22 AUGUST 1995


7:00 P.M.



The special meeting was called to order by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Tim Sullivan, Barry

Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson, and Chairman


Members Absent: Peggy Manis (Arrived at 7:10 P.M.)

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Sullivan moved to adopt and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All present

except Mr. Tiffany who abstained, voted aye and the Minutes were adopted with

five affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert stated in my absence there were enough things involving the two items on the agenda tonight that a special meeting was called, so that is the purpose of this meeting tonight.


. A. Exel Logistics, Tri-County Commons Requests Preliminary Plan Approval of Proposed 100,000 Square Foot Storage and Distribution Facility (tabled 8 August 1995)

Mr. Syfert said I might say for the benefit of the Planning Commission members that some of the comments from our experts may be somewhat limited because we have had very little time to work with the plans that we will be working with tonight.

Mr. Steven Kelly of Woolpert thanked Planning for making available a special meeting for this evening. We met with city staff last week, and discussed the comments that we heard at Planning Commission and worked out a resolution of a number of issues that we heard.

Mr. Kelly stated the question and concern was truck access to the east side of the property, and we have been working with SKA, the land owner and working on the ground between the Exel site here and our public access, Commons Drive, to gain truck access to the east. What we did work out is to bring a truck access road 25 feet in width from the north side of the Exel site to the north side of the right of way as close as we can, bringing it approximately 25 feet and then 15 feet off the south right of way of I-275 and coming down and across the pavement and tying into Commons Drive, which is the public access. We believe this will achieve the ability for Exel to route their trucks out to the signalized intersection on Kemper Road.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Two


Mr. Kelly continued this particular site would be monitored with some type of security to allow people an access to come and go, and the direction of flow for the trucks would be from the truck dock area out this truck access, which would be integrated into the use of Lot 10 presently owned by SKA. That was the main focus, and something we werenít able to bring to the table last meeting. We are showing that on this particular plan.

Ms. Manis arrived at 7:10 P.M.

Mr. Kelly stated it does slightly revise the northeast detention area. We have shifted that over to the northeast corner, and think that is a more appropriate location for the use of this ground out here.

Mr. Kelly added the other discussion that we were hearing from Planning was a way to buffer our east property from whatever use would be on Lot 10. The addition of several landscape trees that we have added to the east side along with the combination of where we are showing the detention basin being located should supply an adequate buffer between the use of Lot 10 and the Exel facility.

Mr. Kelly reported we discussed with staff how truck and car counts differ. I know Cecil was looking for a number you can equate one truck to four or five cars or some number like that. We got into the analysis and generally think this site decreases the number of trips by as much as 1/5 of all cars. With the time we had, we donít have a solid analysis of the trucks and the impact on Commons Drive that this site would have. Generally we are seeing a decrease in the overall trip rate, and I believe there is some communication from staff regarding how this site would impact it.

Mr. Kelly continued the other concern shown on this 100 scale plan in more detail was any and all rooftop units; we do have the refrigeration storage area which is now shown on the plan, and is also shown on the elevation in this location here as being where the refrigeration units would be placed, and solidifying that they would not be placed on top of the building. I think this is a more appropriate plan that addresses the concerns of Planning Commission that we heard last meeting. We are looking for approval of this preliminary plan to move on to bring a final plan before Planning Commission.

Mr. Tiffany commented you did a good job. I looked at this earlier today and talked with Bill about a couple of things. The setback nearest the highway on the new proposed road is five feet and you are coming in at 15 feet at the closest, so you would be okay with that. Will the basin still be constructed on a temporary basis? Mr. Kelly confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany continued the existing water detention, the wet lake that is there now, is a little bit like Walden Pond; I went back there today, and I didnít realize it was that well established back there. Is that to be increased? Mr. Kelly answered no, itís been properly sized for approximately 75% of this site. We need to route our water into it, which has not been connected, neither our water nor the Kroger storm water. Mr. Tiffany said as far as your water supply, do you plan to do something with the water tower that is there? Mr. Kelly answered the water supply is an integral portion to the actual Kroger building. With the Exel site, we are looking at being able to backfeed some water to the Kroger building. I donít know if that will exclude the need for that water tower to stay, but as of right now it has to stay because of the fire flows.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Three


Mr. Tiffany asked his intention concerning the water tower? Mr. Kelly answered if we could get adequate flows without the water tower, I donít think it serves any purpose, but insurance for the building is saying we need to have that.

Mr. Tiffany said on the new section of road that you are proposing, will that be the same as going back to Champion but not finished at this time, or will it be a finished pour? Mr. Kelly answered it will be finished for truck use; it is not a proposed extension of a dedication of a street. That would come along with the use of Lot 10, but we are going to need to rebuild whatever we need to do to support our trucks. If we have 80 trips in and out, we are going to need to do some work out there on both ends. Mr. Tiffany commented there is a good section of the pad at the east end of the Kroger plant. Mr. Kelly said before we get to any brand new road, weíre going to be having about 440 feet of crossing existing pavement. Mr. Tiffany asked if he planned to do anything with that at this time, and Mr. Kelly confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated I really do not have any new comments relative to the project based on the new site plan. The parking spaces havenít changed. I donít know that we have received a schedule of construction and any of the new information that was submitted. Again it would be up to the councilmembers on this board to determine whether or not this was a departure from the original PUD plan to determine if it needs to go through a public hearing process again. It looked as though the tree replanting will satisfy the requirements for the removal of trees on the site.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda. Mr. Shvegzda reported they have recognized the additional detention basin that has to be constructed for the existing Kroger roof area. They also have addressed the issue regarding the accessing of trucks to Commons Circle. There wasnít anything that addressed the specific request for some kind of provision for future area for a bikeway that would be part of the city bikeway system, and there wasnít anything formal regarding the truck traffic and vehicle traffic.

Ms. McBride was called on next. She stated that this was the first opportunity we had to look at this, and we only looked at it from strictly a traffic standpoint. Our firm had done the original traffic impact report in June of 1992 for this development for the developer, and in that report we made certain assumptions regarding the development of the balance of the property. Mr. Kelly is correct in that we were projecting a much higher volume of traffic coming out of this development, expecting that it was going to be a larger percentage of office use which generates more traffic. The only concern we had on traffic and this project was regarding the truck traffic. It had been indicated that there would be a total of 160 truck trips in and out of the development in the course of the day and that the majority of those would take place between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., which covers both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Specifically our concern was on Kemper Road where it comes into Commons Circle. All the truck traffic would flow in this direction, and the length of this left turn storage lane is only about 120 feet. Our concern is that it would only accommodate two trucks of 75 feet, no passenger cars and they would start stacking down on Kemper Road. We felt that deserved some additional analysis on the applicantís part.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Four


Mr. Syfert commented some of that should be alleviated if we ever got the extension of Century Boulevard through there. Ms. McBride responded it would, but again you could get a longer queuing lane on that left turn lane, possibly even a double left, but there isnít the pavement here to do double left turns. Mr. Syfert asked if there were a problem from a radius standpoint, and Ms. McBride answered that there wasnít. Mr. Tiffany asked what she suggested, and Ms. McBride answered I think it is upon the applicant to come up with something as to how they propose to do that. One instance could be to widen Kemper Road, but in doing that, you are establishing this as a permanent intersection, and it is temporary. To do something like that would go against what your overall intent is. I think it is up to the applicant to propose some solutions.

Mr. Blake commented I notice even with the traffic and trucks coming in off I-275 up to Kemper Road and making a left turn, when they get there it takes forever when you are in a car just to make that light. What kind of impact would it have on the traffic flow starting at 747, making that left and then on up? Ms. McBride responded it will back all of it up, not only the length of time you will wait, but storage capacity. A truck takes 75 feet and that is a lot of space. The truck itself is only 55 feet, and maybe you can squish it in in 60 or 65 feet, but that is a lot more than the average passenger car. So you will be looking at longer queue lengths at all the left turns, both from 747 on to Kemper and more specifically from Kemper on to Commons Circle. Mr. Blake added that is a concern I have, because I know now when trucks come up there, you get two or three trucks at the turn, you are forever getting around there. Iím wondering what will happen if you come up from 6 in the morning to 6 in the evening; what kind of backup will it cause? Not only that, if they come in off Chester and down, what kind of backup would that create? Ms. McBride commented we didnít look at any other left turn storage other than the one into Commons Circle, but obviously it will push it back further. Mr. Blake said if we do recommend you do the traffic study, will you also do 747 and Kemper as well? Ms. McBride answered that would be up to the applicant. Certainly that is the Commissionís prerogative if you wanted to look at specifically the left turn storage length from 747 on to Kemper. If that is a concern of the Commission, I would certainly ask the applicant to look at the length of that. Mr. Blake commented that is a concern for me. Mr. Syfert commented we are talking an average of six per hour; it will be there.

Ms. Manis asked about the right turn off Kemper Road; is that fine? Ms. McBride said yes, we didnít have a problem with that., Ms. Manis added my feeling is though I know the trucks will take the shortest route there, they will also take the least congested which would be Mosteller to Kemper and up that way, especially at Christmastime.

Mr. Tiffany commented obviously there will be peak times for your truck traffic. I would imagine it will be 8 to 10 in the morning, and 3 to 5 in the afternoon. Is that a good assumption? Six per hour is not a good average to go by, because there is going to be some hours during the day where we wonít see a truck; facilities like this have a big influx and output first thing in the morning and again close to closing in the afternoon.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Five


Doug Crim, Director of Property Development for Exel responded this is what I would categorizes as a Midwest distribution center. More of the traffic is probably leaving the Greater Cincinnati area than performing what I would call local deliveries. What you have categorized probably applies more to local deliveries. We will have what we call customer pickup; we will be distributing food products from the facility, and customer pickup means that grocers may send their own trucks in here to pick up products. Thatís probably the minority of the traffic. Most of the traffic would be full truck loads, full semis that are leaving the Greater Cincinnati area to go to Columbus or Indianapolis or somewhere like that. My initial reaction is the traffic will be steadier than you might think, although you could have some peaking if a carrier misses his time slot.

Ms. Manis said most of the product comes in on rail and out on the trucks? Mr. Crim answered yes, the vast majority comes in on rail.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve the preliminary site plan. Mr. Syfert said before you do this, we need to ask the councilmembers if this is a major deviation that needs to gob back to Council for a public hearing. Mr. Tiffany withdrew his motion.

Mr. Wilson said your comment about the rail delivering the product and the trucks picking up the product and taking it out, will you have a lot of tractor trailers stored here waiting for the product? Mr. Crim answered we will have at most 50 trailers stored there at any one time. For example, a trailer might be dropped at the dock and loaded at night and put there awaiting a tractor to come and get it. There may be as many as 50. Mr. Wilson asked where they plan to put them, and Mr. Crim responded here is the dock wall and they would be backed up against this curb (showed on plan). Mr. Wilson commented that will look like a Rodeway truck terminal in Sharonville. How do you plan to buffer all of that; do you have landscaping for that? Mr. Crim reported we have shown a line of trees between this property line and the I-275 right of way.

Mr. Kelly added not only is that the location where the area lays out best, given the building orientation, but there are existing trees within the right of way of I-275, and we do have additional landscaping between 275 and that area. The elevation of 275 will play a role in it. That area is pushed up closest to 275 and I think much of the eye will see over that particular area. Visually it will be the hardest area of that site to see. Mr. Wilson added you will see mostly rooftop, so you will not see the trailers parked.

Mr. Osborn commented during our staff meeting we talked to the applicant about different potential locations for terminating the public roads both on Kemper Commons Circle and Commons Drive. On the drawing it looks like the public right of way would terminate on the west road just north of Wal-Martís northernmost driveway entrance. Then, on the east it is unclear. It is not a critical issue, other than I want to make sure we have agreement as to where you are representing the right of way to end and the private street to start.

Mr. Kelly responded on the PUD plan, we have always shown on the east side the public road extending to the north side of Champion. We are still proposing that with the PUD. The construction of the Exel will not be extending that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Six


Mr. Osborn said when we discussed other options at the staff meeting regarding even that driveway, or whether or not that could be a private or a public road, so your intentions are to build a private road presently, and when the remainder of Lot 10 develops, to make it a public street down to the T shown on the PUD. And on the west side? Mr. Kelly answered the west side would be an extension of a private road to allow for the circulation of emergency access and also for employee parking. Mr. Osborn responded I understand that, but where do you intend to cut off the public street and make it private? Mr. Kelly answered at the north side of the Wal-Mart property.

Mr. Syfert asked if this were contrary to any previous agreement, and Mr. Osborn answered that it wasnít, adding that we had several options that we had discussed, and I wanted to make sure that I understood and that we had on record what we were agreeing to.

Mr. Syfert asked the councilmembers to address the issue of whether or not this is a major deviation to the PUD? Ms. Manis asked to have a brief recess. Ms. Manis and Mr. Wilson left the dais at 7:35 P.M. and returned at 7:45 P.M.

Mr. Wilson stated I have two questions to ask the applicant. One, we are looking at a 12-hour period, from 6 A.M. to 6 P.M. Can you give us a three or four hour breakdown as to when the maximum amount of traffic would enter, and when the least number would enter? Mr. Crim answered I canít standing here, but I can make a phone call; Iíd be glad to. Mr. Wilson continued secondly, we were talking about truck traffic. Our thought is to have some kind of gate or fence to allow truck traffic to enter and depart only from this area, and allow your employees to come this way to keep any trucks from coming around here. With a gate or fence there, this is the only entrance or exit for the truck traffic. Mr. Crim responded the only hesitation I would have is as long as the fire department is not going to have a problem, I would say there would be no problem.

Mr. Tiffany said in reference to this gate, my only concern is one of the reasons we have roads on both sides is for access for the fire vehicles. If they have backed in a train to the west, and it is blocking the road on that side, with the gate locked at the top there, and somebody has a medical emergency in the office area, I might be more inclined to go with some kind of signage prohibiting trucks. Ms. Manis added how do you keep them from coming in from Kemper; thatís what we are worried about. Mr. Tiffany continued if that is the case, if they drive all the way to the point where the gate is, they have a real problem at that point. There will have to be access for some trucks there, because they have docks on that side. They have two dock doors on the west side. It will be up to these gentlemen to inform the drivers to come in at the Commons Circle entrance; I donít know how we can prohibit their flow with the gate up there with the other two doors, unless they go out and unlock the gate for them. My concern is the safety issue; I know the fire department carries keys to everything, but that is two more keys to have to put on.

Mr. Osborn commented I donít think that is that big a problem, because there is a real possibility they will have a security gate at the east end of the property and it will be staffed. Suppose there is an injury on site; they will be calling us and could probably have those gates open before we get there. If the applicant is satisfied with some sort of lockable gate, we can work with that in terms of public safety.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Tiffany asked about the issue of the two dock doors? Mr. Osborn answered we do not want the trucks on the west side. If we have this gate here, I think they will want to control their own truck traffic as well and limit the types of trucks they allow to get to this parking areas with two docks on the side. Those two docks might not even be there, because they havenít really determined that either, but again they are going to have someone managing the truck flow on their site and if periodically they have to let somebody through there, that is up to them. I donít think we have a problem with the gate if that is agreeable to the applicant.

Mr. Syfert said so do I understand that you do not have a real problem with it? Mr. Crim answered I am thinking; I am a real estate oriented person, but if I might think out loud, it might be easier for us to control the car traffic and make sure it comes this way, and have a gate here. Ms. Manis commented that would be fine. Mr. Crim continued itís not that inconvenient to ask a few employees to drive this way. Mr. Tiffany commented they might want to do that anyway with the congestion at the other lane. Mr. Crim added that would be much easier from a control standpoint.

Mr. Tiffany commented the nice option about having the gate out at the perimeter of the property on the west side would be now he has at least a great big concrete pad to back into and turn around. If he drives on in toward the gate, there is no place for him to go; he has to do some pretty driving to get back out of there.

Ms. Manis asked if we have signage at that entrance now, no trucks allowed? Mr. Shvegzda answered no . Ms. Manis added I think we should get that anyway.

Mr. Tiffany said I think they are currently having more trucks pulling into Commons Circle, and if you go back behind Samís and Marshallís, right behind Marshallís, they have put in a crushed gravel driveway between the parking lot and the Krogers building, and I guess the trucks are using that. I donít know what itís there for, but itís there. From the audience, a gentleman stated that was the service road when they were constructing the shopping center.

Mr. Tiffany commented I think we have a concurrence from councilmembers that there is no major deviation from the PUD. Mr. Syfert asked them if that were true. Mr. Wilson responded we need the peak study and the fenced gate.

Mr. Tiffany moved to approve the preliminary plan, and ask the applicant to come back with information regarding peak times for traffic, and the gate, or some way of controlling traffic to keep trucks out of the west side of the complex, and that you take a look at Ms. McBrideís comments concerning the stacking lane and addressing the other concerns of the building official and the engineer. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.

Mr. Syfert reported there were certain items that were requested; they would like to schedule the construction and addressing the bikeway path weíd like you to take care of. On the motion to grant approval, voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Eight

Mr. Tiffany asked if we have any comments from the law director on the covenants? Mr. McErlane reported the only aspect of the covenants that might be affected by any development along that part of the site would be if the setbacks would have to change, and this development is within those setback requirements.

B. Judith Muehlenhard, B. Anderson and Chris Smith Request Preliminary Plan Approval of Proposed PUD Zoning for Pine Garden (landominium) at 309 Princewood Court - (tabled 8 August 1995)

Mr. Stan Messerly of Mesco Engineering thanked the Commission for taking their time to hold this special meeting. We are proposing a 16 unit landominium. The revised plan has been made based on the comments made at the earlier meeting and based on the review comments I received today, it would appear that most of the items have been satisfactorily addressed.

Mr. Messerly added there are a couple of items in the review comments I received today that I would like to address. Concerning the proposed landscaping, the zoning commission has expressed their concern that there are six areas of proposed trees presented. I have added another two areas here and an area designated as a group of trees by Parcel 250. As the property stands today, around the entire perimeter there is only a large gap by Parcel 250 where I have called for planting. Outside of that the majority of the perimeter is being covered by trees or bushes.

Mr. Messerly continued there is a review comment recommending a four foot high landscaping mound along the east property line, and I would like to ask the commission to reconsider that for a couple of reasons. One, we do have a 35 foot dimension there, with four foot high even at a two to one slope which would be about as shallow as I would install to be able to mow it, you are looking at encompassing a width of no more than 15 to 20 feet which would use a great percentage of that area. In addition to that, it is my opinion that based on the terrain out there that four foot high landscape island would intentionally provide a barrier, which is already provided by the existing fences out there. In other words, with that four foot height you could still see across to the neighbors. I realize you could put plants on top of that, but I would like to request that this be something the commission would not consider. What we would propose outside of that would be an extensive amount of landscaping along that property line because we ourselves are very concerned with providing a buffer between our proposed project and the existing single family residences there.

Mr. Messerly continued a couple of the comments concerned the relocation of proposed Buildings 11 and 12. As you will see on the drawing we submitted, Building 12 has been proposed with a 20 foot side yard setback. The comment has been made that it should be moved over to the 25 foot setback line. That is an option, and I have looked at that, but I would recommend pivoting the building at the southwest corner, so it would allow a 10 foot separation at the north face of the building and a 16 foot separation at the south face. Building 11 could be moved over the five feet since that is not within the setback area there. That would provide about 29 feet between Buildings 10 and 11, and approximately 27 feet separation between Buildings 9 and 11.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Messerly said I would like to request that the commission permit the development to provide an eight foot separation between Buildings 12 through 16 on the south face and eliminate the duplexes by creating five single units. Through the other project we have found people prefer separate units.

Mr. Messerly continued the CDS comments indicated what was termed a need for increase in volume in the detention basin. The calculations that were submitted demonstrated that even the new volume that CDS has indicated has been provided in the detention basin. They show approximately 9900 cubic feet of storage required and the basin has in excess of 10,000 cubic feet available, so enough volume has been provided.

Ms. Muehlenhard said I want you to know that I had an open house at our site in Sharonville on Sunday. Even though they are all under contract, in case someone did change their mind, I wanted a backup, but I also wanted to be able to sell this development off Sharonvilleís. I have five people who have requested that I hold units for them in Springdale. I told them this was if Springdale approves this. I am having people tell me they have looked for two or three years for anything like this. Those who have come to us so far have been empty nesters, downsizing and looking for this exact thing. No one has anything this nice in this price range in Cincinnati. I fully anticipate upon receiving approval from Springdale, that we can have every unit sold or under contract by the end of September.

Mr. Sullivan commented I have noted significant improvements since the

meeting two weeks ago, and I would like to congratulate you on that. As you mentioned, the only major gap in the landscaping is in the area of Parcel 250, and this is one of the areas that we have the most concern with because it does come up to the houses on Lawnview. Mr. Messerly commented we have that represented as the back yard for Units 7 and 8 which is all common area. Even though there are a number of trees, we intend to increase that because it is very important to us to create a buffer between our proposed site and the existing residences. Mr. Sullivan said the reason I brought the question up in the first place is because you knew from the last meeting that we would like to see the landscaping particularly concentrated along that border, and you come in and say the only area where we have a significant gap is in the exact area where we are asking for more. That is a concern of mine.

Ms. Muehlenhard added the people I am talking with are asking what we plan on doing along the residential site, because they want to make sure we have extensive landscaping. That is very critical to the people buying these units, so that is already going to be dealt with. It is very important.

Mr. Galster said I talked to a lot of the residents down in the Lawnview area, and most of them have chain link fences right now that are coming up to this existing wire fence. Apparently they have been trying for 10 or 15 years to get permission from the previous owner to remove the fence and put up their own chain link fence. This wire fence is pretty small squares of wire; the weeds get in there and they canít get them out. I understand that this wire fence is not very sightly in the first place and I would propose we get a chain link fence in there as a minimum to at least alleviate all the weed problems that these people have.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Galster stated I think there should be something there, and I also think in addition to that the mounding is a nice attractive way to handle this. I donít think it takes away from any of the landscaping from your side, granted it will have a little bit of a flow to it, but I think that is better than a flat area. So, I would like to see the fencing be replaced along that line, and I still would like to see the mounding.

Ms. Manis said at the open house, did they actually go through one of the houses? I was there a week ago, and there was just a foundation. Ms. Muehlenhard answered yes, we have studs up and it is under roof and the windows are in. I walked them through and I had brick samples and samples of the tiling, and they could see enough to understand what we are doing and they are excited. People cannot wait to come over here and buy Springdale. Itís been phenomenal.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated there has been a little bit of improvement on the original landscaping plan. What I have done is color in yellow the new trees that were added since the last landscaping plan (6). The green trees are the existing trees that are on the property. Over half the trees included on the listing provided are not on the subject property; they are around the perimeter. One concern is if they do rely on the existing trees to provide part of the buffer, there is no guarantee that they will stay there because they are not part of this development. The other concern is the only trees along this east property line that are evergreen type varieties are numbers 7 through 71. The rest are deciduous trees, some of which are 38 inches in diameter. I think it is still important to do something along that line as far as an evergreen variety, some kind of low growth even if it is not trees.

Mr. McErlane continued at this time it is premature to take a look at tree replanting, but I need to point out that of the trees on your property of value, 60% are being removed. A big percentage are exempt from tree replanting because they fall within 10 feet of the buildings. Of those 60%, 20% have to be replaced, or about 70 caliper inches. What happens in the creek may affect some of these trees that are shown in here to remain, as well as the four shown in the detention basin. At this point, we do not have enough information about the final grading to know how it will be impacted, and that would be something they would submit with their final plan.

Mr. McErlane reported the deviations from the zoning code are pretty much similar to the last submittal, except they did comply with the 35 foot setback on the east side with the exception of the one unit, and we recommend they maintain the 35 feet there. One area where it encroached a little bit over what we saw the last time is some of these buildings are fairly close to the pavement, and there is a setback requirement. If the buyer knows that going in, it should not be as much of a concern. It does not impact on the adjacent property. As part of this approval, you would be granting a deviation from the five acre requirement and 75 foot peripheral setback for PUD.

Mr. Tiffany asked the formula for the calculating the trees as far as where do you measure the trunk of the tree, is it a foot from the ground? Mr. McErlane answered that is four feet from the ground; that is the standard for measuring a mature tree; the standard for new trees is closer to the root ball.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Eleven


Mr. Tiffany continued I walked the property today, and #5 on your diagram on the east side is a clump of maples. It is listed as 12 inches and Iíll bet at the base it is close to two feet. If you are measuring at four feet up, are you measuring all the trees at four feet up? Mr. McErlane stated normally you would list it as a clump of something. Mr. Tiffany said and total all of them, and Mr. McErlane indicated that you would total all of them in terms of replacement. Mr. Tiffany added I am concerned with keeping some of the trees they say they are willing to with excavation and things like that. Mr. McErlane stated until they get to the stage where they have the final grading plan, it is hard to determine.

Mr. Messerly added the design intent is to put the majority if not all of the buildings at the existing grade. There would not be a large amount of clearing to achieve that . If you want the mound to stay, we can do that.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. Shvegzda, who stated that there is a slight deviation in calculations for the detention volume, but as stated it appears that the volume that could be provided in the basin exceeds the additional amount anyway. It has been noted that the 100 year storm to the detention basin will be carried via the storm sewers so we donít have to worry about overland flow being impeded at any particular point. It has been indicated that the existing channel will be modified as a part of that process. Final plan development would need the actual calculations to determine what that final water surface elevation for 100 year storm would be as a result of the modifications to the channel.

Mr. Shvegzda continued in regards to the final plan preparation, Units 1 and 2 are close to the 100 year flood plain. Whatever the final elevation would be, we will need details on how the grading will take place to make sure that is not encroaching in the proposed channel. That will be important. I donít believe we had any reply back from the Fire Department with regards to the geometrics of the roadways as far as access. Mr. McErlane stated I talked with the assistant chief, and he indicated they could maneuver around. If they had gone down to the eastern most leg of the drive, they probably would have to back into the other part of the leg, but that is not an extreme distance. Mr. Syfert said so they did not have any real problem with this.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the plans indicate a turn around T at either leg of that southern part of the roadway system. One question we had was in terms of verifying or showing that the ingress/egress easement exists. We need verification of the easements.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if they had made provisions for that. Mr. Messerly responded we have currently a 50 foot right of way on Princewood Court. Twelve and one-half feet of that right of way in the northeastern corner of the subject tract actually abuts to that 50 foot right of way. There are 37 and 1/2 feet in the deed that indicated that we have the right to ingress and egress within that distance. There is also a 12 and one-half foot wide existing water line easement which runs along that same 12 and one-half foot where we have our frontage. Then we have the sewer easement over here, so we have the right of ingress and egress of 37 1/2 feet plus the additional 12 1/2 feet where we abut to the right of way. The 12 1/2 foot dimension will be where we run our water and our other utilities, telephone cable, electric, etc. I realize of course you need the documentation to verify that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Shvegzda stated there is a question in that same area as to what will take place. We have the improved section of right of way, Princewood that ends at this point and we have a proposed private drive that will end at the north property line. There is a little section of existing pavement that is there now that is not in great condition. We need some details as to how that will be improved and also, as this drive exists right now, it has a radius to the west here which you really donít need and there should be a curve from this point down.

Mr. Shvegzda continued with regards to the covenants, on Page 5 in Paragraphs 8 9 and 10 there is a statement regarding maintenance or responsibility that refers to the developer or the association. From one standpoint there is nothing in the covenants that addresses the association, and it should be one or the other. Also on Page 5 Paragraph 9 there is an issue in regards to the widening of the existing channel in order to bring the 100 year flood elevation down. Right now it states if it is widened to provide flood plain capacity; the if should be eliminated.

Mr. Syfert called on Ms. Bride for her report. Ms. McBride stated I think the plan before you this evening is more feasible than the one that was before you two weeks ago. You can get into all the units and they are not as jammed up as they were, so I feel a lot better about that. I do think Unit 12 should be shifted to maintain the 25 foot buffer; I think it is more important to establish the 25 foot line. Knowing the zoning on the adjacent property and that someday that will be developed, I think it is important from the cityís standpoint to maintain that 25 feet. Similarly, I think for Unit 11, both for the developmentís sake and for the sake of the homes on Lawnview Avenue, that 35 feet definitely needs to be maintained so that unit needs to be shifted. I donít think that puts an undue problem on either of those units to be shifted that way.

Ms. McBride continued with regards to the eastern property line, we felt it would be beneficial to put another condition in the covenants that would indicate that any deck or patio wouldnít extend further than 10 feet from the unit going into that 35 foot buffer area. Ten feet is plenty wide for any kind of deck or patio, and we do not want to have it encroach any closer to the homes on Lawnview Avenue,

Ms. McBride reported in talking to the applicant just before the meeting began, they assured me that there is an easement across Parcel 92 to provide that access. The city may or may not want to see a copy of that, or maybe you have a copy on file. That was a question that had come up during staff meeting.

Ms. McBride stated the last comment is the one I feel most strongly about, and that is I feel that there needs to be significant buffering between those units that back up to the eastern property line and the homes on Lawnview Avenue. Those residents bought their homes assuming probably that there was going to be single family development behind them, and whereas these are very attractive units, they are not the same type of units that currently are on Lawnview. We felt in the 35 feet, assuming you took the 10 feet out for personal area, be it a deck or patio, within the 25 feet you could get a four foot earthen mound even at a 3 to 1 slope, which is maintainable and mowable. We felt the earthen mounding was appropriate and that it should be planted with a mixture of both deciduous and nondeciduous trees to avoid the straight row of evergreens.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Thirteen


Ms. McBride continued the applicants made a number of comments that there already was extensive landscaping along that site, but as Mr. McErlane indicated, most of that landscaping is on the adjacent property ownerís property, and that canít be guaranteed to be maintained. It also is a significant height, and doesnít provide a lot of low screening. So we feel very strongly about the four foot earthen mounding.

Ms. McBride added special attention needs to be paid in this area. Again, there are trees on Parcel 248, but I donít think it is incumbent on that property owner to provide the buffer for this development. There should be a type of stone or brick wall or at the very least significant landscaping, evergreen material planted in this area that will buffer this homeowner from becoming essentially a lot with street on three sides of his property. The thing I feel most strongly about is the buffering along the eastern side of the property.

Mr. McErlane added there is a fairly long paragraph on landscaping maintenance in the covenants and I think it was borrowed from another development. A lot of the wording doesnít apply to this development, such as a payment to the Urban Forestry Program, and breaking up parking areas with landscaping. We think it could be simplified by assuring that the landscaping as approved on the plan will be maintained. One thing we need to clarify would be by the Association. Right now it says the lot owners, and I doubt very much that there would be any trees on the lot ownersí property.

Mr. McErlane continued the other item that we want clarified is the statement on channel capacity. We donít want it to be misconstrued that the only time they have to maintain the channel is if they have widened it. The way it is worded is that it would be maintained if it is widened. We require the channel to be maintained regardless if it is widened or not. That may be a simplification as well.

Mr. Syfert asked if the applicant would like to respond to some of the comments?

Mr. Messerly stated as far as the landscaping is concerned, we fully anticipate landscaping that eastern edge, which would be in very much detail and would have to meet the acceptance of the commission before the final plans. We do intend to do that, and we feel it is in our interest as much or more so than the neighbors to do that.

Mr. .Syfert commented Ms. McBride referred to the mound; Mr. Galster has referred to the mound, and I think a lot of the rest of us are thinking along that same line. Would you care to address that again? Mr. Messerly responded if that is something the commission feels strongly about, I would prefer not to go with it, but if the commission feels strongly, that is something that will be provided for along that east property line. Mr. Syfert added I think it is a general consensus. Mr. Messerly answered I just wanted to express my opinion. Mr. Syfert added we have had a number of examples where it has really worked out well and that weíre pretty proud of with a combination of evergreens and deciduous on it,



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. Blake asked if the applicant agreed to work with us and put Unit 11

within the 35 foot setback, and also Unit 12 to come over? Mr. Messerly agreed with both, adding I would prefer that Unit 12 pivot about that southwest corner as opposed to lining it parallel to the road. That would be closer at the front of the building than it is at the rear of the building. Mr. Blake added as long as you give it the 25 feet. Mr. Messerly agreed, saying one edge of the building would lay along that setback line.

Mr. Blake continued you asked that rather than having between Units 12 and 13, 16 feet and between Units 14 and 15 16 feet, you wanted to split the whole row and put them eight feet. Mr. Messerly confirmed this. Ms. Muehlenhard added I took a couple over to the Springdale site, and when they picked out the one they want they asked me about setbacks. I showed them as it is on this plan, adding that it was providing Springdale approved it because they wanted more than eight feet between the units. The couple asked whatís wrong with that? They like the idea of a free standing house, but they donít care; thatís great to them. In many other areas of the country it is very common to do four and five foot separation, just enough to get ladders in there and be able to do what you need to do on maintenance. So, there is a better acceptability to splitting those units off and having eight feet as opposed to a duplex with 16 feet. We can sell either one, but this is much more acceptable and much more desirable. Mr. Blake commented I am real pleased with the improvement. Between 1 and 2 you have eight feet, and the front on 3 and 4 you have eight feet. I donít understand why this is laid out this way. Mr. Messerly reported that the statement was made at the last meeting that the eight foot would potentially be acceptable to the staff member if it was abutting garages as opposed to abutting kitchens and master bedrooms. In other words, in Buildings 1 and 2, the eight foot distance is on the side of the building where the garages face one another and there are limited windows and visibility on that side of the building. The sixteen foot would be provided between Building 5 and 4 due to the fact that the more exposed sides of the buildings are aligned. That was the reason behind that. Mr. Blake commented I can understand that.

Mr. Wilson said Point 5 brought up precluding any deck or patio extending more than 10 feet from Units 16, 11 , 8 and 7? Would that be a problem; would you agree to that as well? It says no more than 10 feet to preserve the minimum 25 foot setback. Ms. Muehlenhard answered said that is acceptable; it is not a problem. Mr. Messerly asked if they were referring to the side yard in Buildings 11 and 16? Ms. McBride answered yes, it says both at the side and rear yard to maintain that 25 foot setback.

Mr. Wilson continued we mentioned the buffer and the mound; you were not too agreeable to that initially. What had you proposed in lieu of that mound, just trees? Mr. Messerly responded we had proposed trees as well as bush combined. My thought was at that height and the width required, it would take up a lot of space that they have available for the rear yards. I wasnít certain at that height that it provided much of an obstruction to viewing the neighbors. Mr. Wilson commented unless you are going to be putting mature trees and bushes, it will be years before that buffer would be realized. I donít want the residents on Lawnview to be exposed and not have their privacy for two three or five years until everything matures to give an adequate barrier. As soon as the mound is done, they have that barrier.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Fifteen


Mr. Wilson said Iím trying to remember how the houses looked; will they be looking out of their windows and be able to shake their neighbors hands? Ms. Muehlenhard answered no. Most of the glass would be towards the back side which is all wooded. The living area is at this point. Mr. Wilson said so there wonít be any windows on that side. Ms. Muehlenhard answered no, and the people want that. The way the windows are angled gives a tremendous amount of privacy. I would love for all of you to come see the model; it is very rough, but you could get a good idea.

Mr. Tiffany commented Mr. Galster raised a concern with the fence that is there. Personally I have a real problem with the fence that is there from the east side and the south side. I walked the property today, and it is in poor repair in a lot of areas. On the south side there are areas that it is actually pushed down and gone where somebody is accessing the property from the apartment complex. I guess I have more of a concern on the east side with a brand new development going in that we are gong to keep that old fence. It is a common fence across there, so I would say it is common to your property and not to theirs. Ms. Muehlenhard asked if it were on the property line? I would tear it down; I wouldnít want that up there. Mr. Tiffany said the problem is it is an existing fence that is common to this property and the residents. Ms. Muehlenhard asked on whose property it is, and Mr. Tiffany answered it is on the line. If I were one of the people coming in, especially in buildings 7, 8 11 and 16, I wouldnít want to look out and se this old fence. Mr. Messerly said theyíll see the landscape. Mr. Tiffany answered I understand, but it is still an old fence. Are you opposed to replacing the fence? Ms. Muehlenhard answered we havenít discussed this. Typically a fence must be set on your own property line. Mr. Messerly commented Mr. Galster had indicated that the residents in the past had indicated they would like to replace that on their own. Is it possible for us to work with them, perhaps a 50/50 split? Mr. Tiffany answered that is something for you to work out with them. Iím bringing this up as something I think you should look at; itís a brand new development going in; you are spending a lot of dollars here, and I donít think you want an old farm fence abutting the property. Ms. Muehlenhard asked how much fencing is there and Mr. Tiffany stated it is the entire length of the property, 467 feet. Ms. Muehlenhard said and it is the original Hitchcock fence? Mr. Tiffany said it was. Mr. Galster added that is the problem; if you just take the fence down, all these people with dogs in their yard have it opened up. Ms. Manis said it is used as the back of their fences. Mr. Tiffany added it was there prior tot he code; that is the problem. Typically you have to stay five feet on the property, and these people when they built their fences should have stayed five feet off. You both are in violation of the current code, so itís a losing situation for both people, and I think it is something you should take a look at. Iím not so concerned with the south side, because that just abuts the apartment complex. Whether or not you want people walking in from there, thatís up to you. The type of customer you are talking about will want the security. Ms. Muehlenhard added it is very important to these people. Mr. Tiffany said I think it is something you need to give some consideration to before we meet again. I walked the entire property today and at the last meeting I had commented when we look at things on paper, sometimes it looks real good and when you see it done it looks so compact and large and you wonder how you approved it. I still have a concern about how much we are putting into this project.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Sixteen


Mr. Tiffany stated what you have here looks a lot better than what we had before. Iím all for this because of the other options that could come in. I think it will be an attractive community, but I did walk it, and maybe it is a fooler. I hope it works; I really do. As far as the other comments you have heard tonight from Mr. McErlane, Ms. McBride and Mr. Shvegzda, do you have any problems with meeting those concerns at all? Ms. Muehlenhard answered no, not at all. Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if the mound has to be compacted earth or can it be all topsoil? Mr. McErlane answered I would think they would probably use whatever materials they can on site rather than try to bring something in Mr. Tiffany asked if it had to be compactible according to the code, and Mr. McErlane stated that it does not. Mr. Tiffany added with the mound, you will push earth, and all you will have to do is push into a four foot barrier down that side, so I donít think youíll have to b ring extra materials in.

Mr. Messerly said the concern has been raised as far as the density of the development. We would like to point out that the residential zoning adjacent to the property will permit a 7500 square foot lot. With our lots here, even eliminating the quarter of an acre across from the creek, we are roughly 7600 square foot per unit, so that is even more than the 7500 permitted adjacent to our property.

Mr. Syfert I donít know where you got your five feet off the property line on the fences. I think they just have to be within their property.

Mr. Sullivan said earlier you had mentioned you were not particularly crazy about the whole idea of the mounding, and when you realized that was the general feeling of the Commission and you agreed to it, and I like that in a developer. Mr. Tiffany had asked if you had any difficulty with any of the other concerns here and you said no. Would that include the additional screening in the form of a brick or stone wall along the rear of Parcel 248 because you enter the property?

Mr. Messerly asked if that could be accomplished with either a wall and/or landscaping? Ms. McBride answered some type of solid barrier, staggering evergreens something of significant height, not three or four foot at planting time. Mr. Messerly added we would extend the landscape mound I would assume down that far also. Ms. McBride responded I donít believe you would be able to get the mound in that area, so that is why we are suggesting a different type of feature between the private drive and the rear of that lot. Ms. Muehlenhard commented I would prefer to see evergreens or pines; thatís what we are centering around anyway, and I think that would be a very lovely entranceway.

Mr. Sullivan commented on the entranceway to a lot of developments in the Glendale/Springdale area, in a lot of cases you see a brick or nice looking stone entrance. It is very attractive; it may be cost prohibitive, but I would think that would look really nice coming into the subdivision, but if you can accomplish that with good solid landscaping, I would go for that.

Mr. Blake moved to grant the preliminary plan approval with the necessary attention being paid to what has been agreed to here tonight. Mr. Tiffany seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Blake, Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Syfert. Preliminary plan approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

22 August 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Messerly said concerning the eight foot separation on the southern property line, is that something the Commission is in favor of, or not? Mr. Syfert responded I donít think anyone objected to it.





Mr. Blake moved to adjourn and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Planning Commission

adjourned at 8:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________1995 ________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_______________________1995 _________________________

Steve Galster, Secretary