7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Steve Galster, James Young, Bob

Seaman, Councilman Robert Wilson, David

Okum and Chairman Syfert.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Huddleston (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)

OTHERS PRESENT: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye except Mr. Seaman and Mr. Syfert who abstained.

Minutes were approved with four affirmative votes.

Mr. Huddleston arrived at 7:05 p.m.


A. 8/23 Memo from Cecil W. Osborn to Planning Commission Members re:

Wireless Communication

B. Center for Local Government Seminar - Coping with the

Telecommunications Act of 1996

Mr. Galster indicated that he would be attending. Mr. Okum added that

since it is a workday, I will not be able to attend. I spoke with Mr. Galster

regarding this, and I wonder if it would be possible for the city to video-

tape this so the members can view it? From the audience, the Mayor indicated that this would be fine.


Mr. Wilson nominated David Okum. He stated that Mr. Okum is one of our senior members and has been involved in all of our activities over the years. I believe he has been on BZA before, and I think he would be a welcome addition to that board based on his employment background.

Mr. Seaman said I am also interested in the position on Board of Zoning Appeals. I served on the Board for two and one-half years, both as a member of the Board and as a council member and I feel I had a lot of value and it is something I would like to get back into.

There were no other nominations, and the paper vote was taken. Mr. Huddleston passed out ballots, and Mr. Okum was appointed with five votes.





Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Two


A. White Castle 11575 Springfield Pike requests approval of proposed revised Drive-Thru Window (tabled 7/9/96)

Mark Gelderloos, Senior Director of Engineering and Construction for White Castle System stated concerning the parking setback at the northwest corner of the property, we will be having parking spaces angled at 60 degrees to facilitate one way traffic through that area which will help in that counter clockwise circulation for the drive through traffic. We will need a variance for that. The seating plan will correspond with the number of parking spaces that we have currently. There are 17 parking spaces available, permanent parking spaces that we propose, plus some moveable parking paces for the drive through. That is a concern that we have; how many parking spaces we can get through the drive through line. We have approximately five moving spaces there. Also, currently we have 32 spaces there rather than 27. We have just counted that, and it includes two handicap spots.

Mr. Gelderloos said concerning the new exterior walk in box proposed on the north side of the building, the new plan shows it on the south side of the building with the drive through going on the west side or rear of the building. The dumpster enclosure has moved to the south side of the lot with zero setback. That probably could be moved forward a little bit to be within the approximate setback that is here now.

Mr. Gelderloos reported that the ground sign that we have shown there is in your packet and is 12 feet wide, five feet one inch off the base, and the base is about one foot six inches off the ground. The photograph is the actual size proposed.

Mr. Gelderloos stated I have Andy Elswick, Assistant Area Manager, and Greg Poe the District Supervisor both with me this evening.

Mr. Galster said concerning signage, right now you have a drive through sign as well; is that proposed to stay or be removed? Mr. Elswick answered that will be replaced with a new style drive through sign. It is a directional sign to show people the in and the other one will be the out. Right now we have in and out, so that would be an advantage to the customers to know which one you enter to go to the drive through. Mr. Galster continued so there will be one at each entrance, one will be in and the other exit only. How far from the street is the main sign? Mr. Elswick answered it will be as close as we can get without a variance; I donít know what that is right now. Mr. McErlane reported if it is located where the pylon sign is shown on the plan, that is about 10 feet off the right of way, which is the required setback.

Mr. Okum commented the signage you have at the Florence store is in all white with blue letters. The sign you have indicated her has a reverse print. Is that your new logo? Mr. Elswick indicated that it was. With the new logo, half of it is reverse print with dark blue and white background around the dark blue White Castle letters. The White Castle is in logo form of our building we are using now. Mr. Okum continued so basically the sign is all white and blue, except for the information letters. What color are those letters? Mr. Elswick reported that they are black. Mr. Okum continued in comparison with the sign on the Famous Recipe site, is their sign 12 feet by five feet? Mr. McErlane stated Iím sure it is taller than five feet, and more than likely it is more than 60 square feet.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Three


Mr. McErlane stated the total height is probably eight to 10 feet. Mr. Okum asked about the canopies; will they still be blue with the logo and information on them? Mr. Elswick answered that they did. The canopy over the drive thru area will be a blue and white stripe that says Drive Thru, and at the doors, there will be striped canopies the width of the doors, three feet wide to emphasize the location. Mr. Okum asked if there would be a new facade on the building. Mr. Elswick confirmed this adding it will be cleaned up with a new style sign on the building. It will be more modern with neon back. Mr. Okum asked if they would be individually lit letters on the building, and Mr. Elswick answered we can have them individually lit, or it will be one full sign that has neon behind each individual letter. Mr. Okum stated we tend to encourage individually lit letters instead of boxes. Mr. Elswick responded this wonít be boxes; it will be an outline of White Castle. It will look like individual letters. Mr. Okum continued concerning the new unit you will be building onto the building, will that unit be disguised with the same facade as the building? Mr. Elswick confirmed this. Mr. Okum said so it is an extension of the building with the same characteristics of the rest of the building. Do you intend to put gates on the dumpster area? Mr. Elswick said they would and Mr. Okum added that they needed to be closed because they will be hitting cars otherwise. What is the dumpster containing area material, and Mr. Elswick answered concrete block.

Mr. Wilson said you indicated with the dumpster that you would comply with our variance, so does that mean you will move it away? Right now we have a zero setback. Mr. Elswick answered I think the curbing right now is in compliance with the parking, and we can easily be in compliance with that. Mr. Wilson wondered if it would have an impact on the parking spaces, and Mr. Elswick reported it will remain six parking places along the south side of the property line.

Mr. Shvegzda said the traffic circulation on this plan versus what was submitted earlier is much better. Concerning directional signage at the driveways, we think it needs more than just a small directional sign. It may even need signage to indicate "Do Not Enter", those type of directions. One of the dimensions on the parking for the 60 degree angle parking indicated 19 feet; according to the Zoning Code regulations, it should be 20 feet 11 inches. There is plenty of room to provide that; it is just a matter of shrinking down the driveway. Actually the driveway width should be reduced somewhat to more heighten the fact that it is one way. That could be done at the entrance near Van Arsdale or State Route 4. Mr. Elswick commented that shouldnít be a problem.

Mr. Huddleston said if the dumpster is moved further out to project into that driveway, it would appear to me to be a very bad backing situation and an accident waiting to happen. Could you comment on that? Iím not sure what the alternatives are. Mr. Elswick responded we do not plan to inhibit any of our traffic flow. Thatís the last thing we want to do, so we will modify the dumpster so it will be in that location and inside the turning areas and not in our flow of traffic. Mr. Huddleston continued it would appear to me that anybody trying to back out of that angled parking, backing towards Van Arsdale in order to pull forward is going to be backing totally blind. You could have people making that turn without those people in sight. Mr. Shvegzda stated it may be a problem, but it really would only be when you have traffic traveling northbound on VanArsdale and somebody backing up so you could see them approach. How much of a problem it would be offhand I canít really say.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Four


Mr. Huddleston wondered if it would make any sense to relocate the dumpster off the south turn in the drive thru? Mr. Elswick answered we could look into that.

Mr. Wilson asked if we have a required size for the dumpster? If that is not an issue, maybe we go with a smaller dumpster and you have a more frequent pickup. Mr. McErlane reported it is all dependent on the size of the dumpster and the collection. I think Mr. Huddlestonís concern was that the last person parked next to the dumpster wouldnít be able to see traffic coming. Mr. Wilson added a smaller dumpster or one not as high might eliminate that. Mr. Shvegzda stated you still will have something there to screen it even if it is small. Mr. Elswick stated the dumpster height will be higher than anybody in a vehicle looking back, so you will have to have that wall above that. I canít see the wall being less than six feet high minimum, and I donít know of a car or van that you can see over that.

Mr. Okum said regarding tree relocation and removal of trees, will the tree to the right rear (northwest) corner where your new outdoor box is, be eliminated? Mr. Elswick stated there is a dotted area in there right now and that tree is right in that area. Mr. Okum responded so you feel that tree will survive. The area surrounding your Drive Thru on the back, will that be landscaped? Mr. Elswick responded there probably will be trees and shrubbery in there. Mr. Okum asked them to submit a landscaping plan and Mr. Elswick indicated that they would, when they submit their plans. Mr. Okum responded that should be adequate, and then if the Building Official finds it not in synch with other developments along Route 4, he could bring it to this body. I would encourage a landscape plan on your site prior to approval. Mr. Elswick added for every job, there is a full site plan, a full landscape plan utilities plan, and drainage plan. Mr. Okum added this is quite an improvement, and I compliment you on listing to this boardís comments and reacting to them.

Mr. Huddleston said you made a statement earlier about the parking density versus the seating capacity; I believe you said it was in compliance. Mr. Elswick responded right now we have 17 parking spaces there; it is a three to one ratio for parking and seating, which gives us 51 seats allowable in there, plus Mr. McErlane said that there was an allowance for some stacking also. Mr. McErlane reported there is an additional requirement for the queuing line in the building for carry out service. It has been a couple of plans ago since we looked at a seating plan, but at that point we had come up with 21 spaces required based on the seating plan. Mr. Elswick stated we will adjust our seating plan according to the available parking. Mr. Huddleston responded I appreciate that. I think that issue needs to be clarified. Hopefully you can stay there and do your rehab and do a great job, but my concern the density of the site overall. We need to keep that in compliance.

Ms. McBride reported Don covered most of our comments. It is a vast improvement over the prior site plans that we have seen. We also had concerns that the access points be very well signed, even to the extent of perhaps Do Not Enter One Way, and reducing the width of those access points. The ground mounted sign is an improvement. The materials differ from those we recommend in the Corridor Study, but recognizing that this is an improvement, the Commission might want to take that into consideration. We would want to see landscaping details and the enclosure around the waste receptacle.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Five


Mr. McErlane asked if the board wishes White Castle to come back with more detailed plans, or do you feel this is adequate for Planning Commissionís approval with the rest handled as staff approval?

Mr. Young stated I think there is enough here for us to give the okay and then for the Building Department to take over. Mr. Huddleston added I think this is adequate as long as staff is comfortable with what they have here. I think it is a good submittal.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Galster wondered in relationship to the pylon sign and the Corridor Study if there would be anything we can do to bring it more in compliance. Is there anything you would recommend? Ms. McBride stated we could suggest some low landscaping around the monument sign to soften the appearance of the aluminum base. Mr. Elswick commented it is standard that we do that.

Mr.Young moved to accept this proposal and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum and Mr.Syfert. Approval was granted 7-0. Mr. Syfert said everything else will be worked out with the staff and the Building Department.

Mr. Elswick commented this year is the 75th anniversary of White Castle. This Castle in Springdale was opened in 1973. It is 23 years old, and we hope to be there for another 20 to 30 years. The employees that are working there cumulatively have 135 years of service.


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

Dan Gassett, Vice President of Development for Sterling House, stated we are a company out of Wichita Kansas in the business of providing assisted living facilities. Our first development was started five years ago in Wichita, and we now have 40 buildings open, 37 under construction and 32 under development. We have sites open in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Florida and we are developing 14 in Ohio. We are under construction in Troy and Findlay and in the Dayton and Columbus areas, and we are developing here in Fairfield and Middletown.

Mr. Gassett continued prior to the advent of assisted living when grandma got sick or wasnít able to take care of herself, she went straight to the nursing home. This provides a step between the nursing home and independent living. It add dignity to life for another three to five years. Our average age is 85 years old. We have 1235 units open and of that the majority are ambulatory so they can exit the building under their own power. We provide 3 meals a day, bathing and dressing as needed, housekeeping and hospitality services, and laundry. We have a nurse on staff, med techs to monitor medications and a hairdresser and activities director, and cooks and housekeeping individuals. We will be employing in our 50 unit facility approximately 18 to 20 people. Out of the 1235 units I mentioned earlier, we have three people who still drive. We are on a 30 day contract with the resident. If we donít have our people showing care love and concern, they can go down the road. There will be a lot of competition in this area, and we feel it is a very motivational type situation for us to be in. We provide services without the need for their total investment of their life savings.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Six


Mr. Gassett showed the drawing of the buildings. They are residential in appearance. We will be spending more than $2 million and we do not ask for any tax abatement. The front is residential with dormers. He showed the building footprint and site layout with the building setting back and the circle drive and parking on the north side.

Mr. Syfert called on Ms. McBride for her report. Ms. McBride said we believe it is an appropriate use of the property. This type use is typically a very low trip generator. The facility is residential in design and is in keeping with the concept of the Corridor Study so we are in favor of the specific use. However there are concerns that we do have. The landscaping plan in general forms a good basis, but there are some things that we would like to see supplemented. They specify plant material of two different sizes; we would like to see it planted at the larger of the two sizes. They are showing plant material going across the pathway in the courtyard and they might want to think about not doing that. We would like to see a significant amount of landscape material added to the southeast and northeast yards. These are going to be views from residentsí rooms or units, and right now they are not showing anything but grass, so we would like to see some landscaping in those areas. Additionally, we would like to see some additional landscaping screening around the transformer pad on the side of the building, and additional trees along the frontage of Springfield Pike which Mr. McErlane will talk about in a moment. The light standards are 16 feet in height and dark bronze in color and have cut off fixtures; those are great. We had a little bit of problem regarding parking. Their parking legend came up with 34 spaces, and in their narrative they indicated that they only have four to five employees. If I heard correctly, there might be 18 to 20 employees. Mr. Gassett responded that is on a divided shift basis. Ms. McBride continued taking into account that there are people there for food preparation, housekeeping, administrative and nursing staff, I suspect there will be more than four to five people there on the largest shift. Taking into account that there will be medical personnel visiting, hopefully visitors visiting, and recognizing that not many of the residents have their own cars, I think we would like some additional documentation that the 34 parking spaces will in fact be sufficient for the development.

Ms. McBride stated they are showing 70% site coverage, which is consistent with the Corridor Study. The monument sign is also consistent with the Corridor Study. We donít have any details on the height or area of the sign so we need to see that.

Ms. McBride reported my largest concern is the internal circulation on the site. Assuming you will be taking limited truck deliveries, but still some food deliveries off the side of the building, there is no way you can get a truck in there without sufficient backing and turning and backing and turning. The internal circulation even for trash removal doesnít work without turning and backing. I donít think that is the type activity that should be occurring on the site given that there could be elderly residents visiting and so forth. I think there needs to be serious consideration given to the internal circulation pattern overall.

Mr. Shvegzda stated one of our earlier comments was regarding the misunderstanding about the representation of the right of way. That has been taken care of; itís shown consistent with what is existing at State Route 4.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Seven


Mr. Shvegzda reported throughout the city, we have been trying to limit the number of driveways along different major arterials. There were two driveways for the site and we would ask that some investigation could be done to see if one or the other could be eliminated, either by utilizing the Colony driveway to the south of the site, or to extend the service drive to the north that would come out onto State Route 4 opposite Cameron Road and could act as a secondary access point for the development.

Also, there is a concept plan for the improvements on State Route 4. As part of that, we have estimated an additional five feet of right of way would be required in this vicinity to accommodate those improvements. Storm water detention will be required on the site. I think that has been recognized on the concept plan.

Mr. McErlane reported the rezoning request is not for the entire property. It is for 3.98 acres of a seven acre tract, and the remainder would stay OB (Office Building). We do require additional detail when it is in the Corridor, but typically we would only require a concept plan for a rezoning request. So, even though there may be some technical issues that need to be resolved, it wouldnít prohibit this body from referring it on to Council, if it was felt that there arenít issues that would impact the size of the parcel. Obviously if they are defining a portion of the parcel as Public Facilities and it has to grow, then that will change the legal description of the property that would be referred to Council. From last monthís meeting to this monthís the parcel did grow from the previous submittal because of some setback problems we found.

Mr. McErlane stated the only issues I can see that may impact the size of the lot that have been discussed so far tonight might be parking more than anything else. If parking causes the site to grow, then that legal description would also change. It is up to the applicant to convince the Planning Commission that their parking is adequate.

Mr. McErlane reported that the building materials and design are consistent with what the corridor standards require. There are two facades that have 40% brick or stone; the front facade has considerably more, and the south facade is approximately 40%.

Mr. McErlane continued that the setbacks meet code, with the exception of the parking setback from the north line. I did have some discussion with the applicant that at this point of time that line is a zoning line, itís not a property line. The setback requirement is from a property line and not a zoning line per se. However, it would have to be addressed if the property were split at some future point in time. In those discussions, there was some discussion about development of the OB parcel that will be remaining on that. They may consider some cross access easements which would make the setback a moot point.

Mr. McErlane reported that there is a street tree planting requirement in the corridor, street tree plantings at one per 40 feet of frontage which works out to about 10 trees on this site and there is an additional planting requirement in Subarea D because of the larger front yard setbacks which requires four 3 inch caliper deciduous trees for every 100 feet of frontage, and three 6 foot evergreens for every 100 feet of frontage, which totals 38 trees in the front yard. I have run through those numbers on two projects so far, and they seem to be pretty excessive. I donít know if we want to take a look at the Zoning Code requirements and see if we want to modify those.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Eight


Mr. McErlane continued it does allow the Planning Commission to modify the street tree requirements based on what is required for the front yard plantings. Even if we drop the 10 street trees, 28 trees is still a lot to try to plant in the front yard of that development. Obviously it needs a few more than what was shown, but 28 is quite a few.

Mr. McErlane stated on the parking requirements, it is up to the applicant to convince Planning Commission that 27 is sufficient.

Mr. McErlane continued as far as the last item on my comments, we received a letter from the owner of the property today indicating that they could represent them in this rezoning request.

Mr. Syfert stated as Mr. McErlane said, this is a request for rezoning that we would have to forward on to Council. In regard to the trees, we possibly can work that out. Maybe we can come up with a compromise on that. I agree with Mr. McErlane that it is a lot of trees. Mr. Okum said I donít believe there are any trees on that site at all. Mr. McErlane reported that there are along the back property line, and most of it is on the balance that they are not rezoning. There also may be some in the back corner of this parcel.

Mr. Gassett stated on the number of parking spaces, we have three residents within the 1200 units that drive, and the parking has been more than adequate in the 40 units. We will have a total of 50 residents and 20 employees. In most cities, we go with the ratio of one to four units in a nursing home, so that is only 12 parking spaces required. I was told by our architect that this has been more than adequate in the 40 units that have been in operation for five years. Mr. Young wondered what happened on holidays and Mr. Gassett responded a lot of people pick up and take the residents home for the day. Typically someone visiting there is for a short time and all 50 will not have visitors at the same time. We try to coordinate our activities around the community schools and have planned activities around that

Mr. Syfert commented I think a little more work can be done in regard to the parking but if necessary, you could go a little further back on your lot and pick up a few spaces, if you canít convince us that it isnít necessary. Mr. Gassett responded we have seven acres, but we feel that is wasted; we would rather have landscaping and more trees.

Mr. Gassett continued on the circle drive, from a safety point of view the Fire Department and emergency service people desire this type of a circulation within the front so they can get in and out. That is a private entrance on the south. Mr. Shvegzda commented that would have to be an agreement worked out between you. Mr. Gassett said coming in on the north, we feel like the residential atmosphere on the circle drive would be lost. If the Commission desires us to do a one way in and two way exit, we can do that.

Mr. Syfert commented I think that is something we can work at a little more, but one of the concerns was your service drive. Mr. Gassett responded I have to refer back to the units we have open. This is our basic plan and we have probably three service deliveries a week for food, and that type of thing. It has not presented a problem, nor is there a problem with the dumpster location. The dumpster will be enclosed with gates.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Nine


Mr. Gassett continued we have not had any concern on the design for deliveries. Mr. Syfert responded then your radius is okay for them to maneuver in there? Mr. Gassett answered I donít know exactly the radius, but we have blocked off a couple of spaces to make a turn there. Ms. McBride added our concern was when we put the turning templates down there, there is no way a truck can make that turn without backing turning backing and turning.

Mr. Galster said the configuration of your parking back there is a lot narrower than what you are showing here in the drawing we have. We have a straight shot where there is back up room and out. What you are showing there comes back into the property a little bit more where you might have more of a turning radius. Mr. Gassett answered the turning radius will be off this drive. We can move that island back and take the two or three spaces out and add those back here and we would have an adequate radius for turning. He added they deliver to the front entrance.

Mr. Okum asked the height of the canopy and Mr. Gassett reported that it is 12 feet. Mr. Huddleston commented you canít get a tractor trailer under there. Mr. Galster said they donít have that kind of delivery. Mr. Okum said even a short wheel is 13í 6" minimum height. Mr. Gassett stated what we have in the other facilities has been standard; I believe it is 12 feet. Mr. Okum asked the purpose of the portico and Mr. Gassett stated it is for inclement weather and moving residents in and out.

Mr. Okum asked about the maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Gassett stated we will spend more than $20,000 on landscaping, fully sprinklered. We keep it manicured; we have to sell ourselves and we want to have a pleasing look.

Mr. Okum confirmed that the units in the back were living units, adding that they are 210 feet from your access drive in the front. How does the fire apparatus and emergency equipment get to that area? Mr. Gassett answered we are fully sprinklered in the building under the BOCA Code, and we typically will put a fire plug right here. Mr. Okum commented you will have elderly patients inside the facility and you need to get them out. That is quite a distance for firefighters to be running with hoses back to fight a fire. The Colony has had a number of fires and one of the complaints has been access to the units. Maybe in the landscape design, crushed gravel type base material around the perimeter would be helpful. Mr. Gassett added itís not our decision, but perhaps we could use one of the streets from The Colony.

Mr. Okum said on the floor plan submission in your brochure, there is some difference between units here and the photographs. Mr. Gassett reported we have three different sizes, the studio, deluxe and grand deluxe. Each has an efficiency type kitchen. Mr. Okum wondered what percentage chose grand deluxe and Mr. Gassett answered itís probably about 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3. Studios typically go first because they are cheapest, but in some cases the grand deluxe goes first. We are totally private pay so we have no government subsidy. Each has a private bath with wheelchair accessible shower and there is a whirlpool in the building.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Huddleston wondered if there would be a lot split or will the whole property be conveyed to this applicant? Mr. Gassett answered we are purchasing the whole property. Mr. Huddleston continued so how does Mr. McErlaneís question relative to the lot line versus the zoning apply? Mr. McErlane stated even through they are purchasing the entire property, they are only rezoning a portion of it to Public Facilities, so there still is no actual property line on the north side of what this site plan shows, until they decide to do a lot split.

Mr. Huddleston continued I had a couple of comments relative to the storm detention which is referred to on the site plan. It says it will be accommodated, and the first thought members of the Commission had was there was a place where you could guarantee or possibly hold future overflow parking. Iím not sure that would be the case by the time they accommodate the storm detention under this zoning. I suppose if they control the entire site they could go off site with it. My comment would be that as long as there is some guarantee if it doesnít work out that they can always go back and retrofit.

Mr. Syfert stated we are looking at recommending this to Council to approve this property at 11320 Springfield Pike and change the zoning from OB to PF-2 on this parcel.

Mr. Okum moved to recommend to Council the rezoning of this portion of the property from OB to PF-2 conditional on the fact that the staff review comments must be responded to and addressed prior to the public meetings so Council is aware of all the Planning and Corridor Study issues to be addressed as well, including detention and storm water considerations. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Mr. Syfert stated this will be referred to Council with our favorable recommendation to rezone.

B. Approval of Revision to Charing Cross Estates Phase 1

Landominiumms (approved 5/14/96)

Mr. Okum said there are some things that have come forth this evening, but prior to that the only thing we received was a site plan with absolutely no information. This board has been provided with a number of submissions from this applicant over time. I feel it is inappropriate for us to be requested to make a motion to approve or adopt a plan this evening on a totally new plan again. I think we are back to planning and designing for this gentleman and this developer. It is not appropriate for this commission to be continually bombarded with changes when Planning Commission has approved a plan, Council has approved a plan and it has been continually revised and brought forward to us over and over and over again with changes. I feel this should go through a staff review with adequate time for staff to make their comments, and present those comments to us with a complete packet from the applicant once he has made up his mind what he wants to do. Mr. Syfert asked if anyone else felt the same as Mr. Okum.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Galster responded yes, extremely so. I donít know if we are working off the plan that we approved originally or if we are back to the different units that were brought in last month. I think what we need to work from is the drawings that were approved and show the modifications on those drawings so we can all understand what it is that is actually changing. Up until tonight, all we had was this three triangular sketch, and I would like to make a motion to table until proper information can be presented in a timely manner. Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr. Doug Eades said what else do we have to bring to you? You didnít like the way the buildings looked and that has been revised. We showed where the garages were going to be if that were possible. You do not know what it is to stand here before you and try to get something done. I was intimidated and I withdrew; I should not have withdrawn. I should have asked that it be tabled to come back. We have come back with a brand new set of drawings and a suggestion of where the parking might be. These are homes that will be for retirement, empty nesters. It is the step below what this gentleman was just presenting, where they can still live in their own place and care for themselves. I just donít know what else you want us to do. You have intimidated me. I have led many tours to the Holy Land and been in Rome many times, and this is like the Coliseum. We are standing out here and having to get approval. What else do you want. Tell me what you want.

Mr. Syfert responded if I may put things into perspective, I think what the board is saying is that right from the start we have basically seen a different plan every night we have come in here. Mr. Eades said this here says we have changed the entrance to Smiley; we have not. Our entrance always has been in off Cloverdale. Mr. Syfert responded no it has not been, and I donít think this is the place to argue it out. We have a motion and second on the floor to table this item, and Iíll call for the vote.

Mr. Galster commented I question whether or not there is more discussion that maybe we can give direction before the vote. I have an additional comment that I wanted to make for Mr. Eadesí benefit. What needs to happen is the changes you are making are changes to the final plan. This project as you present it here has changed tremendously. What needs to happen is almost starting over with these drawings and going through preliminary review. Iím sorry if it seems like you are starting over, but this is totally different from what we have been presented and what has been approved in the past. What we have is not adequate. The changes that you re requesting here are so drastic that it will need to go back through the whole process all over again. Mr. Eades said thatís what we are here for. Mr. Galster continued then this needs to be brought in as a preliminary plan approval. What is here now is a change to the plan you had approved before. This needs to come back in as a whole new project, because this will need to go back to Council as if it were coming from the ground up. Basically what you are doing is abandoning the project that was approved by this board and Council previously. Instead of trying to do it at the final stages, it needs to go trough the process from the beginning. We looked at this last month and expressed that it was major change and would need to go back through Council. This is a whole different project.

Mr. Eades said I understood that the things that needed to be changed were that the buildings were not nice enough on the outside, that we ought to dress them up, and that there was a concern about the parking.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. Galster responded with all due respect, we never even evaluated those drawings because they were such a drastic change and you removed them from our consideration. You never even got input from the members of this board as to the problems and concerns that they had regarding the changes in this development. Now that we are seeing that it is your desire to continue to push for this drastic change, you need to back off and go through preliminary, then Council and once that all happens, come back in here with a final like this if that is the approval that you need. Iíll guarantee that you will not get that kind of approval from this board based on this type of a submittal as a change to the final that was approved before.

Mr. Eades responded so what is the order? What are we to do? Mr. Syfert responded I think Mr. Galster told you. Basically we have had so many different plans that he is suggesting that, based on what you have heard and observed and the many changes you have made, you put it in one submission, get it to the staff and we will approach it as a preliminary approval. Mr. Eades said from what you have seen tonight, do we have to do anything else besides what is in your hands? Would that be sufficient? Tell us what we have to do; I thought we had done it tonight. I donít understand what you want us to do; I really donít.

Mr. Syfert responded what to you want to do? You have changed your mind so many times, I donít know what you want. Mr. Eades responded I have changed my mind only once. Mr. Syfert commented we have seen a lot more than one plan. Mr. Eades continued that was going from six to 12 units. It is economically unfeasible to think you could do anything with six units. The site development cost is $200,000 alone, and six units will not support that. Twelve units can. The only thing we are asking for is going from six to 12 units, and we thought we had worked out where the parking should be. Mr. Syfert asked where he wanted the access; do you want to build a bridge on Smiley? Mr. Eades said no, and Mr. Syfert continued that is what your plan shows tonight sir. Mr. Eades said where is it on there? We have an easement. I donít understand where you got Smiley. Mr. Syfert said Mr. McErlane didnít change those drawings.

Mr. Young said to make it as simple as possible, the problem is that you have had something that was approved and you have drastically changed that. So, now you have to go back to Square 1. Either that, or you have to go forward with what has been approved. Those are your two choices. If you want to vary from what was approved, you have to start over again. Mr. Eades asked who he would deal with first, Council? Mr. Syfert said no, with this board, unless you go back to what has been approved by Council. Mr. Eades said then we have to redraw all this stuff; Mr. Galster said it doesnít have to be redrawn, it has to be accurate. It needs to be a full plan that shows where the driveway is coming from; it needs to show the whole lay of the land, all the buildings and all the parking and everything. It has to be a complete submittal that is true and accurate as to what you are proposing to do. You say you want to come in off Cloverdale; your drawings show Smiley. Mr. Eades commented that was a mistake. Mr. Syfert said we donít vote on mistakes; when we do, we get pinned to the wall. Mr. Galster added we donít want to make a mistake here and have the City suffer for many years to come. We want to make sure that we take our time to properly evaluate every project that comes before this board. In order to properly evaluate that project, we need to have a complete submittal.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Thirteen


Mr. Galster continued what you need to do is bring a complete submittal back to staff and get it back on the agenda as a preliminary plan approval. If it gets the approval of this board, it will go to Council for their approval. If it comes back with Council approval, you can submit a final. Mr. Eades responded if it comes back to you after Council for final; we are talking about 1997. Mr. Galster responded it doesnít need to be that long of a process, if everything is complete. Mr. Eades continued if we have a November meeting with you, then it would be December with Council and back to you, it would be after the first of the year.

Mr. Eades continued what are we going to do about this floodplain? There is 100 year floodplain, and I have lived around here for nearly 20 years, and that creek is practically dry. I havenít seen any flooding on it. How long are we going to be bound by the floodplain? Mr. Okum asked Mr. Eades if he would like to see pictures he took in July after the storm. The back end was totally under water. Mr. Eades responded Iíve never seen that, but we have to know how we address that so we can send in the right thing. Iím sorry for all of this, but I shouldnít have withdrawn this; you have intimidated me beyond words. We are building a very beautiful addition to the City of Springdale. Iím not trying to pull anything on you or get anything from you; sometimes you have to change horses in the middle of the stream to make things work.

Mr. McErlane said to help Mr. Eades out, obviously this site plan needs a lot of work. For him to go forward and consider drawing up a new plan, it would be worthwhile for him to get a feel if parking can be addressed, are four unit buildings a consideration or are they not? As I said this site plan needs a lot of work because it doesnít take into consideration the topography or the utilities or where the water flows on this property or anything of that nature. For Mr. Eades to redesign this site plan and come back in with four unit buildings and Planning Commission say they think it is too high density for the property, then heís spinning his wheels further. I think it may be worthwhile for him to get that kind of feedback before he goes forward with any additional plans.

Mr. Syfert commented I do not think this Commission has been against this overall concept right from the start, whichever concept we are talking about. I donít mean that to be funny; we have looked at a lot of them. There wasnít any question that we liked the berming coming up along Route 4; now we have parking spaces up there, so thatís going to turn some members off real bad. We work with an exit out onto Cloverdale and now it shows Smiley. I do not know whether I could address the issue of the density without looking at the overall plan. Maybe someone else can do that. As Mr. Galster and two or three others have said, we need to know what you want, and we will work with it.

Mr. Eades responded I think I know what I want, and we will bring you brand new plans, the whole works. So you are saying we should come back with brand new plans, brand new everything showing the site and all of that with 12 units. Mr. Syfert responded if that is what you want.

Mr. Galster added the original was presented as Phase 1 and Phase 2. What we have been talking about here is 12 units in Phase 1, but we need to find out how that all is incorporated into Phase 2 as well so traffic flow and everything else can be addressed from the beginning. If it is your intention to build Phase 1 and wait 20 years to build Phase 2, to have a plan for the flow of Phase 1 into Phase 2, we need to see that and see your ideas on how to accomplish that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Fourteen


Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Eades if he wished to have it tabled until next month and Mr. Eades indicated that he did, so we can get in under Old Business. Mr. Huddleston questioned whether he needed to present the project as a new submittal. Mr. Okum said to be proper, we need a withdrawal of the request for final approval on the original plan and a new plan submission under preliminary plan approval. Does that seem right? Mr. McErlane responded it basically would be a revision to the approved preliminary plan. Mr. Okum continued so we need a revision to the approved preliminary plan, nothing to do with final. All present voted aye to table until next month.

Mr. Wilson said I am reading the Minutes that we approved. This is showing three units of four each, a total of 12. Is this all Phase 1, because according to the Minutes, you were doing two units, or one duplex. This is the confusion. When you left us you were going to do a duplex and then move on, and you were concerned with a driveway onto Route 4 and that didnít work and you didnít like it so you said you would come back with something new. So you are coming back with three units of four each, a total of 12. So you are going to start off and build all 12 at the same time, is that what you are proposing?

Mr. Eades responded I had thought that the Biddles would be cooperating 100%, and we ran into a hornetís nest there. Iím not saying when this is going to be built; Mrs. Biddle is going on 97 years old and she has decreed that it will not be built in her lifetime, and the son is opposed to anything over there, but we still have to show you Phase 2. Maybe after she is gone, I donít know, whether Roger and Sue will enter into that or not. We have had to make some drastic changes in this because it was set up as five acres with all of it like it was. When they pulled out, it is impossible for me to continue with the site plan.

Mr. Eades continued we had a developer, Tim Hershner, who was going to put $253,000 into the project to pay for all of the site development. When we got into a big row out where the road was going to be, the whole thing blew up and we are left with two acres of whatís the best use. Thatís exactly where we are. I hope it will be developed; I trust it will. It was passed with my understanding that it will be developed whenever they say so. I have no say on that. Mr. Wilson said so once this is approved we still have to wait for Mrs. Biddle to pass away before you can start construction. Mr. Eades responded on her area, not ours. We can start Phase 1 as soon as you get it all approved. Mr. Wilson said so you can build your units on the land you own. Mr. Galster said I want to make sure I understand this. I thought we had proper documentation that Phase 2 would happen at some point. Mr. Eades responded we do have. It is going to happen; I canít tell you when. In the Covenants that we gave to you we said that it would be developed when that land became available.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:47 p.m. and reconvened at

8:55 p.m.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Fifteen

C. Preliminary Plan Approval for Proposed Air-Tite Window Company, 205 North Commerce Way (Renaissance Property)

Tom Bennington said we have fulfilled our commitment in terms of the preliminary approval process. I would like to explain a few things we will do to the site that are a little different from the things you have reviewed. There is one minor change. This 15,000 square foot building is within 20 feet on the side yard to the cul de sac. We are here to ask you for an exception to that. Mr. McErlane was looking at this as the definition of the front yard being here as more than 50 feet back, but it is 20 feet back. That is the only change. The other thing is that the dumpster pads were left off this plan, but they will be identical to what you approved for Champion Windows. Mr. Syfert said that was on the preliminary plan we had at staff. Mr. McErlane added the preliminary plan showed scrap dumpsters. Mr. Syfert added you are saying it will be just like what was on the preliminary plan that we saw.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were a retention, not a detention pond in the front and Mr. Bennington answered yes, and it would have a water feature in the middle of it. On the fifth page you can see the sign. Our definition of a monument sign and theirs is a little different, but we think this fits better with the scheme of the building. Mr. Galster wondered if it would be the same height as the building, and Mr. Bennington confirmed this. Our building is 600 feet long, and we need a sign that is comparable. Mr. Okum asked the building height, and Mr. Bennington stated that the clear height is 24 feet.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there will be a considerable amount of relocation of sanitary sewer. MSD would like to review the concept plans for the sanitary sewer relocation. We would have to have that in hand before completing our final review.

Mr. Shvegzda continued the plans indicate the revision of the terminus of the public roadway to have a cul de sac and the vacation of a portion of the right of way. That is consistent with the comments we had earlier. In doing that, a dedication plat for a new right of way to encompass the cul de sac would have to be submitted as well as the vacation plat for the remainder of the right of way to be vacated plus the adding of whatever easements which would be required to encompass the utilities that are in the area.

Mr. Shvegzda stated that the question regarding the water feature, the retention basin on the south end of the building has been addressed, and because of the amount of revision to this site and the storm water management system on site, there would have to be considerable analysis and revisions to the plans as far as the detention would have to be submitted.

Mr. Bennington responded as it pertains to MSD, that already has been sent on to MSD. On the radius in the cul de sac, we understand that there are a lot of plats that have to take place. In terms of storm water management, when we give you the as builts when we submit for the permit and you will review that.

Ms. McBride reported as they indicated, the waste storage area is missing. The buildings that we initially reviewed were 108,800 square feet. The smaller building to be constructed at a later phase was on the plans originally submitted for this review at 12,800. The ones we just got are 15,000. I donít think that is a problem, but I want to note that it is a change.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Sixteen


Ms. McBride continued the only other issue is signage, and we just received the revised signage proposed for I-275. We felt the 30 to 40 feet in height is not appropriate, and I would question whether or not the 25 feet is appropriate. I would like to see some justification for that as opposed to picking numbers out of the area. They are saying 200 square feet, but it is a little vague as to whether it is 10 x 20 on the Air Tite Window Company. I would like to see details and dimensions of the proposed sign before we would sign off on that. The same thing is true of the monument sign and the on building signage.

Ms. McBride continued regarding the tree replacement, we would ask the Commission to consider giving some relief to that. They have complied with almost everything we have asked for in terms of changing that detention basin in the front to a water feature retention basin with fountains; they have upgraded the facades of the building and I think it will be a nice looking building, something we will be pleased with. We would ask for additional details with regards specifically to the signage. Mr. Bennington responded we will provided as much detail as you want on the signs. Due to the deadline for getting this into you on time, we didnít have time to go out and have a sign company draw the signs. However we did float a balloon and we did put up poles with flags to get to that height. Weíll do whatever we need to do to meet what you would like us to do.

Mr. McErlane stated my comments initially were on the original plan submitted on the 3rd of September, so as far as setbacks go, the only deviation this point would be the 20 foot setback to the cul de sac to the 15,000 square foot future building. Mr. Syfert wondered if this was brought about by changing the size of the building? Mr. Bennington said this building already has purchase plans for it, so it is very important that it stay at 15,000 square feet. The other architects took it upon themselves to cut the corner of the building off and reduced it to 12,800. Mr. Syfert continued that is the future building. Mr. Bennington answered that the building will be done in Phase II within the first three years of the project completion.

Mr. McErlane continued additionally a new sign has been submitted for the interstate side of the project. GI District allows one identification sign at 125 square feet maximum, maximum height of 12 feet and minimum setback from public right of way of 35 feet. Based on where the applicant is proposing to place them, the 35 foot requirement really doesnít come into play as far as sight distance problem. Itís not going to be a sight distance problem on the interstate side obviously and doesnít appear to be one on the North Commerce Way. We really donít have any details as to what that sign will be. We talked preliminarily that it would be a smaller identification sign and if there were multiple tenants in here, It possibly could have multiple tenant nameplates on them. They havenít submitted any detail to that effect.

Mr. McErlane stated concerning the monument sign along the interstate, I agree with Anne. I think the height should be more dependent on visibility evaluation and not necessarily a set point of 25 to 30 feet. Granted there are some elevation differences on the site and some visibility problems from the standpoint of some of the trees on Avonís property that might come into play, but instead of settling on a 25 to 30 foot height, I think it would be worthwhile to take a look at what is necessary.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Seventeen


Mr. Bennington said thatís fine with us. We would hire a sign company that has worked with you before to get proposals and present this to you. Weíll submit the findings as to how high it needs to be; as long as itís visible, we donít mind.

Mr. McErlane stated we also discussed building signage with the applicant although there is nothing shown on the plans. I think some of that will be dependent on whether there are multiple tenants in the building, it may be more appropriate to go with something a little larger than 125 square feet on the building. It will be dependent on how much of the building is used by Air-Tite and how much is used by multiple tenants. It needs to be more to scale for the size of the building. One hundred twenty-five square feet on a 600 square foot building is going to look out of place. That is something we can address at final plan approval stage.

Mr. McErlane stated the applicant outlined the replanting requirement for the trees. As expressed last meeting, there is already a 329 caliper inch requirement for the site before earth is moved, and based on what is planned to be developed, it adds another 388 caliper inches for a total of 717. The landscaping plan that is shown which is a preliminary landscaping plan, works out to about 164 trees on the site. If we assume that they are two inch caliper trees, we are looking at 328 caliper inches that they are proposing to plant, so they are looking for relief from 389 caliper inches.

Mr. McErlane stated on my last item, we received permission from the current owner on Friday.

Mr. McErlane added because the current preliminary plan that exists for this property is part of Pictoria Island, it is up to the council members on Planning to determine if it is a substantial change and needs to go back to Council. That is a decision that needs to be made tonight as well.

Mr. Huddleston asked if this is a change to the Pictoria development plan, does that necessarily affect this applicant, or does that negate that plan? Mr. McErlane responded in essence, as part of the PUD zone on this property, a preliminary plan with proposed uses was adopted by Council along with the rezoning of the property. Subsequently, when Pictoria Island came through it was a modification of that preliminary plan, went through the Council approval process again, and is now the preliminary plan that is on file. Typically a use change would more or less go back to Council as a change to their preliminary plan, but it is up to the council members of Planning to make that decision. What they are really deciding is whether or not this plan is a substantial change to this portion of the property as opposed to the Pictoria Island plan that is on file.

Mr. Bennington added it was my understanding that when we convened last month we were asking for a modification to that plan, and the Commission agreed on a concept basis that this would go forward. It is my understanding that based on tonightís discussion you will make a recommendation to Council. Mr. McErlane added we led the applicant to believe that this was a substantial change and to anticipate that, but it is still up to the two council members of Planning Commission to make that decision.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Eighteen


Mr. Galster said in view of the whole scope of Pictoria Island and what has been presented to Council, I believe even though this may fit the original intention of the PUD and the original zoning of the property, it is still a major change to what is proposed for that overall site, so I think it needs to go back to Council. Mr. Wilson added I agree; although I have no problems with the plan as it is presented, I think in its totality there is a significant enough change from what we had approved before to bring it to Council. That is to say that we feel it should be presented before Council so that seven Council people can give their opinions as opposed to just seven Planning Commission members composed of two council people. Weíre not saying itís a no go; we are saying it is a sufficient enough of a change in its totality that we want Council involvement.

Mr. Galster added on the signage issue, I have a question in my mind for the need for a pole sign/monument sign, whatever you want to call it, that is anywhere near the kind of height you were talking about. How much traffic are you going to pull off I-275 to come to Air-Tite Windows? I look at this more as an office building where you donít have pole signs for office buildings. I look at Avon as an example with their monument sign that is out and facing the interstate tastefully done; I would not have a problem with that type thing. I have a problem with the idea of a pole sign that is designed to draw the eyes from the interstate.

Mr. Bennington responded maybe I could address that by saying with all the vegetation along I-275 that is the problem. Mr. Galster responded that is why I think you should go with building mounted signs, I have no problem with that. But I have a problem with sticking a pole up just so you can see a sign on the pole. I have no problem with approving your signage on the building because the building is already there; it is a structure. I donít want to create other structures to cloud the landscape. Mr. Bennington said the building will be set back far enough from the highway that Avonís trees will shield the building as you are driving west. The only visibility we will have would be a few seconds from the east but you are going to be even further away. The only way for us to get any visibility from the highway is to put a sign above the vegetation. Mr. Galster responded I understand your wanting to have your visibility from the highway. To me it is like an office building. We donít have any office buildings along the interstate in Springdale, but I can think of other areas in the Greater Cincinnati area that have office buildings that donít have signs that say here is everybody in this office building. If you were a retail destination, I would understand the need to create the attention for the drive by traffic. Mr. Bennington commented we do have a retail showroom. Mr. Galster said I understand, but you are not trying to pull in Tri-County Mallís people to shop for windows. That wonít be your kind of traffic. I donít see a need for the pole sign.

Mr. Bennington responded our competitor in Springdale has excellent visibility. Mr. Galster said I agree that he has a building that is situated on the interstate in such a way that allows his building mounted signs to be seen, but my main concern is not to allow a sign as a form of having permanent advertisement for this type of development. To me that is not the purpose of the pole sign. Mr. Bennington responded the whole purpose of a highway visibility property is to get that highway visibility. Because the building is set back and there is vegetation there, we have to have some sort of a sign, or the project goes somewhere else. The whole reason to pay the premium for highway visibility property is to get that visibility. As soon as you take that visibility away, you can go and pay $35,000 an acre a mile up the road.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Nineteen


Mr. Galster responded and you are going to tell me that your building as shown on this rendition is not visible at all from the interstate? Youíll see this building and I will be able to see your name on the building. Mr. Bennington responded yes and no. Currently I think there is 125 feet maximum signage on the building. The total square footage you will be able to see from the highway is on the wall of that building, from the side is 27,000 square feet. We are talking 125 square feet of sign. Mr. Galster said that can be modified as well. I would be more flexible to modify the amount of signage on the side of your building as opposed to the pole sign. Mr. Syfert commented I think more work has to be done on that sign, without any question.

Mr. Bennington said our intention is to put a very nice looking monument sign similar to Avon. It has to be a little taller so it can be seen. We thought if we put that sign in the middle of the water feature, with a fountain on either side it would even look nicer. Our intention is to make this a very nice looking development. It was told to us that you view that as an entrance to Springdale as you get off the exit. We look at it the same way and say we want a very high and rich building setting on that property. Mr. Galster said a sign in the middle of the fountain defeats the purpose of having the still water and water feature if there is a sign in the middle of it. To me it detracts tremendously.

Mr. Wilson said when you talk about signage, I question the value of a big sign when you have traffic coming by at 60 miles per hour and exiting off at less than 60. As Mr. Galster says, if you want more signage on your building and bigger letters so people can see it heading east at a further distance, and also heading west, being able to glance over and see it at a flash, you donít want something that they are going to spend their time looking at the sign and having an accident, but you want it big enough so they can identify Air-Tite and turn. I would be more receptive to more signage on the building than I would be a monument sign that might be more of a distraction than an aid to you. I realize advertising is important, but more discussion needs to be held about signage. Donít think because your competitor has this, you need it; you may not need it. Theirs is such because of where they are. We are going to approve your signage based on where you are and how it conforms with what we feel is necessary within the guidelines.

Mr. Huddleston said you talk about water features and signage and the elevations preliminarily represented to us here tonight, I think like art it is in the eyes of the beholder. What I see in the water feature which was requested as an element of amenity to this development, and also relative to the elevation treatments which are pretty significant for a light industrial building (in the good sense), I almost view this signage proposal as a sculpture element with a very small signage element to it. I donít know where that will go because we have no detail to it but my position would be, subject to a line of sight study that says how high or wide that may have to be, to view this as an element or feature of the development itself with a relatively small signage requirement to that.

Mr. Okum said on the other side of the cul de sac, the parcel to the right, what is there? Mr. Bennington responded it is Avon. Mr. Okum wondered if on the east side is parking lot also? Mr. Bennington stated this is grass, and this is an acre of land that we canít touch.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Twenty


Mr. Okum continued the cul de sac would be for emergency access and turning around, so basically it would be a private use cul de sac. Mr. Bennington stated we are trying to get further clarification on that issue. We need to know if it is really necessary. Mr. Okum responded I think the turn around is truly necessary, because it is senseless to have cars turn around in your parking lot where your trucks are; it will be more used by your own people than it will be by anyone else. The reason I am mentioning that is I think the 20 foot setback requirement really is not going to impact the parcel on the side of which is a parking lot, and the majority of your building meets the required setback requirements. I donít have a real problem with the setbacks; I just wanted to clarify what was on that parcel.

Mr. Okum asked about their proposal on the trees, and Mr. Bennington stated that he submitted a diagram of how the trees lay on the site with color coding. Those trees go to 775 caliper inches; half of those trees need to be replaced, or 388 caliper inches. We have an allocation that ran with the property of 329 caliper inches, bringing us to a total of 717 caliper inches that need to be replaced. We have had an architect place on the plan 164 trees, an average of two inches in diameter. To complete the full caliper inches required it would cost us $68,068, based on a fair market value of $190. The only reason I am comparing this back to dollars is because I want to show this to you in relationship with what we have spent to upgrade the look of this building. We are the entrance to Springdale, and in our plan are 328 caliper inches which equals 164 trees at a cost of $31,160. We are asking for the difference of 389 caliper inches (194 trees) for relief from you for that full amount of $36,908. On the next page I broke it out to one time costs. Weíll put a band of glass on the front of that building, upgrade the look with nice entryways with glass, a $20,000 landscaping allowance that doesnít include these trees, building and parking lot lighting and landscaping at $10,000, and retention pond, fountain and lights at $15,000 for a total of $135,000. Then there are annual costs for the upkeep of electricity and exterior building lighting which would be $8,000 annually or $80,000 over a 10 year period. We will spend $215,000 to make this look nice, and I think that is more than fair to ask you to give us relief on $36,000 of trees when you look at what we are spending on the total project. I think that is more than just, and I would like to hear your comments.

Mr. Syfert said I have never traded glass for trees. I think we have to look at it from a more realistic standpoint than trying to trade. Your lighting on the building, your landscaping upkeep are all things everyone has. I donít think you are doing anything outstandingly different than anyone else. You are putting $55,000 in the glass on the front, and I agree with that. The retention pond was recommended; if you want to look at a trade, maybe Iíd buy that, but I myself know that there are quite a few trees on the property that you are losing because of your footprint. I think I for one am amenable at looking at your landscaping plan and the trees you are replacing to see if they are reasonable and then go from there. Mr. McErlane stated if you look at the plan, if you tried to, you could squeeze additional plantings on the plan. I think you have to look at it from the standpoint of is it a reasonable plan and does it lay out real well? One of the concerns Iím sure the applicant has is that it is not blocking the entire frontage of his building with trees. In terms of a well drawn out plan, I would have to defer to Planning Commission or maybe Anne McBride, since Iím not a landscaping expert per se, but you can squeeze in as many as you have green space, but it doesnít necessarily make a good plan.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Bennington commented I think it is a reasonable plan, in relationship to some of the other projects we have going in. Mr. Syfert commented you have a lot of trees to work with to start with. Is this a reasonable plan; itís not a fancy office building as such. Mr. Bennington responded if you look at this building in comparison to an industrial box you will find anywhere else, the premiums we are paying on this building far exceeds what anyone else would put in here as far as industrial building is concerned. That is because this is our best effort to get this approved by you.

Mr. Wilson wondered if they would agree that the better looking the building is the more it enhances the image of your company. Mr. Bennington responded I am glad you mentioned that. With the growth this company has had, they may be growing out of this building in five to 10 years, so from an investment standpoint, they will not recoup the thousands they have in the exterior finish of the building. IDI is an industrial box, and we could put that building right on this property, but I do not think it will achieve anything. We are going to get some benefit out of it, but down the road. Mr. Wilson continued if the image of the building enhances sales for the first five years and helps them move out to a bigger site, then they made their money off that building. We could really put more dollars into the landscaping. We are concerned as to the number of trees you can put in the allotted space, but there are things you can do in landscaping; you can invest your dollars more in that than giving these one time costs and annual upkeeps. All this looks pretty, but you are trying to justify an exception by putting these costs in. What I am looking at is putting these dollars into landscaping. I would rather see that dollar figure in landscaping than trying to justify it with your costs here. Ms. McBride can work with you in trying to determine what we can actually do, what it will cost us in dollars by eliminating certain caliper inches.

Ms. McBride commented Iím sure the applicant would like some kind of feel as to what the thoughts of the Commission are, but in terms of number of inches or dollars, the applicant wasnít able to prepare a final landscaping plan for us, so we donít really know how many trees or how many caliper inches can effectively go on the site. Maybe you make your final determination after we have had a chance to review that final plan and actually have caliper inches and a dollar value to that. Mr. Wilson commented I would feel more comfortable with that rather than letting him assume that his premiums paid would justify the loss of caliper inches. Ms. McBride added that would at least give you some basis and you would know what you are looking at. Mr. Bennington added doing that on a caliper inch basis is tangible; we know what that is.

Mr. Okum said looking at the footprint and what trees would be disturbed by the building, you could defer some of that cost off to when the future one story building is being built, because there are some trees that are indicated to be taken out for that future building. Mr. Bennington stated there are no trees there.

Mr. Okum commented I was on Council when the Tree Preservation Ordinance was adopted, and it was our intent to preserve the green that Springdale had been noted for and not strip our properties of basically all the vegetation.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Okum added I would be more apt to consider your tree request along with your refined landscaping plan so that we can really identify what the site will hold. How you handle your landscaping will be integral to my decision making on how the trees should balance out. Landscaping is a critical part. You are at the entryway into our community; it is a key site, and this Commission should be very strong about how it is treated and how the landscaping looks.

Mr. Okum continued we can certainly act and make a recommendation to Council so Council can act on it, but we can hold out signage, because I have some of the same concerns as Mr. Galster as to why you need a monument sign and not a bigger building sign. You ask anybody where Champion Window is, and anybody who drives I-275 knows. The signs that are on that building are very effective, and the building was tastefully done, a sizable improvement over the original plan. These are things that we have to consider, but signage, landscaping and the tree replacement issues all need to be addressed at one separate part of your final plan submission and approval. We donít want to hold you up from getting to the next leg, because I think you have a fine plan and have done a real good job with the site; I would like to see you move forward.

Mr. Bennington said the only thing we would need from you is the number of caliper inches you will relieve so we can get to that final landscaping plan. Mr. Okum responded donít you think you need to lay it out and see what the site will hold? Mr. Bennington answered we are showing 164 trees; Iím not trying to be sarcastic, but if you can put more trees on there thatís great; weíll do it.

Ms. McBride commented no disrespect to the applicant, but those are just the tree stamp. They could have put 260 trees on there; they didnít space them based on species or planting size, so we donít know how many trees. It could be half that number that can fit on that site, or it could be double that. I think until a landscaping plan is done, we canít make that judgment.

Mr. Okum commented to be fair to you, this site may not handle the number of trees you are indicating that it needs. We need the final landscaping plan. I understand your investment, but I think some of the investments are normal to the appearance of your business. Certainly building lighting makes your building more marketable if Air-Tite moved out. The water feature is definitely an asset to the building. One of the things you mentioned is light packs on buildings, and I have a real concern about how those impact the drivers and reflect down. Mr. Bennington said those are on the side and back of the building. Mr. Okum responded even where they are, I am concerned about how they impact the driving public.

Mr. Syfert asked if there were any issues other than the sign and landscaping that are of any great concern? Mr. Okum responded signage, landscaping and trees.

Mr. Bennington asked what they needed to do and at what point. I know we need a landscaping plan.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Twenty-Three


Mr. Syfert responded what our motion will be is to forward it on to Council since we have determined it is a major change. Then it will have to come back here for final approval. Maybe you can work with Anne with the landscaping and take a little closer look at the calipers, or maybe you can come up with a better plan yourself. At the same time, we will have to look at the issue, and some of us have the concern on the sign issue and the water feature. That can be taking place while we are in our waiting process for Council.

Mr. Huddleston said I think it is an attempt to keep it moving forward. There are excellent elements to the plan, and a lot of money spent on the amenities for whosever benefit, but the amenities are there nonetheless for the community. All that aside, I think it is an excellent plan. Iím not so sure that we want to create a "fictitious" kind of plan. Do we need to take relief on this tonight? Canít we go forward and act on this as a preliminary plan and let the applicant come back in the final stages and do that, as long as the applicant is comfortable that there is a reasonableness in this Commission which can be worked out at a later date.

Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the preliminary plan proposed subject to signage, landscaping and tree replacement being worked out on the final development plan and forward this to Council. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Wilson Mr. Galster, Mr. Young, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum and Mr. Syfert. approval was granted with seven affirmative votes, and referred to Council.

Mr. Syfert said I would like to put a new item on the agenda. It deals with the AT&T site that was brought to the attention of both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Galster, and the determination was that this was not a major change to the PUD. I am not sure that the other members knew that, so I felt it should be brought up to the board.


A. Workshop for Planning & BZA Members

Mr. McErlane stated last month we discussed the potential for a planning and zoning workshop to be held during the winter months when the agendas are a little lighter. In talking with Anne McBride it sounds like January is a little more appropriate than December because the local chapter of the Ohio Planning Conference is holding a workshop in December. Rather than conflict with that, we might be able to use some of their information for a January workshop. I had asked if you preferred an evening or Saturday morning. Mr. Okum said Saturday. Mr. Syfert asked if anyone had any problem with Saturday morning. Mr. McErlane added we are talking about four hours. Mr. Syfert suggested 9 to 1 p.m. and the board concurred. Mr. McErlane added it would be with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Okum suggested that at 1 oíclock both boards do lunch. I think it would be good for the cohesiveness of the boards. Mr. McErlane added I have posed the same question of the Board of Zoning Appeals.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

10 September 1996

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. McErlane said if you recall, Extended Stay wanted a pole sign and a ground sign. This is what Planning Commission saw, and the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance for the pole sign which included a little price sign below the main sign. I had a request come in with basically the same square footage. It is configured a little bit differently, but it wasnít until I looked a little closer that I discovered it is a tri vision display to be changed weekly. It is like in the sports stadium where it flips and there are three scenes. I canít understand how it will benefit them. You may not have noticed it, but Budgetel actually has an electronic price sign but it only changes whenever they change the price of their rooms so it may only change once every eight months. I am trying to get an idea as to what Planning Commission feels about this.

Mr. Young and Mr. Wilson both said they didnít like it. Mr. Galster added I do like the new main sign frame better, but I donít like the changeable message board.


A. Springdale Cleaners, 365 West Kemper Road- Wall Sign

B. Sears Auto Center, 300 East Kemper Road - Wall Signs

C. Springdale Pony Keg, 369 West Kemper Road - Wall Sign

Mr. Galster stated on the approval of wall signs, whether it be the chairman, vice chair or staff meeting with these people, particularly these ones, because of the window sign ordinance we should make them aware of the enforcement. Mr. McErlane reported I am in the process of putting together a brochure on temporary signs and banners and at the same time we will mail it out to all the business owners and let them know that painted window signs are gone.


Mr. Wilson moved for adjournment and Mr. Young seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,1996 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



___________________,1996 _________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary