13 JUNE 1995

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Councilwoman Peggy Manis,

Barry Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson and Chairman

William G. Syfert

Members Absent: Tim Sullivan (arrived at 7:22 P.M.)

Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum Klausmeir & Gehrum


Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. By voice

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



A. 5/10 Letter to Randy Danbury, President of City Council from

Steve Galster, Planning Commission recommended changes to

the Springdale Zoning Code re temporary signage

B. 5/22 Letter to "Zoning Commission" from Eric Novicki, 11729

Springfield Pike re parking and in service meeting held 5/19/95


A. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Tuffy Auto

Service - 370 Northland Boulevard

Mr. Syfert asked all those who wished to speak against the conditional use permit to come forward. No one came forward, and he asked those in favor of this to address the Commission. No one came forward, and he closed the public hearing.

Mr. Blake moved to approve the conditional use permit, and Ms. Manis seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Conditional use permit was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Final Site Plan Approval - Proposed Tuffy Auto Service,

370 Northland Boulevard

Mr. Rick Joseph of Jomar Properties stated you have the plan in front of you tonight; this is our third meeting on this. At the last meeting our feeling was the boardís biggest concern was the flat roof proposed originally. We have resubmitted the plans and put a truss roof on the building and submitted a new landscape plan with the sizes and number of bushes as you asked, and an elevation of the building showing a truss roof. On the other concerns, we feel we have addressed most of them, but we are here for discussion and final approval on this plan tonight.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Two


Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his comments. Mr. McErlane stated my comments are based on the zoning code requirements. Also, Ms. McBride has commented from he standpoint of the corridor review district requirements.

Mr. McErlane continued one thing we wanted to point out was that the existing building is a little more than one foot off the property line between the dry cleaners and this property. There is an exterior door

that comes out the back of the dry cleaners that we want to make sure that we have adequate egress for fire exit purposes.

Mr. McErlane added the Corridor Study also recommends stone or brick sign faces for ground signs. This one shows a metal skirt at the base, and it does say Planning Commission can allow metal skirts.

Mr. McErlane reported the exterior outdoor lighting is required to be cutoff fixture with downlighting to avoid glare. There is a lighting plan in the packet that shows building mounded fixtures, and there is a fixture cut sheet also. One concern is two of those lights are directed towards Northland Boulevard, and we are concerned about glare for the motorist.

Mr. McErlane continued there is a requirement for one van accessible handicap space which is not shown on the drawings. If this is the configuration of the site layout, we would recommend that this last space in front of the building be the van accessible space and stripe out the last space there for wheelchair access so that would also improve your flow through here.

Mr. McErlane stated there is no dumpster screening indicated, and the Zoning Code requires a wood or brick dumpster enclosure.

Mr. McErlane reported the ground sign is shown four feet from the right of way line. If you look at the plan, essentially they have eliminated a parking space on the south side in order to move the sign back somewhat from the sidewalk. There is a five foot sidewalk here and four feet to the ground sign. The zoning code requires 10 feet. In order to get 10 feet, they would have to eliminate another parking space. From a visibility standpoint, I donít think it presents a problem, but that would be something that would require a variance. The total sign area shown on the drawings, including the signs over the bay doors is 171.47 square feet. The maximum permitted for the site is 100 square feet. If those signs over the bays were small enough that they wouldnít be readable from the public right of way, we would not consider them, but they are 18 inch high letters, and would be visible from the public right of way.

Mr. McErlane continued at the time the city improved Route 4, they included this turn lane onto Route 4 and constructed a curb about three feet from the sidewalk on this property. I think it was to discourage traffic across the sidewalk and into the street that way. We are recommending that be removed in order to accommodate the landscaping. Also, on the landscaping plan youíll note it is indicated as lawn on the west portion of the lot, and weíre not sure what that is meant to be, but we would expect it to be seeded and maintained. We also recommend a ground cover along the slope to cut the maintenance down.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Three


Mr. McErlane continued the property line as it stands comes up in the middle of the dumpster enclosure. What they are proposing to do is purchase a piece of property back of Goodyear. We would require a lot split for that.

Mr. Tiffany said the 20 parking spaces shown, does that include the ones across the back of the property? Mr. McErlane answered it includes these three. Mr. Tiffany responded but not the others, so those are shown on the adjacent property. Are they striped? Mr. McErlane answered no, they are proposing to put that in as part of this plan; it is not part of their property there. For continuity here, they need to expand the blacktop across the property. Mr. Tiffany asked if there would be a cross easement necessary for that, and Mr. McErlane answered there are plans for cross easement here as well as one in front. We have not seen those yet.

Mr. Sullivan arrived at 7:22 P.M.

Ms. Manis asked if the city built this curb, and Mr. McErlane responded it was put in place at the time we built the turn lane for northbound Route 4 traffic. The patrons of some of the properties were using that as parking, and they were concerned about them cutting across the sidewalk and curb to get out so they placed the curb there to discourage that. Ms. Manis said weíve put it on their property, and Mr. McErlane answered I believe so.

Mr. Syfert called on Anne McBride. Ms. McBride reported on the site plan, we had concerns about the location of the curb cut. We felt there was a potential conflict for the parking spaces in the front of the building backing out while cars are turning in off Northland, as well as the fact that it creates a pretty tight access there for any waste removal trucks or service trucks that might be trying to get around that corner. We suggested that curb cut be shifted approximately 25 feet or so to the west so it would align with the existing drive aisle. I think the city engineer might have additional comments on that.

Ms. McBride continued the area west of the proposed parking lot is designated as future development. That property accounts for about .17 acres, and ranges in width from 53 to 43 feet. I donít know that you could even get a Rally Burger on that; itís pretty small. Unless it was going to be developed in conjunction with this property or an adjacent property, I donít see how that property could be developed, and I donít think it should be encouraged for any type of independent use whatsoever, particularly one that might necessitate an additional curb cut or anything like that. What we are recommending is that the property should be landscaped and the landscaping should be continued along that frontage and that area should be seeded and maintained for this point in time.

Ms. McBride stated we are suggesting that bumper blocks be added to those four parking spaces to prevent damage to the burning bush that are planted in the front of the store. We also are suggesting that the dumpster should be screened on all four sides; the gates are appropriate in this instance because that will face Northland Boulevard and anyone traveling along there would have an open view to that. We also are suggesting that the five foot sidewalk that exists over a portion of the property would be continued there on the other side of the access point.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Five


Ms. McBride commented concerning the color choice and materials of the building, understanding that for retailers such as the one looking at this site, it is important for them to keep recognition and they would want to keep the yellow and black, which is a national standard for them. We wondered if there would be some opportunity for them to go with some other building base color, maybe a warm gray or color such as that that would work better than the white and black and yellow, something that might be more sensitive to some of the standards set up in the Corridor Study. Those suggestions are included in our item number six.

Ms. McBride stated we reviewed the landscaping plan as well, and found the planting material generally acceptable. We did have some comments with regards to the size or quantity of the planting material used, specifically the one gallon Daylillies. If they are going to use those, they need to put in double the amount, or go with five two gallon bushes. With regards to the two flats of the Bugleweed, we felt it ought to be planted six to nine inches on center and it would probably take closer to four flats to do that area with any kind of coverage. We also felt that the landscaping material needed to be continued along the entire frontage of that property; it is only another 45 to 50 feet to the west, but that would provide continuity along Northland Boulevard and we feel pretty strongly about that. We made some suggestions as to how that could be planted in an attractive manner that would continue the landscaping that they are proposing. In a similar fashion, landscaping materials also should be continued on the east side of the drive; they currently are not showing anything in that location at all. In the northwest corner of the property, there currently exists some steep slopes and we are suggesting that rather than put a lawn in there which would be difficult to maintain, they look at planting either Crown Vetch or a wildflower seed mixture, as ODOT is doing in many areas, which gives you some color but is easier to maintain. They also found that the root system is a lot better in terms of erosion control.

Ms. Manis asked how much of the land to the east is actually theirs; is it very much? Ms. McBride answered it doesnít look like much. Our concern was that this curb cut should be shifted to the west and the landscaping should be continued in this area as well as in that area.

Mr. Syfert called on Don Shvegzda for his comments. Mr. Shvegzda reported on the driveway location, the concern was that right now you have some parking that would have to back out into the driveway where you would have traffic coming in. It is a very awkward movement. I know the intent was to utilize the existing acre that was there and modify it so we could get the proper apron flares in there, that they would be of such width that you could turn and not go on the grass, to do that and still stay away from an overhead sign support there. It doesnít appear that will work; we canít get the width of flare so it looks like the thing to do would be to move the driveway just over the line with the 24 foot aisle that is to the west.

Mr. Shvegzda continued one of the other things we will need to further review is the proposed spot elevations; there are none indicated, and it is hard to tell how it all will drain. There is a catch basin that was designated wrong. It should be curved around the perimeter of the parking lot.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Six


Mr. Shvegzda stated Bill had mentioned the cut up plat for the Goodyear site as far as the land to be conveyed. There is a note indicating that the west downspouts from the existing building have to be tied into the proposed catch basin on the site. We need the note to expand and clarify that the downspouts from the proposed building also are going to be tied into that. On the comments that MSD had, in the front of the building is a private sanitary sewer and there will have to be a maintenance agreement between the property owners and MSD. There is a note on the left hand side of the property that indicated common area shared by both sites. The question is what that meant.

Ms. Manis commented your traffic concerns are mainly the flaring to get in. If that handicap spot was put there, would you still have the same concerns? Mr. Shvegzda answered insofar as the traffic backing out, yes.

Mr. Tiffany said in keeping with Ms. McBrideís recommendation that we move the curb cut 25 feet to the west, are we okay with the sign support? Mr. Shvegzda answered yes, the sign support is only on the east side of the driveway. Ms. Manis asked about the right turn traffic lane, and Mr. Shvegzda answered we are right at the beginning of it here, so thatís no problem.

Mr. Syfert said with the roughly 53 feet of lot left there, if would not be good planning to allow a curb cut for that, would it Don? Mr. Shvegzda answered no, because at that point, we would have a drive in this area here and also a drive for the Friends site right here, so we would have three drives right next to each other. Mr. Syfert commented if the drive were moved it would work a little better, plus clean up a lot of problems.

Mr. Tiffany said the traffic lane right at the northwest corner, is that sufficient as far as the width for two lanes of traffic coming through there and for trucks to make the radius? It looks tight. Mr. Shvegzda answered I donít know about two way traffic; it is for one way. Mr. Tiffany asked if it were essential to have it two way at that point? We have parking spaces shown back here and included in this site plan. Mr. Shvegzda responded basically we can interpret the intent that the basic circulation would be in this manner here. Mr. Tiffany said and weíre going to post signs to that effect? Weíve got parking back there and people tend to leave the way they came typically. Mr. Shvegzda commented that might be something we would need, signage. Mr. .Tiffany said it looks like 18 feet; Mr. Shvegzda stated it is about 16 feet.

Mr. Syfert stated we have a number of issues it appears that we have to resolve for a final site approval. You might as well tackle them one by one.

Mr. Joseph stated Iíll start with the egress on the dry cleaners. We have addressed that concern, and feel there is a sufficient room for that door to open. We will be assured when we are building it in the field that they have the availability of opening that door and getting out. That is a 36 inch door, and with the measurement they have three or four more inches because the door is set in some in the frame. There is room for it to swing in our opinion, and we will assure that when we build the building that the door opens easily with no problems.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Joseph continued on the brick or stone sign base around the signage, we can comply with that; that is no problem. We can do something in that area with the signage and conform it in with the landscaping with some type of stone or brick. We would probably prefer to use the same material that we are using on the building, a split face block so they would all conform with one another.

Mr. Joseph stated concerning the exterior lighting, we submitted this plan showing one half foot candle due to the request of the City of Springdale; they wanted something like that. We have no objection to changing the two fixtures in the front so there would be no glare out on the street. What we proposed to do was existing fixtures; they are more shining down instead of out. We didnít believe that would cause a glare, abut if the city feels it is necessary, we can change it, especially the one on the front elevation facing Northland Boulevard. There is only one light out there, and I think we can go to a different type fixture which would assure there is no light spilling out onto the street or causing a glare.

Mr. Syfert commented you have one on the front of the building and one on the corner. I think those were the two of primary concern because it appeared they might be out towards Northland Boulevard. Mr. Joseph responded we can use a different type of fixture for those two, more of a controlled type of light.

Mr. Joseph continued there is no problem with the van access; we can put that space anywhere. Mr. Syfert asked why it wasnít shown originally. Mr. Joseph answered I have no idea; I didnít realize it wasnít on there, and also I am shocked that it wasnít brought to my attention before this. I donít know why my engineer didnít put it on there, but I didnít catch it myself either. We will put it in and in the location that the city sees fit.

Mr. Joseph reported on the dumpster screening, we have already indicated to Bill McErlane. I guess it was something else that was missed on the plan, but we do intend to put a wood six foot screen around there with a gate so that is something we have already addressed.

Mr. Joseph stated on the lot split, this is an agreement that we have with Dan Comer, to take part of that Goodyear property. He owns both parcels, so we donít see any problem with getting that property and laying out the parking the way we have it.

Mr. Joseph added we understand there is a zoning variance required for the ground sign, but we worked with the city staff and felt that was the best location for the signage. We did in fact move it away from the driveway over and take up one parking spot to put it where it is. We really would prefer not to move it back any further, because we need some visibility from Route 4. On the total signage, I donít know who came up with the 171 square feet, but it was my impression from the sign company that we had 39 square feet on the ground sign and the building signs were a total of 83.7 square feet. This is what you have in front of you. Itís still not 100 square feet, but it is very close. A lot of this signage is on the west elevation of the building, and we understand it wonít be noticeable to people out on the street but the customers already on the lot will see the other services they provide. So what I am asking for here is that you approve what I have submitted, which I believe to be approximately 123 square feet instead of 171 square feet.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Syfert commented we are off quite a bit there. Mr. Joseph said I donít know why, but if you look through your drawings, you have a copy of what I have from the sign company. Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane, who reported the ground sign is 47.67 square feet. There are two Tuffy signs, and they are each 28.6 square feet, and those three alone take you to 100 square feet. So the ones over the doors total up to about 71 square feet, and that is the excess. Mr. Tiffany culminated you may want to look at the plan they have here. They have separated each word, and I have a feeling they are considering just the lettering as far as the signage on the ground sign and the rest. That may be the difference in the calculations. Mr. McErlane stated if I use their numbers as far as the ones over the doors, and as far as the word Tuffy on the building, although if you look at the 83.7 here, it also doesnít include another sign shown on the building for a.c. and oil. This total also doesnít include this second Tuffy Muffler sign on the side of the building. In terms of the ground sign, Iím not sure how they figured 39 square feet. I calculate as we typically do which is the overall size of the sign. They may have taken the separate changeable copy and called that one sign and the Tuffy part of it another sign, but we take the entire thing. Mr. Syfert said if you take the Tuffy and the message board, you are looking at 7í 3 x 7í4 which surely isnít 39. Mr. McErlane commented I didnít even use seven feet for a height because part of that is the skirt. Even if you take six and one-half times 7.4-Mr. Tiffany commented weíre still not close.

Mr. McErlane reported the one thing I recommended, and it kind of goes along with what Mr. Joseph was saying, is if the lettering over the doors only serves the purpose once youíre on the lot, they doní necessarily need to be 18 inches high. Once youíre in the parking lot, 18 inches is overkill. Mr. Joseph asked what size he would recommend? Iím sure we can change that size. Mr. McErlane answered half that height or less. Mr. Joseph asked if nine inches would be acceptable, and Mr. McErlane answered that it would. Mr. Joseph stated we can do that. Mr. McErlane recalculated, and reported the total signage would now be 104.87 feet instead of the 100 square feet required. This is if we donít count the ones over the door if they reduce them small enough that they are not intended to be readable from the right of way. If we consider just the Tuffy signs and the ground sign, we are at 104.87 square feet. Mr. Tiffany asked if they still would need a variance, and Mr. McErlane indicated that they would. They will need a variance for the ground sign setback also.

Mr. Wilson stated some of my questions have been addressed. Another concern was the location of the sign from the right of way where it says 10 feet and you have it at four feet. You are willing to comply with that - the ground sign should be 10 feet from the right of way? Mr. Joseph answered what I said was we would be willing to go to the Board of zoning Appeals for a variance for that, and we knew that was necessary. I sat down and worked with your staff to locate that sign and it was my opinion and I thought your staffís opinion that this was a good place for the sign for both parties. Even though it was within the 10 feet, it still was in a better location than it was originally, and it still was visible if we kept it there. We only lost one parking space. If we move it to the 10 feet, weíll lose an additional parking space. I am asking that we keep this sign there, but we conform more to the size on the building sign by decreasing the letters.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Wilson commented there also is a second Tuffy sign that wasnít taken into consideration as well; it wasnít in your calculations of 123 some feet. You understand when we talk about total signage, that is signage that is on stone as well that which is illuminated - total signage. Mr. Joseph answered I do now. In the beginning, I was under the impression that we had to stay within the 100 square feet on the ground sign, and that the building sign was an additional 100 square feet. Now I have found out that the 100 square feet is the total signage, but I also believe that this Board can approve more than 100 square feet if it is within reason. I am trying to come to some type of terms with the fact that we need to keep the ground sign, the size and the location, and we need to keep the Tuffy letters. What we have no problem with is making the other lettering smaller to get closer to compliance, to give the city something they are satisfied with.

Mr. Wilson commented it appears that we are doing at this point is lowering the 18 inch lettering to nine inch. Mr. McErlane reported what I had indicated is if they could get the lettering down to eight or nine inches we wouldnít consider it toward the allowable signage, because it is small enough that it doesnít serve a purpose from the right of way. Eighteen inches obviously is readable from the right of way. So, if we take the two Tuffy signs on the building and the ground sign, we are at 104.87 square feet.

Ms. Manis said on the location, you have indicated you donít think it is a visibility problem from the street? Mr. McErlane answered since you can only right turn in and right turn out, the only visibility can block is the direction you are going in. If you include the sidewalk and curb, it is back at least nine or 10 feet if not more than that. Mr. Syfert interjected from a practical standpoint, you donít see a real problem with it? Mr. McErlane said no.

Mr. Joseph continued issue number nine addresses an existing curb that has been installed on the lot. The City of Springdale put it there, and we have no problem at all with removing that. Our landscape plan in fact shows five feet of landscaping, so it would include removing that curb, so we feel we have addressed that.

Mr. Joseph stated on the undeveloped portion of the property, we are willing to seed that and use crown vetch or wildflower mix on the slope, so that is something else that we donít see as a major concern.

Mr. Joseph reported the only major concern I have is the issue of moving the curb cut. We would like to keep the curb cut there, with the understanding that when we do develop the rest of this property, obviously we have to come back here for your approval, and if it is some type of use that causes traffic concern, then we can look at moving that, but it is our opinion that we are only talking about three spaces here, because one is going to be handicap. Any other time I have been involved in curb cuts, the cityís concern is usually to keep the curb cut as far away from an intersection as possible which it is, and as far away from the next curb cut as possible, which it is already. Although I can see where it is making the traffic flow in here a little easier, at the same time I think we are causing a little bit of a safety concern, not much, but it seems less safe in that location than where it is today for the main reason that it is getting further into the turn lane and closer to the intersection and closer to the other curb cut.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Joseph continued the other concern is people have to work in here and reinstall it, which is a safety concern in itself that seems unnecessary to me when the whole row of parking here backs out into this aisle. As far as the dumpster turning radius, there is a 24 foot aisle there now, and if we blank that out, it should be sufficient area for him, because he only has 24 feet anywhere else. Mr. Syfert commented you are not blanking that out - youíre making it handicap arenít you? Mr. Joseph answered yes, but weíre going to have to blank part of it out for them to have access in and out of the van. If there is a handicap vehicle it would be there, and this area is for ingress and egress to their van.

Mr. Joseph stated in my opinion, any time you change a curb cut, the people in the City of Springdale are used to having cars come out there at them, so any time we relocate it, we are again causing a safety concern. All of a sudden cars are coming from somewhere a little bit different. In my opinion this is a better location and when we do develop this if it looks like something that would create a lot of traffic, then I can say we can reevaluate it and look at moving the curb cut at that time. Actually the traffic flow to this is not like a drive through restaurant or something with a lot of cars coming in. Theyíll come here and stay parked for quite some time. It is not a high traffic use to start with. Although I agree we need to redo it so we can make ingress and egress easier, I donít believe we need to move it; the other thing is if we move it 25 feet that way, there is an existing catch basin there for storm water, and I know you have to stay at least five feet from that, so I think we would be able realistically to move it 10 or 15 feet.

Mr. Syfert said to Mr. Shvegzda that he indicated that they couldnít get the right radiuses now, is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda responded if you look at the drawing of the far side of the driveway, at this location we are looking at a five and one-half foot flare with a 60 degree angle off the back of the curb. People turning right into here will cut across and still be in jeopardy of hitting the pole. Mr. Syfert said if we moved it 25 feet to the west, what problems are encountered? The applicant just said you couldnít be within five feet of that catch basin, is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda answered we would have to take a look at it and see if it would have to be relocated or reconstructed. Mr. Syfert commented I donít know how much space is there or how close you could get to it, but if they were to move 12 to 18 feet, would that accomplish everything that was necessary? Two of your experts said move it 25 feet to the west. Mr. Shvegzda answered it would be a better situation, but it wouldnít be the best situation as far as access. Mr. Syfert commented but it would be far superior to what it is now. Do you agree with that, Anne?

Ms. McBride answered yes, Mr. Joseph made an excellent point when he said Tuffy is not a high traffic generator. Youíre not going to get a lot of in and out. What you are going to get is a lot of movement and circulation on the site, and thatís why it is important that the internal circulation really work well on the site, and thatís why it is important to shift that access point. Anything you can move it will be good. Mr. Syfert responded and it wouldnít jeopardize our right turn lane in either of your opinions? Mr. Shvegzda answered no, it is at the very beginning of it.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Eleven


Mr. Tiffany commented I would tend to agree with Mr. Shvegzda and Ms. McBride in terms of the 25 feet to create a nice flow. You made a point that the other parking spaces would be backing out into the traffic lane continuously as it is now. That is true. The difference is, they are not backing out into an ingress/egress situation, where people are coming right off Northland Boulevard at 20 miles an hour. That would be the difference. I would hate to see somebody pull in there and hit somebody in the rear end as they are coming in.

Mr. Tiffany stated the other concern I have is if we put the handicap wheelchair accessible place where we are proposing it so that the blank space that is marked out is to the west point, they are going to have to back into that parking space in order to have the access door of the van to the west. If we keep it as is, we have created total chaos, because in order to do that, they will have to go one direction or the other blocking a lane either way. If we move the lane to the west as we are proposing, traffic can still come in and out and they can move to the right and back in and only block one direction. Personally I think it has to move to the west to some degree. I understand your concerns with waiting until the future development goes through. Obviously cost is a factor, and curb cuts and new aprons are extremely expensive. It has to be moved, period because of the signpost that is there; maybe we can find something in between as far as the distance, but I do feel it has to move to the west.

Mr. Galster commented if I were going to visit Tuffy Muffler, I would probably park in those front three spots because they would be the closest. It seems to me that those spaces would be used the most often, so even though there might not be a lot of flow into your establishment, there will be a lot of activity right there at that location. I think the people that are used to using this exit are used to using it as that, as an exit. If you are going to the west on Northland Boulevard, and you are going to visit the dry cleaners, you are used to coming into the entrance before that, so this curb cut is not used to having a right hand turn come in there, so that post has never come into play like it would now. I agree; it also needs to move because of that reason.

Mr. Blake said you mentioned that in the parking area the cars will be parked for quite a while; how long do you think the cars will be parked there? Mr. Joseph answered when you go into a Tuffy Muffler, youíre either getting a Tuffy or a brake job, so youíll be there a minimum of 30 minutes, but a lot of cars will come and leave them for the day. The point that I was making was yes, if this were a Rallyís or McDonaldís I could see where there was a concern, because it would be many cars coming in and out and itís constant, but with Tuffy Muffler, weíre talking probably maybe 20 to 30 cars a day, all day long. Itís not a large traffic generator. So, I appreciate the concerns and I agree if we do something next door then we probably should move it, but the use for Tuffy Muffler is light as far as traffic goes, and it seems like a lot of concern that is not necessary. Also, we have an easement agreement with the property owner next door that the people turning left on Northland Boulevard are more than likely going to enter one of the other driveways that they are used to entering now, because the parking lot is going to flow continually through there. I agree that probably it should be moved at some time in the future when we do something next door, but what I am trying to do is get final plan approval tonight.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Joseph continued this is the plan, and I donít know that Tuffy will hang around another month for me to change this and bring it back. I was not made aware of the fact that it needed to be moved until today. I was made aware that there was some concern with ingress and egress, so I changed the shape of the apron and thought that it took care of the problem. I did not find out that it should even be moved until today. I still need somehow to get through this final plan approval this evening if possible.

Ron Pitman stated I represent the landlord, the owner of the property. In listening to what you were saying about a problem with the parking in the front, I think we may be able to eliminate that. I believe you have about 24 spots that are needed for this, Mr. McErlane? Mr. McErlane reported there are 22 required, and Mr. Pitman continued you are pretty close to that in the back. Mr. Syfert commented you only have three in the back. Mr. Pitman went to the plan, adding speaking for the landlord, if we can give him anything that would be necessary in the back to meet whatever you need for parking, he can have use of all of this because he will blacktop it anyway, and eliminate all the parking in the front. You have a curb cut here by the pole, and we could widen the width of the driveway rather than moving the entire driveway, make it a little bit wider at this location here so you can fit more things in and out and still have your flow.

Mr. Tiffany responded I guess the question is does the pole still come into play. If we just widen that, does the pole still come into play? Mr. Shvegzda answered we need five feet off the flare.

Mr. Pitman stated maybe we could take that distance, that five feet from the pole and go from there and go west from that point, rather than replace the whole driveway. Mr. Joseph added when we changed the configuration of the driveway on the drawing, I believe we did stay five feet ..Mr. Shvegzda commented but the flare is not wide enough, the barrel of the driveway. Mr. Joseph responded what if we use the flare the way we have it and move a portion of that curb cut west and keep the main part in place and add to it westward? Mr. Shvegzda responded so essentially we would be eliminating the parking in the front? Mr. Pitman responded eliminate the parking in the front of the building totally. That way you wouldnít have it at all and you wouldnít have anybody backing out. You would have the full width there. Actually it would be better than what you would have next door. It would come straight on out.; you wouldnít even have anything there. Mr. Shvegzda stated that would eliminate obviously the concern for vehicles backing out. Mr. Pitman said exactly, so you would only have it on the side, and you wouldnít have any conflicts. You would pick up all this parking in the back, and actually if you needed more, you could have some more I am sure; Mr. Comer would give you whatever you needed. The ownerís whole concern is to clean up this whole thing. As much as we can do, we will. This is the last lot Mr. Comer owns from Kemper Road all the way over. He owns all this property, so this is the leftover spot. You can tell itís chopped, and so really there isnít a whole lot of uses you can do with it. A small building like this would work, so by utilizing some of these dead lines in the rear, you can still get that but nobody else can have it. The cross easement that goes in the front which will go in the back also so if we had a truck or whatever was needed, they go on around here and come on out the back. There are several ways we could do this.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirteen


Mr. Syfert commented I suspicion that probably somewhere along the line, knowing that I have been involved with the development of this for 25 or 30 years whatever it is, that those spots in the back are probably designated parking spots for the buildings in front of them that have never been put in. I would suggest that is probably what those are. That is only speculation on my part, but Iím sure that was a part of the development then, and if it were, then weíre double jeopardy. I like your idea, though. I think a part of the deal in moving the driveway is the way it stands now we knew the access point had to be reconfigured and there was a lot of work that had to be to start with, so that is why we were talking about moving it 24 or 25 feet.

Mr. Tiffany said on the north side of the building, we have some lines drawn there to this property and the next section with five parking spacious, and then you have another line running north to south. What does that say? Mr. Pitman reported the existing blacktop goes from here to here. Mr. Tiffany responded the reason I asked is if we eliminate the parking from the front of the building, and we move those four spaces to the west, because that is where the handicap would have to be, nearest the door, ideally, you will lose probably four or five spaces there by the time you make it accessible and everything. If you lose the five to the rear on the adjoining property, we are still short, probably two or three. It is very hard to say, because nothingís sketched to show it. We have one handicap space in the front of the building, which takes two spaces, correct? So we have to move all that to the left basically. Ms. Manis commented eliminate those and designate one of those handicap, correct? Mr. Tiffany responded it basically will take two. Ours are nine feet, so we pick up two feet and ideally we could move the sign back another two feet to six feet at that point, so we would pick up two feet from the sign and we still have to get those four spaces. At that point we have three more spaces we have to pick up plus the two we were short before for a total of five. That would put you at 18, plus the handicap is 19, so we still have to pick up three more. Mr. Joseph reported we have 20 plus five service bays, so we have 25 and we are only required 22, so we have three additional spaces. Mr. Tiffany said is that true Mr. McErlane; they need 22 including the service bays, or 22 exterior? Mr. McErlane reported they need 22 including the service bays. Mr. Tiffany commented so they actually were okay before. Mr. Joseph added we only need 17 exterior spaces. Mr. Pitman commented safetywise you are correct. You donít have a whole lot of space; it would be a much better flow to widen that there. Mr. Tiffany continued then our only concern is the double jeopardy, if that is existing. Mr. Syfert commented which I highly suspicion. Mr. Pitman stated we can check that out.

Mr. Tiffany said as long as you are talking about the parking spaces, I think we have to take a look at that northwest corner and the width of that lane there at 16 feet. Maybe all it needs is one way directional signage. Where the dumpster is located, if we have a Rumpke truck pulling straight into that, heís blocked that lane there entirely at that point. Mr. Pitman commented I am sure Mr. Comer would put any signage required for that. That is the long way around and nobody I know goes the long way; they go the shortest way. Mr. Tiffany commented if people are parking their cars back there, and they have to come get them and put them in the service bay to work on them, then we have two way traffic, see what I mean?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. Joseph reported for the sot part that will be for employee parking. The employees will come in and they should park in the furthest spaces away. Those cars will set there all day long. Mr. Tiffany responded our only concern is from a safety standpoint; that we are not creating a safety problem with somebody coming back that direction and hitting somebody as they come around that corner; itís sort of a blind corner too. Mr. Joseph stated we can put a one way sign to help that.

Ms. Manis said if those are designated as parking on another plan, we have shared parking in a number of spots in the city. Would that be feasible for this spot, since Mr. Comer owns all of it and since nobody is parking there now, they obviously arenít used.

Mr. Joseph responded just one comment on that; my cross easement that is being prepared, and which Dan and I have agreed upon, in fact does give me the right to use those parking spaces after paving. I pay for the paving and I have the right to use them. It is something that he is giving me; now whether he has the right through the City of Springdale to give me or not, I have no way of knowing that. Mr. Syfert commented I just threw out a suspicion. Mr. Joseph responded it is possible, but I donít believe that is the case.

Mr. Pitman stated when they built the old building, if that was the case, wouldnít they have been required to put it in? Mr. Syfert responded I think there was some conversation when we developed the part where the cleaner is to move that drive on down, and Dan said no weíll wait until we see what goes on at that other vacant lot. I believe the minutes would show that happened way back when.

Mr. Pitman commented there have been things like that in the city though; if you think back on the code, look at Levitz; itís a classic example. You could land an airplane in their parking lot at Christmas. Springdale is sort of unique in the way they do things sometimes. Depending on the usage that you have determines the flow. A lot of it doesnít make a whole lot of sense. It sounds good and looks good, but in reality, theyíre not going to use that kind of parking.

Mr. Syfert responded regarding parking, we also had laid out on the plots parking for some of Linclayís building, and we allowed them to put it in greenery, with the idea that if it didnít work they could take it out, so it goes both ways.

Mr. Syfert asked for more questions. Are you amenable to looking at what has been proposed as an alternate? He asked Ms. McBride and Mr. Shvegzda if they foresaw any problems with taking the parking from the front and possibly putting it on the rear and leaving the driveway where it is? Mr. Shvegzda said no, but insofar as parking, we need to d define what we are doing here as far as widening the driveway to the west side and redoing the flares to get a five foot distance from the signal pole. Mr. Syfert commented there is no question that the flares have to be redone, and Mr. Shvegzda reported that was correct. Mr. Syfert continued and then whatever width is required, and Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this. Mr. Syfert asked if Mr. McErlane had any problem with this, and Mr. McErlane stated no. I think we would expect the area that is not going to be used for parking to turn into landscaping as part of the landscaping plan.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Fifteen


Mr. Wilson said with the changing of the parking spaces to the rear or the side, will that have an effect on water detention? Mr. Shvegzda reported on this particular site since the area is so small there was no detention required for it anyway.

Mr. Syfert commented I think we may have hit upon a viable solution here; it looks like it should work. I think we have a couple of other issues we have to address, one being Anneís request for a little more landscaping across the entire front of the property. How would you propose to address that issue? Maybe I should ask Mr. Pitman.

Mr. Joseph stated we do not have a problem with her recommendations. She asked that we increase some of the sizes which we donít have a problem with, and also I think an additional two flats. As far as the landscaping continuing across the rest of the lot, that is fine; we can do that. I guess my biggest concern is I donít want to lead this board to believe that I do not have any interest in building on the rest of this site, because I do. Again, that is something that would have to be approved later and you would have to look at that as a separate plan. As far as landscaping it, I donít think that would affect anything.

Mr. Wilson said last month Mr. Tiffany talked about the color of the building, and we were talking about white being considered an earth tone. Anne made a suggestion about using gray. Would you be opposed to adding a little pigmentation into that white, instead of looking like a White Castle?

Mr. Joseph responded we can add a gray tint to make it like an off white. I canít change Tuffyís colors from white to say the gray in this room, but I can give it somewhat of a gray tint and call it an off white. Mr. Wilson responded like a buff, maybe or light gray? Mr. Joseph said yes. Mr. Wilson asked Ms. McBride how she felt about that, Ms. McBride answered our comment was designed to take the stark white off there, recognizing it probably wasnít feasible to make it tan, because tan and yellow donít look too great anyway. We recognize that Tuffy has national colors that they like to hold to, but something to take that stark white out of there. Mr. Wilson commented just a little pigmentation in there, and you can show us that color before we make this final decision. Or maybe we just want to let him decide to add a little pigmentation and let it go at that, or what? Mr. Syfert commented he indicated that he could do that. Mr. Wilson asked if that were sufficient?

Mr. Blake stated I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wilsonís comment about toning the white down. My uncomfortableness is talking about pigmentation, and Iím not sure I am on the same wave length as what you are talking about. You say not quite white, you are saying gray; what color are you saying?

Mr. Joseph responded the color we originally proposed is a bright white, something that would jump out at you. Anne has indicated that didnít fit in with the corridor, so he asked for a gray pigmentation, which we can put into the paint to change that bright white into something not quite as bright - more of an off white. That is what I am willing to do, and that is what I believe I can get Tuffy to agree to. I canít change it all the way gray, but I spoke to them em a little bit about this, because I knew it would come up, and they said they would agree to an off white. We can accomplish that with a gray tint.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Sixteen


Mr. Galster stated I personally have a couple of problems with the texture of the building as well as the color. I did a little survey on my own, not only of the color, but also of the split block. To start with the color, I asked 17 people to name five earth tone colors. Out of those 85 possible answers, I got two off whites, which is only 2.4%. I also contacted paint companies and had a hard time getting them to give me an off white as an earth tone.

Mr. Galster continued that is pretty much a secondary problem, because when I read the Corridor Study, I see the statement that they want to have natural stone and brick. I donít read into there on the color part of it that they intend the colors to be painted on the brick. I did a little picture thing (he passed photographs out to the board members). I took pictures of all the buildings that have been built since the corridor map was done showing existing structures. We have eight buildings that have been built in this period. Applebeeís is a solid natural brick building, the BP Station which we can discuss in a minute, Wimbledons Plaza is more than 50% brick, Springdale Municipal Building is 100% brick, Provident Bank is more than 50% brick, Walgreenís is more than 50% brick, Store & Lock is all brick and the Lutheran Center is all brick. These are all natural bricks; they are not painted surfaces. The last pictures I put in there include the first two which I consider to be a stone look, which is what I believe is what the Corridor Study is asking for. The last picture is a picture of the concrete split block, which to me looks like a concrete block. I know previously someone had mentioned that split block looks like stone. To me it doesnít look like the other two pictures of stone. I think there is a tremendous difference there.

Mr. Galster added I think the city has done a good job in trying to build the corridor with a certain theme in mind. I think it is a theme that the residents want; I think they want this part of Springdale to have that homey feeling and brick is a big part of that. I understand that BP painted their brick. They are the one exception to all the buildings that have been built since that study was done. I wasnít here at the time, and I understand there were some long standing things with that particular project. I have a problem with this building being basically a concrete block building. I think that the Corridor Study shows that they are looking for natural stone and brick, not painted natural stone and brick, not something that looks like stone. There are a lot of different things you can do to make something look like stone or look like brick and have it not be either one, and I think this is one of those cases. I believe that particular area is a gateway into our city; it is the gateway for the residents of Maple Knoll, and we need to respect the integrity and desire to have the natural brick and stone. I think it is an attractive look, and something we should try to stick to.

Mr. Tiffany said Mr. Osborn is not here this evening. What was the response from the planners? Bill and I talked about this, and I guess the guy spoke in legalese and discussed it amongst himself in from of Bill for quite some time and never really made a decision. Mr. McErlane reported essentially when he was done discussing it, Iím not sure if he said white was an earth tone or not. He initially said you could argue that white is the color of snow but you wouldnít want something stark white up against some other earth tone building and that was about the gist of it although it took a lot longer to say it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Tiffany stated I too went up and down the corridor and looked at the buildings that have been built since the Corridor Study went into effect. I also looked at the buildings that have been there prior to that. I think one of the reasons the Corridor Study went the direction it did as far as the brick and natural tones, is that is the abundance of what was there is. I can only count four buildings, as we go from Kemper Road south that arenít natural brick or stone. Thatís the abundance of it as you go through the corridor. Again, it doesnít ask for the appearance of stone or brick; it spells it out that it should be stone or brick. Mr. Osborn made the comment at the last meeting that he feels this should be enforced. We are not here to make an exception to it, but to enforce it. I tend to agree. It is a direction we as a city took on and desired, and I think we need to stick to that. Ms. Manis commented I donít think you should bring it up. Mr. Syfert added it was off the record. Mr. Tiffany said Iím sorry it was part of the discussion in the meeting. If you want the appearance of stone and brick, you could put drywall up and wallpaper it to give the appearance of stone or brick, but that is not what we are after.

Mr. Tiffany continued I have a concern that I share with Mr. Blake in that if we go off white, this paper is not stark white; it is not White Castle white, but it is white and if you put it out there the size of a building, it is stark and it does have some tint to it. We donít have color pallets in front of us to look at. With this being a site plan, do they have to come in for final approval on the building also? Mr. McErlane indicated that this is all of it. Mr. Tiffany continued so this is it. For color choice, this is it, and if we leave it up in the air and leave it to the discretion of the applicant, and I am not by any means saying you will pick stark white because you have already said you are not going to, but I can come up with Navajo white, white umber, all whites when they are by themselves. When you put them against a piece of stark white, it has some tint to it, but when it is by itself, you could paint a building with it and it will be white. That is my concern, and to me white is not an earth tone.

Mr. Joseph responded if we use the split face block and not paint it, it would be gray in color. Would that suffice you? I have read the Corridor Study also, and I keep hearing from the board natural stone and brick. I didnít see the word natural stone in there. I thought it said stone or brick. Mr. Tiffany responded concrete block is not stone and it is not brick. Mr. Joseph answered no, but it is the appearance of stone. Mr. Tiffany answered itís not; I know what you are after, but you still have the square mortar joint that makes it look like block from a distance. I understand it is a very popular item to use now because it is much softer in appearance than block and tremendously inexpensive compared to brick. I have a problem with split face block in this use because of the Corridor Study.

Mr. Joseph stated I guess I understand the Corridor Study and weíve been through this at two other meetings, and again I keep going back to the fact that Iím not right on Route 4, and there are other buildings. Although we have this Corridor Study, it is still totally up to this board to decide what goes through and what doesnít. For instance, you mentioned Applebees which is a beautiful building, but I donít see a truss roof on that. The last meeting I was here the big issue was the truss roof, so I redesigned this building entirely with a truss roof to try to get approval.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Eighteen


Mr. Joseph said again, when weíre back to color, weíre dealing with a national tenant here, and they donít have to locate in this city. I would like them to; I would like to work with them, and I am trying to get this project through, but on the other hand, it is up to this board, and they can approve an agreeable color even if it is not stone or brick. It is very clear in that Corridor Study that the final say is up to the planning board. Obviously from looking at other developments, there have been give and takes and some other buildings havenít put truss roofs on and I have to try to fit into this corridor. I feel like Iím to the point where I have to start building. My contract is running out with Tuffy, and they can pull out at any time, and Iím afraid that is exactly what is going to happen if we donít resolve this tonight, and thatís why I am trying to get final approval. Although the color was discussed, that didnít seem like a major concern. The major concern was the truss roof to make it look more residential, and we have accomplished that.

Mr. Tiffany commented if I am not mistaken we left it at the last meeting that we were going to look into the color, so I think it was a major concern, first of all. Second of all, your position with Tuffy Muffler is your position with Tuffy Muffler. Our position here it to address the issues, whether or not your contract expires tomorrow or a year from now; I canít consider that, and please donít ask me to. I understand your position; I canít address Applebees; I wasnít on this commission when they came in so I canít take the credit or blame for that. My position is that we are here to see that the code is enforced an d not to make exceptions. We do not make exceptions to the code; those are variances granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, with the exception of PUDs. I donít know; Iím not comfortable with it; Iíll leave it at that.

Mr. Joseph responded with reading this Corridor Study, this study is recommendations; it is not code, and you do not have to use that color or that material. It is only a list of re commendations. I have tried to cover as many of those recommendations as possible. I have agreed to do additional landscaping, moving of parking spaces, truss roofs, that I really had no desire to do to try to come as close to the is Corridor Study as possible. Now, we are to the point where I need approval of this board, but on the other hand I donít know that I can keep changing this building.

Mr. Galster stated I did not mean to imply that the Corridor Study says it must be brick or stone. It is recommended and preferred - natural materials. I wanted to make sure I wasnít overstating that point.

Ms. Manis reported I personally have no problem with split face block; I think it can look very nice. There is a Valvoline Oil up on Route 4 that looks very nice that is also painted bright white. If you could turn down the white, I would prefer that, obviously. Mr. Joseph commented we have agreed to do that. Ms. Manis continued it is seldom that I feel sorry for the dry cleaner and the empty hole there now looks like junk. I think this will be a great improvement, and I appreciate your putting a truss roof on. If you do more landscaping in front, I think it will look great and improve that whole shopping center by just having this one nice building there.

Mr. Blake commented I only have one problem. I am uncomfortable with regards to the toning down of the white, because we do not have anything set. It is left up to speculation, and I donít want us to get a white-white.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Nineteen


Mr. Blake continued as to Tuffyís national recognition, I know that some companies will vary according to the community standards. The McDonalds in northern Ohio was so different I did not recognize it. National companies will blend into the community standards. If you could tone down that white to my satisfaction; I would like to know what it is, please.

Mr. Joseph said would light gray suffice you? Mr. Blake answered there again there are a lot of light grays; I would like to see it. I donít feel comfortable with agreeing to something that I canít see. Mr. Joseph, showing a piece of paper, stated this to me is a light gray. He passed the paper around . Mr. Blake commented thatís the point Iím making. That looks gray to you; it looks white to me. I would like to see something we can agree upon. You just proved my point; I rest my case, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Tiffany said what about the blinds? Mr. Joseph and Mr. Blake both agreed that they were light gray. Mr. Tiffany held the piece of paper against the blind, and it appeared to be white.

Mr. Pitman said I am representing the owner. I can remember when the Corridor Study was put into place. The whole purpose, and I think the city has maintained that fairly closely over the years. There have been some exceptions, probably the most recent was BP with the flat roof and smaller lot. There were 15 different things that came before Council on that one. If you look at the practicality, what it really looks like, everybody is trying to keep this place from looking like Colerain Avenue. That was the reason for the Corridor Plan; we didnít want a Beechmont or a Colerain Avenue. We wanted to control some of this. We couldnít be like Oakwood (Dayton) or Old Montgomery, but at least we could do something. That was the reason, to try to control some of it. There have been exceptions; the city has held fairly close. In that Corridor Study we have no mansard roofs. Half the things we have are mansard roofs. We have no flat roofs; we have Applebees, and we have a great big white building setting up here on Glensprings which was just painted, and if that is not part of the Corridor Study it ought to be, because it has a lot more exposure than you would have on Northland Boulevard. The maintenance building is on Northland is white split face block. So, we have done a lot of things in the city like that. There are exceptions to the rule; there is give and take on every project that comes in here, whether there is give and take here it comes into Council and there is give and take there, the staff, the administration looks over these things to see what you are willing to give up. We have the tree ordinance with the latest development on Kemper Road. You couldnít put the shopping center there with all the trees, so they cut the trees down and threw that money into the Forestry Fund. There are a lot of different things that you do. I think too often government gets hung up on this is what the code says, and by God that is the only thing it is going to say. I think you get stuck in that code all the time and you never get anything done. You have people who are doing jobs. Heís a small guy; heís no big developer like Linclay or Duke. They only have a certain amount of time and limited resources. I think with Northland Boulevard, thatís a different market; it really is. It is not the same thing as the corridor. We have Pictoria Island that looks like it might be coming in, so there are a lot of things we are trying to do to keep the city going and make it look a lot better. Taking a full blown hard line approach is not serving the whole community, I donít think. You have to do a little bit of give and take, and the gentleman I think has. For whatever it is worth; that is speaking as myself not as an official right now.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty


Mr. Galster commented I think we started with the brick and we went to a painted brick, and now we are going to a concrete block, and that concerns me. It seems to me that we are going the exact opposite way of the way we want to go. If BP with the painted brick is the recent exception, Iíd like to see it get back to the brick. What happens next? Does the next guy want a metal building? I think we are heading the wrong way; I think it needs to go back to the brick.

Mr. Wilson said you agreed to something closer to this color. Maybe we should first decide the color. Will it be light gray or medium gray or dark gray? Then maybe we can address the brick versus the stone face or whatever. We have two issues here. Letís decide how much pigmentation will be put; will it be close to this, and let Mr. Joseph bring in a swatch or something and show it to Bill McErlane or have a special meeting to decide on the color? Do we need to do that? Do we also need to decide on the actual composition? We have two issues here, and maybe we need to direct Mr. Joseph on both of them.

Mr. Blake stated I have a question, and I guess I am confused, because before we have given final approval to a lot of things, materials were brought in and we have been able to look at them and so forth. Iím just wondering why this was not done on this particular project.

Mr. Joseph answered it was my understanding that the biggest concern was the truss roof and I changed that. From the very first meeting, I believed white would be acceptable to this board. Today I received a fax telling me the building should be light gray. I know it was brought up at last meeting as a concern, but it was my opinion that if I put the truss roof on, I felt this board would probably accept the white. When I left the last meeting, and when I left the meeting prior to that, I thought this board was okay with white being considered an earth tone. Until today I did not see the color of gray. If I had known it had to be gray, I would have had the gray with me. It was my opinion that the white would be all right if I put a dark truss roof on it. I thought that was my major concern on this building, and I changed the building to do that. Thatís why Iím here tonight trying to get final approval.

Mr. Blake stated I would be the first to apologize if you got that impression, because I was at the same meeting, and I didnít get the same impression you got. Maybe I was in a different spot, but the perspective that I got was that there were a lot of concern with regards to the color of the building. I think that was overly expressed. There was a lot of concern about that. I think Mr. Tiffany was very adamant; I know it came from that side of the Commission, but they were very adamant about that, and we all expressed some reservation with regards to the white. They said they donít want that White Castle; I think we all expressed that. I donít understand how you could have gotten that impression.

Mr. Joseph responded at the last meeting, if I recall if was you Mr. Blake that said that you thought the white was given at the former meeting, and that is when everyone said nothing was given, but it was your opinion that it was at the first meeting. Mr. Blake said I agree I said that it was at the first meeting, but it was explained that it was not a given, and then that was when the concern was expressed. You are quite correct.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Sullivan stated regarding Mr. Pitmanís statements on adherence to recommendations or codes or so forth, that sometimes the cities get too hung up on these types of things. Part of the reason that happens, in my own opinion, is because everybody that comes in here goes you did this at BP or you did this at Wal-Mart, so you feel like you want to adhere so you donít listen to people whining that they are not getting what the guy next door is getting, etc. If you stick straight to the code, you donít have to worry about that kind of stuff. I think that is why that happens sometimes. I think there is some give and take in some areas and I have been a part of it here, and I am sure you have Mr. Syfert over the years. That is one of the reasons why the boards have a tendency to stick to the code. Realizing that the Corridor Study is by no means a code or any type of final regulation or anything like that, just a recommendation, I think when you are in a conceptual discussion which we were last month and the meeting before that, any time you start making assumptions or getting impressions, you run the risk of making a mistake. It happens to us up here sometimes; it can very well happen to you. The impression you had that the truss roof would take care of all your problems and everything would be okay was evidently some kind of miscalculation on your part, a misinterpretation.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were any other comments, adding we have been at it nearly two hours.

Mr. Tiffany said when you were going through the review of Mr. McErlaneís notations, one of the things that came up and I did not get a chance to address was that the exterior outdoor lighting. By code it is supposed to be cutoff fixtures or down lighting , and what you are showing is wall packs. You propose to change the front ones, but did not state you were going to change all of them. I need to make sure you understand that there cannot be an outward light like a wall pack unit. I didnít want you to leave here assuming if you change those two and leave the rest the same it will be okay. Bill had some concern with it, and I wanted to make sure that you knew that had to be addressed. Mr. Joseph responded so all the lights have to be changed. Mr. Tiffany responded not necessarily. I donít know; youíll have to get with Bill as to whether or not they all have to be changed. They canít have the glare; they need to be cut off or downward.

Mr. Syfert stated Iíll entertain a motion of some sort, and I think there will have to be some contingencies involved.

Ms. Manis moved to grant final site plan approval with the following conditions to be worked out with the Building Department.

(1) The driveway access should be reworked with Mr. Shvegzda

as far as the flare and the parking in the front shall be moved

to the back;

(2) The cross easements shall be filed;

(3) The other things we discussed tonight will be done; the

handicap spot will be added;

(4) The landscaping will be according to Anneís recommendations;

(5) The dumpster will be screened;

(6) The signage on the northwest corner will be marked one-way;

(7) The color be the color of our window shades in this chamber;

(8) The sign letters above the bays shall be changed from 18" to 9";

(9) The applicant go to BZA for the sign variances;

(10) All other items agreed upon this evening be implemented.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice vote, voting aye were Mr. Blake, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Galster and Mr. Tiffany voted no, and the final site plan was approved by a vote of 5 to 2.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:58 P.M.

Planning Commission reconvened at 9:10 P.M.



A. Douglas & Arlene Eades & Bernice Biddle Request to Rezone Property at 11675 & 11685 Springfield Pike to RMF-1 (Multi-Family Condo)

Mr. Craig Honkamp of Kleingers Associates approached the Commission, stating that we are engineers working for Doug and Sue Eades on this project. There has been considerable discussion on this in terms of zoning change and the proposed zone to go to in past Planning Commission meetings. Two of the main issues I understood from talking to Mr. Eades and from some of the minutes of the meetings were (1) the access out onto Route 4/Springfield Pike; and (2) a layout for not just the single parcel that was initially requested for the zone, but a concept schematic plan for all of the parcels in that block. That is what we have addressed here. There is no access any more onto Springfield Pike . We are coming off Smiley Avenue now; we have crossed the channel there. Secondly, there is a layout for the whole block instead of the one single parcel to create a more unified development in that area. The basic proposal is a duplex, two family unit. The RMF-1 zoning is what is being sought right now because the R-2 zone which is specifically for duplexes does not allow a landominium type of a unit. The concept is they would go through a landominium where only the building and the land under it would be transferred. The rest would be a common association.

Mr. Honkamp continued the building setbacks that were used on this layout are setbacks from the R-2 zone. The rear yards and side yards conform to the R-2 zone rather than going through the multi-family setbacks which are based on the height and length of the building.

Mr. Honkamp stated there is shown on a here a private drive, not a public road extension, that would be maintained through the association through the common area. There also is a retention pond shown in the middle area. This is a schematic, so no calculations have been done to know if it is feasible, how much water you could catch in that area. An alternative area would be down towards the natural channel, down by Cloverdale Avenue. That would be in the flood plain. Iím sure one of those two areas would work for detention on this site. It would have to be discussed in detail with Mr. Shvegzda whether or not detention is necessary on this site and working in the flood plain. This would have to be worked out in the preliminary and final stages.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Honkamp continued landscaping was shown in the area behind Bings. That area on the site is one of the few areas of the site that doesnít have a lot of large mature wooded trees on it. So a buffer area would be proposed and would be back in there behind Bings, some kind of a fencing combination with landscaping and mounds would be done. The rest of the site has a lot of large mature trees, and they would be preserved as much as possible throughout around the buildings.

Mr. Honkamp stated the two main things of concern in the original zoning request were the access to Springfield Pike and the layout for all three parcels instead of just for one, and those are addressed here.

Mr. Syfert asked if he did any study of the major trees? Mr. Honkamp answered we have not. We were going to go out and locate each tree, but we figured there are so many out there, it would be a hit and miss. Once that is done, you could figure out to shift a building here or there, but we are not to that level of detail at all right now. Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his comments.

Mr. McErlane reported at this time, the request is for RMF-1 zoning, which allows for condominiums, landominium and townhouse type development at eight units per acre maximum. Obviously, a layout of internal streets and drives dictates how much that density can be as well. At this point, they are only looking at 18 units on 4.3 acres, so we are looking at somewhat over four units per acre instead of the eight permitted.

Mr. McErlane continued we are looking at a concept plan for rezoning, so it is not a detailed development plan, but we looked at it also from the setback requirements under RMF-1 zoning. The setbacks for the majority of setbacks in RMF-1 zoning are determined by a formula based on the height and width and length of buildings, and you are somewhat penalized by the length more so than the height. You have to double the length, whereas you donít double the height in the formulas. When you get along the south property line where the 100 foot dimension of the buildings are located, the Zoning Code requires a 77 foot setback. The problem with applying all these setbacks per those formulas on a smaller site is that it pushes everything to the middle of the site and doesnít really make for a good layout of the buildings. I think what Mr. Honkamp had tried to do on his layout was to look at the R-2 zoning since they are kind of a duplex housing layout, and it gets fairly close to approximating that as far as setbacks are concerned.

Mr. McErlane reported to work around the setbacks and look at trying to control how the property develops, we are recommending that we look at a transition overlay district zoning instead of the RMF-1 zoning. The current zoning is R-1B, and we would recommend would be an R-1B-T overlay. What that would do is should this project never get off the ground, and it would have that zoning designation, it would allow someone to either develop it as single family or comply with the plan on file at the time the zoning is put in place. So it would basically guarantee the city that it would be developed as duplex type housing in the plan presented to the city. The drawback to that is there are a number of things required for R-1B-T approval. Some of those are fairly similar to PUD preliminary plan in that you need topography and landscaping and covenants and those type of things up front.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. McErlane continued at this point I donít know that Planning Commission could approve it contingent upon all those items, but I think from a plan standpoint, the overall development plan fits fairly well in the corridor and I think Ms. McBride also has some comments to that effect.

Mr. Syfert called on Ms. McBride, who reported in terms of land use, it complies very much with the Corridor Study. I think the transition district is the more appropriate zoning classification designation for the property. I put together some thoughts; I pulled out some comments from your Corridor Study and I think you can see how the t district is more on point with what you were trying to achieve with that study. Specifically as it applies to this property, I think it will allow for the preservation of the mature trees on the site, the creek running through a portion of the property; it will provide for a transitional use between some of the more intensive uses on Springfield Pike and the traffic itself, to the single family residential that exists adjacent to that. In terms of the flexibility of the design, obviously the shape and size of the site will require some flexibility in terms of setbacks, building placements and circulation. I think the t district will provide that as well, in creating more of a signature type development, which is what has been recommended in your Corridor Study. The property should be used for residential purposes; it can be considered for multi family type residential uses, but it needs to be more of a signature type development. The foundation for that is here, but I think the way the city can best implement that is through the t district.

Mr. Syfert called on Don Shvegzda, who stated my comments concern additional things that would have to be considered when this began to the next stage of development. We have an area to the west, a flood plain area, and building elevations would have to be at least a foot above that. We couldnít encroach fill within that area unless we essentially compensated for that with excavation. The culvert that crosses the creek for the extension from Smiley Avenue would have to be designed for the 50-year storm and would not be allowed to increase the 100-year flood elevation upstream from that. There was a question that came up and was noted on the plans that indicated the original right of way for the original alignment of Cloverdale still existed. There is a question as to what has really happened here. We are in contact with the city solicitorís office to do some additional investigation on this. Obviously from the standpoint that no additional access is being asked for on Route 4 is very beneficial. We will need to look at any of the internal geometrics for that private drive so it can accommodate fire equipment. The extension of Smiley Avenue that takes place within the right of way would have to be done in accordance with city standards.

Mr. Tiffany commented I want to go on record and say I would like particular attention paid to the folks directly across from Applebees. That is a flood plain, and we flood down there frequently. When they came in for the Applebees auxiliary parking lot, there was a lot of talk about the flood and problems they have there. I want to make sure this doesnít impact any more on them, because we are creating a lot of watershed with this project upstream. I want to make sure there is consideration that we donít increase any problems for that part.

Mr. Shvegzda responded once the final determination is made on the actual development, detention will be required. We donít know the extent of the development at this point, so the volume comes into play later.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if the R-1B-T zoning was clear to him? Mr. Honkamp answered in general, so the t is an overlay which allows it to go to something similar to PUD. Mr. Syfert continued are you satisfied with that? Mr. Eades answered in other words we can build? Mr. Syfert answered basically yes.

Ms. Manis stated that was my only concern. We have been taken advantage of with other projects where we changed the zoning and things fell through. Iím for protecting us any way we can. This sounds great, and I was going to ask if we could hold off on approval until the final plans were available , but if the t allows us to do that anyway, then that would be great.

Mr. McErlane reported the t district requires preliminary plans; they wouldnít be totally final, but it pretty much sets the overall configuration of the development and the type of buildings that would be built. It sets preliminary utilities and those type of things.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if we need preliminary plans with topographies and everything before we can pursue R-1-B-T? We cannot put that into effect tonight. Mr. McErlane responded Council has in the past approved R-1-B-T zoning without plans in place, and I think the transition district allows that. Mr. Tiffany continued itís not in our best interest? Mr. McErlane stated Iím trying not to mix PUDs with R-1-B-Ts. Mr. Tiffany continued but it limits it to that plan or R-1-B period. Mr. McErlane responded right; if it were put into place, they would still be limited to either building single family dwellings, or coming in with a plan that could be approved by Council. There is no advantage to doing it, because the plan still has to go to Council for Public Hearing. The only advantageous thing to it would be a commitment on the cityís part that they would accept a t overlay on it.

Mr. Wilson said you mentioned something about number of units per acre (directed to Mr. McErlane); I think you said eight. Mr. McErlane reported in RMF-1 zoning, it is eight per acre. What they are showing is a little over four per acre, so they are almost half of what they are permitted to have.

Mr. Tiffany moved to refer to Council for approval as an R-1-B-T District, and they would have to bring in their plans for approval. Mr. Blake seconded the motion. On the motion to rezone, voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted by a vote of 7-0.

B. Sibcy Cline/Christopher Homes Request Concept Approval of Garden Style Homes at 309 Princewood Court

Judith Muehlenhard stated I would like to make a correction; it is actually not Sibcy Cline; I am not representing Sibcy Cline. I am a real estate broker; my license is held by Sibcy Cline. From the time I came into Springdale with this proposal for concept approval, I represented the builder, who is Chris Smith of Christopher Homes. That changed, and I am now one of the purchasers involved in buying the Hitchcock property. There are three people involved in the purchase, myself, B. Anderson and Chris Smith.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Six


Ms. Muehlenhard continued this piece of property is already zoned for multi family use. We are coming in for a concept approval of the type of home we want to build. This is a development that I am doing at my motherís property in Sharonville. We are breaking ground this week, and putting in 17 ranch style units on three acres. It is a PUD as approved by Sharonville. They are garden style homes. Each has a two car garage; they are all brick and very lovely. We have a very heavy landscape plan. Does everybody have a set of the plans from the Sharonville development that you can look at? This will give you an idea of what the units will look like. They are extremely nice with two full baths two large bedrooms, one office or study room, a great room and a kitchen, laundry - everything is on the first floor. We havenít broken ground yet, and I have sold eight of these units. The typical buyer is 50 and over; Iím having a lot of calls from empty nester people who want to downsize. They want a nice home without maintenance.

Ms. Muehlenhard continued what we will be asking for is approval of this concept to develop the Hithcock property. Upon approval of the concept, we will have our engineers do complete topos, lay out the units as we would like to see them in something very nice and garden looking and bring that in for final approval, probably at the August 8th meeting. When they come in, they will have complete elevations, topos, brick that we will use - everything.

Ms. Muehlenhard stated the Hitchcock property has a small piece of it on the south side of the creek by the Cross Country Inn and Applebees. That is virtually useless to us, and we plan to build a footbridge and landscape that as a park area. The residents could then walk over to the footbridge to the Applebees or down to the Outback and it would be very lovely.

Ms. Muehlenhard reported the ingress and egress would be off Princewood Court, which is the private drive entering there now. We will have to widen that ingress, and there is an easement there.

Ms. Muehlenhard continued we will keep the tree line around the perimeters of the development for the privacy of the residents. We want the garden look. According to current zoning, we could put up 24 units; we do not want 24 units. It isnít the look we want; it isnít whatís going to sell there. We want the garden style ranches, very much like what we are doing in Sharonville. In Sharonville I have three free-standing units and 14 duplex units. If we can do it within the constraints and not lose the look, we would prefer to have all free-standing units and no attached, but we will have to have our engineer lay it out and come in and see what that will look like and ask you to approve a PUD based on the number we can get on that makes it work for Springdale and for us.

Ms. Muehlenhard said the home builder, Chris Smith, is a very excellent custom builder. I have had a wonderful working relationship with him over the past year working with him on my motherís property in Sharonville. We are very excited about it; it has been far more successful than we expected. When we learned about the property availability in Springdale, we decided that would be a natural to build more units there. If we get final approval in August, we would get started right then and feed off the sales coming in off Sharonville. We have an excellent client base for it, and I think it would be an excellent use of your property.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Seven


Ms. Muehlenhard continued I have spoken with Bill McErlane and expressed our desire to work with Springdale. We will meet with you in any way needed so we can know going in what it is you need, what requirements we have to meet, and when we come in for final approval, it will be in place.

Ms. Muehlenhard added I also have the final plans; they are a little more detailed. I only have one copy, which she passed around the dais. This shows exterior elevations, floor plans. It shows doing the interior of the duplex in two different ways, one as a total ranch and one with a stairway and partial basement or basement. We really have had excellent success with selling these in Sharonville without basements. I think that is the preferred way, but once in a while you have someone who wants a partial basement. Clients are coming in, they are cash buyers for the most part, and I have sold them on the contingency they do not have to take the product if it is not what we say it will be. Iím very proud of it; it is my first development, and I would carry that interest into Springdale. I want to be associated with something that is a real good quality product, and I think with the combination of my partners and I, we can deliver that.

Mr. Syfert asked the square footage of the units, and Ms. Muehlenhard responded they are 1300 to 1350 square feet. It meets the needs of the home buyers that are looking for this. They want quality, but they donít want to invest a tremendous amount of money in it. These homes start at $114,900 for a duplex unit and $119,900 for a free-standing unit. In the landominium market, that is an excellent price for all brick.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if Planning is looking at this from the standpoint of recommending it to be rezoned to PUD? Mr. McErlane answered that was the applicantís idea. Ms. Muehlenhard stated my understanding is what I need to get tonight is a concept approval. After concept approval, we still would want a PUD. If we get concept approval tonight, we would then go to our engineers and have surveys, topos, a layout of the building on the property and when we come into you on August 8th, we would have it in place. Mr. McErlane reported for PUDs it specifically says a month in advance but normally on a PUD if you can get the more detailed engineering items in so they can start review on those, we allow you to follow up to the end of the month with landscaping and the other type issues. Ms. Muehlenhard continued I am giving you those dates I am shooting for that; that is the target.

Mr. Blake said I am looking at this and I am really excited about it, but I donít want it to be a rush job. If you get the plans in to them at the end of July and they need to work through them, that will push them to get it for August 8th. I would rather not see us shoot for that, but whenever you get it in allow them an opportunity so they can scrutinize the plans, and if it gets to us in September, okay, but give them an opportunity so they wonít be rushed and we have something incomplete.

Ms. Muehlenhard responded Iím not sure of the procedures of Springdale; donít copies go to your engineer? Mr. McErlane answered we forward copies to the engineer when they are submitted. Ms. Muehlenhard continued I have worked with CDS in Sharonville, and they were excellent. If we got it to them they would get on it and get the feedback to Sharonville. They were very thorough. We want to avoid as much revision as possible, so when we come in, we donít have to go back.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Eight


Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda for his comments. Mr. Shvegzda reported we have general items that will need to be looked at. In this area, we have 100-year flood plain that is designated by FEMA, and any building elevations would have to be a foot beyond that. Any excavation within the flood plain area would have to be basically compensated, one would have to equal the other. Mr. Tiffany had mentioned the property by Applebees, which experiences some flooding. The creek that passes through the corner of the property is immediately downstream from that. We would like to suggest that the area of the channel be investigated as far as improving the channel through that area to relieve upstream property. You indicated that access would be by Princewood Court. Right now this property has about 12 and one-half foot frontage actually on the right of way; Iím sure there are some kind of ingress-egress easements in that vicinity. Itís just a matter of clarifying those.

Ms. Muehlenhard stated I have picked up the flood plain map, and that is being looked at by the builder right now to determine what we need to do, and we would look forward to whatever input you could give us on this.

Mr. Wilson commented I am wondering about the impact of the noise barriers relative to the sale or resale of your property. We are still working with the State of Ohio in terms of how to put up noise barriers. If we have the ugly ones and the noise bounces off, depending on how far away your homes start, they will have increased noise as a result of traffic. If we have earthen barriers, it may be less of an impact. My concern is that if we did allow you to build these homes, and the noise barriers that we hope to have donít come into place and we have something else or nothing at all, will some of your residents want to leave those homes; will we have a white elephant there?

Ms. Muehlenhard responded that was a concern I had when I first looked at the property, because the north end is near I-275. In walking back, it isnít that bad. I think the key is the landscaping and the trees that would be put in and buffered. I have seen very expensive developments right off Reed-Hartman Highway; I think this is wonderful compared to that. I really think it is part of life in the Ď90ís; land is so hard to find. I donít think it is a problem that will be that difficult to overcome. I plan to do a lot of pines and trees.

Mr. Wilson said your intent is not to build for speculation, but to build when a person says I want that lot. Ms. Muehlenhard said no, the way I sold my motherís place; we will not even start a home without a contract. We wonít start an individual home until it is sold, and I donít expect any problem. We expect to have all these in Sharonville sold before we get the model finished. There is a tremendous demand for it, and no one is doing such a nice product for the amount of money.

Mr. Tiffany asked how many units are you speaking about? Ms. Muehlenhard answered we will have to have our surveyors and engineer lay out the design on that piece of land. Of course weíd like the highest density approved that we can. That has to meet your requirements, and it has to be something that will work for us. I would rather keep all ranch and not have any up and down. In Sharonville we did 17 units on three acres. I do not think we would get 17 units on there. I would prefer to have all unattached units rather than duplex.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Twenty-Nine


Ms. Muehlenhard added among the age group of people this is so desirable for, a free-standing house is very desirable, and I would prefer to come in and ask you for that, depending on what the side, back rear and frontage requirements will be, will depend on what we will do here. I am anticipating probably at least 14, hopefully a little more. Weíll have to see how it lays on the land. Mr. Syfert said would it be safe to say 14 to 16? Ms. Muehlenhard said yes, and they all would have two car garages.

Ms. Manis asked do you have any idea of what would be behind the residences that are there now? Ms. Muehlenhard answered there is nothing behind it. In front of it is Lawnview, and there are houses back there as well as a multi-family apartment building, The Wimbledons. Ms. Manis continued I am saying in your development do you know what would be behind these houses? Will this be the back yards of houses do you think? Ms. Muehlenhard off the top of my head, it will probably be the rear yards. Ms. Manis continued that would be one of our concerns, because these residents have already expressed concerns to me when they knew the property was sold. Theyíd like their privacy; they have had it for so long.

Ms. Muehlenhard responded the people who are buying these homes want their privacy; they donít want to look at anybody else. Ms. Manis commented neither do these people. Ms. Muehlenhard continued and I want to keep as much of a barrier there as I can. The typical buyer is over 50 downsizing from a big two story, maybe go to Florida for half a year and just want a nice home. These people want their property to look very attractive; they want the grounds maintained. I am working with Towne Properties to work out a management system for my motherís property. At this point it looks like they are going to get the contract for it; they do an excellent job and come highly recommended; I think they do your Oldegate in Springdale and Wildwood. They are very well respected, and that is the type management we expect to have.

Mr. Tiffany asked if this is in the Route 4 corridor, and Mr. McErlane responded it is not, adding it is currently zoned RMF-2 which allows apartments as well as condominiums and townhouses. It was rezoned to RMF-2 at the same time the Hayloft property was zoned to Motor Service along with the other properties along there. The intent at that time was to create a buffer zone between the commercial and the single family. This is a lot less dense development than what could go on that property. I think the applicantís idea of going with PUD will probably be advantageous to both parties from the standpoint that the city has a little more control over what goes in and the applicant will probably run into the same kind of setback issues that the previous development had.

Ms. Muehlenhard added the typical buyer wants decks, and to get the density on that, I am sure we will ask for variances from your setbacks, but when we do it, it will be very attractively done.

Ms. Manis asked if the access always was intended to be Princewood Court? Mr. McErlane reported the previous access to that property was directly off Route 4 and it ended up in the stateís limited access right of way. When Glensprings Drive was extended, all those accesses were cut off from Route 4, but they still have an access easement from the end of Glensprings Drive. The only problem is they now have a creek there. There used to be a small bridge they had access to, but it is gone.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty


Ms. Muehlenhard commented we do not want to put a car bridge; I think that is asking for a lot of trouble especially with the hotel and Applebees, but I think a nice attractive foot bridge and a garden park would be very attractive. Mr. McErlane added and from a traffic standpoint, we are not looking at large amounts of traffic coming in off Princewood.

Mr. Tiffany moved to grant concept approval and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Concept approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.

C. Replat of Century Business Park - Lots 7, 8 and 9

Mr. Shvegzda reported there currently exists three lots on that site. This is to reconfigure the lots to be in accordance with what is proposed. Mr. Syfert commented so basically what has been approved up there fits on this 14.64 acres and in a little bit we are going to find out about the two outlots. Mr. Shvegzda answered that is correct. Mr. Tiffany said you are saying currently this is divided into three pieces? Mr. Shvegzda responded that is how it exists right now in the current subdivision. Mr. Tiffany commented so you are building on probably two lots at this point. Mr. Shvegzda said that is right, that is one of the reasons for having to replat this. One of the other things that is shown on this, and this will go to Council for acceptance on the right of way that is being dedicated on Kemper and also on Century Boulevard. Mr. Syfert commented so all we have to do is bless it a little bit. Mr. Tiffany moved to replat and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye and the motion was granted with seven affirmative votes.

D. Brinker International Requests Final Approval of Chiliís/Macaroni Grill, East Kemper Road and Century Boulevard

Mr. Syfert reported that Ms. McBride is going to make this presentation and just so you donít think sheís working two sides of the fence, her agreement when we were favored with her employment with the city is that she would finish up this property since she had started it and she wouldnít leave them in the lurch. That is the reason she is going to present this on behalf of the applicant.

Ms. McBride stated I am representing Brinker International this evening. With me is Dennis Robinson, who is with Brinker and Pete Battaglia who is the civil engineer with LJB for this portion of the project.

Ms. McBride continued this property is part of the PUD that was rezoned earlier this year for Anchor Associates. That project included 150,000 square feet of retail, which has already been approved for final development and is well under construction. It also included approximately three acres of outlots along the frontage which were approved for a total of three outlots. What has transpired over the period of time is that the three outlots are now being consolidated into two separate sit-down restaurants. We have heard the concerns of Planning and Council regarding fast food uses and other what could be considered objectionable type uses. Anchor was lucky enough to secure what I think are two quality restaurants for the site.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty-One


Ms. McBride continued one will be a Chiliís Restaurant; there is one at Florence and one at Fields-Ertel. That contains approximately 6,000 square feet, and has a varied menu. The second restaurant would be approximately 7,000 square foot Macaroni Grill Restaurant. Both of those are owned by Brinker. The Macaroni Grill is an Italian restaurant; they are not currently in the Cincinnati area; there is one in Louisville and one under construction in Dayton.

Ms. McBride reported the site plan before you this evening is in conformance with all the different aspects that we talked about during the initial zoning. It addresses a lot of the concerns that came up on final development for 150,000 square feet of retail that has already been approved.

Ms. McBride stated signage was a key issue with the Planning Commission, and you will be pleased to know that this is below the permitted signage. Chiliís is permitted 145 square feet and there is a total of 127 square feet; that counts both on building and the free standing monument sign that the Commission permitted them. Macaroni Grill is permitted 220 square feet, and there is 125 square feet, significantly under what is permitted. Parking proposed is in excess of what is required by your code so I believe the plans address many of the concerns that came up during the zoning process.

Ms. McBride continued the renderings before you represent largely what the restaurants will look like. There will be some minor changes. One thing I wanted to point out is that the Macaroni Grill shows outdoor dining, and there will not be outdoor dining at this location. There are a lot of earthtones, stone and brick. I think they are attractive buildings and ones that the Commission can be proud of.

Ms. McBride reported in going through the comments of both Mr. McErlane and Mr. Shvegzda, I would like to address some of them briefly. Apparently we are missing one handicap space on the Macaroni Grill, and we will add that; we have excess parking, so that will not be a problem. The ground mounted sign between the Macaroni Grill and the Chiliís is actually on Chiliís property; that will be an internal property line, so we would ask that the 25 foot setback be waived.

Ms. .McBride stated the photometric lighting plan has been submitted for both developments, and we did supply light standards, but the photometric plan was late coming in and we apologize for that.

Ms. McBride continued the Zoning Code requires a 50í rear yard setback on the Macaroni Grill; that is an internal line. The property line right now is the center line of this access drive that comes in off Century Boulevard. One hundred fifty thousand foot retailing is in this location, and it could theoretically be shifted , but would cause a lot of problems with leases and so forth. It will not appear any different to anybody entering the development, so we would ask that the city consider the 45 foot setback instead of the 50 foot setback.

Ms. McBride said in terms of the dumpster enclosures, what is proposed is a 10 foot stucco wall on the Macaroni Grill, and a 10 foot wall on the Chiliís. They look like extensions of the buildings painted and treated in the same manner. There are gates on the back side for access so they are fully enclosed but look like an extension of the building.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty-Two


Ms. McBride stated there was a comment concerning the setbacks on the parking for the Macaroni Grill at both Century and Kemper. It was suggested we use either two or four parking spaces; whatever is necessary to meet the seven and 10 foot setbacks we will do. Again, there is an excess of parking, so thatís not going to be a problem in terms of making the specific counts.

Ms. McBride continued with regards to the comments from CDS concerning storm water calculations, those are relatively minor issues and we can work with Don to address those. The only other thing I would ask is concerning the need for bumper blocks in the parking lot, we would be allowed to work with Don with those on an individual basis. The planting material which is typically the rationale for the bumper blocks is set back two or three feet and there also is an eight inch curb there. Those bumper blocks do pose a problem with regards to snow removal so we would ask that we be allowed to work with him. Where he feels they are necessary we would do that, as opposed to requiring them uniformly throughout the development.

Dennis Robinson of Brinker International of Dallas said I wanted to let all of you know that I really appreciate your taking time from your family to stay here late to hear people like me and my company come before you with a presentation like this. We are tremendously thrilled to be a part of your community, to get to come into your community with some of our newer concepts, and we hope to continue to expand. We had four other concepts also, and we are very actively pursuing this area. Again, we feel very privileged to be able to come into your beautiful community. If you have any questions about the operations, I think I can address anything you would have.

Mr. Blake commented Ms. McBride, you skipped number 7 on Donís comments. Could you address that please? Ms. McBride responded the coolers will be screened by a masonry wall that will be painted dark green to blend in with the building, and that wall is 10 feet high.

Mr. Tiffany said on item 2, you talked about the sign being placed on Chiliís property. Would an easement still be necessary? Mr. McErlane reported even though they are owned by the same people, we are subdividing those as lots, so they are independent lots. Mr. Tiffany continued the same thing on the parking and access, correct? Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Ms. McBride added we are providing access easements, but there will be no cross parking between the remainder of the center and these two lots. These two lots actually stand independent with regards to parking counts.

Mr. Tiffany commented as far as the 50 foot rear yard setback and 45 feet being what you have, I personally donít have a problem with that on something this size. If there were residences there or something like that I would have a problem with it, but with it being a field of parking. Peggy and I were talking the other day about how far back the building is; it is amazing. As far as the walk in cooler and freezer, those are separate units from the building, is that correct? Mr. Robinson answered behind each building is a cooler; it is a prefabricated unit that most restaurants use, that is six to eight feet high and is totally screened by the mason screened wall which is 10 feet high. Mr. Tiffany asked if it looks like part of the building, is that correct? Mr. Robinson said yes, the screened wall on Chiliís looks just like green trim. On the Macaroni Grill it looks identical to this stucco side.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty-Three


Mr. Tiffany continued the reason I am asking is because we donít allow outside storage, and I donít know if this qualifies as that. Mr. Robinson reported this is accessed from the kitchen. There is no exterior access except to service those from the inside. Everything operational regarding trash disposal, pick up, loading at the rear of the building is totally enclosed and screened. Mr. McErlane said if I could clarify my comment, the architectural plans just show that portion of it dashed in; it doesnít really indicate what the screening is, for the walk-in coolers. They are pretty much of a free-standing building that in this case is tucked against the side of the building. I wouldnít consider them outside storage, but there would be a concern about screening, because they are on the sides of the buildings.

Mr. Wilson asked if there are air conditioning units on the roof, and Mr. Robinson answered they are and they are fully screened. He indicated on the picture that both units are hidden. Mr. Wilson asked how do you ventilate your cooking, and where would those be? It looks like the kitchens are on the back? Mr. Robinson answered the kitchens in Chiliís are on the rear of the building, and they have a commercial venting system; we have never had any problems. The Macaroni Grill kitchen is on the right side as you look at the building; the left side is a small waiting bar and rest rooms. They all are vented through the roofs and through filter systems.

Ms. Manis commented when you drive by Kemper now, there is still a pretty high embankment; is that going to stay? Ms. McBride reported it is going to be graded down some additional. Ms. Manis asked if it would be a lot additional? Ms. McBride answered Iím not real sure where they are in terms of their grades and how far down they are going to go, but it does have a little bit further to come down. Ms. Manis commented Iíve been to the Chiliís, and I have never noticed the dumpster; it is well screened and real nice; I enjoyed it.

Mr. Tiffany said first I would like to say that it is a joy to work with somebody that knows our idiosyncrasies. It is nice when they come in this prepared. I move we grant preliminary approval on these plans, and Mr. Blake seconded the motion. Mr. McErlane stated I think the applicant wants final plan approval. Ms. McBride confirmed this adding this is why we submitted everything this evening. Mr. Tiffany withdrew his motion, and Mr. Blake withdrew his second. Mr. Tiffany moved to grant final approval and Mr. Blake seconded the motion.

Mr. Blake stated we had talked earlier about bikers, and I wonder in the planning of these restaurants, could there be a spot set aside so that anybody who wanted to bring their bikes could lock them up? Ms. McBride asked Mr. Robinson if that is something they typically do, and Mr. Robinson answered we could add a bike rack; we have done that on occasion. Ms. Manis added the reason he is asking is we are planning on getting a bike trail through here, so they hopefully will be used someday.

Mr. Syfert stated it goes without saying that final plans will not be stamped until all the things she said she would correct and do are on the print.

On the motion to grant final approval, voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty-Four


Ms. Manis reported it was brought up at Council and it has been referred here about possibly changing the side yard setbacks in the properties in Old Springdale. When the code was done, the land already platted was grandfathered. However, Mr. Schneider said we could change the side yard setbacks if there had been no buildings going on these properties. Maybe it was that the total square footage of the lots was made bigger, because right now there are two small lots platted as two small lots, but one person owns them. Now people are selling off part of what has been platted as single lots, and they are smaller than what our code calls for now, but since they were already platted that way, they were grandfathered. They are building on them based on the setbacks, which makes them too close to the other houses. We would like to change the setback requirements on the smaller lots. Mr. Syfert asked how small?

Mr. Tiffany added they are 50 foot lots, and the code now says they need to be 80 foot lots. Ms. Manis stated so they can build right next door to these other houses. Mr. Tiffany commented the side yard setbacks back then were five feet, is that correct?

Mr. McErlane reported at the time those properties were platted, it was in Hamilton County zoning. What the code allows for on existing developed streets where the lots are less than what the current code requires, it allows the setbacks to be reduced to 10% of the lot width. So if it is a 50 foot lot, they are allowed to go to five feet. The intent there is to not squeeze some narrow building on a 50 foot lot, and at the same time not cause people who own properties to not be able to use them for anything other than grass.

Mr. Syfert said so where is the problem? Ms. Manis reported these people came to Council and said they had come back from Florida and there was a house right on their doorstep, and they said the same builder is going around trying to buy up all these lots. Mr. Tiffany stated Mrs. Kennedy owns the majority of them and she sells one a year or two or three years to supplement her income. Ms. Manis said and this guy is building these big houses that are there. Mr. Syfert said isnít he within code? Ms. Manis reported they want us to change the code. Mr. Tiffany commented it almost makes those lots unusable at that point. If you go to a 15 foot setback, you are talking a 20 foot wide house.

Mr. McErlane reported the required setback for a typical R-1-B is 10 feet, so we allow them to go half that; on a 50 foot lot reducing the building width down to 30 feet, which is a pretty minimal size. Essentially what you would have to do is take a typical house plan and turn it sidewise. Mr. Tiffany commented and thatís been done in Old Springdale with several homes. The one across from my house is within five feet of his property line on both sides. The advantage he has is the house to the east of him is a double wide lot and their house sets in the middle of those lots so he has plenty of room. To the west of him is another empty lot that is owned by Pat Trainor now, and I am sure Pat wants to build on there at some point. When he builds, he will be right up against Johnís house, like these folks are. I guess the thing you have to look at with these people on Smiley is their house is within a very short distance of their property line also. It is preexistent that way. Mr. McErlane added they have a deck on that side of the house, and the deck is about 10 feet from the property line.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty-Five


Mr. Tiffany added they were close to the property line, and when this guy built to his five feet he pushed them that much closer to the property line in visual appearance. They always had that empty lot next door; anything going next door would encroach on them.

Mr. McErlane added to give you an idea of what a 30 foot house would look like on one of those lots, if you consider the requirement is for a two car garage, which takes 20 feet of that 30, you would only see 10 feet of the house aside from the garage door. Mr. Syfert commented that is the way that one is on Smiley; you see garage door and a little bit of entrance. Mr. Tiffany added there is one on Dimmick also. Mr. Syfert asked if the suggestion was made that they try to buy that lot from Mrs. Kennedy at a reasonable price? Ms. Manis stated they were in Florida, and when they came back it was being built. Mr. Tiffany added they had a hole in the ground at that point. Mr. Syfert stated Iíd like to say I have sympathy, but they knew that was a vacant lot all these years. Ms. Manis responded I guess they didnít figure that they could build that close to them. Mr. Tiffany added the other thing that changed was the building standards have changed, and the mandatory roof pitches are different; they are much higher than they used to be, where you could put a little house with a very low pitch in there, now you have to have a certain amount of pitch. I know with Johnís across the street from us, they had to have a lot more pitch than they anticipated, and had they known they were going to have to do that, they would have made a second story upstairs; it is that much of a roof. The house going in next to these people has a lot of roof to it, and Iím sure that adds to it. Ms. Manis commented Iím sure it looks bigger. This was referred to Planning Commission from Council, so whatever we want to refer back.

Mr. McErlane stated I think you have to be cautious that you donít create a situation where people who own property now canít build on it any more. Mr. Tiffany commented I think you are asking for litigation. Mr. Syfert added I donít think we can change it at all, in my own mind. Ms. Manis responded I guess legally we canít, but are we going to? Mr. Syfert reported for years I sat on the Board of Zoning Appeals and got all these requests to vary the side lot line; "we canít build on that 50 foot lot". Well, someone came along and showed them they could do it within the code. I donít know if they still get those requests or not, but I know they dropped off. Mr. McErlane added the corner lots are the ones that are real difficult. Mr. Syfert responded they are the really tough ones. I for one would not be for recommending any change to the Zoning Code. Mr. Tiffany added I think you are asking for legal problems if you do; I really do. Mr. Syfert said I donít think there is any question about it. And we know it can work. Mr. Tiffany added they are platted; that is the problem. Ms. Manis said right, so they were grandfathered to 50 foot lots.

Mr. Tiffany added the other thing you have to look at is on my side of Smiley the lots are dep. On the other side of Smiley and on the south side of Cloverdale, those are small lots; they are not deep at all. Mr. Syfert commented they are half the size of your lot. Mr. Tiffany said letís say you do take it to the 10 foot side yard, now you turn the building the other way and run it lengthwise through the lot and now you have a problem with your rear yard setback, and the front. Mr. Syfert stated on the other side of the street they could put it in without too much problem. Mr. Tiffany responded exactly because my lot is over 100 feet deep. The other side of the street they couldnít do that. I know Johnís across the street, he had to get a variance for his rear yard. There is no way he has 40 feet there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 June 1995

Page Thirty-Six


Mr. Syfert asked Ms. Manis if she wanted a motion on this. Ms. Mantis answered I just want Bill to write me something to take back to Council explaining what you said, and maybe Iíll go from there.

Mr. Syfert commented this is something we have been fighting in Springdale for 30 years or more that I know about. Mrs. Kennedy owns the majority of them and I have heard she sells off a couple a year; itís no secret. Ms. Manis responded I guess the same builder is trying to buy them all up right now. Mr. Syfert said have we discussed that enough, Peg? Ms. Manis answered yes, so Bill will write me up something so I can explain it to them and see what other direction they might possibly want to take if any. If they still want something drafted up, it can go as non-recommended by Planning if thatís what everybody thinks, and Council can deal with it. Mr. Syfert stated I recommend that we leave it like it is. Ms. Manis continued thatís what I mean; if they still want something; if Council still wants to do it, we can say Planning doesnít recommend it but here it is. Mr. Tiffany added and give them the

reasons why

From the audience, Mr. Eades said I would like to express my appreciation for the action you have taken tonight, and also Bill McErlane was a great help and encouragement in pursuing this, and the mayor. If all this comes to pass, we will be putting in probably the finest development from Glensprings to the end of the corridor. It will be a beautiful beautiful development. Springdale is a beautiful city and Mrs. Biddle whose home is here has been a resident in that home for 70 years. WE will put the finest - something you can be very proud of which will add greatly to this city. I appreciate very much what you have done and you wonít have to worry about any tinting of the brick.

Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be here July 11th? Mr. Tiffany answered possibly, I donít know yet. Iíll know by the end of the week. Everyone else expects to be there.



Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,1995 ______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________,1995 _______________________

Steve Galster, Secretary