13 AUGUST 1996

7:00 P.M.




The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Acting Chairman David Okum.


Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, James Young, Councilman

Robert Wilson, Richard Huddleston and David Okum.

Members Absent: Chairman William Syfert

Member Barry Tiffany

Mr. Okum stated Mr. Syfert is out of town and Mr. Tiffany has resigned from the

Commission due to a change in residence. Council is presently considering an

appointment to the Commission.

Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

Derrick Parham, Assistant City Administrator

William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Wilson moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By

voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five

affirmative votes.


A. 7/10 Letter from Dick Huddleston to Randy Danbury, President of Council re Ordinances Dealing with Wild Animals, Composting Regulations and Sexually Oriented Businesses

B. 7/19 Letter of Resignation from Barry Tiffany

C. Planning Commission Journal #23 - Summer 1996

D. 1995 Annual Report - Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission



Mr. Okum commented Mr. Galster and I talked about this and I think it would be appropriate with Mr. Syfert not here this evening that someone make a motion to defer it to the next meeting. Mr. Wilson moved to table to the next meeting and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and this was tabled to the meeting September 10th. Addressing the audience, Mr. Okum said for those of you wondering why the Commission hasnít moved someone into that position so quickly, BZA prior to three years ago existed with five members, and they will be at six members for their next meeting and will be able to act on the maters at hand.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Two


A. Home Quarters Warehouse, 11360 Princeton Pike requests approval of outside storage of pallets (tabled 7/9/96)

Kevin Reilly of Home Quarters Warehouse thanked the Commission for allowing him the month to take care of this. I did not bring a lot of pictures since I think we were pretty clear on our objectives. I talked with two of my supervisors and we walked all the areas of concern and I would like to review those, if at all possible, one at a time so I can mark it off, agree to that and go to the next one? Commission agreed.

Mr. Reilly continued the first is the erection of the area for pallet storage. He showed a picture of the blank wall, adding that the stairway to the yellow post is where we want to place that fenced in area. I looked into setting it two feet off the wall so we should have no problems with any fire hazard. The only thing I havenít looked into is having an outdoor fire extinguisher there. I also have talked to a vendor to go with an eight foot standard stockade fence, thinking that it would be more appealing, especially with the large wall. If that is okay with the Commission, I would like to pursue that, and complete that by the 15th of next month without any problem at all.

Mr.Wilson said in terms of .the construction, we had talked about a chain link fence and a slat type fence. What type of fence are we talking about? Mr. Reilly responded that was for something different. This is for the pallets, and the concern was their location. We feel that would give us the aesthetics and would give me the time to work on disposal. If I do this, the gentleman in Kentucky can come up and mulch the pallets. The fence would be three sides, with the building on the back side, and I would have posts set in the ground four feet apart so it can allow the pallets to go against the building.

Mr. Galster wondered the size of the enclosure. Mr. Reilly answered it is 16 feet in depth and 32 feet in width. Mr. Galster wondered if this would get full and the pallets would continue to be outside? Mr. Reilly answered that is why I wanted the eight foot height, so you could stack them about 10 to 12 high and the gentleman would come mulch up to between 250 and 300 pallets each month. Mr. Galster asked how many pallets the enclosure would hold, and Mr. Reilly answered right at 300, Mr. Galster wondered about the area being full and then what will you do with the pallets? Mr. Reilly answered the man can come in on a regular basis with no problem. Mr. Galster responded so there will be no additional outside storage from now on. Mr. Reilly confirmed this.

Mr. Wilson commented one side will have a door and you will maintain this fence; Mr. Reilly confirmed this.

Mr. Young wondered if he investigated block or something similar to the existing wall so it will look similar to the back of the building as opposed to this wood structure. Mr. Reilly indicated that he had not, but he would have no problem doing that. When the discussion came up about doing the block wall and the chain link area storage, the cost of the block alone was over $6,000, and I am basically throwing myself at the feet of the Commission because it is to the back of the building and is not in the eyesight of anyone. It does not face the entrance or any other business, in fact it faces the rear, and I was hoping to do that in chain link



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Three


Mr. Young responded I understand that problem, but I am looking at it from an aesthetics standpoint. A wooden fence initially will look good, but once it gets hit a few times with a forklift or whatever, it will be a problem. You wouldnít have that type of problem with a block wall or something similar to what is there now. I would like to ask Bill if we have anything in the city where there is a similar situation and the wall being used is either chain link or wood? Mr. McErlane reported that Wal-Mart has a recycling area for their cardboard that is a fairly heavy wood fence, not your typical privacy fence. Obviously we have dumpster enclosures that could be wood or block; there are no dumpster enclosures that are actually chain link, other than maybe the gates. Mr. Young wondered if in the past we tried to match the existing building with the dumpster enclosure? Mr. McErlane responded typically something compatible, although the Zoning Code allows wooden fences for dumpster enclosures.

Mr. Reilly said if the Commission would let me do the chain link where I asked, I would do block without any problem at all. I am thinking it also would eliminate any fire potential. Mr. Young responded quite honestly, I am inclined to think of it in both areas, to hold the aesthetics.

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. McErlane if there is any fire code problem with putting these in the immediate vicinity outside the building? Mr. McErlane reported we do not have any concern about it. The Fire Department is concerned that it be separated by at least two feet. Mr. Huddleston continued as long as they have no problem with it, thatís fine with me.

Mr. Okum wondered what side of the enclosure the opening would be, and Mr. Reilly answered it would be on the south side facing the receiving area. Mr. Okum asked how they plan to keep the gates closed, and Mr. Reilly answered they would be locked; they take the pallets out in the morning and we would unlock it for them. Mr. Okum continued if this were wood or block, you would have no problem with painting or staining it out to conform with the rest of the building? Mr. Reilly indicated that he did not.

Mr. Galster said if we are worried about the fire codes and the two foot setback, why donít we put a four sided building there, so that two foot space doesnít end up getting filled with pallets as it will as they fall over. Mr. Reilly responded it would be very simple to put a three sided block wall with a gate area of some sort of fence material, be it chain link or treated lumber. Mr. Galster commented so it would be a four sided structure with one side being the gate.

Mr. Okum commented the gates typically end up in pretty bad condition. What type of gate are you considering? Mr. Reilly answered originally it was going to be fence panels and that is easily replaced. Mr. Okum commented your gates will be eight feet wide, so they would have to be pretty durable to withstand that leverage and stay hanging. Itís going to need to be some type of metal frame gate system, shielded with some wood facing or something on it instead of raw chain link. Mr. Reilly wondered if they could go with the chain link gate with block on three sides. Mr. Galster commented I do not have a problem putting this aside for right now and hearing the rest of his presentation, but I do have a problem with voting on this not knowing what it next. Iím a little uncomfortable with voting on one part of it until we have heard the whole presentation.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Four


Mr. Reilly stated I have no problem doing this; I like the idea. Mr. Galster said the next item might be a wall or a fence; I want to coordinate the whole project. Commission agreed, and the vote will be deferred.

Mr. Reilly continued the second step was the installation of the fence along the back wall coming down to the receiving area. Commission looked at the drawing. Mr. Reilly added the wall at this time is approximately 18 inches and goes all the way up to four feet, but the height that we would have would be uniform all the way across.

Mr. Okum commented for those in the audience, the applicant has requested a chain link fence along 110 foot area projecting out six feet from the existing masonry wall to the east side of the property with two gates encompassing a 32 foot area and returning back to the existing building dock area. The enclosure area is 110í x 32í.

Mr. Young commented the only objection you had to block was price? Mr. Reilly answered yes, The chain link is $6,000 to $7,000; the block alone was in excess of $5,000. It is at the back of the building; it is in an alleyway and is not offensive to sight because you never really see it from the road. Our hope was that the Commission would look at it that way.

Mr. Huddleston wondered what the purpose of the enclosure would be? Mr. Reilly answered during the peak season it will be used for staging of deliveries. During peak season, we get more lumber for resale and trying to get all those inside immediately does not happen every day. So we end up storing or putting it out there, so this would be out of sight.

Mr. Huddleston wondered what would keep this from getting beat up very quickly based on the type of storage you have? Mr. Reilly responded it could get damaged, but I think part of the agreement should be that we maintain that fence in good condition at all times. If that is a requirement, we will fulfill that obligation. I do not think that would be a problem.

Mr. Galster commented when you were in last time, we were talking about storage. Where are they going to be delivered from here on out? Mr.Reilly answered we were trying to unload this from 4 a.m. to 9 a.m. and eliminate the vendors from coming in at 12 in the afternoon. Mr. Galster continued but if is your idea that the mulch would still be from the front or the rear of the building? Mr. Reilly answered I am requesting some understanding for a little bit on the front.

Mr. Galster commented my concern when it comes to the back storage area is that itís basically a loading and storage area. I think you have a problem with the mulch and those types display and delivery, and it seems to me if we can take that brick wall down further and maybe get a bigger space, you might be able to encompass your mulching and those type deliveries out of the rear as opposed to blocking the fire lane. I understand your need back here, but I wonder if we shouldnít be making it larger to encompass some of the stuff that creates a problem in the front. If we make it larger, then I have a problem with the chain link fence, because I think it becomes too great of a structure. Then I think the block wall extended down and creating a larger enclosure works better. This is one of those things that jumps to the front of the building as well, because I have a problem with the fire lane being blocked. You want to come out six feet from the block wall.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Five


Mr. Reilly added and then there is your easement; I think they are 10 feet. Mr. McErlane commented I wouldnít know without looking at a drawing; it is a shared easement between the two properties. Mr. Reilly added the absolute ideal scenario would be to move that large wall along the whole side of the building say 15 feet out. I do not think our company would be indecisive on something like that; it would give us more selling space. Mr. Galster commented I think if you extend that wall, you could put the bags across the back and use that parking area in the rear more for loading and unloading, which is better than out in the fire lane. I have a problem with the outside storage with a chain link fence of this size. I think it will be noticeable at 12 feet high and 110 feet long.

Mr. Huddleston said I would go along with Mr. Galsterís comments, particularly on acting on these as separate issues. I think what we are doing here is increasing the amount of storage area capability, whether it is outside pallet storage or new product coming in for inventory that is being staged, and I have a problem doing that on a piecemeal basis. Without an overall site plan tonight, we are doing this by sketches and conversation. I know you have been before the board several times on this. I think we need to get an overall handle on this, and I personally would like to see any approvals by the board relative to this to eliminate any front end or front door deliveries to the unit to preclude the pedestrian and traffic problems we have had in the front of the store, especially in the busy season. You are in effect increasing the density of your development there in one way or another. That is not necessarily bad, but I think if we are going to do it we should do it in a coordinated organized basis.

Mr. Reilly asked if the City would entertain the idea of moving the large wall? Mr. Galster wondered how far it is from the easement, and Mr. McErlane stated that he would guess 50 feet. Mr. Okum added I thought it was a 50 foot setback from the right of way. Mr. Reilly continued if the City is willing to entertain something like that, I would be more than glad to pursue that. I am positive that Home Quarters Warehouse would take the time to do that. At this point of time it has been literally piecemeal, fixing the problems. I would like to do the pallets because I need to do something with them.

Mr. Huddleston said I would recommend that this action be tabled to give the applicant some insight into what we are trying to achieve here relative to coordinating the entire process of outside storage of pallets, of the new inventory storage. I recognize you have a problem, but the City also has a like problem especially in the public safety areas. I think it goes all the way to the front of the store and the seasonal permits which we have historically granted and which I have a problem with. I think that not only are they a problem area unto themselves but I think they have been abused in several areas and not just yours.

Mr. Young commented I agree with Mr. Huddleston to an extent, but the agenda says approval of outside storage for pallets. I think we can go ahead and take that issue on and give this gentleman something to go back with. I agree the other items that he has should be tabled and have him come back with some drawings or concrete ideas that we can go with. Based on the conversation earlier, I think we can handle the pallet storage.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Six


Mr. Galster added with all due respect, I do agree, but I also think that if we are expanding this to encompass a lot more storage, maybe that pallet building can be inside there as well. So there may not be a need for the pallet building, I donít know. If we were to move this south wall 15 feet over, it is very possible that pallet storage would be permitted back there; there would be ample space for it. Do you envision an enclosure that would be able to include pallet storage there?

Mr. Reilly answered 15 feet would be ample for the amount of product we are bringing into the building, and having that outside storage area literally back by receiving where we can take it straight out and not have to come back into the building would be a large advantage for us. Mr. Galster wondered if the pallet storage would be able to be incorporated into that outdoor expansion?

Mr. Reilly answered a distance from where we are expanding this, yes. The total actual width is only 32 feet and I canít expand back any further because we have the easement. I think that if the City is willing to, if we could expand the large south wall out 15 feet, it would take care of the problem across the front end, but I still would have the issue of the pallets. Mr. Galster responded so you consider it a separate issue and there is no way that the pallets could be included.

Mr. Okum commented to the applicant that a recommendation requires five affirmative votes, and there are five members here tonight. We can table or we can consider your pallet storage issue by itself. This is a PUD, so it would be appropriate to consider the items this Commission has recommended to you to look at as an overall issue for the project. Do you want this Commission to act on your pallet storage area? Mr. Reilly answered I would prefer that you do. It is something that I would like to rectify now.

Mr. Wilson moved to vote on the pallet storage only, using three sides block with the fourth side being a chain link gate which would be screened and two feet away from the building. You would be responsible for maintaining said block and gate and paint it out, and the pallets shall not be stored above the height of the block and the Fire Department should inspect. Mr. Young seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Wilson, Mr. Young, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, and Mr. Okum. Outside storage of pallets has been approved. Mr. Okum added I think it would be appropriate for you to get your things together with your corporate office and bring them in under concept discussion first and we will go on that basis. We will need drawings and sketches submitted. Mr. Wilson added that they should be submitted two weeks before our next meeting so Mr. McErlane can package it and submit it for our review. Everything should be squared away so we would have time to review it, get answers to our questions and have it resolved in a timely manner.

B. Approval of Revision to Charing Cross Estates Phase 1 (Landominiums

(originally approved 5/14/96) - tabled 9 July 1996

Mr. Douglas Eades stated I would like to ask clarification on Item #4 in the report. How many garages are we talking about if we go 12 units?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Seven


Ms. McBride responded it is my understanding that if you went to 12 units you would have 12 garages. Mr. Eades stated we have 12 single car garages. Ms. McBride added and then you would have a single car space on the driveway, so that would allow for two cars per unit. Mr. Eades wondered if they would have to have visitor parking. Ms. McBride answered that is what we are suggesting. Mr. Eades continued I notice that you said here that each unit will have at least two cars; additional parking must be provided on the site in the form of two car garage and driveway. If we only have a one car garage, do we get to count the driveway?

Ms. McBride stated our concerns were with going to this type of unit with three bedrooms and a bonus room, which could conceivably be used as a fourth bedroom. We thought there was a likelihood that there would be children in the house who may or may not be of driving age. If there were a family living there, there likely would be two cars to a unit ; if there were a driving child, there was the potential of the third. If there were a single car garage and single car driveway, and the unit had two cars, you could park both of those cars, one on the driveway and one in the garage. But, if anyone came to visit, or if there was another occupant in that unit that had a car, there is no place to put that car. The street is only 24 feet wide. What we suggested is either guest parking or additional parking so if you had a guest or an occasional third car, there would be someplace to put that. There is also the possibility of an expanded garage or expanded driveway facility. Somewhere on that site there needs to be additional parking.

Mr. Eades asked if it had to be in the form of another garage, and Ms. McBride indicated that it did not have to be a garage; that was just one alternative that we put forward as something you might want to consider. Mr. Eades asked how many they would have to have one per unit, and Ms. McBride answered I donít know one for every unit; I think maybe eight for the 12 units would be sufficient.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Eades said you realize that I was not pleased with the drawings as they were. They seemed to be stark and uninviting, particularly the rear elevations. Can you work with the architect on that? Can he have a conference with you to find out what you think would be the right thing?

Ms. McBride responded I think it might be more appropriate for him to set up a meeting with Mr. McErlane or the chairman of the Commission. I would be happy to attend that if the city wishes. What we are trying to get at is the side elevations have bay windows, but the rear elevations, as you agree, are kind of plain. Mr. Eades commented all the rear elevations are facing south.

Mr. Okum wondered if Mr. Eades was requesting that the City be involved in designing this project for him, and Mr. Eades answered no, I just want some input of what you think would pass. We donít want you to design it; I have an architect. Mr. Okum asked if these were drawn by your architect, and Mr. Eades answered yes; both sets of plans are by the same man, and I had hoped that he would be here tonight.

Ms. McBride stated the direction we are looking for is something to break up that expanse of the rear building. Mr. Eades said I agree with that 100%. I would not even build anything like that because there is no variety or anything else.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Eight


Mr. Okum commented it appears that you are in agreement with Ms. McBrideís observations, is that correct? Mr. Eades indicated that is true. Mr. Okum continued I feel it would be inappropriate for this Commission to be considering the plan this evening, if you as the applicant are not even comfortable with it yourself. This Commission has reports here; the staff has spent some time reviewing these plans and you have submitted them to us in I believe good faith that you wanted us to consider them for approval. From what I am hearing you say, you are not totally pleased with this submission. Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane for his comments.

Mr. McErlane stated Mr. Eades did not present what he was requesting here. It is basically going from a total of six units on the project to 12. It probably would be worth his while to get some kind of a feel from the Commission if architecturally he can do something to clean up the project if it is worthwhile for him to go forward looking at 12 units as opposed to six. Mr. Eades added will going from six to 12 units fly or not?

Mr.Galster said I do think it is a big change; I have some concerns about the size and number of the units. I think it is a drastic enough change to go back for Councilís consideration as well. So, not only this board but Council would have to consider this. Mr. Eades commented I donít know why it would have to go back before Council. Mr. Galster responded because it is totally different from what was approved by Council when it was originally brought in. When you brought in your original plans, Planning recommended it to Council and they approved it. This is enough of a change that Planning will either make a recommendation or not and it will go before Council for final approval.

Mr. Wilson commented my concern is a three or four bedroom unit with a one car garage. I would think a two car garage would sell this property a lot faster, but that is your decision. This is such a departure from what we saw previously. A four bedroom house with a one car garage; even if the purchasers have no children, they might have two cars and they will have visitors. This is your project, but I am throwing out things that jump out at me. I have a problem with changing the number of units on that same size lot as well. Weíre still looking at 12 units; you probably downsized something. I thought you initially had two car garages. Mr. Eades confirmed that, adding what I am hearing, and I would feel that even if I come back with a new set of drawings, we will have to go through a long cycle again, is that right? Mr. Wilson responded you would have to be placed on the agenda for Council after Planning Commission.

Mr. Eades said the other plans are approved, right? Is that still the case? Mr. Okum responded the plans that were approved on 5/14/96 are still approved. Mr. Eades added there is a tremendous expense in site work, and that was the only reason this was thought about again. We are going to have to bear the majority of the expense on the site work which will be somewhere between $150 and $200,000 for a road or a bridge to Smiley; I think the road will cost $50,000.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Eades stated weíre going to tear down the existing house. If we go back to the original plans that have been approved, we will live in the first unit that is built, down in the southwest corner of the lot. If we tear down the house, is there any possibility just for those two units using Route 4?

Mr. Wilson asked if he were talking about putting a private entrance to Route 4 for just those two houses? Mr. Eades responded there is an existing driveway there; we would just add on to that when the house is torn down. Mr. Wilson continued so on the same site that you have the house now you want to put a duplex? Mr. Eades answered the duplex will be in the first unit and then there wonít be any more built for a while. The road or the bridge either one would be $35,000 to $50,000. When you are talking about just that for entering into two units, it is rather difficult. If we come on up with the next two units, that building two units, the next building two units, then of course we would have to put the road in over there.

Mr. Eades stated I am withdrawing this. Mr. Wilson said so you are talking about replacing the house, tearing it down and putting a two unit there. Mr. Eades responded not where the house is; it would be further down on the lot. Mr. Wilson continued you want to be able to use the existing driveway to go to Route 4. Personally I donít have a problem with that because you are not creating a new driveway. I would have no problem with your utilizing that driveway on that property for those two units and as the other units are built, you wouldíve to deal with the other entrance. However, if you use that entrance, will the streets allow others to come in or out of that entrance? Then you would be creating a public entrance. Mr. Eades wondered how they would get through there, and Mr. Wilson responded thatís what Iím asking, since we donít know what the other plans look like. Mr. Eades responded it will not be a through driveway, just back to the first unit. Mr. Okum added and you indicate that you will abandon that when you build Building 2 and 3. Mr. Eades confirmed this. For the time being, I would like that driveway for the first building in that corner; when we build the other two I realize we will have to close that driveway. Mr. Okum commented he would abandon that driveway when Building 2 and 3 are built.

Mr. Huddleston said I recognize that Mr. Eades is withdrawing his request, but I think the garage units are secondary to the density issue involved. Excusing that as a withdrawn submittal, I would say that what was approved by this Comission after much deliberation and several submittals by Mr. Eades, was a development with a certain character and a certain scale. While I respect your concern over the financial feasibility of the project, that per se is not a consideration of this Commission. We have approved the scale of the project as you submitted it, and I would have a problem if in fact you are trying to scale back the overall development plan, whether it is interim or otherwise, because I feel if for whatever reason you do not go forward beyond Units 1 and 2, then we have some other developer, or somebody behind you or yourself coming in with something else. I think the scale of the development was worked on for some extended period of time, and I think we have to maintain that. That is why I would have a concern with allowing the use of the driveway even on an interim basis. I think the scale of the development has to be maintained; the architectural character and overall site planning has to be maintained.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Galster said I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Huddleston. I do believe even using that driveway for one unit is a major change. If Council would have been presented with plans that had shown a temporary driveway for some time before the second and third units were built, I donít know that it would have been approved.

Mr. Eades said then the way it stands, I should go back to the original plans and I donít have to get any other kind of approval and Council originally agreed on a bridge and/or. Do I have to come back? Mr. Okum said no, the plan approved is with the driveway off Cloverdale, the plan approved on 5/4/96. Smiley has not been approved. Mr. Eades responded but it was approved by Council. Mr.Okum responded final plan approval which was approved by this Commission allowed for the Cloverdale entrance only into the site. Mr. Eades said so if we ever decided to build a bridge and go through Smiley, where would we have to come? Mr. Okum answered you would have to come back to the Commission and the two councilmembers on this Commission would make a decision as tow whether it is a major departure from the original plan and if it were deemed a major departure, it would go back to Council. If you wanted to build a bridge off Smiley, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Galster are the council representatives on Planning Commission. If they felt that was a major departure from your original submission, you would have to take that to Council. Mr. Eades asked if that would be a major departure, and Mr. Galster indicated that it would be. Mr. Eades commented then I would have to go back to Council.

Mr.McErlane reported that the original plan did show it coming off Smiley. Mr. Eades said it was modified, and Mr. McErlane stated it never went back to Council after that point. Mr. Okum reported Planning Commission approved one entrance into that site, off Cloverdale. Mr. McErlane added and Council only saw one off Smiley. Mr. Eades said Smiley then is not approved and Mr. Okum responded not by this Commission. Mr. Eades wondered if it had to be, and Mr. Okum said that it did. Mr. Eades said then you would have to take it back to Council, and Mr. Okum said no, you get your permits and everything Mr. McErlane needs, you are ready to go.

Mr. Galster stated if the applicant wants to change from Cloverdale to Smiley, he could make that presentation to this board and this board alone, but you still would have to reapply to this board to make that change. It would not have to go to Council if in fact you were eliminating Cloverdale and only putting in Smiley. Mr. Eades stated we have it all set for going through Cloverdale. Would it do us any good for us to come back and try to get it changed to Smiley? Anybody willing to make a guess? Mr. Okum responded in simple terms, this Commission has spent a lot of time on this project with you and they have tried to work with you the best they can. Mr. Eades stated I think weíll proceed with the other one; I take it from you we are not going to get Route 4, so we have to proceed, and we donít have to come back for anything else, because that original plan approved on May 14, 1996 is good and we can go over there tomorrow and start digging. Mr. McErlane reported there are a lot of things that must be put in place before you can start digging. Ponds have to be posted, and I donít think we have final site plan approval from the city engineer yet. Mr. Eades continued as far as you are concerned, we are done. Mr. Okum responded we are out of it; it is in their hands now. Mr. Eades said I appreciate your patience and understanding, having never done this before.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Eleven

Mr. Okum said let the record show that Mr. Eades has withdrawn his request, and he is back on target with the original approval.


A. Concept Discussion of Proposed Furrow Contractor Supply Company, 550 Kemper Commons Circle

Mr. Jim OíKeefe, Real Estate Manager for Payless Casualty passed out a sketch to the members. What we are talking about is Furrows in the Cincinnati area. Approximately 50% of the business has turned to contractors. HQ was here tonight, and there has been an onslaught of other companies which predominantly do homeowners and retail business in the 90% rate. With our concept of always having a lumber yard with our stores, we have now gotten to about 50% homeowner/retailer and 50% contractor due to the lumber yard business. We are now going through the nation; this will be our second market; our first was in Phoenix; and changing our business pattern somewhat. We are going to try to center some of our contractor activity to one location for each market. It would take some of the advantages of freeing up space in other stores to add more retail products. So we will have a retail side and a contractor side.

In the contractor side business, we want a place that can handle the requests of the contractors. We also are now into window and door assemblage, taking component parts of each and putting them together for customer orders or for our retail stores. So this is part of this concept. We are looking for a home in the Cincinnati market for what we call Furrow Contractor Supply.

Mr. OíKeefe continued this is a location that will house lumber for contractor purchases along with a window and door operation. We need a location that is serviced by rail and is close to the highway patterns of the city to get around the city. This location has both the highway access and the rail. Rail is extremely rare in this area, and this has two rail spurs that run inside the building. What we would propose is leasing the 120,000 feet on the west end of the building that has existing rail in it, and use it for our base operation. We plan to have to have between 50 to 100 employees . We think we will probably have four rail cars a week come in with product and as business grows that number might grow. We will have most of the bulk lumber come in on rail car. There will be some component parts for the doors and windows that will come in on a semi truck and we will have our own city trucks running deliveries out to contractor sites. Those will not be semi trucks they will be flat beds or box vans. We would anticipate 25 trips daily Monday through Friday. This operation is open from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, 7 to noon on Saturday and is closed on Sunday. We work contractor hours.

Mr. OíKeefe continued with the120,000 feet that we propose to lease, we are looking to take six acres adjacent to that building to the north between that and the highway loop, and use that for our commodities storage yard.

Mr. OíKeefe added the location of this building and this lot tucks in behind the mall and the elevation of the highway is much higher than that of the ground we are talking about. It is not like Roberds where everything is on the same plain.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. OíKeefe stated I would be interested in hearing your comments about the operation. Our drawings are very simple; we want to hear your thoughts and concerns and answer your questions. If you feel this is something we can work with and develop a plan and get architects involved and do this in good form, we would like to proceed. Tonight we need to talk generally about the concept and see if this could be a home for this new face of operation.

Mr. Young asked if there were a reason that you didnít try to go more inside with the rest of the building that is available? Mr. OíKeefe responded it comes out on a cost basis. To store lumber you become cost inefficient when you pay for indoor space, plus you canít load a truck inside the building; so you are almost handling it three times on the basis of a two time load. Mr. Young continued in this proposed outside storage, what type of fence are you looking at? What is it going to look like? Mr. OíKeefe answered I look to talk with you; what your feelings are is what I need to know. I can tell you Iíll start at the minimum.

Mr. Young continued one of the concerns I have is what Ms. McBride has given to us, and that is that Roberds is next door. They have gone to a great extent to put together a very nice looking facility and quite honestly, I realize this is just a sketch, but if I were them I wouldnít be thrilled about having you come in with this type of structure next to what they have. Iím sure they have spent millions and millions of dollars to put their project together. That is a general concern of mine.

Mr. OíKeefe responded there is another 120,000 feet between us and Roberds. Mr. Young stated itís probably five seconds on the interstate when you are traveling, but I think we have to look at those kinds of things. Cost factor is your big concern about going outside as opposed to inside. Mr. OíKeefe answered cost and trying to load to go out to a job site and handling that bulk lumber. You canít load it off a dock; you have to load it by fork lifts. Mr. Young asked how much actual storage is anticipated; how many stores are you servicing? Mr. OíKeefe answered this will service the Cincinnati market, which is 10 stores.

Mr. Galster commented you said you will service 10 stores. It is my understanding that you are going to try to get the contractors to come to this store, but you will also bring raw material to this store and ship it out to the other stores? Mr. OíKeefe answered the raw material will come in by rail and there always will be a contractor desk at all of our stores. We are finding that 80% of the time the contractors wonít come to our location; we have outside sales people and they fax in and call in orders. All they care about is that it is there the next day or whenever they want it. So, this is not a heavy use of people coming to the facility to purchase. Mr. Galster asked about other bulk material for the 10 stores. Mr. OíKeefe answered they all have lumber yards and will get their orders for their retail sales. Each store will do some small contractor business, but this is our main base operation for large contractor orders.

Mr. Galster stated I also have a concern about the amount of outside storage. In general we have tried to discourage all outside storage in Springdale. In some situations, there is no way of getting around it, but right on the interstate here. I did go out and drive the property and walked out there and I could see the cars on the interstate. Iím not saying everybody will be drawn to it every time they go by, but it is not like it is invisible to the traffic. So, I have a problem with that much outside storage.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Thirteen


Mr. OíKeefe responded that is why I am here tonight. Berming, landscaping, fencing, those types of issues are what I am here to find out from you all.

Mr. Huddleston commented I am not certain if you are considering this to be a manufacturing operation. Mr. OíKeefe answered assembly. Mr. Huddleston wondered if that were permitted under the terms of the PUD. From what I have seen the Furrow people do a pretty good job of maintenance and even though they are a "yard" they keep it attractive and as neat as possible in that situation. You mentioned there is 120,000 square feet between you and the Roberds operation. The concern I have is number one what you are doing and what happens there without some master plan so there is some logical time. We have detention area and we know there is no more parking out front. What happens to that 120,000 square feet without some overall consideration? That is not your problem, but I think it will be the Commissionís problem. Mr. OíKeefe commented there is a representative of the owner here tonight.

Larry Bergman representative of Springdale Kemper Associates, the owners of the property said it is a problem and we donít know what to do either. There are a lot of issues. We have 280,000 feet to develop after Roberds has been developed. It is our goal to bring our property to the highest and best use. Roberds did a terrific job; it was a first class renovation of warehouse space, but we still are dealing with warehouse space. We are trying to take into consideration the city concerns with traffic and still try and market in a retail type atmosphere. We are trying to attract retailers with a limited amount of traffic. There are not a lot of companies out there that meet these qualifications, but we are doing the best we can. Payless came to us through CB Commercial about the 120,000 feet at the west end of the property because it had rail access. It was our suggestion that they talk to the city first; we wanted our development to be within city guidelines. We donít want to be bringing all these people through trying to get zoning and all the approvals without understanding what we are trying to do with the entire facility. It is a real challenge. We have a lot of square footage to market. Our thought was with this outside storage, the elevations are considerably higher and if we can do proper berming and fencing and planting, maybe we can shelter it. I donít think we can substantially shelter it, but maybe we can do a good job. It is the ownerís position that they also want to protect and make this space look good, because we still have 160,000 feet to lease. We need the cityís help on this one. I think Payless wanted to come here from Kansas City and hear whether there is a shot and the things they should focus on with their architects to get it done.

Mr. Huddleston commented as the operation goes if there could be certain guarantees on how the yard will be maintained, and if through adequate and appropriate berming or screening some of those concerns could be satisfied, I donít have a problem with the operation. What I have a bigger problem with is the developerís ongoing perspective. Do you even have dock access to the remaining 160,000 square feet? Mr. Bergman answered that they do, but it is very limited. and it becomes a very difficult distribution space



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Fourteen


Mr. Huddleston commented I donít think we are going to solve that problem here tonight, but if I were to consider at all moving favorably on this as a piece of that overall development, I think we need some plan and you all need to think through what is going to happen there so we are not further encroaching on someone in the future. Mr. Bergman responded I agree, I think this is something we have to take into serious consideration. In the center section, we really do have to look at the overall picture of the balance of the space and how we will market that section. If you want to proceed with it, we will have to look at the overall picture.

Mr. Okum called on Ms. McBride for her comments. Ms. McBride reported that this is conceptual, so it is not possible for us to look at parking requirements, signage, and lighting, but Iím sure the applicant understands that at a later date we will be looking at those issues. Items 2 and 3 go to the issue of the appearance of the facility from I-275, and we have talked about that in terms of what type of fencing would be used, what the surface would be of the area, would there be any type of landscaping, what types of materials would be stored back there, would they be in containers, those kind of things are all of significant concern to the City. Number 4 indicates that we would like to see the AT&T tower located on the site plan as a reference point. The other item which is as large a concern for us as the appearance from I-275 is the traffic. Understanding that a lot of your materials are coming in by rail and may be leaving by rail, and that a lot of your contractors will probably come in at off peak hours for the retail development, we do have a concern about the conflict in that traffic. We would like to see the applicant do a traffic impact analysis as part of their submittal that will detail out how many trips per day, the types of traffic, the hours it will be generated and how that traffic might access that development.

Mr. OíKeefe stated all those are issues that we will be happy to address and work with staff to come to an agreement that meets your standards.

Mr. Huddleston said if I understood earlier in your presentation, you aid you have one of these facilities in operation in Phoenix? Mr. OíKeefe responded we redid the entire Phoenix market and changed all the stores and we do have a contractors supply unit there. Mr. Huddleston said I would suggest a simple study incorporating some of those concerns from that facility might be helpful to this deliberation. Mr. OíKeefe answered we can get photographs for you. We actually took an existing store and converted it to contractor supply. Mr. Huddleston wondered how long it had been in operation, and Mr. OíKeefe stated two months. Mr. Huddleston commented I was suggesting it might be helpful if you had some of that history, but two months isnít a lot of history in terms of traffic movements. It also would be helpful to see some of what is in place out there.

Mr. Bergman commented one of our biggest concerns was the outside storage, and we want them to understand that the proper screening of that would be a critical issue. They need it; I donít know how they can do this project without it. Do you think this can be addressed with the expenses necessary or would outside storage be totally prohibited?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Fifteen


Mr. Okum called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated I had a series of questions for clarification and I think they answered a few of them. I donít know how effective berming would be with the elevation difference that we have. He showed slides from the interstate. Fencing to a certain degree will be somewhat effective, but I doubt very much that berming will do a whole lot for it. I donít know if we touched on what the surface material of your outside storage area would be. Mr. OíKeefe reported we can operate on about any surface. If I say gravel, Iíll take asphalt. Mr. McErlane continued itís kind of a problem either way. If we talk about asphalt we talk about runoff problems which I am sure can be accommodated, but it is additional runoff. Iíll defer to the City Engineer as to whether or not he has a preference. The other question had to do with signs. The sign on the building on the interstate side makes sense, but then how do you get people back to that location? Mr. OíKeefe answered signs are not that important to us on this operation. We are not inviting the homeowner/retailer to shop there. It would be very difficult for them to do it; there are no shop carts or products neatly stacked with pricing. It is bulk and definitely not a homeowner environment at all. Again, 78% of our contractors just call in their orders. Mr. McErlane responded so the majority of your traffic is your own trucks.

Mr. Shvegzda reported we need to have an improved surface, which is either asphalt or concrete; it is a matter of aesthetics more than anything else. There is also the problem of picking up the storm water and carrying it to the detention basin. The retention basin isnít shown there, and there is a question if there would be any encroachment that might reduce the overall volume. The issue of traffic has been mentioned. In one form or another a loop has always been a part of the PUD. With Roberds there might be more of a concern with ingress/egress. The only other question was what is happening with the AT&T tower. Mr.Okum reported Ms. McBride indicated that it should be on the drawings.

Mr. OíKeefe stated there is also an easement that benefits this property behind Wal-Mart. It goes back around for the service drive for the shopping center along here and back out which is another means of access.

Mr. Wilson stated my initial concern when you mentioned 25 tractor trailers moving your product to your contractors, was that we must take into consideration the wear and tear on our streets. That is an additional burden that we as a City have to incur. I am concerned about proper screening. Thinking along those lines, I would invite you to consider the cost factor in terms of purchasing more inside storage rather than outside storage. Outside storage from an aesthetics standpoint is a concern. If you do something with that in terms of making it asphalt or whatever, we have detention concerns. I would think from a cost standpoint it would be advantageous for you to consider more inside storage since you donít have people coming out and walking around; it is just storage. Is there an advantage to having outside storage versus inside storage?

Mr. OíKeefe responded we cannot load trucks and operate efficiently by having to go through an entire warehouse. You canít take 12 foot boards and trusses that are 36 feet long and take them through a warehouse. You canít maneuver around; this building has columns and posts; it is inefficient. Outdoor storage is a must for us to operate this type of operation.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Sixteen


Mr. Wilson responded then you do have to deal with the screening, and that may be the straw that breaks the camelís back in term of not only getting the Commission members here, but getting Council to agree to an outside storage of this size. It is maybe four times bigger than the building that you are leasing.

Mr. Wilson wondered once the trucks are loaded, how they would getting there to get these things out. Mr. OíKeefe responded they will go through the yard area and pull their loads with forklifts. Theyíll just run down the aisle as they load. While the trucks are out, many times the yard people will start pulling their loads, getting them banded and ready to go so when the truck gets back they can load it up and send it out. Mr. Wilson responded with a lot of this being wood, are you concerned about weather on this? Mr. OíKeefe said no, most of it comes wrapped and you only unwrap a bundle at a time. There are some items that have to be inside, but mostly the materials are not of a delicate nature. Mr. Wilson responded this is not your typical 84 Lumber where everything is exposed and you hope that the wood doesnít rot before you sell it. Mr. OíKeefe answered no. We have been in business since 1938 and we have outdoor lumber yards in all our stores. It depends on the nature of the product whether it can be outside or not.

Mr. Young commented you mentioned that you converted a retail store in Phoenix which would have buildings in your outside storage area. Mr. OíKeefe answered there are some line sheds and t canopies that were existing the tea canopy can be 40 feet wide by 300 feet long. Mr. Young continued we are not talking about anything like that here. I want to make sure we are not looking at structures being built in that outside storage area. Mr. OíKeefe indicated they were not.

Mr. Okum asked if they were intending to construct trusses on the site and Mr. OíKeefe reported that they are in negotiation with a truss manufacturer in the area. Whether that comes about, we donít know yet. There has been some real informal talk about maybe doing some truss manufacturing here, and that would then solve everybodyís problem about the other 120,000 feet, but we have problems since those are big structures and how do you get them through the building. But right now no, we are not planning on it. Mr. Okum asked the spacing between the columns on the inside of the building; are they fairly close? Mr.OíKeefe answered 44 feet. Mr. Okum continued there was a lumber company there nine or 10 years ago that was functioning out of the facility. I believe they had most of their lumber inside and trusses outside in an area. Mr. Bergman confirmed this, adding that they had outside storage along the south end of the building towards Wal-Mart. Mr. Okum added but they did palletize their lumber internally as well. Mr.Bergman responded they did, but it was a very small area within 20,000 square feet. Their inventory was not much.

Mr. Okum said looking at 84 Lumber, you can consider the Commissionís sensitivity considering that facility, what we have been living with for the past 15 or 20 years. So, there will be a lot of scrutiny with yours considering you are in a PUD and you are requesting to be next to a major contributor to that development in that area (Roberds). That sensitivity will carry into this Commission as well as into Council.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Seventeen


Mr. Okum continued I do have a question about the railroad crossing. Is Roberds currently receiving merchandise on those tracks as well? Mr. OíKeefe responded those tracks end at the end of the 120,000 feet. Mr. Bergman added there is no rail access to Roberds. Mr. Okum asked if they would be doing offloading of the rail outside? Mr. OíKeefe stated there would be loading and unloading inside and out. Mr. Okum said youíd have to take your lumber off the rail outside to put it in your yard. Mr. OíKeefe answered you can unload cars inside. Mr. Okum responded I understand that, but that would be for your dry wall and insulation and those types of products.

Mr. Okum said you indicated signage is not an issue. Mr. OíKeefe responded not a big issue. Mr. Okum said I was in Terre Haute Indiana, and there was a conversion Furrows Contractors Supply facility there. It is pretty classic of Furrows. Is that what you are intending to do with the other stores in this market? Mr. OíKeefe said no, Terre Haute is a single store market. We saw the need for a contractor type operation there so we made that operation more towards contractors. Here, no. As a matter of fact the other stores will be stronger retail than they have been; they will carry 20,000 more different products. We will take a lot of the contractor bulk items that we have in our retail stores and pull them out and add more household homeowner type purchases.

Mr. Okum asked if they own the property where their other facilities are, and Mr. OíKeefe answered yes, except for the one in Western Hills Village Mall. We lease there.

Mr. Young said you were mentioning that contractors will be coming in. I am assuming we are talking about contractors who will be making substantial purchases. I am a contractor and use your company quite often, but mostly for small things. I am assuming these contractors coming to this facility would be doing major renovations and picking up substantial supplies or ordering truckloads of things as opposed to buying one door. Mr. OíKeefe responded we are obtaining this and framing packages for the entire house. The other stores will handle the smaller orders. Mr. Young continued so you donít see the influx of the small contractors coming into this facility. Mr. OíKeefe answered obviously if they have an account with us and stop by, weíll sell to you, but we are not publicizing this as the place you need to come.

Mr. Okum stated this is a PUD, and you would have to go through the full submission. I hope the comments you have heard have been helpful. If you would like to have another concept discussion prior to your submission, this Commission would be open to that, or you can go the route of the full PUD submission and changes to the PUD. It would come to us and then be referred to Council for their consideration as well. There are certain guidelines; Mr. McErlane can provide you with a list of the PUD requirements for submittal. I think you have heard things tonight regarding water retention/detention. It would be an improved surface, so that would all be factored in. Mr. Shvegzda and CDS could work with you on that, and Mr. McErlane can handle the PUD and Ms.McBride can handle the issues of how the building fits and the land use applied to that area.

Mr. Wilson added we canít emphasize enough the screening and how you will camouflage what you are doing. That will be a very sensitive issue, so you might want to look at that in earnest to make certain it is squared away.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page 18

Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at

9:10 p.m.

B. Approval of Ground Sign for Ethan Allen 11285 Springfield Pike

Cliff Meyer, Owner of ABC Signs and representing Ethan Allen stated that in early July he applied for a permit for a ground sign and was denied because on March 28, 1995 Planning Commission had approved a ground sign located near the Princeton Pike driveway which included Tumbleweeds and OíCharleyís. The sign was supposed to have been designed for three signs. There are two on it and the only remaining location for a sign would be on the ground itself. There would be no room for any type of landscaping. Itís a little bit below the terrain, and because of the swell area, it is below the road and the driveway. It is really a disadvantage for the sign to be there, plus the fact that even though three signs were designed on paper, in my estimation, the sign designer did not really have three signs in mind when he put this together. If you put a third sign there (indicating slide) it would not be appropriate; it looks fine the way it is.

Mr. Meyer continued the sign submitted to me from Ethan Allen is an appropriate sign for an interior furniture store. This type design going with the two restaurants would look highly inappropriate. There are three buildings located on that parcel which have been divided into thirds. The driveway is to the right of center and this sign is to the right of the driveway. The Ethan Allen building is to the far left, so even location is not really adaptable to Ethan Allen. What they would like to do is put a sign over in line with Ethan Allen on the other side of the driveway. There is another ground swell over there, so the thing would have to be off the ground a bit. It wouldnít be a pole sign, but it couldnít be setting in the weeds and grass like this is proposed over here. If we brought it up to five or six feet high, a similar height to what we have here and the same distance from the street, I think it would be much more appropriate. I donít feel that OíCharleyís or Tumbleweeds would have any objection to this, because of the fact that if you stuck another sign on this structure, it would deteriorate the looks of what is there now; it would be too jumbled. I tried to do Ethan Allen in their logo and horizontal mode to fit between the two brick pylons and you wouldnít be able to read it and it wouldnít be functional. That and the fact that they just did that building with new drivitt finish; the signs should be appropriate to the building.

Mr. Wilson said you stated that the individual who designed the sign did not take into consideration that there would be a third sign under that. Mr. Meyer responded usually a sign company will want to give everybody equal billing. In a situation like this because of the terrain, the guy on the bottom does not have equal billing.

Mr. Wilson responded understand that we approved that sign, and BZA allowed the variance for it to exceed seven feet because it was anticipated that there would be a third establishment on that property. Now we are looking at a possible second sign on the same site. What is to say that another organization wonít want to take up some space here too and want another sign? What you have to understand is we approved the sign based on what the developers had agreed to. I have a problem with your asking this Commission to approve another sign. I can understand your concern but the developers should have taken that into consideration. We are being asked to make allowances for others who did not plan. I have a concern about our setting a precedent, and I am not in favor of that, even for a sign.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Nineteen


Mr. Young asked if there were an Ethan Allen name across the front of the store, and Mr. Meyer responded that he did not know what they would put up there. Mr. Okum commented it is on the building. Mr. Meyer continued they want me to install the sign, but there is an outside contractor making it.

Mr. Young stated I was on the Board of Zoning Appeals when we allowed that variance, and we did that with the knowledge that this was going to fit in. We allowed the additional height and size because of that. If the developer didnít make that clear to Ethan Allen when they were going in, shame on him. I donít think at this point of time we should alter something that another board has taken the time to review. It really should stand where it is. Ethan Allen is fairly well known and the signage that has been approved for them thatís on their building will be adequate. I would be opposed to a second sign.

Mr. Okum said your request is double the square footage of what was approved for the lower space, 15 square feet. Mr. Meyer responded what they asked me to get approved was what they submitted to me, 32 square feet.

Mr. Wilson commented you are not the only sign company that has been in this situation, and I hope you donít take this personally. Mr. Meyer responded I understand your predicament. Mr. Wilson continued other companies have sign contractors to come in and represent them, in some instances knowing full well that it will not be approved and hoping we will be more compassionate with you than we would be with them. Mr. Meyer answered it is my job to present the case; that is all I can do.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the ground sign for Ethan Allen and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Mr. Okum stated Commissionís rules call for a 5-0 vote for passage.

No one voted aye, and Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Young, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Okum voted no. Approval was denied with five negative votes.

C. Approval of Rezoning of Property at 11320 Springfield Pike from OB to PF-2 to allow the Construction of Sterling House (Assisted Living Residence)

There was no one present to represent the applicant. Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if there was any contact, and Mr. McErlane indicated that he did place a call to the real estate agent that is handling the property on Thursday afternoon to try and acquire a letter from the current owner saying that it was okay for him to rezone his property, and never received a call back.

Mr. Galster moved to drop the item from the agenda and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and this item was dropped from the agenda. Mr. Okum stated the item has been dropped from the agenda, and they can resubmit when they are ready.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty



D. Revision to Preliminary Plan, Northwest Business Center, Proposed Air-Tite Window Company, 205 North Commerce Way (Renaissance Property)

Mr. Tom Bennington consultant for Air-Tite introduced Dale Yates the founder and CEO of Air Tite Window Company.

Mr. Bennington added I would like to give you a brief background. Air-Tite Window Company has been in existence for 10 years and has had significant growth over this period. They currently reside on Commercial Drive, four miles north of this location. They are at 18,000 square feet and have leased 4,000 additional space in another building.

Mr. Bennington stated we have engaged in a contract to purchase this property from the Renaissance. It is a 10.6 acre site combining the two 5.3 acre sites originally labeled as Lots C and D. The property is between the Avon and the 5th/3rd properties.

Mr. Bennington reported we propose a 98,000 square coot tilt up concrete facility that would be visible from I-275 with parking in the front and docks to the rear of the building. Down the road we would build a 15,000 square foot building on the back side of the building for future expansion as needed.

Mr. Bennington stated we have come here tonight to get a preliminary concept approval from you, and we will plan to work towards fulfilling all your requirements to get a full approval. You can appreciate the fact that we didnít want to go to the expense of all the things in your requirements if this Commission would not give us an approval of this use. What we are asking you to do is to make an exception to PUD and put it back to General Industrial as it was before the PUD went into effect. This building is very much in compliance with all the other buildings in the park, if not to a higher scale. It has the appearance of a nice office building and not so much of a warehouse facility. Although Air-Tite Window Company is more of a manufacturing facility than it would be a showroom, they may have one or two customers come in. I think you are very familiar with what they do since you just approved the Champion Window facility. We would try to build a very similar type of facility. It would be significantly smaller than the Champion building. We donít have that much walk in traffic; it is not a retail use, it is more of an industrial use.

Ms. McBride reported the first comment has to do with the fact that the property is currently within the PUD. Previously it was zoned General Industrial (GI), and from a planning standpoint we would prefer that the property remain within the PUD and that this be treated as a modification to the PUD as opposed to a zoning amendment back to the GI District. Mr. McErlane might want to comment additionally on covenants that run with the property as a part of that approved PUD but that would be our recommendation in terms of land use. In terms of the PUD, we also would recommend that the overall PUD plan for the entire development be looked at in terms of circulation, land use compatibility and those kind of factors, at least on a conceptual basis so we can see how this part of the puzzle will plug into the overall picture. I think that would be an important component when the applicant does make a formal application.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-One


Ms. McBride continued the site plan that they are proposing is generally acceptable, certainly on a conceptual level. Obviously we would want to see things like the dumpster screened. They have two detention basins, a smaller one up front on I-275 and a much larger one on the eastern portion of the site. I am wondering if it would be possible to take the detention basin in the front and make it a retention basin; add a water feature to that and it would be a nice feature going along I-275; it would accent their building and add something to the character of the overall PUD, something tying this light manufacturing office type use to some of the uses that were proposed as a part of the original PUD. Obviously landscaping will have to be provided. There is extensive tree removal that will occur on the site, and Iím sure Mr. McErlane will touch on the tree replacement ordinance.

Ms. McBride stated we will need to know the types of building materials and colors, etc. The overall length of that building is about 600 feet, so we will be somewhat concerned with the types of materials and how they are going to treat that to break that up so it doesnít appear as a blanket 600 foot long building. It is on I-275, so we are very concerned about the appearance of it.

Ms. McBride continued in terms of traffic flow, etc. they have a really nice separation of the truck traffic from any potential customer traffic. The site plan overall is well done, and I think the land use is compatible with the area surrounding properties, and the fact that the property was previously zoned GI, but we would like to see it stay within the PUD.

Mr. McErlane reported I think the appropriate way to address this would be a modification of a preliminary plan to the PUD instead of rezoning it back to General Industrial, only because there are covenants that apply to the entire development, there is a commitment to tree replacement for the entire development and a lot of other components that go into this property as well as other properties in the Northwest Business Center. So, the appropriate way to handle it would be a modification to the preliminary plan, which is probably going to mean referral back to Council for modification to that preliminary plan. It is basically back to what it was under the first preliminary plan that Council reviewed, which was the potential for office or industrial on that site. That plan was further modified by Pictoria Island and that went to Council for modification.

Mr. McErlane stated there were a number of items that I listed that were necessary for preliminary plan for the PUD and also, there are some setback encroachments that Planning Commission could consider based on this plan. One is the front yard setback for North Commerce Way. This scales out to be 35 to 40 feet (showed on the plan) and the Zoning Code requires 50 feet. There is a requirement for a 10 foot setback from the right of way for parking and on the plan it shows this corner of the parking lot is a 0 foot setback. The rear yard setback requirement is 10 feet, and there is no property line shown.

Mr. Bennington stated we would work with you to make sure that we are in compliance with all the setbacks.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. McErlane continued there is a burden for tree replacement based on the development of the subdivision itself, which would require 329 caliper inches before any trees are removed for the development of this lot. This lot does have a lot of mature trees already, so that will add even that much more to the tree replacement. As you can see on the slide, some of them are pretty sizable trees.

Mr. Galster asked if the 329 caliper inches are required to be replaced on the site before they remove any trees? Mr. McErlane confirmed this, adding that it is based on how many trees were removed to build detention basins and utilities in the subdivision at the time it was built, and is based on the number of caliper inches per acre for each site. It is approximately 30 to 31 caliper inches per acre.

Mr. Bennington asked why the caliper inches wouldnít be shared across the park since it is a shared detention basin? Mr. McErlane said they are; there were quite a few trees taken out as part of the development. Mr. Bennington continued so you are saying that before we even break any ground, we already have 329 caliper inches to replace.

Mr. Shvegzda stated concerning possible difficulties on the site, there appears to be approximately 260 feet of existing sanitary sewer to be relocated, reviewed and approved by MSD. There will need to be a significant adjustment of storm water management facilities on the site insofar as the existing detention basin is concerned. There will have to be revisions on that, and we will need information from the developer to verify that the land use impervious area coverage on the site is consistent with the original calculations for detention on the site.

Mr. Shvegzda continued another consideration is that it looks like this terminus of the roadway at North Commerce Way is basically a truck loading dock entrance. Consideration may be given to provide a cul de sac at some point just south of where the emergency drive connection to the Avon property is and to vacate the remainder of the public right of way.

Mr. Shvegzda reported a comment was addressed insofar as one or the other of what is currently listed as detention basin be changed over into retention basin and be used as a water feature.

Mr. Shvegzda stated I wasnít aware of the type of structure that was up front in terms of the scrap metal receptacle north of Building C. I know that there were agreements between Renaissance and Avon in regards to buffering and those types of issues. I wasnít clear as to if those were taken care of on the site.

Mr. Bennington stated an agreement between Renaissance and Avon is that there be a 100 foot area not to be touched. We are aware of all the other restrictions on the property, and we believe that meets all their covenants.

Mr. Bennington continued you have referenced the sewer, and we have definitely looked at that issue and know we have to relocate the sewer and the storm detention line that runs through there.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Bennington stated for the front of the building, we had hoped that we could make this area a golf green. Anne commented about making a fountain, and we would change it to retention and make it a fountain and probably light it as well. We want this to be a very nice looking facility.

Mr. Bennington stated on the trees, we have not addressed that. I was not aware of the 329 inches already allocated to the site before we break ground, but we will deal with that. We are willing to work with you to any extent. We want your approval on a conceptual basis to be able to move forward.

Mr. Wilson said we are looking at 329 caliper inches you will have to redesign your trees to accommodate that and others. It may or may not be a cost factor for your company, but it definitely will have to be part of your budget, in terms of how you will accommodate not only the 329 inches but whatever other caliper inches of trees that you will have to destroy as a result of building that. My question is if that is a concern, the fact that you could have to spend more money in landscaping than you initially thought?

Mr. Yates responded money should be a concern on any project, but it is not a major concern. It is a concern from the standpoint of that many trees on the lot and that may be an issue. From the standpoint of how the building and parking lots are laid out, we have more than the required green area for the project. We werenít aware that many trees were torn out for that detention area, and we definitely will have to take a closer look at it. There was a comment that we might make a donation to the tree fund.

Mr. Okum commented we understand that, and it has been done by other developers in the city. Mr. Yates added our interests are in having a very nice looking facility. We like the Springdale area; we like the way it is kept and the thought that is put in the projects that go into Springdale. We would like to keep Springdale on that basis, and we would be more than happy to work with Springdale any way we could

Mr. Huddleston commented I am not sure of the status of this development not having sat on the Commission when the Pictoria Island was approved, but is North Commerce Way dedicated right of way? Mr. Okum answered yes. Mr. Huddleston wondered if it would make any sense to vacate that right of way for the project. Mr. Okum responded I believe that was Mr. Shvegzdaís recommendation on the tail of North Commerce Way. Mr. Shvegzda added that would be on the very easterly end of it. as it entered into the truck dock area. Mr. Huddleston added what I see here is certainly high image. I have seen what the contractor has done for Champion, and that certainly is high image. I perceive this to be the same so from that perspective I would highly encourage the development to go forward. With some of the problems that have been pointed out relative to the tree replacement or donation or whatever, I thought maybe vacation might facilitate that process. The other suggestion is to go back to the developer and get him to donate the land to do your trees. That might be a negotiating point.

Mr. McErlane reported one of the concerns about vacating the right of way is at a certain point, IDI has access onto that right of way for their development to the north. I think all the way back to that emergency connection still needs to be public so they can access it.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Galster commented I am trying to get a picture of how this fits into the whole PUD. He asked if Mr. Stephen King would be willing to address how this fits into your plans, as the owner of a large chunk of the land in the area.

Mr. King reported I was surprised to come back from vacation and find this on the agenda. I am sure that it is strictly a private matter between the sellers and these gentlemen in their contractual position, but I was working from the perspective that I would come back and work out a new contract with the sellers. It basically disables me from doing the project. I have spent several hundred thousand dollars on the plans and engineering for the entire project. I certainly have no objection to the private property rights of Renaissance to sell to whoever they want to sell to. I have no objection to this gentlemanís business, or anybodyís business, but it disables my project. I would have to start at square zero on the 13 acres that remain and have to redesign something for that. I came more to listen tonight to understand myself what was transpiring.

Mr. Young said I am in favor of this, and would make the motion to go forward. I think the project looks great.

Mr. Galster asked if this is a conceptual discussion; there is no approval or disapproval of any of the existing plans, just whether or not they should put together a proposal to revise, is that correct? Mr. Okum confirmed this.

Mr. Okum stated we can do this two ways, one by straw vote. It is not a formal approval of the plans but basically an approval of concept at this point.

Mr. Bennington wondered if the Commission gave them a conceptual approval that when we meet and fulfill all your criteria we will have a favorable vote at that time? Mr. Okum responded you would have to go through the PUD process which is submission of all the documents that are necessary, the attachment of the covenants, all the necessary requirements under the PUD. Once you have accomplished that, you would come in for a preliminary plan approval. It would be up to the two councilmembers on this board to make the decision as to whether it is a major departure from the preliminary plan that was approved by Council. It probably would go right up to Council for their consideration as well. So it is a two step process on your preliminary plan approval. Mr. McErlane added it would be premature to refer to Council at this point without the preliminary plan approval. Mr. Okum stated conceptually you are asking for a hands up hands down straw vote, and your next step would be submission for your PUD modification.

Mr. Okum commented I do not hear any objections to your plan; I donít think you will need a hand vote from the Commission members. If you would like a hand vote, we certainly can do it. Mr. Young was willing to make a motion. Mr. Bennington responded I would like to have a hand vote. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Okum. No one voted no, and the concept approval was given with five affirmative votes.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Five


A. City of Springdaleís Annual Pro Rata Share of the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commissionís Operating Expenses

Mr. McErlane reported we get this annual report and apparently the Regional Planning Commission maintains a data base of available properties for development in different municipalities. If they are contacted by developers, they will provide that information to them. There are other things that they produce. Mr. Okum asked if there were any objection to us participating again.

Mr. Galster asked if this were the same commission that sent us the voting thing with one person and after the fact pretty much? Mr. McErlane indicated that it was. Mr. Huddleston commented they have been doing it for years; itís nothing new.

Mr. Wilson asked how the city was benefiting from this. I have seen negatives so far. It is only $275, but if there is no real benefit for us to be a part of this other than this annual report and we donít use it, why should we continue?

Mr. McErlane responded I donít deal with the Regional Planning Commission, so I donít know. Ms.McBride added I deal with them on a pretty regular basis and for the unincorporated townships they are a tremendous benefit. There is one representative on the Regional Planning Commission from the City of Cincinnati, and one representative from all of the other municipalities in Hamilton County. That person is from the Village of Mariemont and has been there forever. If you decide to send them the $275, you might want to put Springdaleís name in the hat for the next available vacancy that comes up in regards to municipalities. Then you are starting to get some input as to how surrounding communities and unincorporated areas are going to be developed, because that does impact on Springdale.

Mr. Huddleston asked if they supplied the CAGIS information, and Ms. McBride confirmed that they did, adding that it is separately run.

Mr. Wilson commented I canít see spending $275 without getting anything out of this. I do not like the idea that they have pulled that voting thing and didnít give us any fair notice and with the fact that the same people have been on it for years. We have probably had limited input and will have limited input, so Iím not in favor of it.

Mr.Huddleston said rather than reject the invoice out of hand, I would like Mr. McErlane or somebody from staff to approach these gentlemen with some of the concerns that have been expressed by the Commission, i.e. appointees and lack of opportunity in any way to influence that situation. perhaps Ms. McBride, since she does interface with these, I donít know if there are any benefits that the city derives. Mr. Huddleston asked if this were the total expenditure per year, and Mr. McErlane indicated that it was.

Mr. Galster commented I donít want to just not pay it. I think we would find out that there would be one thing that would come up and suddenly we would be on the outside looking in. For $275 the gamble is not worth it, but I also would like to raise a flag to the displeasure. I donít think we got any response whatsoever from the letter we wrote regarding the nominations. It would be nice to check into if there is anything we can do, or do we just go along with it?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. McErlane reported we can ask them to outline their benefits to us. I called them one time and asked them to end me something, and they just gave me an answer over the phone and it was pretty vague. That was a few years ago when somebody else asked the question.

Mr. Huddleston added I know as a member of another planning commission in another municipality in Hamilton County, we expressed the same kinds of concerns when those nominations would be put forth every year after the fact so to speak. Maybe the way to do that is through the Municipal League or something like that. If each city is only paying $275, we are not funding the Regional Planning Commission by along shot.

Ms. McBride commented I do not think Springdale is alone in this question. When all the municipalities send $275, then it starts to become some kind of influence on their budget. I am down there a fair amount, and I would be happy to sit down with Ron Miller who is the director and ask him for a list of things that Springdale is getting from this and what your plans are for the next year to increase or maintain these benefits. I can do that if you wish me to.

Mr. Huddleston commented if every municipality on this letterhead gave $275 a year that would total $12,500, and that would not fund anything in regional planning. Mr. Galster said for the record, I do not have a problem with this.

Mr. Young said I would like to see Ms. McBride follow up on that suggestion because I think while it is an nominal amount of money, It is kind of like doing business with the Better Business Bureau. They have a name and they really donít mean much to a business, but you pay the fee because it is better to have it behind your name than to not have it behind your name. It would be nice to know if there is some benefit we derive from spending the money. Mr. Galster added or how to get more benefit.

Mr. Okum commented Ms. McBrideís recommendation is that someone from our community be that nominee to that Commission, and I think that is very valid. Also, are they paid for this; has the guy from Mariemont been paid every year. Heís never made contact with us, and heís our representative. He asked Mr. McErlane if he had made contact with him. Mr. McErlane responded I thought we had a candidate come out once.

Mr. Okum asked if there were any objections, besides Mr. Wilsonís to our making the contribution. There were none, and the Commission approved Springdaleís pro rata share.

B. Planning Consultant Recommendation

Mr. McErlane stated Mr. Osborn was supposed to present this, but he is not here tonight. It was necessary under state law to introduce proposals for planner/consultant for this board. After review of all those proposals, it is Mr. Osbornís recommendation that we use Pflum, Klausmeier and Gehrum as our planning consultant.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. Okum stated that would be a recommendation from our Commission to Council for a contract. Mr. Galster moved to recommend and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye. Contract was recommended by five affirmative votes.

Mr. McErlane reported in this yearís budget, I have budgeted an amount for a workshop for both Planning and Board of Zoning Appeals to talk about things like public hearings and meetings and some of the recent legislation on zoning. It probably is more appropriate to hold it in the late fall or beginning of the winter months when things arenít as busy, and I would like you to think about whether or not you would prefer it in an evening or on a Saturday, and give me an idea about that next month. What has happened is in the past, the local planning association has had workshops and at the last workshop, we had pretty decent attendance, but in the past we havenít attended them. Part of the problem is because they are during the week and during the day and a lot of people canít take off to go to them. We thought it would be appropriate to try to hold one here. Ms. McBride agreed to help out with that as well as we would ask the law director to talk about the legal aspects. Ms. McBride added another person you might want to consider having as a participant is Professor David Alor of University of Cincinnati School of Planning. He does this all across the country and at the National APA Conference and goes to Planning Commissions in Utah, Arizona and Nevada and teaches Planning Commission and BZA members. If I asked him as a favor, I am sure David would be very glad to do this. He has even written a book on Planning Commissionís Training Guide which is published through APA. Mr. Okum commented we should have a copy of that on file. Ms. McBride responded I donít have one, but I might be able to get you one. Mr. McErlane reported I receive a plannerís bookstore catalog that you could look at. Ms. McBride added it is in there. Mr. McErlane added there was one publication in there called How to Win at the Zoning Table that you might be interested in. Mr. Okum commented there was a magazine that used to come out to council members, called Government.

Mr. McErlane continued I am asking you to think about whether or not you would rather hold it on an evening or a weekend. That way we can consider how much time we have available to do it. Mr. Okum wondered how long it would take, and Ms. McBride responded about four to six hours, probably four hours.

Mr. Galster asked if he envisioned this as something we would do yearly, for updates, and Mr. McErlane answered we could consider that. Mr. Galster continued then just for timing, it was helpful to me to have that happen right after the election, so end of November or first of December if we try to do it on a yearly basis. Mr. McErlane commented in reality, if we look at our history, December has been no meeting or a short agenda. Ms. McBride added I would like to point out that the Cincinnati Section of OPC does do a Planning and Zoning Workshop. They are going to do it this year, and it will be December 13th and will be at the Radisson in Blue Ash at Pfeiffer and I-71. There is a session on current legal issues pertaining to zoning; there is a session on how to conduct BZA hearings, a session on how to conduct Planning Commission hearings, and how to do site plan review. It is on a Friday and costs $35 per person. Mr. Galster added and the city does reimburse that, I find out a year later. Ms. McBride added when the flyers come out, Iíll get copies into your packets.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 August 1996

Page Twenty-Eight


Mr. Huddleston wondered if it were possible for other members to get out in a weekday afternoon. Mr. Okum and Mr. Young stated that it was not easy for them. Mr. Huddleston suggested a Saturday morning. Mr. McErlane said consider it, and we will discuss this next month.

Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride if she had been awarded the contract for the Zoning Code and Mr. Galster reported that Council had not yet acted upon that recommendation.


Mr. Okum asked if there were anyone who would not be at the next Planning Commission meeting on September 10th. Everyone indicated that they would be present.


Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. j By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:10 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



____________________,1996 ________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



____________________, 1996 _________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary