discard. This I find a real issue, and I agree with Steve that if we are permitting it, we need to take a hard look at it.

Mr. Reilly said if the permit is also given to the back of the building, I would have the ability to put some merchandise in the back. The City comes in and slaps my hands for having things in the back, and I get my hands slapped for having things in the front, so what the City is telling me to do is to keep everything in the confines of the walls and the fenced area. Can we do that? Yes, Iím sure we could do that but my biggest problem is with the customers. I should have brought the customer complaint letters that I received in 1995 about not being able to get the product.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Young responded I understand that, but you also have to appreciate the fact that we have to look at it from the best interests of the City and from a safety viewpoint. I can tell you thereís nobody on this board who wants to see headlines of someone getting hurt at HQ. As far as your being a profitable business, yes, we want that to happen, but there are certain guidelines that we structure the city by and we have to abide by those and hopefully have our retail people do the same thing. It is great to be making a lot of money, but it is another thing if you are not complying with city requests that you do those things. And, if it requires offsite storage, maybe thatís the solution. That may be something you have to take a look at. Granted, it may eat into some of these profits, but hopefully if you are making $26 million a year there are a few dollars of profit there. Mr. Reilly commented it was $26 million in sales; $1 million is profits. There is no big profit in businesses like this. Mr. Young commented I have a small business; Iíd like to make a million dollars in profit.

Mr. Tiffany said Iím going to address each of these issues separately, and weíll start with the back of the building. You talked about how you need to overbuy because it gets you the best deals and you donít want to run out of stock. You talked about the fact that your company did not know or realize how much volume this store would generate. You talked about the cost of putting up a fence in the back ($7,000) and you really donít want to spend that money, and you talked about vendorsí minimums. The question I would have is how is it fair to this city and to your competitors and fellow retailers to allow you to do this and not everybody else? If what you have is inadequate, then what you need to do is reassess it and upgrade to some extent. I donít know how we can look at this today and say sure go ahead, merchandise out back but Service Merchandise canít do it because they donít have the same problems that HQ has. Mr. Reilly said it is a totally different type of retail, absolutely totally different. Mr. Tiffany continued the issue is they have adequate space for the type of retail they are doing. If you donít have adequate space for the type retail you are doing, we need to change something.

Mr. Reilly responded you are suggesting that the company reassess how it does business and change it completely for the City of Springdale. Mr. Tiffany responded not necessarily. Iím talking about this location, and you tell me you donít have enough space to merchandise what you are getting in. Why should the citizens of Springdale and the surrounding businesses be penalized because HQ needs to overbuy?

Mr. Tiffany continued I think the solution would be to take the wall that is across the back of the outside storage and bring it all the way across the back and enclose the whole thing,. Then nobody has to see anything, and it is part of the compound. Mr.Reilly commented thatís where the chain link fence was. Mr. Tiffany responded are we talking about putting slats in it to totally screen it off? Mr. Reilly indicated that they were. Mr. Tiffany wondered if it were contiguous with the rest of the building, because when we decided this building in the original PUD, everything was contiguous to have a nice look. I donít have a problem if we enclose that with a similar type material. Itís a lot more money than what you are talking about a chain link fence, Iíll guarantee that, but I donít think it is fair on that issue to continue to allow you to stage back there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Tiffany continued as far as the pallets go, this is a bad time of the year. I think if it were close to winter time, you could put an ad in the paper free pallets and they would disappear. Mr. Reilly commented you canít get rid of them; itís unbelievable. Mr. Tiffany responded I donít have a good solution for that other than a good storage area to block that out also, and maybe that can be incorporated in that.

Mr. Tiffany stated as far as out front, I stopped last spring, and there were trucks continuously parked and unloading merchandise in a traffic lane. This facility was not designed to have deliveries in the front; that was not part of the deal going in. You can see (on the slide) in the middle of the traffic lanes there are carts on wheels for some of the plants. Mr. Reilly said those were just unloaded off that truck. Mr. Tiffany wondered why stick them in the middle of traffic lanes? Mr. Reilly answered because they had just unloaded them, and then they would be wheeled up and out of the way. You canít expect them to be moved immediately. Within probably half an hour, they would have been in their places. Mr. Tiffany responded but the problem is for that half hour, we have a truck in the middle of traffic, carts in the other middle of the traffic, and as I am looking at it, you are merchandising in the middle of the fire lane. I was out there last spring, and to the left of that truck there are parking spaces at the end of Just for Feet. Those parking spaces are mandatory, and they were taken up by carts, pallets, tow trucks, and fork lifts. As I went to park there I was told by one of your employees that I couldnít park there, that they were unloading the truck. I parked there and said take it up with the City. How many customers did they tell they couldnít park there; that is not right. Itís not merchandising, itís not a staging; its not a delivery area. Your goods were stacked out in the fire lane completely down the front of the building. The fire lane is there for a reason; the sidewalk is there for a reason. If we have something that allows you to do this for four months of the year, I donít approve of it either. I think you need to look at it from a total new start here and figure out what HQ needs to do and where they need to spend the money to solve the problem. This just does not work.

Mr. Wilson commented some of my concerns you have addressed, but I want to bring up a couple of points in that area. Concerning the pallets, I saw the pictures and my concern is the weather in the last three or four months, raining every day, obviously wonít be able to use those pallets again because they will rot or be weak. You brought up the point about them being moved monthly. After three weeks in the rain, they will look awful bad so that was a concern that we can deal with.

Mr. Wilson continued I would agree that a screened in fence would probably be your best solution to the initial problems you have. I would be receptive to that because it would be within the confines of your building. I understand the concern to get the product there for the customer to buy. What you might want to consider with the other HQs in the area is buy cooperatively, so you can divvy it up. There has to be some store out there that is not doing the volume you are doing that may have the space. I realize that you have to have high volume to maintain your project margin.

Mr. Wilson added I have a concern about the area, even at four months. My suggestion would be to redesign that area so there is adequate walkway, and redesign your pickup so customers are not blocking that area, and preventing traffic to your location and others in the area.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Wilson said I noticed that during the Christmas season you have all your trees in one area and about a week before Christmas it is vacant. I would think you would want to use that area to store your items. My only comment is that your profit and our tax base is not worth the cost of a life.

Mr. Huddleston said I think the Commission has tried to be sensitive to the business related issues so that you and we can be successful, but I would reject the idea that what is your problem is in fact our problem. If you need to improve your logistics system, I suggest you do that and not say it is our problem. I have a concern with the public safety issues that are raised by issuing temporary sidewalk permits that in effect eliminate the sidewalks and create a public hazard. The pallet storage is a good idea, and if that is removed on a regular basis, and if that is a slatted fence storage area, I think that is probably a good solution. I think we would need a maintenance agreement with that. Iíve seen those become very dilapidated in a very very short time. Again, I would have a question about the permit extension or the permit issuance.

Mr. Okum said I can echo everyone elseís comments. . Mr. Huddleston mentioned a maintenance agreement on this site, and part of the PUD approval was maintenance on the facility and the plantings. It is sort of disappointing because HQ who sells enormous amount of plant material doesnít seem to replace their dead trees along the side wall. Thatís been an ongoing pet peeve of mine, that you canít maintain your plant material in an area that was designed to hide the wall. When this was presented to Planing Commission, the proposal showed a chain link fence around all your exposed outdoor merchandising. I do have real safety concerns, and I have questions regarding what is seasonal, because I see old cabinets and building hardware out there in the main front entrance which I donít find a bit seasonal. Long range, you still have to go back, and as Mr. Huddleston said, it is not Planningís responsibility; it truly is yours. Some of what you are presenting here was anticipated originally, and that was the reason the wall was constructed and the plantings were put along the side, because we wanted to keep it contained in the area. I think your greenhouse area has pushed that merchandising and filled that space, and we are faced with it along the road. I certainly donít see the need for four or five pallets of pine bark mulch in front of that store. One or two pallets stacked neatly against that wall could provide the need and could be replenished from your back stock at any time.

Mr. Reilly stated after reviewing the Minutes from 1992, that was brought to my attention, and I will take care of the dead trees, but I knew nothing about that.

Mr. Syfert commented we have had a lot of discussion two or three different issues. You have had the benefit of everyone here speaking. Would it be possible that you might want to go back and restudy this and come to us with a firm plan next month? Mr. Reilly answered I would be more than glad to. I would like to know what issues are resolved. What can I do with at least the first two, which were the whole reason for the discussion. The first two were the whole reason for this, and the third was something that I thought might be a good thing to bring up, which believe me was a giant explosion that I did not anticipate.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. Syfert responded I believe there have been two or three positive recommendations, one of which about everyone agreed on concerned your pallet storage. I believe that is an issue that you could bring in a firm plan on that and it would be covered under Old Business, if you so request for us to table it. Would it be your desire to table it? Mr. Reilly indicated that it would; there were no objections. Mr. Wilson moved to table and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to the July 9th meeting. Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert directed him to bring in to the Building Department what you propose, plus check with the Fire Department.

C. Concept Plan Discussion of Proposed Q Lube, 805 Kemper Commons Circle

Gary Kirklin stated I am in charge of construction of Q Lube in this area, and we are proposing to build a 1500 square foot building. For orientation, Mr. Syfert reported that the road to the left is the right turn only coming out of the center. Mr. Kirklin continued you have a site plan, and we would build some type of retaining wall because of the difference in elevation, and have employee parking in this area. Based on our experience, we donít think that will add a lot of traffic to the area, approximately two or three cars per hour would go through the business. Q Lube is owned by Quaker State; we own about 450 sites through the United States.

Mr. Shvegzda reported if anybody has exited from the driveway of Wal-Mart, Kemper Commons Circle, we have a problem with people recognizing that there is traffic coming from the right. There is a close proximity of two driveways, and we believe this would compound the problem, and feel the Thoroughfare Plan indicated one driveway permitted per property, unless it is over a certain size frontage. We feel in this particular location, one driveway is all that could safely be accommodated.

Mr. Galster said when you say the drive that doesnít recognize traffic from the right, is that the drive that goes straight back to the Wal-Mart entrance? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this.

Mr. Wilson commented I was looking at the diagram, and we re talking about 4,000 gallons of oil at that location. Is that considered an excessive amount for the type of business you will be doing? Mr. Kirklin responded Iím not sure where that number came from. According to the fire code, we can actually store about 13,000 gallons in the building. In the past, that has been underground storage, and there are some problems with contamination. Mr. Wilson responded so you feel you have taken all the necessary precautions to eliminate possible contamination? Mr. Kirklin answered that he had.

Mr. McErlane reported that because this is a PUD, the setbacks are set out in the covenants for Tri-County Commons, and the building setbacks comply . The only setback that does not comply with the covenants is through the drive area on the south side where it shows 0 setback. The covenants spell out a 5 foot setback and this deviation from that would require a modification to the covenants.





Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirteen


Mr. McErlane continued our Zoning Code doesnít really address this type of use, but based on the building area, nine parking spaces would be required and five are shown outside the two bays, plus the intent is to queue the customers up into the drive. Personally I donít think parking will be a problem. Also, we have no details on the free standing sign shown on the plan.

Mr. Syfert said you heard Mr. Shvegzda indicate that two drives that close to that intersection is not good planning. Do you have any comment on that? Is there another way to address this issue? Mr. Kirklin answered Iím sure there is. The only reason we showed two was because of the difference in elevation, but we fill figure that out. Mr. Okum said the second drive you show to the west side; does it dead end into the hillside? Mr. Kirklin answered yes, that is for employee parking. Mr. Okum wondered what would keep the customers from driving into that driveway. Mr. Syfert commented he just indicated that he would work with us in making it one drive. Mr. Kirklin said since he asked for that, we will work out a way to do it.

Mr. Okum asked the height of the retaining wall. Mr. Kirklin responded not exactly; it will be in the six to eight foot area we think. Mr. Okum asked the type of retaining wall and Mr. Kirklin reported it would be an interlocking block. You see them on some of them underneath overpasses on the interstate. There are two or three types of block.

Mr. Okum asked the building material, and Mr. Kirklin stated it is steel framework with aluminum panels. The steel framework is set in place and panels are set into open framework; the panels are five inch thick with insulation and steel on the exterior. Mr. Okum asked the color and Mr. Kirklin answered it is white. Mr. Okum wondered if they would consider a masonry building, and Mr. Kirklin stated we have built masonry buildings when we were asked to fit in a little better. Mr. Okum commented you have a restaurant on he other side of that exit that is a drivitt stucco finish with soft group of colors, and you are looking to put something very stark directly adjacent to that property. I think that is a little bit strong, considering that site and what everyone sees. He asked about the canopy on the top, wondering if it were the same as the one used in Forest Park. Mr. Kirklin stated it is very similar to that; there are refinements, and it is a little bit better. Mr. Okum wondered if it were illuminated, and Mr. Kirklin indicated that it was. Mr. Okum asked if it were downlit or the unit itself, and Mr. Kirklin stated there is a little bit of light that comes out; most of the light is down. Mr. Okum asked about the material of the rounded portion, and Mr. Kirklin reported it is a aluminum composite material that is not translucent. The facade is about 60 inches tall.

Mr. Okum commented I guess you understand that the grade falls away, and your building will probably set totally below Kemper Road. So when people drive down Kemper Road, they look at the top of your roof. Mr. Kirklin stated we feel they will see part of the building and the roof. Mr. Okum commented mostly the roof; have you taken that into consideration in your design? Mr. Kirklin reported our basic design hasnít really changed for this specific site. Mr. Okum said since this is preliminary, I would suggest that you take that into consideration, because this member will be very critical of that. That is what people are going to see when they look at your building, and that is what people look at when they look onto that site.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Fourteen


Mr. Syfert added this Planning Commission is very sensitive to that issue. Mr. Kirklin stated you wonít see anything up there; the facade hides it. Mr. Okum commented I would say you would see the back side of the facade from the other side. Iím certainly sensitive to the material on the building, and Iím not very happy about a steel paneled building painted white going on that site.

Mr. Tiffany wondered if this were concept discussion or approval, so weíre not looking for a vote, but weíre looking for comments. Mr. Syfert said this was to be a discussion tonight; was that your understanding? Mr. Kirklin answered I didnít know what to expect. Mr. McErlane stated it lacked preliminary grades for preliminary plan approval. Mr. Syfert said weíll see you next month, or whenever you get your material in.

D. Kiwanis Club and Hooters Restaurant request approval to hold an anniversary party 28 July 1996

Bob Daniels, representing Springdale Kiwanis Club stated we are a non-profit organization which has sponsored a girlsí baseball team, boysí Boy Scout Troop and has underwritten numerous scholarships for Princeton High School seniors. We have invited to participate in a motorcycle and boat show on July 28th, which would result in funds being forwarded to us in order to assist us to maintain these charities and sponsorships.

Mr. Syfert asked if the idea was brought before the Springdale Kiwanis and was it approved to participate? Mr. Daniels reported it was voted upon to look into the possibilities and see what the Planning Commissionís feelings were about it. Mr. Syfert asked if other of the Kiwanis Clubs throughout the country do you do this in conjunction with Hooters at other locations. Mr. Daniels said not to my knowledge, but I donít know. We have been involved in other activities with Hooters, but not one of this nature.

Jennifer Zmerk, Regional Promotions Supervisor for Hooters and Remingtons stated we wanted to present a tentative itinerary to get approval to do some of these events. She passed out the tentative itinerary. We need to hear your opinion on this. Mr. Art Tudor added we need to know what types of permits we need. I know we need to get city approval to hang temporary banners, but if there are festival permits, we need to discuss those and get the proper applications.

Mr. Rick Fedeya added also if there are other concerns we would table it until next month. If you tell us what we need to take care of, we could have solutions next month. Mr. Tudor said we have a plan pulled together in terms of security and parking. Mr. Syfert asked him to share that with the Commission.

Mr. Tudor continued Rick has addressed the Springdale Police Department and tried to solicit an off duty policeman to be the primary person for security. We would employ people to patrol the lot maintain crowd and traffic control. There will be parking available at the restaurant and alternative parking at Avon with a shuttle running back and forth. That is why he decided to do it on Sunday when everything around us is closed.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Fifteen


Mr. Syfert asked how they would direct these people to the alternative parking? Would they have to come up towards your parking lot and then turn around and go back? I understand the shuttle, but would they have to come up there to find out that they have to go to Avon for parking?

Mr. Fedeya responded if we had radio advertisement, we would tell them where parking is available. Mr. Tudor added there would be some people that would be going into the restaurant, so there would be limited parking there and if we have to run a valet service to accommodate everyone, that is an avenue to discuss. The primary concerns that we had were the permits that were necessary or any general concerns that needed to be addressed. It is to celebrate our third year on that site and a chance to do something charitable. We have done Big Brothers and Big Sisters in Butler County and the Kiwanis Golf Outing and provided meals for the golfers at no cost to the Kiwanis.

Mr. Galster said one concern is noise. Presently we have had some complaints not only from the people directly behind Hooters and Remingtons, but on speaker volume and paging systems. We have had these type complaints in other parts of the community in reference to car dealership paging systems, so it is not unique to your area. We will have a live remote from WBN with bands, so the noise is a consideration and a problem I have.

Mr. Galster continued the second item is parking. You are saying you will have a shuttle that will run from Avon, but even if you are promoting this parking option on the radio, 99.9% of the people will pull into Hooters parking lot and try to figure out if they can park there and will have to turn around and get back out onto the main road and head over to Avon.

Mr. Tudor responded that will be relatively simple. We have worked with the City and put up the Do Not Enter signs. The top half is an entrance/egress and the bottom is an entrance only. The way the situation would be is that they would be directed around a complete circle from the entrance to the left and then back out. There is only one way in, they will turn left and be directed out the other exit. Mr. Galster continued so 99% of the people will come in here, find out they canít park there, turn left at your direction and get back into traffic and head back across Route 4 and go park at Avon. Then you would shuttle them from Avon. Basically I see all kinds of traffic. A ton of cars will be coming in and going out; continually moving vehicles.

Mr. Galster said my next area of concern is walking patrons. As this goes throughout the day, how many people will decide they donít want to wait for the shuttle bus? When we have our Springdale Festival, we have a shuttle that runs throughout the city and those buses are running continuously. They claim we can get them around every 20 minutes but a lot of people wonít wait that 20 minutes. What happens to all the people that donít want to wait for the shuttle? Weíre asking them to walk across six or seven lanes of one of the most congested areas of Springdale. Mr. Tudor added on Sunday it is not as congested as it normally is. Mr. Galster responded I would agree that it is not as congested as at 5 or 6 oíclock on a Friday afternoon, but I think you still will get a high traffic count on Sunday. The traffic count might not be rush hour, but you will have a lot of traffic. Plus, youíll be having your people coming in and out and turning around, and that is where these people will walk to leave.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Sixteen


Mr. Galster continued the port-a-lets on the corner of Route 4 and Ray Norrish Drive are a concern. If in fact this is approved they should be somewhere else, maybe in the back. Mr. Fedeya responded in terms of parking, if we could have security and police doing those things, would that be possible? Mr. Galster answered my problem with having police there to direct the traffic is it will not flow, because they will stop and explain to every person. Right now when you have regular business day there, your parking lot is full, and basically what you are saying is that you are going to eliminate two-thirds of your parking spots and expect a banner day. So, there will be much more traffic, and all those people will come up here and have to be turned around. Even if we put police out there telling them where to turn, that slows the traffic down; it will create even a bigger bottleneck. If we had a lot right across the street three times your parking lot area and we could say Hooters Parking, that would not be a concern, but to park all the way over at Avon is a major traffic problem.

Mr. Tudor said what if we can get approval from Cincinnati Sports Medicine for the complex, or even the Sheraton and run the shuttle from there? Mr. Galster responded that would be more acceptable from a traffic point, because we wouldnít have people trying to walk across Route 4. Mr. Tudor said as far as parking, Iím sure we could work something out. We have leased those spots for three years now and on a Sunday when they have no business there, if we provide the security for the lot, they probably would have no difficulty letting us use those almost 200 parking spots.

Mr. Galster wondered about the volume of the WEBN remote and Mr. Tudor answered there is no volume. They talk on the radio and there is some minor feedback. Mr. Galster continued I assume we have some major speakers set up for the blues band. You know my concerns, and I will let it go at that.

Mr. Young said a different concern would be making sure somebody is picking up after these patrons. They will walk with plastic beer containers back to their cars, so that issue has to be addressed. Also, I think you are better off staying on that side if possible because there are no sidewalks on Crescentville Road; they would walk in the street and you would have a real safety problem.

Mr. Tudor stated as far as the trash issue, we assume full responsibility for that. We maintain our lot, and with proper security set up, nobody will be leaving with beer anyway. Mr. Young said maybe you donít think that will happen, but trust me it will happen. Mr. Fedeya added we would hire somebody to pick up, and it would be ongoing.

Mr. Young added and I think you need to take a look at the safety aspect, because that will be a big issue. You said it will be on Sunday and traffic flow isnít as great, but you are creating it. You will publicize this. People will be trying to park on the streets, and you will have to be prepared for these kinds of things, because people want to get to the festival.

Mr. Syfert wondered if they had discussed the parking issue with the city Police Department, and Mr. Fedeya reported that they had talked to them, wanting to hire police officers to direct traffic, and they said they wanted to see what happened here first.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Seventeen


Mr. Tudor stated if you find a couple of off-duty police officers who are trained professionals, they can supervise the remaining security we have here and keep it a safe environment.

Mr. Wilson said on the shuttle service, my concern is the number of vehicles and the scheduling of arriving and departing. How many vehicles are you anticipating using? Mr. Fedeya reported we have three vans that seat about 10 people. Mr. Tudor added there is always the Hooters bus, a reconditioned school bus.

Mr. Wilson continued you have the Blues Band playing for three hours; what about noise control? Can it be controlled so it doesnít go over a couple of hundred yards up to our neighbors? Mr. Tudor responded I think with proper volume and location it can. I am not sure where the band will be, but if it is on the front side of Hooters, that wall itself will block the majority of the sound. The sound would go towards the Shell across the street, and Iím sure they would have no problem with that.

Mr. Wilson said in terms of signage and advertisement telling people where to park and that a shuttle is available to them, and there should be parking a lot closer than Avon. Mr. Tudor responded I like the idea of parking across the street as well; it eliminates the need for a lot of things.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if Hooters/Remingtons had done this or a similar venture in other areas, and if so, what kind of crowd would you anticipate? Ms. Zmerk reported previously in Columbus we had approximately 500 to 600 people, and it is about the same size as this location, actually a little smaller. Mr. Huddleston asked how long in advance it was advertised, and Ms. Zmerk reported two weeks.

Mr. Huddleston continued donít misunderstand the intent of this question, but what is the motivation here? Is this a business anniversary celebration, a business activity that the Kiwanis has a minor participation in, or how does that factor out? Is this something that the Kiwanis can benefit greatly from, or is this a business activity with their name attached to it? Ms. Zmerk reported we are looking to raise in the neighborhood of $1,000 to $2,000 for Kiwanis. Mr. Tudor added for us it is more of a Mark Cravenseting venture to expose ourselves and our name and location. It is not a profit motivated event because most of the proceeds will be donated to the Kiwanis. Mr. Huddleston responded so you would anticipate this wouldnít draw more than 400 to 600 people. Ms. Zmerk responded this is the first time we have done this in Cincinnati, so I am not sure, but in Columbus and in the Lexington area, we have not had a larger crowd than that. Mr. Huddleston continued you will be conducting regular business operations during these hours also, so you would have your regular activities there. Ms. Zmerk stated the number I gave you was combined, both inside and outside.

Mr. Huddleston stated I would have a concern with public safety kinds of issues that have been deliberated here already, everything from noise control, traffic congestion control, pedestrian traffic, vehicle parking and crowd control. That almost becomes a police issue, depending on how significant that crowd control issue is. I think possibly given time this might work. I see a lot of problems and obstacles that you will have to overcome, but I am not sure that I see a schedule that permits that kind of time to work out the issues.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Eighteen


Mr. Okum wondered if they considered holding this down on the riverfront site, and Ms. Zmerk stated that is scheduled for August 25th. Mr. Tudor added this is more of an anniversary for our location. It is a celebration and a Mark Cravenseting drive.

Mr. Okum asked if the applicant were aware that the covenants for that site curtail any outdoor sound devices on that site as part of the PUD plan approval. Mr. Tudor indicate that he was not aware of that. Mr. McErlane indicated that he did not know that it was included in the covenants, but it was included as part of the approval of the plan. Mr. Tudor asked what that meant, and Mr. Okum indicated no outdoor speakers or music devices that would transmit sound. All the sound and music would have to be contained internally.

Mr. Tudor asked if there was any way that a festival permit could be arranged. Mr. Okum said you are requesting a change to the PUD. The people that voted that development in had an understanding when they approved that side that there would not be any outdoor music. Those wishes of those people go back four to four and one-half years. Mr. Syfert added to clarify, they are not asking us to change the PUD; they are asking for a special permit for one day.

Mr. Okum wondered if they would consider another location. The traffic is a big concern for many on this Commission. A number of years ago the Springdale Jaycees looked for an alternate location, and negotiated an arrangement with National Amusements for that whole rear section of their parking lot, where there is a traffic signal on Crescentville Road less than 500 yards from your facility. It was a broad area with a massive amount of parking in an entertainment complex area. I would suggest you think about that.

Mr. Syfert commented we have had quite a bit of discussion on this. I invited one of the residents who lives behind your location to come before the Planning Commission and speak his piece. Although he does not have a vote, I have asked for him to give us the benefit of some of his concerns, whether they be positive or negative.

Doyle Webster said I appreciate the opportunity to address this body, and I am a firm believer that boards and commissions should have complete autonomy. I happen to be the mayor and a resident of The Gables. I thought long and hard before I came up here tonight. The reason I did is quite simple. If a situation like this were developing in Heritage Hill, Oxford Hills or Beacon Hills, I would be there, so I am here tonight on behalf of the residents of The Gables, The Crossings and Springdale Lake Drive.

Mr. Webster stated there was a lot of controversy about Hooters going in on that site, and I can honestly say all in all, Hooters and Remingtons have not presented a problem to the residents of The Gables and the area up there. There were two exceptions. There were times when the wind was blowing the wrong direction and we got a real good smell of the steaks being grilled at Remingtons. The other thing that is aggravating is the noise from the motorcycles. The normal vehicular traffic going in and out of there is not a problem, but the motorcycles are a problem because they are loud.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Nineteen


Mr. Webster said I donít know how many motorcycles will be on display, but I would assume they would draw motorcyclists, and I think that in itself will create a lot of noise and distraction. You have a blues band and remote broadcast on top of that, and I think you would create a real noise problem for the entire neighborhood up there, not just The Gables, but also The Crossings.

Mr. Webster continued there has been a lot of talk about traffic. I asked Chief Freland to pull together the accident rate throughout the city for 1995, and rank the locations in terms of number of accidents. When you add Route 4 and Crescentville and Route 4 and Ray Norrish Drive together it totals 43. There were 31 accidents at Crescentville and Route 4 and 12 at Ray Norrish and Route 4. The next most accident prone intersection in this city last year was Route 4 and Glensprings Drive, at 31. That is how dangerous and accident prone that intersection is. I think we are asking for trouble. This year we have had 13 accidents (through June 9th).

Mr. Webster added also that is the only way that the residents of The Crossings, Springdale Lake Drive and The Gables have to get in and out, and we have 347 residential units using that one intersection. The traffic is too much right now. The City this year alone will spend in excess of $200,000 to improve that intersection. We constantly get complaints about the intersection; we have the engineerís office going to tweak the traffic light to try to accommodate through traffic going east on Crescentville; then the City Manager of Fairfield calls because the traffic is backed up all the way to Woodridge Plaza; it is a no-win situation. Then we hear from residents who canít turn left going northbound off Route 4.

Mr. Webster said the suggestion that Hooters has made of using the medical complex is great, but why did they just think of that? It is my understanding that those parcels are owned by six different individuals with six different medical complexes. Are they going to make an agreement with all six? Mr. Tudor reported that they already have a lease agreement with the property manager for the entire complex. Mr. Webster asked if that totaled 500 cars, and Mr. Tudor responded that is something we have to address. Mr. Webster said as of this moment, there is no agreement to do that.

Mr. Webster stated I am concerned, as Mr. Galster stated, about people not wanting to wait for that shuttle, especially if they have it on the other side of Route 4. Remingtons and Hooters will still have their normal business hours inside the restaurants so anything they pull in will be additional traffic adding on to what is normally there, and the traffic lot is not vacant on Sunday. I also think it is atrocious that anybody would propose port-o-lets at the corner of Ray Norrish Drive and Route 4.

Mr. Webster said last and probably most important is by allowing this you would be setting a precedent. Hooters is a restaurant. Their business should be confined to the four walls and their front porch. As Mr. Okum indicates, it was either a covenant or an agreement when the city allowed that restaurant to go in that there should be no outside noise. Why does a restaurant need to have a boat show? Why does a restaurant need to have a motorcycle show? If somebody wants to go buy a bike, go to Harley Davidson; donít go to Hooters. If you want to buy a boat, go to a marina on Route 4. The two are not compatible.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty


Mr. Webster continued when Hooters came in here, they bragged about their charitable events. One of the biggest things that the people up on the hill were concerned about were these outdoor activities and charitable events, car washes volleyball games and festivals, just as they are proposing here. They have peacefully coexisted with the residents up there for three years, primarily because they have kept their business within the walls. They have had a couple of car washes outside, but certainly no major events.

Mr. Webster stated I greatly respect the Kiwanis and what they do. They are a fine civic minded organization and a very worthwhile charity organization. But what will the Commission be asked to do next month? There are an endless number of charitable organizations in the city, the Lions Club; we stand in front of Krogers and Provident and PNC and collect money; thatís how we get out donations; we donít rely on a restaurant to give it to us. So what event will Hooters have next month or next year? What charitable organization? We can go on and on about the number of worthwhile organizations. I donít think the fact that the Kiwanis is a good charitable organization should be a factor at all.

Mr. Webster said in closing let me say that to date, all in all there have been no problems. Letís keep it that way. Hooters knew when they went into that site that it adjoined a residential area. There were traffic flow problems and noise concerns, and a parking lot event would not be welcome event. All I can do is beg this commission not to set a precedent here and let this business expand outside the walls of the restaurant.

Mr. Tudor asked for a rebuttal, adding it seems like that was almost an attack on us as a group. The boat show and bike show is not necessarily for a dealer or distributor. It is a chance for our patrons to have their stuff judged and have some fun. It is a fun thing for the people who patronize our restaurants and the other businesses in Springdale. Weíve done a lot of events with the Taste of Cincinnati and Fairfield and Indian Summer Days, and we have learned a lot about crowd control. It is a matter of negotiating things and working it out.

Mr. Syfert commented you have heard a lot of comments and a lot on the negative side I might say, but a lot of very serious concerns. Perhaps your game plan wasnít put together right; is that what you are saying? Mr. Tudor responded no. The whole purpose of us being here this evening was to find out what we needed to address in order to be able to do this. I see the boat show they do at The Marina in Fairfield and the car show at Blockbusters and they generate just as much traffic and donít seem to have a problem. Mr. Syfert continued what I am suggesting is that you put together a firm plan and come back to us next month? Mr. Tudor asked if there were permits they needed to apply for, and Mr. McErlane reported that we can issue banner permits almost instantaneously, but you arenít providing food outdoors, so you are not talking about a temporary food service license. Iím not sure about dispensing of beer from a trailer, if there is a special permit you need for that or not, but itís not through us. Mr. Fedeya said this is the plan stage. We needed to hear from you to find out which avenues we need to address and put the actual proposal together.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Galster wondered if this moved back on to a Showcase property, from a residentís standpoint, that alleviates the noise and traffic problem for you as residents? My second thought would be that you could still run the shuttle from there for the people who want to go to the restaurant and eat; just reverse the process. Mr. Fedeya asked about using the community center. Mr. Galster reported we have two major fund raiser events, the menís and womenís tournaments, and I believe that weekend that you had on your schedule was the ladyís tournament, but Iím not sure about other possible avenues. I do like moving it away from the residential area.

Mr. Wilson commented my initial questions were answered but Iíll bring them up anyway. Is the blues band a major issue in the success of your event? I posed that question before Steve moved the location. I was thinking if it stayed at that location and the blues band was not a major issue, that would eliminate the noise situation. Mr. Fedeya responded we internalize that; the noise would come inside.

Mr. Wilson stated that would address the noise issue. Secondly, Harley Davidson and the boat wave runners; are they a major sponsor? Are they donating funds because you are giving them space to show their wares? Ms. Zmerk answered no. Mr. Tudor added that was the draw to pull more people in. It is not so much Harley-Davidson donating, it is individuals bringing in their custom motor cycles and things like that. Hooters is a sports place so the boats are there for that reason. Mr. Wilson responded so it is not the dealerships bringing in products to sell. Mr. Tudor said no; it is nothing to do with sales.

Mr. Wilson continued Steve mentioned relocating the event. I would be a lot more receptive to that from a traffic standpoint. I have a concern about residents coming up and down that strip, coming out of Springdale Sheraton and your customers that would normally go in to eat. Maybe you need to look at another location; maybe across the road.

Mr. Tudor said it is a very viable alternative.

Mr. Huddleston said I would agree with all the comments. One of the discussion items was that we are not really changing the PUD. That may in act be the case by granting a one day permit, I think it tends to violate the intent of the PUD. I came here with a pretty open mind tonight, not knowing the full circumstance. I understand that this was basically a principal business and Mark Cravenseting activity. I think that is not within the intent of the original PUD and as such I would tend to be against this issue for the resident nuisance and public safety concerns. I think Mr. Galsterís thought that if the applicant wishes to take this off site and turn it around and run the shuttle into the restaurant is an entirely different matter. I think the planning process of this in 45 days is difficult if not impossible. If they can do that and locate a suitable offsite that the crowd and nuisance control wouldnít be the problem that it is here, then I think it is a great activity.

Mr. Syfert said based on the comments, would you like to go back and address the various issues? Mr. Fedeya responded we would like that opportunity. Forty-five days is a long time; all we need to do is negotiate with the cinema across the way to have our event and benefit both the city and us. Mr. Syfert said you have heard all the comments and I think you know pretty much the feeling of the Planning Commission.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Webster commented I think that if they would take Steve Galsterís suggestion and move it across to Showcase parking lot, that would take it out of Planning Commission domain. That is no longer a PUD and would not come before Planning Commission. They would have to work through the administration and the Building Department and get the various permits, and we would be very happy to work hand in hand to pull it off.

Mr. Syfert said we will still table the item. If it doesnít work out and you want to come back in, that is your right.

Mr. Young commented you have on this schedule an alternative date of August 18th. You might check that with the Rec. Center. In July are the softball tournaments; I donít know their August schedule.

Mr. Huddleston moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the matter was tabled to July 9th meeting.

Planning Commission recessed at 9:17 p.m. and reconvened at 9:27 p.m.

E. White Castle, 11575 Springfield Pike requests approval of proposed revised Drive-Thru Window

Jim Mundt, Regional Manager of White Castle stated we have been operating the restaurant here since 1973. In the late 80ís we added a drive through window and recently we renewed our lease for the next 30 years. We plan to completely remodel the restaurant. The basic building is in good shape but the fixtures are worn out and the configuration as it stands right now doesnít meet our business needs.

Mr. Mundt continued the current location of the drive through window in the back of the building in the busy period backs up traffic and the stacking in the parking lot sometimes backs on to Springfield Pike. We think that moving the drive through lane around to the north side of the building and bringing the traffic around the building will alleviate that problem. The Building Department indicated that in order to do that we would lose parking spaces and would have to adjust the inside seating to accommodate that. Also we have a problem with the sign, since pole signs are no longer allowed on Springfield Pike.

Mr. Syfert called on the engineer for his report. Mr. Shvegzda stated one comment regards the location of where the traffic is leaving the drive through window. Essentially, that traffic has to exit via Vanarsdale; it canít make the movement to go along the west side of the building. If it does that, it will be crossing the traffic . If traffic comes southbound on State Route 4 and turns into that site, in order for that traffic to access the drive through window, it will have to turn at the existing drive through on the west side, and circle the building. The critical point is where those two movements cross one another. The concern is that this would be a big problem area.

Mr. Syfert responded in other words, in your opinion, it is creating a very unstable traffic pattern? Mr. Shvegzda answered it will be an area of conflict with the different vehicular paths. The applicant mentioned that they are trying to remedy the traffic stacking back on State Route 4; I think they would wind up with that problem all over.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Galster asked Mr. Shvegzda if he saw any problem with the southmost entrance trying to be used to enter into the drive through? Mr. Shvegzda responded that would be fine if it were directed to be the only point that they could continue that westerly movement due to the fact that the parking is angled. Mr. Young commented but are they going to follow that; somebody will try to do it. Mr. Shvegzda responded that is a very good possibility. The driveway is certainly wide enough. I am sure there will be some signage there.

Mr. Mundt stated we can sign the driveway in whatever fashion. That problem is not unlike the problem we currently have with traffic coming in the north driveway off VanArsdale and entering the drive through lane. Mr. Young commented the difference is that VanArsdale Lane has nowhere near the traffic that Route 4 does. Mr. Mundt responded and both of those drives currently are two way drives, so you have opposing traffic now. We thought the circular pattern was the lesser of these two evils. The problem we have there is it is a small site; the building sets exactly in the center and we are limited in our options.

Mr. Okum said according to the photo, there is a grade change in the front. Looking at the landscape plan, it does not show any retainage along the right side of the driveway. Are you going to do a slope there? Mr. Mundt answered there is a slope there now which is fairly level across the front and then it drops off dramatically. Mr. Okum wondered if the driveway would need a retaining wall on the street side and Mr. Mundt stated the driveway will be level.

Mr. Okum continued you have existing stairs across the front, the mulching area on the right side where the pole sign is and where the pole sign is, it appears to me that you will not be able to get any slope areas there, because there is no room for it. Mr. Mundt said it probably will remain as it is right now.

Mr. Okum asked if they were changing the building facade and Mr. Mundt answered that they were not. The exterior paneling will remain the same and signs will remain the same. We are relocating both of the doors. Mr. Okum commented the exterior of some of your other newer buildings are different. Mr. Mundt said our newest building in Covington is a split face block exterior. Mr.Okum continued and you agreed to bring the sign down to a ground mounted sign? Mr.Mundt confirmed this.

Mr. Okum asked what they re doing to replace the green space that you are taking out by asphalt? Mr. Mundt responded we are extending the green space on both sides of the north driveway and into the parking lot area. Currently there is parking along the north side all the way to about six feet from the sidewalk on both sides of this driveway. We are extending the green space out here and in this area to insure that the traffic coming out of the drive through. We are losing two parking stalls here and several along this side. Mr. Okum and you are increasing the green space which will be landscaped and mulched. Mr. Mundt confirmed this.

Mr. Okum stated your refuge containment area gates are continually open. Do you have any plans to change that so they can b kept closed? Mr. Mundt responded we certainly can look into that. I canít think of any reason why they would be open.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Galster wondered if it would be feasible to put the drive through on the opposite side, the south side of the building. Then all your staging goes around the back of the building. Mr. Mundt responded we had looked at that design, but the White Castle engineers felt this was the better answer.

Mr. Galster suggested changing it. Instead of the back side of the building which is the west side having the drive through, make it the south side. The west side would be the staging area into the pickup window. It would eliminate many of the traffic problems, not only from VanArsdale but also out on Route 4. Mr. Young commented you could stage all the way back around this side of the building. Mr. Galster added we might lose some parking if we had to stage all the way back here. Mr. Syfert said who wants to have cars lined upon front of the building? I have a lot of trouble with that.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant where the order station is, and Mr. Mundt answered that it is on the back corner. One of the problems with this design operationally is the cars line up on the blind side of the building. The revised plan lines the cars up in front, and our people can see what is going on in the drive through lane. Mr. Okum suggested cameras like there are at Samís with a monitor so your people could see. Mr. Mundt responded that is not as effective as the visual.

Mr. Syfert stated I have a lot of problem taking what little green space we have on that site and putting another strip of asphalt in front of that building. I would be more amenable to the idea of putting the drive in window on the south side and eliminate that drive in the front. I understand you will do a lot of interior changes also in order to accommodate putting your drive through on this side. Mr. Mundt stated we literally will gut the building. It will be closed for about six weeks to replace all the equipment.

Mr. Tiffany commented my big concern is we have one restaurant that has a similar traffic pattern (Wendyís Tri-County) and the traffic flow at lunchtime is not effective at all. It is one of the worst mistakes weíve ever made; I would hate to see us do it again..

Mr. Young said I guess itís hard for me to understand why you want to run cars in front of your restaurant. To me that is unattractive. I still like the idea of putting it on the other side and running the traffic in a horseshoe fashion which helps eliminate this congestion problem in the back side. I donít understand why your engineers feel this is the right method; I would be interested in knowing that. Based on what our people are telling us with the conflicting traffic, I still think that is a viable option to go to the other side and eliminate that problem. Route 4, as you know is tough; and I donít understand why we would want to help create more of a problem there.

Mr. Okum wondered what would replace the eight inch tree they are taking out and Mr. Mundt said I donít believe they call for anything t o replace it. Mr. Okum continued I would expect a replacement for it. If you change it to the south side as has been suggested, that tree possibly could be saved. If you look at the site, it is an asset more than a deterrent.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Tiffany said my question is where does the applicant want to go with this. Weíve had a lot of comments, some of them not very good as to how this plan sets. Do you want to table this, go back and tune it up?

Mr. Mundt stated I think it would be best to table at this point and go back and revise.

Mr. Tiffany moved to table and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to July 9th.

F. IDI requests site plan approval for their Distribution Building B at the Northwest Business Center, 12100 Northwest Boulevard

Ken Smith stated in 1994 we came in for approval of our first building at Northwest Business Center. We received approval and constructed that building, which is now 40% leased, and we have contracts for another 3000 square feet of the building so we will finish that building out. At this time, we are ready to start building our second building across the street. When we first came to talk to you, we did receive approval from the Commission for construction of that building. It was for 351,000 square feet, which is about 48 or 49% coverage on that lot. This current building is about 296,000 square feet, which represents 43% coverage. We are aware that the PUD and zoning ordinances set about 40% coverage, and we ask that you consider 43% as you did the 48-49% in the past.

Mr. Smith continued on the setbacks, I believe the PUD calls for a 100 foot setback. We have a PUD for this site which allows 75 feet for the setback for the building, and we are planning 75 feet from Northwest Boulevard to the front corner of this building, so it does meet the requirements.

Mr. Smith stated previously we had approval for the prior building of 55 feet. In the past we have had approval for a parking lot to at one point come within 10 feet of the right of way. Currently we are looking for that to be about 10 and one-quarter feet, pretty much the same as we had before.

Mr. Smith stated all in all the building is essentially the same building except it is smaller and further back from the street. We will meet the tree replacement guidelines that we agreed to meet in the original PUD. I donít know if you have seen the building across the street, but it is an attractive building and a good addition. This building will be very similar; it will be white in color and instead of the red accents, there will be blue accents. The rendering here is a little darker than it will be. It will be a little brighter blue and it will have the same sort of glass entries into the building that the previous building had, although we do have more glass area. It is a curved glass and a little taller, and probably a little more attractive than the building across the street.

Jack Pflum of Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum stated we reviewed the site plan and our comments are relatively limited. Our conclusion is that the overall site plan is acceptable. The internal site circulation pattern seems to be safe and adequate. One possible exception is at this access point where we think the truck access through this area should be signed, either with a stop sign or a yield sign so there is not a conflict between the two traffic patterns. If you could provide us with something, Iím sure that would work out.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Pflum continued the landscaping plan seems adequate; there is a good mixture of various types of planting materials. On setbacks and building coverage, all are better now than they were when it was originally approved. Theyíve decreased the building coverage; it was 48% and is now 43%. The setback previously was approved at 50-55 feet and now it is at 75í. Even though it less than 100í, I believe it is adequate. The only thing missing was the detail of the ground mounted sign, and I donít know if that was previously submitted or not.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that overall detention basins that you see that exist out there now handle the majority of the water. They will have some onsite detention basin to handle the difference between the major storm and the capacity of the storm sewer. It has about 17,000 cubic feet of potential to add to the site.

Mr.Shvegzda continued one concern we had is that the city has an easement on a driveway for emergency vehicle ingress and egress. The gate is locked and there is a question. We do not have the easement available for now to see how it is written on maintenance responsibility. It is a public emergency access. Mr. Smith stated it would be our responsibility.

Mr. Shvegzda continued it was destined originally for car traffic and looking at the original drawings and the subdivision regs, he would have to make up an additional four inches of asphalt to bring that up to commercial roadway standards for the truck traffic coming and going. There also is a future drive noted here. It is still unclear what that will be used for. The suggestion would be that it be approved without that future drive and have it come in at a later date. It also is a little unclear where the pavement types would go; it needs to be clarified.

Mr. Syfert asked the significance of the future drive and Mr. Smith stated that one of the keys to success is to have as much flexibility as possible. We have set up the building with drive in doors and provided two future doors, one on each end. Those doors are for van traffic or pick up trucks. They are not dock high, and they are to drive up and load or unload. We tried to maintain 250 feet from the intersection, which is required, and it is about 400 feet more than what is required.

Mr. Okum asked if he had the same access on the other building, and Mr. Smith answered they do not. That lot is more shallow than this one, and at that time one of the things we found is we needed flexibility, so we tried to give it to this building.

Mr. Okum commented I was not involved in the original plan approval for Building A. Subsequently there has been approval for the land on the south side of this building. That is not industrial zoning. This becomes a frontage on your building because it is on that roadway, and I would see that to be contrary to frontage, because that is a street there. I would consider that the front of your building as well, and I would not feel very comfortable with a garage or dock door on that side of the building.

Mr. Smith commented it is not a dock, but you are right it is a garage looking door. Mr. Okum continued and that is a frontage to your building. If I were making the motion at this time, I would probably request that be removed from the submission because it is a frontage and should be treated as such.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. Okum stated I have noticed the landscaping done between Showcase property and the rear docks on the other building, and I am a little bit concerned about how this building will be treated on that south side. Do we have a landscaping plan? Mr. Smith reported we submitted a landscaping plan and originally when the property was developed, there was a call for additional landscaping; because of the commercial zoning and office zoning, there is heavier landscaping. Mr. Okum wondered if it were in place on Building A now, because it is truly sparse. I would hope on the boulevard that it is significant.

Mr. Wilson said looking at Building B, I see future loading docks, future trailer parking, future parking. In the case of future parking, you are taking away green space, and I have a concern about considering approving this as is because that would give you the flexibility to in effect redesign your building without our having any say so on it. I have a concern about taking up more green space for parking and assuming it can be done by us approving this as it is. I can see with expansion the need to make a lot of changes, but I would rather you come to us with these changes as opposed to assuming that by our approving this as is, you can make these changes in your building and property without coming back to Planning.

Mr. Smith responded about the future parking, it is our intent to build these parking lots now. This parking will more than likely be required for the building. We want to put it in now because there is a possibility that it might not be needed, but it is more likely that this area would be. The area right here is less of a probability to be needed, but if we have a large tenant with a lot of employees, it might be needed. We wanted to point out up front this possibility. As far as the green space is concerned, we have 40 to 45 feet of green space from the right of way even if we would have to build this in the future, so it is considerably more than it would be in the normal allowance. I understand your point. Mr. Wilson responded my only concern is that you donít assume that you could put in parking space without coming back, and that you understand that whatever approvals we make would not be with looking at future parking or future anything which would give you the impression that you had the leeway to restructure this without coming back to us.

Mr. Smith responded it probably would be important that we point out that it would be much more than likely that we will be asking for this. Mr. Wilson commented you should make that in your proposal. Mr. Smith added if it were necessary, we would ask that you approve that now. This could come back if you need to take a look at it. Mr. Wilson said you are assuming that future loading docks might be a possibility or will be a possibility? Mr. Smith answered might be possibility. On the green area, we would like to leave as much as we can, though the chances are 50/50 that there would be loading docks along the back. Right now we are not going to put these in, but we might need them, and we want you to know that now. Mr. Wilson commented now that we approve it now; you would come back for that, is that what you are suggesting? Mr. Smith confirmed this.

Mr. Chris Limke stated these kinds of features are planned into much of the infrastructure. It is very reasonable to expect a very high probability of these things will go in. Mr. Smith added that there is enough detention to carry all this.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Eight


Mr. Wilson asked if more concrete would affect the detention, and Mr. Smith reported that the detention is designed for all this and future possibility. Mr. Limke reported the landscaping plan reflected this.

Mr. Tiffany wondered if the detention was dry and Mr. Smith confirmed that it is.

Mr. Huddleston said I would like to expand on Mr. Wilsonís comments. I do not share the same concern that they would have to come back here, especially with the forethought put in here. What I see here is an overall development plan that should not necessarily come back, as long as they do not change it substantially.

Mr. Wilson commented my concern was detention and they addressed that. Also, when you are changing the structure or facade that you approve it as is and give the builder license to go to the full extent to make sure we know what we are voting on and the parameters.

Mr. Tiffany said I would like to move to approve with the exception of the two additional drives and doors on the north and south facades, and that the applicant would understand that if the need arises, they could come back in. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Young, Mr.Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval granted with seven affirmative votes.

G. AT&T Wireless requests concept discussion of proposed Telecommunications Tower at 815 Kemper Commons Circle

Terry Shumate stated we are looking at an industrial site south of I-275. I also would like to clarify that although I submitted a conditional use permit application, it was my intention to speak as a concept this evening. I would like to work with you, and would prefer to discuss it conceptually. I am here to discuss this site and get as much input as possible so we can go back with the Commission input and come up with a plan agreeable to AT&T Wireless and the City of Springdale.

Mr. Shumate continued we have been in the Cincinnati Mark Cravenset since early October. We want to do a lot of extra work so that we can come up with a facility that pleases the City and would not only function well but have limited visual impact as much as possible. Over the course of this month, we reviewed a great many sites in the city, and we have finally come up with a site that we believe the city will like.

Mr. Shumate added the Kemper Commons site is a PUD and an industrial site. Currently it is a truck terminal and as much of an industrial site as anything can be. It is abutting I-275 and right next to an electrical transformer station. This is the site we prefer, and we think the City would prefer. We are planning on putting this next to the electrical transformer station and adding a fence to incorporate the transformer station as well.

Mr. Shumate added personal communications services were recently licensed by the Federal Government, and AT&T Wireless is in numerous Mark Cravensets in the United States. Personal communications services operate on digital instead of analog. The digital has greater capacity to handle the volume of calls that grow each year. I am sure you are aware that the cellular industry is overloaded with customers, so additional sites are needed after the original designs are completed.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Twenty-Nine


Mr. Shumate continued I know Springdale has been asked to accommodate these carriers. What we do is handle greater capacity and offer more efficient service. We will handle transitional voice transmission, two-way page data, transmission via fax but more importantly with the digital system, we will be a much more streamlined system, carrying a greater load of calls over wireless airways.

Mr. Shumate stated we are very excited about the Kemper Comons site. Very rarely do we find a good industrial site relatively hidden but which covers so many of our objectives.

Mr. Shumate commented Springdale is a municipality of residents and with this proposed facility, we will accommodate them. Springdale also has a great many visitors to the community, and those visitors will be able to shop and their phones will operate as efficiently here as in the next community.

Mr. Shumate said this is a concept discussion, and I need comments and questions so we may be guided by you with respect to this site. Hopefully this site is agreeable. I have gotten some indication from the City that if it has to be located somewhere, this is a good place for it. In the northwest corner of the parcel is the electrical transformer station, and southeast of that we are proposing a compound for a monopole (I have pictures) and our prefabricated equipment building, which is 12í x 18í. I think it would be agreeable to include the electrical transformer station in any compound we might construct, and the compound would obstruct the view from the interstate. We also can fence that in with our facility and landscape the entire area to make it a more pleasant visual experience from the interstate. I surveyed the area, and could not find any public roads from which that substation could be seen. I-275 would be the only visual consideration here.

Mr. Galster asked if 160 feet were required, commenting that is awfully high. Mr. Shumate answered the 40í x 90í would be for the greater foundation to accommode a telecommunications facility for more than one carrier. This could be a multi-site for any future use that might be needed.

Mr. Galster responded we are very familiar with the cellular towers, and I believe it is this Commissionís goal and their number one objective to locate these facilities on top of existing buildings. My question is from an engineering standpoint and gridding this out. If you went to two or three locations on top of existing buildings and at a lower height, wouldnít you be able to cover the whole City of Springdale?

Mr. Shumate answered that they would, adding that there is a problem, When we first came in town, we identified all the existing structures in the Greater Cincinnati area and within the I-275 beltway. One of the structures which we identified was the Sheraton Springdale and we went through lengthy negotiations with them and they failed. We went into it honestly and in good faith. We were willing to pay top dollar for that lease but it did not happen. That was the best rooftop site in Springdale, and without that structure, it would take a great many of those sites to cover Springdale the way it needs to be covered.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty


Mr. Galster continued if you take a tower 165 feet, lower it down to 70 feet and triangular it out to three locations on existing roofttops, are you telling me we can or cannot cover the City of Springdale? Mr. Shumate responded we can. Mr. Galster wondered if they had pursued this and Mr. Shumate answered yes, that was our Phase 1 project. Mr. Galster continued when you originally were talking the Sheraton location, that was the one point. I personally talked to the Tri-County Mall, McAlpins, and Lazarus, and they are open to discussions about having them on top of their roofs. Mr. Shumate responded our site acquisition specialist, Mark Cravens Cravens dealt with them as well. Let me ask him. Mr. Cravens reported I spoke to the people in Tri-County who represent the mall, and they were not interested in us locating on their rooftop. Another problem in Springdale is that there are not enough structures that are tall enough. We went over to the Levitz building across the street, and it is not tall enough. They have a structure up there that is tall, but it is not sturdy enough to hold our equipment.

Mr. Galster responded when you say you talked to Tri-County Mall, did you talk to the management? Mark Cravens answered yes, and the people who owned the facility. Mr. Galster added we have some names of contacts, I believe it is McAlpinís through the mall owner, and Lazarus owns their building, which is Federated Department Stores. I talked to Federated in Cincinnati and Atlanta, and they are willing to talk about this. My concern is I donít want to see eight towers go up in Springdale. I donít want to see four towers go up; I donít see the clutter in the landscape. I donít care if it is on I-275, Kemper Road or anywhere I am driving. I drive down 75 through Sharonville where they have the tower directly across from the Marriott. Have you seen that? That is to me the same height, and it is right across the interstate. It didnít make any sense to me to not put that on top of that building. Mr. Shumate responded we utilize buildings wherever we can. it is a cheaper endeavor for us by far, and if we could, we would locate the whole system on rooftops. Unfortunately, the communities in Cincinnati all like to keep the structures low, and we do have height requirements. We came before you with this 150 foot proposal which would go up to 165 feet because that is the height our system needs in relation to the surrounding sites. You have to keep in mind that we are in Forest Park Sharonville and Greenhills, and the majority of the surrounding municipalities have districts in which we can be assured we are permitted. We do not have to go before Planning Commissions; we can lock down a site which is critical because we are under time restraints; we are under a Federal mandate. We can lock down the site and come to Springdale and say this is what we need.

Mr. Shumate introduced Bernie Oldhausen the radio frequency engineer. He can speak to this. Mr. Oldhausen reported that we are already facing sites quite close together to meet the objectives. There is a trade off between height signal strength and reliability. AT&T has very high standards for reliability and it is our intent to make the service reliable within buildings. People depend upon reliability and it is essential that it be there, and height is related to the reliability. Theoretically as you lower the height of the structure, it covers a smaller area in which you have reliable service and you need more of those sites.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-One


Mr. Oldhausen continued we trade off at some point when it is no longer economically feasible to deploy that. There are some ways that we can. If a wireless communications carrier comes in agreement with a utility and have access to utility poles, it is possible to use lower sites for many of them in a way that is not so obtrusive and obtain the desired coverage. We donít have such an agreement with any of the utilities. We are dependent upon choosing sites with minimum impact and the necessary height to provide the reliability.

Mr. Galster said you donít have an arrangement with the utility companies now; is this something you would continue to pursue? Mr. Oldenhausen responded not actively. In other words we have been successful in reaching those agreements but it is not always possible. We have pursued it. Ideally we have a site with zero visual impact that meets engineering requirements. I look for sites that would minimize that impact, and we also design the monopole structure. You mentioned the structure across from the Marriott. I also contacted that Marriott and carefully scrutinized the Sheraton Springdale structure. I have chosen another location very close to that structure. We attempt to minimize visual impact by minimizing that structure, its height and dimensions and maintaining the antennas as small as possible. They are quite small about 40 inches tall. That structure is a co-located facility; there are two cellular providers on that tower. Interestingly enough, if you drive on I-275 there is a very tall light pole and I had to look very closely to determine if they were lights on that pole. There are a lot of light poles that are roughly the same height. Iím not saying it becomes invisible, but in an environment where there are existing pole light poles in the order of 100 feet..Furthermore, we are designing these sites to accommodate other wireless providers. We are being very aggressive about that, because we are providing mechanism to our competitors to also provide high quality service. It is highly desirable to locate our competitors on the same facility and we are willing to do that. Mr. Galster commented we would love to come up with three buildings that everybody could go on top of, cover the whole city and nobody would see it.

Mr. Larry Bergman stated I know nothing about engineering and I think they are ugly poles and I donít think you can make them look like trees, but I am involved in this as an agent for Springdale Kemper Associates. Mark Cravens had said he was having difficulty finding locations inTri-County, and I came up with this idea, a building kind of hidden away. In fact the west end is down in a hole. It is not that visible. You do see the transformers off to the side. Maybe that would be a good alternative over there. The highway elevations are pretty considerable, and I think they really should come back and describe what you can see. On the top of buildings, you would see these antennae, or you can look down in a hole. This is down in a hole, and I thought maybe this would be a good alternative. I agree with you; as Planning Commission you are trying to do the best you can to protect the public, and you donít want to look at these things. You also want to provide service to the community and I thought this could be a great alternative. I do think the elevations are an important issue. I donít know whether elevations affect your engineering; I donít know whether the tower is any taller because of it being in a hole, but I thought this was something to point out. If it doesnít, this could be a good alternative for you to consider. I am only talking about this site, but we would be willing to place it wherever it makes sense.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Two


Mr. Galster stated we had a previous applicant come in with a 150 to

160 foot pole originally and we moved it 100 yards at the most and he came down to 75 feet. Instead of looking at one tower 165 feet tall, why not look at trying to fine two three four or five locations in the city, Iím looking for somebody who can map it out and tell me that these tops of buildings in Springdale will cover the whole city.

Mr. Bergman stated I asked about rooftops in the downtown areas and the engineerís concern is the roofload, putting their equipment on the roof. Mr. Galster responded I am not recommending putting the equipment on the roof; I can put it on the ground and run the wire down to the ground. Mr.Cravens reported I drew a large circle of the area that needs to be covered. One of the important objectives is to provide reliable service in and around the mall, and I hounded him about providing me with options in this area. We drove through the area several times. It may be possible to select some rooftop locations to provide reliability, but it is also necessary to have willing lessors. We had difficulty finding the lessors for any locations nearby, so it is difficult to find both the willing lessor and the desirable location. In fact, that is what we do have on this site. Mr. Galster commented except you do not have a building to put it on. Mr. Galster said we have names and numbers of people who are willing to discuss this, like the Financial Center. Mr. Cravens stated they are not tall enough.

Mr. Shumate stated effectively what you are asking us to do is spend six to seven times more to cover Springdale than we do any other municipality by putting equipment on multiple structures as opposed to one which is a modest monopole compared to some of the other ones that we are putting in. It is a modest structure, centrally located that covers so many objectives, and it is cost effective. We are not opposed o spending money for six sites to cover Springdale, and then to manipulate the surrounding design to accommodate the microcosmic design in Springdale. But, I want you to know that you are costing us a great deal of money compared to what we spend anywhere else to build the design that works.

Mr.Galster responded I understand that, but I also donít think that it takes six sites. Springdale is only how big, and if you came up with two or three areas based on 65 foot height. The building could be 50 feet tall with a 15 foot pole on it.


Mr. Cravens said I am interested in any alternatives that are available, but I think AT&T has been very rigorous in attempting to identify those alternatives, and we have not been successful in doing that. Mr. Galster asked what happened to the Sheraton? Mr. Cravens responded I rejected it on the basis of the radio tests. We have different frequencies than cellular, and our given distance was approximately one-tenth of the signal strength. As a result, we do need to put the sites closer together and taller to achieve similar reliabilities. We already have a very high cell density in the area, and we are building this to accommodate the other provider, so we are consolidating the impact of one location. For the businesses along Kemper Road and Route 4 we will have excellent penetration of the signal into the buildings to enhance reliability. It would be possible to look for the rooftops, but you would not have the advantage of looking on structures penetrating roofs, penetrating glass of the mall. It is possible this would not have the reliability.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Three


Mr. Galster said you are saying you require a fence around the utility building. What if the cables were underground; would you still need the fence? Mr. Cravens responded we still would need that to prevent children from climbing the pole. Mr. Galster responded I think the cable should go underground and eliminate the fence. I think the base of this unit with a trailer parked on it and fence around it is very distracting. You particular site may be less visible, but we are talking about establishing a standard in the community. I would like to see the fence gone. Mr. Cravens stated I think it would be possible to do that.

Mr. Galster continued I would like to look at the building material of the building itself as opposed to a semi-trailer type of shed. I would suggest a brick building; we have a picture of the one proposed last time which as far as the building went was very attractive. I want to pursue for as long as I can getting on top of the rooftops, because I think that is the best alternative for the city in the long run, for not only you people, but everybody else that comes on down the line. We would be more than happy to show you the names and numbers of the people that have been willing to negotiate.

Mr. Syfert said since we are here for concept discussion, I would like to move on to some of the other members.

Mr. Wilson asked the normal distance between these monopoles. Mr. Cravens said two or three miles. Mr.Wilson said so conceivably we could have a monopole every two or three miles along I-275. Therefore as the number officers increases, so do the number of monopoles. Will they come closer together as the need increases? Mr. Cravens reported there are fundamental limitations in putting them closer together; there can be resulting interference, so there are limits on the closeness.

Mr. Wilson wondered if we are to assume that only one pole is needed at this time for the entire City of Springdale? Mr. Cravens confirmed this, adding for the long foreseeable future, it is AT&Tís intent to build the system to support growth for a long time to come. It combines with the digital technology we are using to give us three times the number of channels for a given amount of radio frequency spectrum, combined with an infrastructure like this provides a long term growth capability. Mr. Wilson said so one pole will cover the City, but you will have a pole about every two miles circumventing I-275. Mr. Cravens confirmed this, adding it would be the only site in the City of Springdale. .

Mr. Okum asked the above sea level height of the lightheads on I-275 adjacent to where you want to put this monopole? Mr. Shumate responded our tower would be very close to the height of the light poles on I-275. Mr. Okum said you said this one monopole would be able to handle one more digital system. What is the maximum number of cellular transmitting heads that this tower could accommodate? Mr. Cravens responded we could design to accommodate all other licenses, a total of three. Mr. Okum commented it seems like the cellular heads and the heads I have seen on your drawings are very similar. So you are saying if you put this one monopole there, and another company wants to use your pole, there are limitations to what your pole can hold; three, maybe four systems.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Four


Mr. Shumate reported there arenít many licensees. Mr. Okum responded for your type of system, but you have to realize that we have all these people who want to come into the community, and I see these monsters and these chain link fences with barbed wire on them all around. Mr. Shumate stated the important consideration is to design originally the ultimate wind load capacity for all the services you think would be reasonable to accommodate.

Mr. Tiffany confirmed that the proposed building would be 40í x90í. Mr. Shumate answered that is the compound. The shelter is 12í x 18í. Mr.Tiffany continued so you are going 40í x 90í to allow other shelters to be built within the compound, and you can fit three carriers on the pole and in the compound.

Mr. Tiffany commented Century Boulevard is probably sixty feet higher in elevation. Letís say you put the same tower in that vicinity; would it do the same thing for you? Mr. Cravens responded that is a potentially attractive location also. Mr. Tiffany continued the reason I ask is that is not a residential area; it is not a heavily traveled area back off Kemper to the south. If you go back clear to the end of Century Boulevard, it is basically light industrial and business. The Vineyard Church are proposing to build a large complex back there, and they have a lot of extra land as part of their deal. It may be an ideal situation for that. Mr. Cravens responded I am always interested in any alternatives. Mr. Tiffany continued with the increase in elevation, you might be able to get in with a slightly lower tower; it is away from everybody seeing it back in there; there are a lot of trees to block it in, and it may be to the churchís advantage to look at a lease option. Mr. Cravens responded I would have to analyze it further to determine the possibilities there. If we can have available to us a list of any sites that are available, we can show you what our efforts are and what the lessorsí response is. We are willing to explore other options in the community.

Mr. Tiffany continued in terms of the fence around the facility, do you see it as a liability issue not to have the fence if everything is underground? Mr. Cravens answered I am not sure; I would have to investigate that. We would landscape around the fence.

Mr. Tiffany commented our understanding with a previous applicant was that when this digital technology came about, the towers could be much shorter. You are talking about digital technology on a higher frequency. Mr.Craven responded there are approaches being taken with small microcells on power poles. If you did not have an agreement with the utility, it would be impractical to go out and get the leases. As soon as you set up a row microcells down the street, the landowner on the next location knows that it is an essential location and the price will be astronomical. It depends on a blanket agreement with an infrastructure provider. There are fundamental business constraints to what is practical to provide this. We are spending a significant fraction of a billion dollars providing service in Cincinnati and Dayton already. We are being very aggressive about quality; we are trying to distinguish ourselves as a quality provider.

Mr. Huddleston said I agree in concept with other Commission members intent to try to put these on buildings. I donít necessarily agree that it will "hide" these towers. Unless you have an eight or nine story building, youíre really not going to hide much of that tower.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Five


Mr. Huddleston continued I think if you are looking for an optimum site in the City of Springdale, it is either here or across the road. It is probably more optimum here only because it has less line of sight visibility from neighboring properties, the expressway, etc. I also feel strongly that these towers serve a functional purpose in society today, whether we like them or not. I think you couple them with the expressway visibilities and the expressway clutter you have already in place relative to light poles and other transmission towers, I donít think you could find a better location than here or across the street. We have already rejected one across the street, and I feel strongly that this does serve the optimum purpose of what we are trying to accomplish. I think the stations are already in an area that has very similar clutter-type ground facilities, and adding these towers that would come within 10 or 15 feet of the elevation of the existing light poles and other paraphernalia along I-275, I donít think you can do any better. I donít think we can sit here and be electrical engineers, radio engineers, etc. I would support attempting to move ahead on this location, and I think these gentlemen have indicated that they also are in a position where they can be multiple service providers which should optimize our locational considerations where we are trying to eliminate and/or group these towers.

Mr. Young said since the demand is going up year after year, in five years will you be back here looking for one or two more locations? Mr. Cravens responded no. Mr. Young continued so you are saying that if this site were approved, it is the only tower you would ever bring before us. Mr. Craven answered I canít say never, but we have subscriber figures based on rigorous studies and road patterns. Combine that with the fact that we are approaching fundamental limitations of capacity with monopoles that are spaced a mile or so apart. The approach is to get intelligent networking, where you have a base station in your home which allows your same phone to function as a cordless phone. When you drive down the road, you would talk through a monopole, and when you get in your office you would have a wireless PBX.

Mr. Shumate commented I think the Commissioner was wondering if this facility was approved and down the road the facility was overburdened with calls and use, what would be your solution? Mr. Cravens responded

the way to get additional capacity now is to put microcells, small antennae at intersections, confining the radio signal by the buildings around it. It would not be to add additional towers. Mr. Young asked what the microcells looked like, and Mr. Cravens responded they can be a right angle panel, two one foot squares that go on the side of the building so the only thing visible would be a very small light angle piece. It also can be painted to match any structure.

Mr. Young said if there wasnít a way to put a pole in Springdale, what would your backup plan be? Mr. Cravens responded if we cannot get this, reliability suffers. There are some steps that can be taken to use larger antennas in a neighboring community, but other communities want it minimized also. Mr. Shumate added we would have to go right outside the borders of Springdale to get the coverage we need. Mr. Cravens added we already are close by in Forest Park.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Pflum concerning Anne McBrideís comments. . Mr. Pflum stated I couldnít add anything to this, but I would be glad to answer any questions.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Six


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said this is a concept discussion, and we have addressed a lot of points, and you have enlightened us on some of the questions we have had. Is it your intention to come back next month? Mr. Shumate reported we will study and review the comments made by the Commission, meet and discuss the situation. I respect the comments on the alternative sites and possible rooftop locations. I would like to come back next month with this site, talking about a brick shelter for equipment, no fence and probably a pole that would accommodate three users, ourselves and two future users.

Mr. Syfert commented one thing that occurred to me is if you are going to try to encompass the power station as you mentioned earlier, you have to have a fence. Mr. Cravens responded I assume that regardless of where we go, landscaping will be an issue. We will leave that in the Commissionís hands totally, even to the point of quantifying what type of foliage and shrubberies. I assume that would be something that the Commission and the city would like, to enclose and hide that substation from the interstate. I would welcome any comments or suggestions with respect to this site.

Mr. Cravens asked the Commission if they were trying to determine what the height would look like. Mr. Okum responded yes, and possibly a balloon the shape of it. Mr. Shumate stated we can float a balloon to a specific height. Iím not sure that has ever been done, but we can try. Mr. Tiffany suggested their doing something computer generated, and Mr. Okum responded that he felt the Commission needed to physically see something there so we know how it would affect the community. Mr. Shumate commented maybe the best solution would be a crane; the diameter of the pole would be the width of the crane. As Mr.Tiffany suggested, we can take 50 pictures at relative distances from the site and photo enhance those with representative structures so you could see exactly what it will look like, but your preferences are our mandates. Mr. Okum commented I think physically seeing it makes the difference.

Mr.Tiffany moved to table and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled until July 9th.

Mr. Okum said considering the late hour, I would like to move that Item A, Proposed Zoning Code Amendments under Discussion be tabled for this evening, unless there is a problem with all the planners here. Mr. Osborn said there is a real problem; we have had the whole staff here for four hours.

H. North American Properties requests approval of Home Place Expansion Tri-County Commons (formerly Marshalls)

Mike DePaul of Hixson, a local architectural engineering firm approached the Commission stating that with him is Lori Wendling of North American Properties. We are bringing a footprint modification and expansion at Tri-County Commons to accommodate Home Place, a new retailer moving into the Cincinnati market. The current shopping center is 333,140 square feet of retail. Our proposal would be to expand this to 347,248 square feet. This is within the previously approved expansion capacity of 408,267 square feet. There will be no change in the primary front parking field or any of the existing green or landscaped area. In addition, we will be adding 27 parking spaces to the rear of the shopping center.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Seven


Mr. DePaul stated that the current proposal does not impact detention or increase the impervious area of the site, and we will be working with the existing storm water system and through the building expansion, repiping a few of the downspouts on the addition.

Mr. DePaul continued there also is a loading dock that will be relocated and an addition added as indicated on the plans. There will be a minor four foot retaining wall to accommodate the grade change.

Mr. DePaul added the only other significant feature is that the front facades will be expanded and duplicated to the left of the store as you face what was previously Marshalls.

Mr. Okum asked the purpose of this business, and Mr. DePaul answered it is retail. Ms. Wendling added it is similar to Linens Etc., a home furnishings store with cookware and linens.

Mr.Galster said looking at the drawing, I canít figure out what is new. Is there a physical addition, or are you just taking over another space? Mr. DePaul showed him on the drawing.

Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant has already mentioned that with respect to square footage, the final numbers for the "B" space , the smaller stores, will bring the total square footage on the entire shopping center to 347,248 square feet, which is less than the actual preexpansion numbers. This still keeps us within those numbers approved on the preliminary plan.

Mr. McErlane continued on the required parking, they actually were in excess of the Zoning Code requirement so they are well within the required parking.

Mr. Shvegzda reported as mentioned, the existing detention facility will more than accommodate this small expansion. I just wanted to clarify that the additional expansion to the rear will not encroach on the drive area at the rear of the building. Mr. DePaul indicated that it would not. Ms. Wendling added nor does it go beyond the 50 foot setback.

Mr.Galster asked if the little loading dock area would cut off any access to the other little stores. Ms. Wendling answered there are two smaller stores where you walk down to them. They donít have loading facilities.

Mr.Tiffany moved to approve as submitted and Mr.Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr.Okum, Mr.Tiffany, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Expansion approved with seven affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 11:45 and reconvened at 11:50 p.m.


A. Proposed Zoning Code Amendments

Mr. Osborn reported that there are two legislative drafts. One deals with the Route 4 Corridor District and the regulation of automotive uses. The other deals with cellular communications towers.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Eight


Mr. Osborn stated that the cellular site issue is one you are aware of, and Anne McBride has put this together. Jack Pflum of Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum and Amy Gasser representing Wood Lamping are here to help with the review of this.

Mr. Osborn continued on the ordinance relating to the Corridor District, we would like to encourage consideration this evening, because we would like to take this to Council as quickly as possible for adoption and incorporation into our Code. This only relates to three changes in the current Code. We are talking about:

1) prohibiting overhead doors from being visible from the public

right of way or residential areas;

2) restricting noise on the site;

3) deciding what constitutes major and minor automotive repair,

and causing those types of uses to have the same setbacks.

Mr. Osborn continued with those changes, Jiffy Lube and those muffler shops would be adequately regulated in the Corridor District. What we are doing is saying you can be in this corridor, but here are the conditions. We are not prohibiting, but regulating, and we feel that is more reasonable.

Mr. Osborn reported we originally targeted for the last meeting and since then we have had three meetings and refined this Corridor District modification for maximum impact.

Amy Callow (formerly Gasser) reported that we discussed trying to prohibit some specific uses in the Corridor District relating to automotive services, but because itís an overlaying district the use permitted would be underlying. Part of the corridor is Motor Service, so automotive service would be allowed in there.

Ms. Callow added if you turn to the first packet, definitions, that is intended to replace the service station definition that we had been using before. This more clearly defines what is allowed. We have inserted the definitions into the zoning district in GB (General Business) so we are allowing minor repairs, filling stations, and sales of fuel. In MS (Motor Service) we included dispensing fuel in connection with retail. Mr. Osborn added we still will be able to allow dispensing of gas as an accessory use, like United Dairy Farmers with a conditional use permit. Section 153.087 has been redrafted to include our definitions, but the setbacks have not changed.

Ms. Callow reported we have made two significant changes in the Route 4 Corridor District, the overhead retractable doors and the noise regulations. Section 10 concerning noise is the same in all four sections of the Corridor District (A B C & D). It prohibits any noise from outside speakers and states that noise in connection with the business must be kept inside the building. We have generally prohibited overhead doors from being visible from any property zoned or used for residential. Mr. Osborn added for Subsection A, we would allow overhead doors to be visible from the right of way, but not from residential areas. In Subarea B C and D we restrict the visibility from the right of way as well as the residential areas.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Thirty-Nine


Ms. Callow added although we have not completely prohibited this type of use in an underlying district where it would be allowed, we have made it much more difficult for them to locate in the Route 4 Corridor.

Mr. Okum said in definitions, what about truck and tractor/trailer repair. It refers to automotive, but I do not know if that is broad enough. Letís say truck wash. Ms. Callow responded the definition of minor auto repair is limited to passenger and trucks, so the larger trucks are prohibited.

Mr. Okum wondered if automobile should not be changed to vehicle, but if everybody doesnít have any problem with it, I do not care. Ms. Callow said we could redefine to specifically exclude truck washes. Mr. Osborn commented these are definitions and we are talking about specific uses that are permissible uses; trucks are excluded. Mr.Okum commented that makes sense and answers my question.

Mr. Osborn stated if Planning would approve this proposed change for the Corridor District, we would like to move it on to Council. I am sure you are aware that there are interests currently looking at sites along the Route 4 Corridor.

Mr. Okum moved to recommend this portion of the zoning code change to Council and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr.Young, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum and Mr.Syfert. This was recommended to Council unanimously.

Mr. Osborn reported on the cellular tower portion of the changes, we will be preparing to discuss this further with you. The Commission agreed that this needed to be acted upon as quickly as possible and started the review.

Mr. Tiffany said I am comfortable with it, and I think it is a good step in the right direction if nothing else. On page 4 under Fencing, it states a maximum eight feet in height, but it doesnít give a minimum.

Mr. Tiffany continued the issue of putting it underground will be out of our hands. Personally if I were the insurance company, I would want a fence to keep people out of it. The other question have is on Page 5, directing that the towers and structures may be painted green. Will we have a 40 foot high green tower to stick out when the leaves fall off?

Mr. Pflum responded the paragraph states it may be painted green, so the Commission can determine the color. Mr. Tiffany stated I personally think we should leave that portion out. Mr.Osborn commented we can delete that.

Mr. Galster said on Page 3, what I was trying to propose was to get the height of the antenna so it would be on the rooftop and not look like a satellite dish. Mr. Tiffany added Anneís comments on AT&T indicated that they need to pursue options, and money cannot be an issue. That is a very goo out for the City. Mr.Galster added if we have to put a pole in, this was probably the best proposal we have had so far. AT&T has the resources to look at rooftops in Springdale.

Mr.Okum said in the last paragraph under B on Page 3, it should read "existing structures"



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

11 June 1996

Page Forty


Mr. Galster stated I do not think it should be limited to a one-half mile radius. These guys are indicating that they can move it more than that. It should be "explore all sites within the city"

Mr.Pflum reported that besides the high tech, this new system is a quasi utility, and they do have certain utility rights. If we try to be too restrictive, we either shoot ourselves in the foot and lose complete control.

Mr. Okum wondered if this ordinance could require that the applicant submit the technical data and visual representation to adequately inform us of the need. Mr. Osborn reported that Section A on Page 3 speaks to that. The Commission wondered how the City could verify the need and Mr. Osborn stated that a friend of his recently retired from the Communications Center and could give him a short list of technical consultants that the City could call upon.

Mr. Osborn stated on the fence issue on Page 4 "fence shall be a maximum of eight (8) feet in height", we believe Anne meant minimum, so letís change that; you can limit the height when they come in.

Mr. Tiffany moved to send this zoning change to Council with our approval with changes we recommended:

1. Page 3 last sentence of Paragraph B should read "existing structures";

2. Page 4, Paragraph D "fence shall be a maximum of eight feet"

should read minimum; and

3. Page 5, Paragraph F, the following sentence should be elimi-

nated: "Cellular communications towers and all support structures may be painted green up to the height of nearby trees."

Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr.Galster, Mr.Huddleston, Mr.Okum, Mr.Wilson, Mr. Tiffany, Mr.Young and Mr. Syfert. This amendment to the Zoning Code was recommended unanimously to the Council.



Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be present on July 9th. Mr. Tiffany indicated that he would not be here and Mr. Wilson stated that he may not be. Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr.Tiffany seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Commission adjourned at 12:33 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,1996 ________________________

William G. Syfert, President


____________________,1996 ________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary