7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Chairman William Syfert.


Members Present:    Tony Butrum, Steve Galster, Lawrence Hawkins
            Dave Okum, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent:    Robert Coleman

Others Present:    Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
            Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director
            Bill McErlane, Building Official
            Pat Madl, Asst. City Engineer
            Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert reported that Mr. Coleman had a last-minute commitment at work, and for final approval, it will take five affirmative votes.


Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all except Mr. Vanover who abstained voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with five affirmative votes.


A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster reported that at their last meeting Council approved the PUD rezoning and preliminary plan for Springdale Town Center. We also looked at a change to the property maintenance code for overgrown and unmaintained landscaping.

B. Zoning Bulletin – August 10, 2005
C. Zoning Bulletin – August 25, 2005
D. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – May 17, 2005


A. Kemper Square Landscape and Sign Plan – 107-139 West Kemper Road (tabled 8/9/05)

No one was present, and Mr. McErlane reported that he had faxed a letter to the applicant three weeks ago indicating that any submittals needed to be in by the end of the month. There were no new submittals, and we never heard anything from the applicant.

Mr. Vanover moved to withdraw this from the agenda, and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Galster passed out some pictures that he created, showing signage at the corner and how much it would impact on the public right of way.



Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Okum asked if this would impact on their proposed project. Mr. McErlane said that it wouldn’t, adding that Planning didn’t withhold approval of the building improvements pending the landscape plan.

All present voted aye, and the item was withdrawn from the agenda.

B. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Driveway – Glenmary Home Missioners

Father Dan Dorsey said we are a group of Catholic brothers and priests and we have been in Springdale for the past 66 years. We work with the poor and dispossessed in the south. Our national headquarters is here on Route 4 and I am the president of the community.

Some of the questions were about the future, and I can’t see into the future. I can’t guarantee what will happen tomorrow, but I would like to think that the fact that we have been a part of this community for 66 years would hold a little bit of water about our credibility and our intentions.

The reason we are applying for this curb cut permit was because of safety concerns. There are 13 people who live there; half are younger and the other half is retired. We know there are two roads that come into our property, Ray Norrish Drive and Yorkhaven Road.

Our concern is that in the near future Route 4 will be expanded to eight lanes right in front of our property. Now for a good part of the day it is difficult and dangerous to enter and exit. Even though this is an expensive thing, safety is our major concern, and we ask for this curb cut permit. As president, I don’t like to spend money, but I would hate to have somebody critically injured or killed at our entranceway.

The question was raised about the security of the property. This is a driveway; it is not intended to be a drive through. We will have an electronic gate that will only be able to be opened with a card or a number so it would be a controlled ingress and egress. Thirteen of us live there, and we also are concerned; we don’t want people driving through so we are going to do everything within our power to make that not happen. That is in our best interests.

I am very confident that there would be no more than 35 cars a day that would be on this driveway. Our choice is Yorkhaven. The last time the commission was pointing us in the direction of Ray Norrish Drive. In going back and talking to people and considering all these things, our first choice is still Yorkhaven. If you tell us Ray Norrish, we will go that way.

We feel like we have been good neighbors to all of you. All of these years people have used our property, and all we want is the safety of our brothers and priests, and that’s all we are asking for with this driveway. It will not be a thoroughfare.



Mr. McErlane reported that the property that is located in Springdale is currently zoned Residential Single Household Estate Density and is undeveloped land. The applicant is proposing to construct a 20-foot wide driveway from their existing parking lot that is in Fairfield Ohio on the east side, traversing across that vacant land to the west to Yorkhaven Road, which is their first choice. They also have indicated as a second choice they would be wiling to extend the driveway south from where it turns the properties at Springdale Lake Drive and traverse to the south to hit Ray Norrish Drive.

The property that the applicant has in Fairfield is currently zoned B-1, which allows for religious, educational, charitable organizations, institutions and offices.

The purpose for having this Conditional Use Permit hearing is that our Zoning Code requires that a Conditional use Permit be issued by Planning Commission if a non-residential property uses a residential property as a driveway or parking, and Section 153.502(B)(7) of the Zoning Code requires that.

The applicant is also requesting relief from the tree replanting requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Although we have no specific numbers, it is expected it would be a substantial number of trees since the property is heavily forested. Last month the applicant indicated last month that most of those trees are not large trees because the property was pasture land when they moved there.

If Planning Commission approves this, we would recommend that a condition be placed on the approval that the applicant agree to abandoning the driveway if the property is sold or if the use they currently have in Fairfield is changed to some other use. Since the B-1 zoning allows for other uses, there would be a concern if we had an office use that was going to use that driveway to exit.

Ms. McBride respsorted that there is a series of standards that goes with consideration of any Conditional Use Permit that are contained in 153.708 (C) of our Zoning Code. I included in my report eight of the standards that I felt applicable to this request. I want to point out two of them, “a concentration of volume of vehicles in connection with the use will not be more dangerous or hazardous than the usual traffic of the use district.” The other one indicates “the proposed use is properly located in relation to any adopted master plan general plan, land use, plan, thoroughfare plan or street plan, particularly in its relation to existing collection and local street systems and pedestrian circulation. I think those two points in particular are very much on point with regard to the request this evening. The commission needs to give all those standards serious consideration before determining if the use permit is appropriate or not.

I would also recommend that if the commission is going to approve this conditional use permit, a deed restriction be placed on this property.



Ms. McBride said this would indicate that if the property changes use in Fairfield or changes hand, the driveway would be abandoned. Staff’s concern is with the B-1 zoning in Fairfield that could redevelop. It is a substantial piece of property for a medical office for example, which is a very high trip generator. We need to consider that so we make sure we are not dumping a lot of office traffic out into one of our residential streets.

This is the first that we have heard that the applicant was proposing an electronic gate, and I think that addresses some of the concerns raised at last month’s meeting. With this gate, we assume that they won’t be using the driveway for deliveries or the office workers. It is only for the 13 residents and it wouldn’t be for the UPS truck deliveries or the office workers. I wanted to clarify that for the commission.

Mr. Madl said with regard to drainage under both options either half or the majority of the drainage from this paved area is going to be draining back toward Fairfield so that will need to be accepted by the Fairfield city engineer. Under both options we have come up with what volume of detention would be required should the commission feel that detention is required? Generally if the site itself is less than one acre it is not required, and both these developments are an increase in impermeable area of less than one acre. However, I will leave that up to you.

Mr. Syfert opened the public hearing.

Thomas Emmert of 12156 Peak Drive said I am a long time resident of The Gables. We considered strongly a proposal to route this traffic through our property about five years ago. I personally feel the volume of traffic is probably not a big issue if it were to come down Ray Norrish Drive. Ray Norrish handles far more traffic than that today, so I personally feel that is not a big issue.

However I think the conditions should be associated with this, maybe even levied more on the City than on the Glenmary people. At the present time in the whole Ray Norrish Drive/Springdale Lake Drive complex, I have found one speed limit sign, 25 miles per hour and it is immediately as you pass the traffic light off Route 4. Chances are you are so distracted by traffic going into Hooters and the other drives, if you are not really familiar with it you will miss that sign. Once you miss that sign, you have no guidance in terms of speed limit for the rest of the area. I would like to see considerably more speed limit signage certainly on Ray Norrish Drive if this is approved. Of course the concern is all the children who live in or close to that area.

Milton Galper (sp?) resident of The Gables asked how you would get from the property on Ray Norrish Drive without going through Peak Drive. Mr. Syfert answered they are extending the drive on their own property to where Ray Norrish Drive dead ends just beyond the stop sign at the top of the hill.



Doyle Webster said I have a clarification. I always thought that you wanted this drive for the retirees and the six or seven priests and also for the 25 employees that work up there. So you are saying that if you are granted access either way, your 25 employees are still going to try to negotiate Route 4 without a traffic signal and through all that construction?

Father Dorsey responded I am saying there will be about 35 cars a day. Mr. Webster said that includes your 25 office employees, right? Father Dorsey answered not necessarily. This is primarily for… Mr. Webster commented I know who it is primarily for, but I can’t imagine that you are not going to issue activation cards to the gate to those office employees, that you’re going to say we could give you access, but we are going to let you risk your life getting out on Route 4 like you have had to do over the years. I can’t imagine that you will do that. Father Dorsey said okay, then we will do it. Mr. Webster responded you will give them cards. Father Dorsey added I would not necessarily give people cards unless they have said that they really need the cards. My main concern throughout this was with the residents. I didn’t see it as also as using it for the employees, but if somebody came to me and said I always make a left into here and it is very dangerous.

Mr. Webster responded I understand that, but I wouldn’t want the commission to approve this based on a maximum of 13 users since we are talking about those 13 plus the 25 employees. That is the only reason I am questioning it.

Mike Hicks of The Gables asked if the current driveway to the missioners would be closed and Father Dorsey answered that it would not be closed.

Richard Bauer of 665 Yorkhaven Road said I live at the opposite end of where you show the first option. I hear 35 cars a day, and that concerns me. I don’t believe that 35 cars a day come down that end of the street currently, so 35 more cars a day concerns me and the families in that neighborhood. I am sure the folks on the Ray Norrish side would have the same misgivings.

Walt Brunswick said we live at the end of Ray Norrish Drive which is a dead end street. Currently we have two cars coming down that street every day. I have to say that Glenmary Missions are very good neighbors. The biggest concern I have besides the extra traffic, The two cars that come down the street are my wife’s and mine, but we do have quite a few cars that are lost. It is a dead end and several hundred feet long, and we can get as many as 10 cars a day come down there and turn around. If you don’t put up a gate, that could be a problem with traffic coming through. Father Dorsey said we are going to put up a gate.

The only concern I have is safety, because we have a lot of small kids in that area, and a few ride their bicycles on our dead end street.



Sarah Brunswick said my main concern is I work early in the morning and there are a lot of people trying to get in and out of the hotel. Whenever there are meetings, I can’t even get down to the light to turn to go to work because of the traffic going both ways. Even though you are saying only 35 cars, that will create more traffic.

We are all hills up there; there is no place for the children to ride their bikes and that is why they ride in front of our house. Even though you have the gate, cars will be driving up to the gate to get in; we don’t have a park and the children will have to find somewhere else to go. That is my concern.

Morgan Pierce of The Gables said I was on the board when Glenmary approached us a couple of times wanting to come through our property and I understand their situation. At the time, we were told there would be about 35 cars twice a day, morning and evening.

My question now is, everyone who has been speaking is concerned about Ray Norrish. It seems like the Home Missioners wanted to go out Yorkhaven anyway. So, can we get back to the Yorkhaven discussion? I walk my dog up Ray Norrish and over Springdale Lake Drive and cars come flying up that street to go into Mallard Lakes Apartments. It is treacherous just walking the dog on Ray Norrish. I would hate to see any more traffic on Ray Norrish. People stop me nearly every evening when I walk my dog and ask where the hotel is. So, any more cars would be very very dangerous. Since the Missioners prefer Yorkhaven anyway, I would hope we would consider it going back to Yorkhaven.

Ed Bello of 12195 Springdale Lake Drive said it seems like my property line would be most affected in the back. I am curious how you plan to go in and clear that out, and what the landscaping will be.

Sandy Becker the engineer who prepared the plan said this driveway will be about 30 to 40 feet from the corner and about 2j0 feet down the hill, so you will really be looking over. It will be 8 to ten feet below your property corner, significantly lower than your house. Your house is about 850’ and the driveway would be about 830’, and we could landscape that slope.

Debra Morgan Ademu of 12153 Springdale Lake Drive and my back yard faces Sarah’s. I have small children and we have no parks and I am asking you to please consider the children. My son and the boys up the street are constantly back there riding their bikes or playing. Please consider the safety of the children when you make your decision.

Warren Moye of 657 Yorkhaven Road said it sounds to me that The Gables and Ray Norrish and the people on Springdale Lake Drive are pitting us against them. We have the same issues and the same concerns that you do, about the children and no playground. We are not overly excited about it coming through our area either.



David Gleaves of 12145 Springdale Lake Drive said I have lived there for eight years, and I am in a triangle with Sarah and Debbie. All I want everyone to think about is maintaining the integrity of our neighborhood. One of the beautiful things about our neighborhood is the cul de sac. We are able to get together, have Fourth of July functions; the kids can play. The integrity of our neighborhood should be considered, and that is what I want you to look at.

No one else came forward, and Mr. Syfert closed the public hearing.

Mr. Okum said considering the situation with two plans before us, it is going to be hard to make a general motion, but I will try to make a general motion for approval of an access drive to the Glenmary Missioners. Then we can amend that motion by the deliberation process to structure the motion to specify which plan is approved.

So, I would like t o make a motion at this time that we approve an access drive to the Glenmary Home Missioners, this being a private drive. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Okum added I wanted to make sure we had a general motion on the floor and we can get into the legal part of it to make sure everything is proper. This runs very similar to the way we run the Board of Zoning Appeals hearings. We have allowed the people in the audience to comment and now we as commissioners can ask questions so we can make a decision in the best interests of the
City. We may want to ask the residents further questions as well.

With the two plans before us, we have areas highlighted in yellow showing areas disturbed. I am sure you have some approximate number of acres for each plan.

Mr. Becker responded the connection to Yorkhaven may disturb a few more acres, but not much more, possibly 15 to 20% more, and that is a guess.

Mr. Okum said we don’t have a tree survey at this point. Mr. Becker said you can hardly do a tree survey until you clear it out to see what you have. In all honesty, the number of large trees to be disturbed will be very minimal. Most of the heavy timber on this site is to the north into the Fairfield area. Most of this was pasture land until Glenmary took it over.

Mr. Okum said a situation has been brought to our attention that at both ends of Yorkhaven or Ray Norrish, there currently is not a cul
de sac. I have heard comments saying 10 cars a day on Ray Norrish Drive, is that right Mr. Brunswick? He confirmed this.

Mr. Okum said for those of you who live on Yorkhaven, I also am familiar with that, and that street also has no turnaround. There are more houses and driveways to turn around in but the same situation. I am a little concerned about because I live on Springdale Lake Drive and I see tractor-trailers come up Ray Norrish Drive thinking it is an extension of Crescentville.



Mr. Okum added I have a concern with people wanting to access the driveway, and I am glad there will be an activated gate that will be closed at all times, but sometimes those people can’t get their remote to work so we have to be concerned about that. I the driveway goes in, I advocate their being gates at both ends for control access and so that somebody doesn’t get trapped in the middle.

I do have some concern about the cul de sac issue, since it would impact the residents on that cul de sac when cars are turning around.

I feel that fewer lives would be impacted by the Ray Norrish access than the Yorkhaven. There are more single family homes on the dead end section of Yorkhaven than on Ray Norrish Drive. I am not anxious to have people driving through.

There was a thoroughfare plan approved for that area, and the Home Missioners have indicated that a roadway is not their intent. Father Dorsey spoke very distinctly about that at the last meeting. However, that is estate residential zoning and that roadway could ultimately happen at both ends, Yorkhaven and Ray Norrish. There could be single family homes built there at any time. That is an approved development; it is their land and the way it is zoned. Right now we are talking about a private driveway with limited access and a moratorium on certain things they are willing to do to make it easier on us as residents. They are not asking to redevelop their acreage; they are asking to put a private driveway on their own property.

Mr. Galster said I wanted to comment on the differences between the two entry points. Ray Norrish Drive has a lot of different uses, single family, multi-family, commercial and hotels. It makes sense to bring the driveway out to a signalized intersection. To answer your question as to why we seem to be concentrating more on Ray Norrish Drive, I think it is safer to bring it out there. We have two people on this board who live on Springdale Lake Drive, and even though it will impact them, they feel ray Norrish Drive is a better access point.

I don’t know if the applicant plans on having any sidewalk area, or just the street and some low level lights that will be on all the time. I don’t know if the lights could go on when the gate opens so there is no glare to go into the residential area.

If it comes out on Ray Norrish Drive, is the applicant opposed to allowing the children to ride their bike on that part of the driveway? Father Dorsey responded I can’t make that commitment. Everybody knows about insurance liability. I’d love to be able to say that anybody could use it, but if you fall down don’t call us, but I can’t.

Mr. Galster added I also think that the double gates are critical. I would hate to see somebody get all the way in one side or the other
and have to turn around again.



Mr. Galster added that in reference to the tree replacement plan, we have made exceptions in the past two occasions, and in both of those occasions it was where development was happening in a very large treed lot and there was disturbance to a small portion of that lot. This was done with the understanding that the rest of it would remain forest.

I have no problem with putting something into the motion that says that tree replacement would not be required. However, whatever those numbers are could be carried forward in case any other development happens on any other part of this site, and those trees would have to be replaced at that time.

With strictly this driveway, and the fact that we are leaving so much of this area green, I don’t have any problem with making some exception to the tree replacement requirements.

Mr. Becker said I have a question about the double gates. I’m not sure I understand about people getting trapped. Mr. Galster responded I would hate to see somebody come up Ray Norrish Drive and all the way through where it dead ends, come all the way down to the end of your property. I also would have a problem with people using the cut through to come through Glenmary Home Missioners and come all the way up to the end of Ray Norrish Drive, see the gate there and have to turn around and go all the way back.

Sarah Brunswick asked if there was a gate at the dead end, our driveway is at the dead end. Are we gong to have a problem? Mr. Galster said I don’t have a problem with making sure that there is enough area to allow the proper flow of vehicles in and out of your private homes. I’m not saying it has to be right there, but I don’t want to wait until people are down into this area before they realize they can’t get through and need to turn around.

Mike Hicks said for clarification, are you saying that there would be a gate constructed at the current driveway on Route 4 up to the mission? Father Dorsey answered no. Mr. Galster added I am saying that we would like to see a gate at the new driveway and a gate at the existing parking area. Mike Hicks commented after 10 years living at The Gables, I have never driven back there and I didn’t know that much room existed there.

Mr. Galster added I also think that it is important that we put in the covenants that should the use change on your property, the driveway would be vacated. To the residents who live there, it is bad enough that we are going to have an increase in the traffic flow. If there ever was a development office building or whatever, it would be a phenomenal change and impact. That is critical.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I understand your situation. Let’s say five years from now the Archdiocese says that you must put an office in there.



Father Dorsey said the Archdiocese can’t tell us to do anything. We are a separate corporate entity. I represent our community, and we function as a group that is separate in the Catholic Church.
Father Dorsey added we own the property and they don’t have anything to say about that property. Mr. Okum said so they couldn’t sell off your property if they needed to. Father Dorsey said they never could sell it off, because we are the only ones; the Home Missioners of America owns it.

Mr. Okum said let’s say your organization decides to change functionality, increase office staff by 50% because your mission has changed. What happens then? Do we deal with 50 cars a day on the driveway?

Your property is in Fairfield and we can’t control what you put on that property. All we can control is what accesses through our residential neighborhood that is being impacted.

Father Dorsey responded I respect that and understand it. That is why I said we have been here 66 years and we are men of our word. Our mission hasn’t changed in 66 years, and as long as I am the leader it’s not going to change. Quite frankly I don’t see us as ever expanding. If anything, we will contract. We say what we mean, and we have no intention of doing anything with this, even expanding.

Mr. Okum asked the applicant if he saw any problem with the issues regarding the trees that you disturb being the burden of the rest of your property in Springdale? I would say it would be a one for one replacement if it were on a moratorium.

Father Dorsey responded as Mr. Becker pointed out, most of that property was pasture. We let it grow up in one sense, so there are a lot more trees; I plant trees every year. I wouldn’t have any problem with that; I love trees. I’m not trying to diminish the tree numbers.

Alphons Veldhuis of 12095 Springdale Lake Drive said my main concern is the erosion. There is a lot right now coming from the hills. With a heavy rain that street gets flooded. With the pasture and no tree line, there would be nothing to stop that water.

Mr. Syfert said thank you for your comment; I’m sure they have measures in place to take care of that.

Roy Reynolds, 12170 Springdale Lake Drive said at the end of Ray Norrish Drive, would it be possible to put in a cul de sac area so people could turn around and set the fence back a little? That would give people the opportunity to come up, enter that area see they can’t go in there and have an available area for them to turn around in and go back out.

Mr. Syfert commented I’m not sure the City wants to spend that kind of money there because it is a dead end. It has been a dead end for I don’t know how many years. It is the same on Yorkhaven.



Mr. Reynolds asked if they could widen the area. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Galster as councilman his opinion. Mr. Galster said I don’t think we can make improvements on private property. That is our dilemma; if it were a public road, that would be a different story. It might be something that we can condition upon, because we do know that people need to turn around there. Even if it were a t that would give people the ability to make a swing.

Let me ask the applicant. Would you mind putting in some type of a t to allow unwanted vehicular traffic to turn around prior to entering your drive? If it is 10’ x 15’ on either side, 300 s.f.?

Mr. Madl said compared to the road, it will be very minor and there will be a very minor impact on the rest of this site. It would need to be about the width of the aisle of a parking lot.

Mr. McErlane reported that we have situations in the city where we have dead end streets that have t turnarounds at the end of them, but they are typically built in the public right of way because we are talking about public traffic turning around on that property and not on private property. The other concerns we have are snow plows turning around and pushing snow. Typically we don’t impose on private property owners to build those t turnarounds

Mr. Vanover wondered about the snow removal on that street. Where will tlhe snow go? Father Dorsey responded we would push it out onto Ray Norrish Drive. Mr. Vanover responded obviously I wouldn’t want it on Ray Norrish. Father Dorsey answered let me tell you what we do now. We have a driveway that leads directly down Route 4. We don’t push any out onto Route 4. I presume he pushes it off to the side on either side.

Addressing Mr. McErlane, Mr. Vanover asked about putting speed bumps at the end of the street. Mr. McErlane responded I’m not sure I understand the purpose behind the speed bumps. Mr. Vanover said much as it is on the highway, when you hear the bump it is a warning. Mr. McErlane said to warn them that they are going on the property? Mr. Vanover said they will be coming up there and there will be a gate. A resident mentioned speed signs, another concern. What are we going to do with people coming up; will we increase signage or have speed bumps? We will have to put a warning that this is the end of the road.

Mr. McErlane commented so your concern is that they might think that the road continues on beyond the gate. Mr. Vanover said they come up to the area; I know Mr. Brunswick has had people up there; they could see the roadway and might not see the gate. They may decide the gate is not substantial enough so they could continue onto Father Dorsey’s property. Is this something that we should add

Mr. McErlane responded I am sure Father Dorsey is not opposed to putting some sort of sign that says Private Property or something of that nature, either on the gate or next to the gate. Father Dorsey said the perfect sign would be Private Property – Thou Shall Not Trespass. We’ll be glad to place a sign there.


Addressing Mr. Brunswick, Mr. Galster asked about the plowing of the street, and where the snow gets plowed to. Mr. Brunswick answered to the end of the street. Mr. Galster continued so if we don’t have the t, they will not be able to do anything else with the snow anyway. I think we are going to have to have that t there so we can move the snow as best we can. We will need to have maneuverability to keep the snow from being piled 20 feet high at the end of the driveway.

Mr. Vanover said it would have to be a part of the driveway setup because there is not enough public land unless we would want to purchase some additional property there. If it is not part of this arrangement, there is nothing else we could do.

Mr. Okum asked if the cost of the t turnaround would be borne by the city or the applicant. It would be the cost of the applicant. Mr. Okum continued so if we said a t turnaround shall be placed before the gate by the applicant under current subdivision regulations, would that be all right with the applicant?

Mr. Becker said we are not planning on putting curbs and gutters around, but a simple t is not a problem.

Mr. Okum said you will have some lighting along this driveway. If we added conditions that it be non-glare low level lighting and poles not to exceed 10 feet in height, is that a problem? Father Dorsey said that would be no problem.

Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride mentioned in her report that there are two properties with buffer yard issues on Ray Norrish Drive.

Mr. Becker said I believe the two properties in question are this corner right here and the pavement will be down here. It will be at least 175 feet to these existing residences. The comment was not to grade any closer than 25 feet to the property line. Mr. Madl reported that was our comment and it had to do more with any tree clearing, because if you are getting into any grading, obviously the trees are coming down.

Mr. Becker asked if that was written somewhere, because when all of this was developed along Glenmary’s property, it was graded right to the property line, The Gables and everything else. I really would like to know why that restriction is put on Glenmary now, especially when it is just 175 feet away from the homes. The reason I am mentioning this is we are talking about a seven or eight foot wall and then we are talking another hazard because I know how children like to climb on walls and jump off. I am really against the walls.

Mr. Okum said so you will put a railing up to protect the children from falling off the walls. Mr. Becker answered pretty soon we have a massive structure in these people’s back yards as opposed to the 3 to 1 slope. I really would like some relief from that 25 foot buffer, because I just don’t’ think it appears in any of the codes.



Mr. Madl reported it was a recommendation for Planning Commission to consider.

Mr. Okum said so our engineering staff understands that in order to eliminate the steep slope issue, a wall would need to be constructed to maintain the 25 foot buffer. Mr. Madl responded that it appears that at least a small wall would be required. There wasn’t enough detail but the comment was that they would put a wall in if required.

Mr. Becker commented our intent was to stay five feet off the corner with any grading, and that would take a small wall. I believe the comment was that they want us to maintain 25 feet off that corner, and now we are talking a seven or eight foot high wall and a considerable expense.

Mr. Okum asked the distance from the property line to the edge of pavement. Mr. Becker reported from the very tip to the edge of pavement is 30-35 feet. Again, that is to this pie-shaped lot which is not near the homes at all. It also will be some 20-30 feet lower than the elevation to the back of the houses, so there really will not be an impact.

In fact, what I would propose is rather than putting a wall in there, we would like to put some landscaping in that 3 to 1 slope. We could put some trees in that slope if that would satisfy not putting the wall in. I really think everyone would benefit from that.

Mr. Okum said on a three to one slope you would need to have a geo- tech mat. Mr. Becker said no, three to one is a recommended slope. Seeding depends on the type of ground and the time of the year. We may have to hydro-seed it or something like that, and if we still have some erosion, we might have to do a mat. Believe me, it will be taken care of because these folks don’t want mud washing over their drive either.

Mr. Galster said when the other church in Springdale had a second access road to Sharon Road, we put in baluster type lights, three or four feet tall. Mr. Okum said that was Board of Zoning Appeals, and low level lighting was part of the motion. Mr. Galster commented wouldn’t that be better than these 10-foot tall poles?

Ms. McBride said Mr. McErlane and I were talking and he suggested that whatever lighting it is should be connected to the gate so that when the gate opens the lights come on so they are not on all the time.

Mr. Galster said rather than having street type lights, if we go with these low level ballard lights to line the drive..Ms. McBride reported we did that out to Sharon Road because that particular accessway was literally going between two single family homes. Given this location, I wouldn’t be as concerned about it as I was in that area. This is going up through a largely wooded area.



Mr. Galster said we may not get enough light through the ballards. Ms. McBride responded it is a much greater stretch than we were talking about in the other instance. There were other lights that provided some illumination in that situation. I think it is more important that they are not on all the time.

Addressing Mr. Becker, Mr. Okum said when you say gate, I think residential estate gate type, stone columns. What do you think? Mr. Becker said you are getting a little bit ahead of us. Mr. Okum said I am trying to understand your thinking. Mr. Becker responded in all honesty, we have not priced that. We needed some kind of approval before we could sort out what type of gate we were looking at. There again, a single armed gate that runs with a key card or they have one that runs with a little patch that you can put on your car and as you go by it senses it. That is even better than the key card; a lot of the condo projects have that. There again it is a single armed gate that comes down.

Mr. Okum asked the driveway width and Mr. Becker answered that it is 20 feet. Mr. Okum continued then it probably would need to be a double gate. Mr. Becker answered it could be doubled.

Mr. Galster asked if we were talking about a railroad crossing gate, and Mr. Okum said literally if we just say gate, it could be. You are going through a residential section of our neighborhood into a residential area and I think it should have residential character.

At the other end, Father, nobody is going to see it except you, and you probably want something artistic and decorative too.

Father Dorsey said again with respect for everybody here, my main concern with any kind of gate is security, so it will be secure. We are not going to put up a piece of board that some guy is operating. We want to make sure that only the people get in there who should get in there. I walk by public storage every day and they have a little pad; something along those lines.

Mr. Okum said if we say gate, it could be a chain link fence gate. Father Dorsey said in the presentation that I made last month, I have an electronic gate. Mr. Okum said I understand that. I am just trying to refine that point so that we are clear what type of gate it will be. My feeling is that you are coming out of a residential section of the community and it should have a residential character to it. That would be a couple of columns and a gate configuration to look like you are going into a nice area. I am putting it to you, Father and Mr. Becker that the gate can be determined later, and approved by this commission, when you get it together and know exactly what you will have. But if you want to move forward, the best thing to do is…

Father Dorsey said we want to move forward, and I understand that you want to put up something that looks good, and we will do that. Again I think we have been very responsible neighbors for many many years, so we are going to put up something that looks good, but not something that is so fancy and then we are serving very poor people.


Mr. Okum asked how far back it would be to have a t in there and a gate that is not directly on the edge of pavement? How far will it need to be back? Mr. Madl responded it will not be more than 15 to 20 feet at the absolute most.

From the audience Mrs. Brunswick asked if the resident on Springdale Lake Drive will have a view of that drive. Mr. Becker answered that he wouldn’t because from here it starts going downhill. Between the yellow lines is the disturbed area. Anything outside of that doesn’t get touched. Mrs. Brunswick said you have more residents over there but it would be one straight drive into Yorkhaven; this doesn’t make sense to me.

Addressing Father Dorsey, Mr. Vanover said unfortunately we have to deal with the real world, and what the developer tells us and what we get are two different things. That said, one of my concerns on the gate issue is that we have GE Park with the auto gate, a 1’ x 6’ wood barrier. Those are gone more times than they are there, so we would want something substantial. You don’t want to have to replace them all the time. The sturdier the better off we all will be.

Mr. Webster said I walk this area every day, and I walk down to the end and turn around in front of Brunswicks’ house. I hear what you are talking about the t, but I think you have to look at the topography there. That drops off pretty darned quick as soon as you pass the Brunswicks’ property. Right now there is a guardrail and as soon as you cross the guardrail, it goes downhill pretty steep. If you say you have to go inside there 30 feet and build a t, you are going to be on a pretty steep grade. The gates would be behind the t, so that means if you are coming up Ray Norrish Drive, you will not be able to see the gate because it will be down the hill. I think it will compound the problem. I know it is a problem for the Brunswicks with people turning around in their driveway, but I think you will create a bigger problem if you move the gate back 30 feet and put the turn around over the hill. If you are a driver in a strange area, you will not know that you are going over the hill and there won’t be city street lights out there. It is not a city street with curbs. I think you need to think that through before you require a t built over that hill.

Mr. Syfert asked if the city would build it before the hill, and Mr. Webster said no, it is private property.

Mr. Becker said normally that t would be built within the right of way of the street. To be honest with you, it looks like that could be done within the dedicated right of way in here (indicated on map). There is an area that is flat with no sidewalk. He consulted with Mr. Madl and Mr. Madl reported I’m not sure it really would fit there. We can take a look at it. To be honest with you, when we were discussing the t, I almost envisioned it as a little turn off to the left right when you get inside the property line and before you get to the gate.



Mr. Madl said so we are not talking about extending it 30 feet into the site. You come in and the road veers off to the right, and if you are not going that way you could pull into the left, back out and come right back out. You already are doing grading right there, so you certainly could put something in there with minimal additional grading work. Mr. Becker said I think we can make that work with minimal additional grading. Mr. Syfert said what’s the final decision on the turn-around? Do you think that can work, Mr. Madl? Mr. Madl said yes I think they can make it work with minimal additional grading where they are already doing grading right now.

From the audience Mr. Brunswick said I appreciate your concern about the type of gate. For everybody’s own good you should consider the type of entrance, because we do have a lot of people who turn around. I have come in around noon time and found people parked at the end of the street eating their lunch. Those are some of the things you have to t think about with this.

This is something that we understand. This is their property and they are looking to make their access safer and better. We would like to cooperate as neighbors and be good neighbors. We are not crazy about having our privacy intruded on. We like it; that is why we all are where we are. I believe we have one of the most private homes in Springdale and we would like to keep it that way. I understand one day that might be developed into a housing project and that’s a whole different situation.

If this is going to take place, I would like to make sure it is done in a safe and presentable manner so it isn’t an eyesore and wouldn’t hurt property values. If anything it should bring the property values up.

Mr. Okum said I understand the t turnaround issue. We will make it to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. That way we have it tied down. If I say “gates shall be of iron tight pickets and residential character” is that clear enough that everybody understands what we are looking for? .Addressing Father Dorsey, Mr. Okum said I know you want to do that, but I think it is livable and has a residential look to it that we are trying to get, and that would be approved by staff, not this commission.

Ms. McBride made the comment about the driveway lighting and that shall be activated by the gates and remain on during use. My motion to amend would include the adoption of the August 2005 plan, the Ray Norrish entrance.

Mr. Okum moved to amend the original motion to include the following items:

1. The August 2005 Ray Norrish Drive entrance, pages 1 of 5, 2 of 5, 3 of 5, 4 of 5 and 5 of 5.
2. All lighting shall be non-glare and low level, not to exceed 10 feet in height.



3. The tree preservation and replacement conditions on this site shall place a moratorium on the Glenmary property. All trees removed will be a burden of all future development on the Glenmary property at 100%, one for one.
4. That traffic, by covenant or deed restriction shall have controlled access at both ends of the drive with gates to remain closed at all times operable remotely by key or remote control.
5. If the use of the Glenmary property should change or if the Glenmary facilities would be changed, the driveway access shall be abandoned and vacated.
6. A turn around area shall be constructed by the Glenmary Missioners at the entrance of the gate, by the gate area at Ray Norrish Drive and it shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer.
7. That the gate shall be placed at the deportation of the street area.
8. That the gate shall be of iron type pickets of residential character.
9. The roadway shall remain no closer than 30 feet from any property lines within Springdale.
10. All driveway lighting shall be activated by the gates and remain on only during the use of the driveway.
11. This includes all staff comments and recommendations.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

On the amendment to the motion, all present voted aye and the amendment was adopted with six affirmative votes.

On the amended motion, all present voted aye, and the amended motion was adopted with six affirmative votes.

Planning Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m.


A. Preliminary Transition Overlay Plan – Proposed Insurance Office – 309 West Kemper Road

Tim Kilgore, Architect said Gary Howard of State Farm Insurance has been on Springfield Pike for 30 years, and is relocating to 309 West Kemper Road. It is important that his business stay close and he appreciates his history with Springdale and wants to remain. He recognizes the benefit to the City of the Springfield Pike Redevelopment and ultimately to him as a businessman, but it is requiring him to relocate after 30 years.

The location that has been selected is an existing single-family residence that he proposes a change of use to an office use. It is in a residential single household low density district with a transitional district overlay.



Mr. Kilgore added so the point is that we believe it will allow this type of use. In fact the transition overlay is pointed specifically towards this type of use. This is probably an ideal situation in general since he proposes the use of the residence without significant changes to the exterior of the building, other than maintenance type work and as required by code for the change of use from residence to office use. (He has to provide additional parking and a handicap accessible ramp.) Both of those can be located towards the west of the property facing another transitional use, the proposed dental office development). To the east of the property is also a transitional property but it currently is used as a single family residence and as far as we know will remain that.

The total area of use is approximately 2200 square feet and we are required to have 10 parking spaces. We show 11, which includes the three in the existing garage.

I want to emphasize the point that we are maintaining the building envelope as it is. Because of the limited parking requirements, the parking area is small with 10 required and 11 provided including the three in the garage. We are screening that required parking and the parking portion is oriented toward the dental office development, and the 11 parking spaces are split into two different areas.

tThe City required this property and the adjacent dental development to share a driveway, and that dictates where we have to put our parking. That is another benefit in terms of the use of the land and impact on adjacent properties – we will not have a driveway on our property once this project is completed. That is something to point out regarding the net increase in impermeable surface. The net increase is probably around 800 s.f. because of the demolition of the existing driveway and some additional paving. We also are deleting a shed on the property.

Essentially the things we are asking for have to do with the hardship on the business having to move. Because of the stipulation that we share a driveway, we have concerns about maintaining the business, and we are asking for a temporary parking. We realize it is not in complete accordance with code requirements. It is non-conforming to some extent, but we recognize and fully accept the idea that if this development does not ultimately meet the requirements of the City, any kind of allowance for temporary parking can be taken away. In addition to the temporary parking, the purpose is to try to get occupancy in an efficient amount of time for Gary to continue his business rather than wait the six months or more it would take for the common driveway to be built by the adjacent developer.

A second point is the matter of storm water detention. Our development with the minimal net increase ends up being only .16 in terms of impermeable surface ratio. As you know, the allowed ratio for residential use is .35, so we are well below that.



Mr. Kilgore added for a non-residential use in the underlying district the allowable ratio is .25, but we are in a transitional district and we ask for something more substantial. That request for .55 impermeable surface ratio is based on the idea that an office use would in an office district be allowed to be .70. As a guideline we looked at the consideration given to the adjacent development in the same district (the dental office). I believe they ended up at .55 as well and that is why we are asking that. Having said that, there is no intent or plan on the part of the applicant to develop further than what he is asking for today. Nobody knows the future, and that is the only reason we are asking for that .55.

On the storm water, the emphasis is that we are not making a significant change in impermeable surface. We realize the requirements change when you go from a residence to a business, but we ask you to take that into consideration in that it is a very substantial cost to the developer of the property to divide on-site water retention. What we have proposed so far is simply as it does today spill into grade. We provide end points in the front and in the rear of the property for the drainage pretty much splitting in half and emptying into a rock bed. That is a matter of addressing erosion concerns and also slowing down the water.

Finally regarding trees and the loss of trees, we understand the concern about trees that were removed prior to our taking ownership, and we recognize and accept that concern. We look to you for your advice or requirements or decisions on how we should proceed regarding that. I want you to understand that it was done from the standpoint of a buyer of a property asking the owner to relieve him of the burden of some defects to the property as he recognized it. Included in the list that the buyer asked the owner to do prior to closing, was to take care of some trees that he understood to be dead or dying or in some cases merely diseased. In another case or two they caused some problem to the existing structure (garage). I don’t want to overemphasize that concern and we are more than happy to add trees as you see fit. Our proposal calls for a significant amount of new tree placement, and that would take a large step towards satisfying that requirement.

Mr. McErlane reported that this property was rezoned to apply a Transition Overlay District to the existing Residential Single Household Low Density Zoning by City Council in January of this year after being recommended by Planning Commission The applicant is proposing a transitional overlay plan that maintains existing 2 ½ story brick building, an 800 square foot garage and removes an existing shed on the northeast portion of the rear of the property.

The existing 2 ½ story building would be used as an insurance office. The existing garage will remain a garage and some storage. They propose a total of 11 parking spaces on the final plan, and there also is a temporary parking plan that shows eight exterior parking spaces and three spaces inside the existing garage. Those would be utilized until the property in the west (dental offices) are completed.



Mr. McErlane reported that setbacks meet or exceed the requirements under the OB Zoning District, with the exception of the common drive to the west, which has a zero setback. There is one front yard pavement setback for the temporary parking that will be a smaller setback than the final destination of that parking field, and that would be 25 feet for the temporary parking and when the final parking is put in place it would be 55 feet.

As we did with the dental offices, we reviewed this against the OB District requirements, understanding that the OB District requirements typically would be excessive for a transition overlay plan that is directly adjacent to residential properties. For comparison, OB Districts are permitted to have 48 foot high buildings. They are proposing to maintain the structure that is there, and we assume that to be approximately 35 feet.

The maximum impervious surface ratio in an OB District is .7 and what is being shown for the final plan is .16. The total of 11 parking spaces that they show is one more than required by code.

The applicant has mentioned something about the trees in the front yard and all we can do is try to surmise what was there based on some photographs we had of the property. We believe there were a six inch and an eight inch ash, and a 15 inch silver maple. Some of these showed up on a previous plan that we had. A 25-inch hackberry and a 10 and two 18 inch other hardwood trees that we don’t know what they were, for a total of 74 inches that were removed.

Based on what is proposed to be developed, only two of those would necessarily have to be removed to accommodate the final plan. The temporary parking in the front yard probably would require another removal of at least one more tree. The landscape plan shows a total of 26 caliper inches that are proposed to be planted.

There is a single ground sign proposed at five feet high to be externally illuminated and the sign message area is 3’ x 7’ or 21 s.f.
There is a draft of the covenants that was submitted. In Paragraph 2.2 of the covenants there is a statement that the maximum impervious surface ratio would be .55. What the plan shows is .16 and we are recommending .35. Again, understand that we are directly adjacent to residential properties. If the property were redeveloped, Planning Commission and council would have to re-review that in the future. If a future plan was found to be acceptable, the covenants could be modified at that time to .55 if necessary.

Paragraph 2.3 talks about dumpster enclosures, abut the applicant has indicated that the trash will be contained within the garage building so that paragraph needs to be modified to eliminate that language.



Mr. McErlane stated there was one other item we thought might be necessary to put into the covenants. Not that we assume that there is a problem on the dental office or that they don’t plan to go forward, they actually have applied for building permits, but should that property not develop, this property gains its access from that property. So we think there should be wording that says that if that property does not develop within a two-year period of time, a new parking plan needs to be developed for this site that would show how that could be accommodated on the site and approved by Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum asked if this goes to Council or not. Mr. McErlane answered any preliminary plan for transition overlay is required to go to council for approval of the plan. So this would be a referral.

Mr. Galster said we have a .16 impervious surface ratio on this plan and you are saying it should be limited to no more than .35. How much volume of asphalt or pavement are we talking about that they would be adding to achieve that number (.35 or .55)?

Mr. McErlane responded we are talking almost 19,000 square feet of additional pavement or roof area to get to the .55. It is about half that to get to the .35.

Mr. Galster said if he wants to expand the building at some later point, in my mind that is a modification to the plan and needs to come back before us and evaluated on its own merits. I have a hard time saying that I am going to allow you to have that impervious surface ratio, not knowing what that is. I have a problem with that, only because of the fact that it is coming up to the residential area. Even though the existing single family home has a transitional overlay, it is still being used as a single family home and probably will continue to be used as a single family home. Because of those considerations, any addition to this building needs to come back as a separate issue. I don’t mind basing this on what you need for this to work in its existing submittal, but I don’t like this .35 and .55 numbers when it is only .16 right now.

Mr. McErlane said I would suggest that we not hold them directly to .16. Even in the dentist office we padded it a little bit to allow for any other sidewalks or anything else that might have to come on the property. Ms. McBride said I had suggested .25. Mr. McErlane added that is about 4,000 s.f.

Mr. Kilgore said I misspoke when I said 11 spaces including three in the garage. It is 11 spaces, not including the three in the garage.

Mr. Okum said before we changed the covenants regarding dumpster enclosure area to allow garage containing dumpsters, I think we still need to keep the dumpster standards, gates etc. within the covenants in case Mr. Howard decides that he doesn’t want to put his garbage in the garage and decides to go to outdoor garbage cans or a small dumpster.



Mr. McErlane responded one concern would be that even if we say it is part of the code, something needs to happen with that covenant because right now what it says is that there is no outside storage except the dumpster location. If we’re gong to say something about dumpsters, it needs to be enclosed. If we’re not going to say anything at all, we can rely on the code to take care of the enclosure part of it. We need to be wary about saying that the only outside storage that he can have is dumpsters without saying something about enclosures.

Mr. Okum commented if we leave it the way it is now, if he decides to put a dumpster enclosure in, he could have one. Mr. McErlane responded not necessarily. I think if he meets the code, he wouldn’t have to come back to Planning. What we really need to do is say that outside storage is permitted and it needs to include that it is in an enclosure compliant with the Zoning Code.

Mr. Okum added maybe they would park cars in the garage. Insurance offices generate a lot of paper; is that something you want to do?

Mr. Howard 85% to 90% of our paper is shredded because of the privacy law and picked up by a service. We contacted Rumpke and asked how much a simple 90 gallon waste can would be to pick up on Tuesday. We would roll it down to end of the drive and they would pick it up. Probably 85 to 90% of our paper is shredded because of the privacy law.

Mr. Okum said so that 90 gallon unit can be left outside? I don’t know what constitutes a dumpster and a big garbage can. Mr. McErlane reported that it has to exceed 120 gallons to require an enclosure.

Mr. Okum asked if we needed to include special verbiage. Mr. McErlane reported the covenants say “No outside storage except dumpsters and trash containers.” If we leave that in there, we should say something about “within enclosures required by the Springdale Zoning Code”.

Ms. McBride added in doing that, it would allow the 90 gallon can to set outside if they wanted it to. I don’t believe it is not the applicant’s intent, but it would allow for that.

Mr. Kilgore reported that the garbage can is 2 ½ feet by 2 ½ feet by 3 ½ feet tall so it is a fairly minimal unit. I believe the covenant allows the use of the garage as a garage. Mr. Okum said functioning as a garage but not a storage facility. Mr. Kilgore confirmed this.

Mr. Galster said there are three spaces in the garage. Mr. Howard said it is a total of 3 ½ spaces. Mr. Galster said you are planning to use those spaces for yourself or employees. Mr. Howard responded if we do, it probably will be an incentive to the staff. Mr. Galster said so you really have 11 plus three spaces, a total of 14 rather than the 10 required. What do you really need?



Mr. Howard answered that is a tough question to answer. We want to accommodate the handicapped and there will be myself and my son who is an agent, and we have five staff people. That is seven people. There could be times that people are there visiting long term, but you could have one or two people stopping in to pay a premium or to get a quote. So we want to have enough to accommodate them. Mr. Galster said so the back five and the garage cover all your staff, and the five plus the handicapped out front for customers.

Only because it is a residential area, are you opposed to reducing that number? I understand the handicapped and maybe three spots, but five seems overkill and putting more parking in the middle of an area where we are trying to keep a residential character.

Mr. Howard responded we are not trying to overkill on the parking. We want to be good neighbors to the dentists also and we don’t want to use their parking area. There is an agreement that we share the same drive, but l don’t want our people to spill over into their area. guess we possibly could take another spot out of there. We could use the garage for parking for the staff or myself or my son. Would we use it that often? I would say more in the winter as an incentive, but we would be flexible with that.

Mr. Galster said I had the same issue with the dentists because they had a lot of parking out front. With the residential character, I don’t want to add any more parking spaces than you need. It seems to me that you are three or four over what you need.

Mr. Howard said in front we have five plus the handicapped space beginning at the front of the walkway. If we took one out we would be at the edge of the building. I would have no problem with deleting one of the spaces.

Mr. Galster said do you have any problem with deleting two of them? Mr. Howard responded obviously our intent is to grow. I am excited about my son coming in the office, but there are actually two different businesses. He is an independent agent for State Farm as I am. He has only been in the business a year and one-half so I hope to grow staff and clientele in his part. That is part of my thinking there; I don’t want to put myself in the position of people looking for parking spaces all the time and spill over to the dentists.

Mr. Galster said I would rather keep the actual spots to a minimum. I am not opposed if you have a parking problem for you to come back and ask for more parking if you need it. I look at all the developments around town, and it seems like we are over parked all the time. I hate to over park a development that is supposed to have residential character and is butting up to a residential neighborhood.



Mr. Howard said if we delete a spot or two the impervious water detention goes in our favor. I am a novice; I am an insurance salesman. I would like to publicly thank Bill McErlane. He has been a great help to me. It is nice to have a person who will take the time to help.

We are a small business with not so deep pockets. We have been here 30 years and have tried to be a good neighbor. I don’t think we have asked a lot of the community, but I would ask you to be very reasonable with us. We have tried to do that in drawing up these plans and are very concerned about the folks that live around there. We want to make sure we are good neighbors to them. We have asked the lighting contractors to make sure of that. I want them to be well in their homes. Some of those people are already my clients and the last thing I want to do is upset them. By the same token, when it comes to this water issue and some of the temporary occupancy we are talking about, if I have to wait on the dentists to get their project, it would cost me $20,000 or so. As a small businessman that is a lot of money.

Mr. Galster said I am not opposed to your temporary parking solution in the meantime. If we can get some of those front spots out of there, I would appreciate it. I would like to see it backed off the street as far as we can and I think we can take two out of the front. It would help your numbers and I think it works better.

Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Galster is saying less up front and more in the back. If you feel you need 10, even with growth, I would like to see less to the front and more to the back, if you could make it work. Personally the fewer of those the spaces in front the better because you are going to be sharing a common access point and I have some concerns about people backing out of those spots into that common driveway. So the fewer of those up to the front where people are turning in off Kemper Road will probably be better for you too.

Ultimately you may decide that the garage is not useful to you and if that building were not there you could have a really adequate parking area. If you need to stay at 10 I will bow to your needs but I would like you to shift off that front. Pulling two off the front would be useful and if you want to gain another one else in the back, that is fine.

Mr. Galster said I don’t like the idea of taking the garage out and making a big parking spot. I like the garage there; I think it gives it a residential character.

Mr. Howard responded we have no intention of taking it out. We are trying to keep not only the exterior but the interior as residential in character as we can. Mr. Kilgore added there will be additional screening and residential screening.

Ms. McBride reported that the first and second floor of the house will be utilized as office space(2200 s.f.). The applicant has indicated that both the basement and third floor will be used for storage only; they will not be occupied.


Ms. McBride added the proposed impervious surface area ratio is 0.16. We have talked about the number of parking spaces that are being proposed both on a temporary and permanent basis. The one thing I would point out to you, and we asked the applicant to look at before they come back on their final plan is the design of the temporary parking. It not only does not meet our code, but I don’t know that people can actually physically get in and out of it without going into the grass and so forth. So when they come back in with the final development plan they need to take a look at the standard size and access drive and so forth. We realize it is temporary, but people still have to get in and out of it

Mr. McErlane has already touched on the two setback issues. From the parking all the setbacks are met with the exception of the shared access drive, which Planning can modify. The existing structure meets all the setback requirements, with the exception of on the east which is not changing.

We had asked the applicant how they intended to handle the waste issue and they have indicated that it would be a 90-gallon waste can which would be stored in the garage except during the weekly pickup. I think we would want to make a provision with the requirement that it should be stored in the garage and not setting out.

Mr. McErlane and I differed a little with the covenants. I felt the maximum impervious surface area should be .25 in Section 2.2 of the Covenants, but that is up to the commission. We also would recommend a change to the Covenants establishing a time period for that temporary parking, and Mr. McErlane supplied you with some verbiage for that.

They are proposing one free-standing sign at a height of five feet and contain 21 s.f. and will be located on a brick base, and will be set back the required10 feet off West Kemper The sign will be made of a wood core material with a painted wood finish. We suggested that we might like to see that material when it comes back in to make sure it is residential in character. At staff’s request they have included that sign in a landscape bed out by the street and it will be externally illuminated. There will be no on-building signage.

They addressed the majority of staff’s comments in the landscape plan. The only additional comment we would add is they are proposing a line of dense yews across the front, and they are breaking that up only in one spot with three spyarhea. We would suggest that rather than have a solid line of the dense yew, that be broken up with additional plant material and that the dense yew be planted at a larger size. These are details we can work out with the applicant on the final development plan.

They submitted a photometric lighting plan and there are notes on the site plan itself that there are to be two ground mounted fixtures to illuminate the proposed sign.



Ms. McBride added that there are to be three wall-mounted fixtures, two wall packs on the building and one flood light on the corner of the garage that are to be mounted at a maximum height of 10 feet with shields. The photometric lighting plan did not indicate shields on those fixtures, so we want to make sure those are included. They do not have a minimum 0.5 foot candles throughout that parking area and that is something that given the fact that they are going to have staff coming out at 5 p.m. in the winter when it is dark we want to make sure there is a safe level of lighting there. We want it to be safe but we don’t want it to be over burdensome on the neighbors. There are also two hot spots on that plan, one at 10.7 and one at 8.39 which we think are way too hot. . These are details that can be worked out with the final development plan.

They did submit information on the proposed exterior renovations to the building which only include the addition of the access ramp. They also gave us existing floor plans for the building and indicated how the existing rooms are used today and how they will be used.

Ms. McBride added there is a conflict because the photometric lighting plan says a maximum of 14 feet height but the site plan that we reviewed said a maximum of 10 feet. I would suggest Planning leave the lighting up to the final development plan. That is typically when we would be looking at it. We appreciate that the applicant submitted it and would be happy to work with them.

Mr. Hawkins said you said there would be a flood light on the front of the property? Ms. McBride responded they propose two wall packs on the building itself and a floodlight on the corner of the garage shining into the parking area, and that is the area of both the hot spots are.

Mr. Okum asked if the light packs on the building are for lighting the ramp area or are they for lighting the parking field? Mr. Kilgore responded it is required for parking, but I think it also provides lighting for the ramp area. Mr. Okum commented it would be hard to get a shield on that to handle glare issues on Kemper Road; I would be very concerned about that, and I don’t know how the light on the back of the garage would impact adjacent properties. Mr. Kilgore reported that even though the cut sheet was not provided, the specified fixture has cut off features to it.

Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if they couldn’t do the same lighting fixtures that the dentists are doing? Wouldn’t that bring continuity to the development?

Ms. McBride said they could, but what I would suggest is rather than discuss the lighting at length this evening, we work with the applicant, look at some different alternatives for when they come in with the final development plan. We want to provide a safe level of illumination on the site, but this is a residential area and we do not want any light spillage off onto the residential areas adjacent to the site or onto West Kemper Road.



Mr. Okum said I was going to say 0 fall at the east property line. Ms. McBride responded they are actually pretty close to that. She code is 0.5. Mr. Okum added my feeling is because it adjoins residential that east side should be a 0 fall on the property line. Ms. McBride commented the applicant is hearing these comments, and when they come back with their final photometric and the details of the fixtures I’m sure they will take that all into consideration. Mr. Okum said so we should disregard lighting in the motion?

Ms. McBride you could make lighting conditional, but I want to make sure that the lighting and the landscaping plans are not getting approved tonight. We are happy to discuss it tonight and provide them with input, but the commission is not formally acting or making a recommendation to Council on either of those two documents. They will be considered as a part of the final development plan, and I would include that in the motion.

Mr. Madl said for clarification on the temporary parking, we also had a comment regarding the two spaces noted as 16 x 19 feet. There is not enough aisle width per the city regulations. It could be possible to get some angled parking in there, two spots potentially parallel, but those two do not meet the required aisle width.

The applicant addressed the concerns about the detention, but it is a net increase in impervious area but it is a change in usage, and anything above one acre would require detention. If you were to look at the site totally undeveloped and look at the total impervious roof area and parking, it would be about 2200 cubic feet of detention required.

There are two storm sewer system in the plans, one on the north side that drains the north half of the development, and one on the south half. The one on the north half will need to tie into the proposed storm sewer that will be put in as part of the dentists office construction. If detention is required, we would recommend that the south system also tie into wherever the detention basin would be located.

Mr. Kilgore said we understood the cutoff point would be one acre. Could I ask what the attitude of this body might be if we were to sell or give acreage such that we went below one acre? That would be easily done; we are at 1.1acres right now. Is that something Planning would consider reasonable?

Mr. McErlane responded I don’t have a copy of the Water Management and Sediment Control Ordinance in front of me, but I believe there is language in the ordinance to preclude you from doing that to avoid water detention.

Mr. Kilgore on the 2200 cubic feet, I think lacking our calculations, you were basing that on the prior submittal, the Pregnancy Care Center. Was that the basis of your specification of 2200 cubic feet? Our fault is we have not submitted our calculations.



Mr. Madl responded I do believe it was based upon their calculations. Mr. Kilgore added we may be at that; I don’t know, but I think that is very high for our development. The Pregnancy Care Center included a 26-space parking lot and an addition and totaled somewhere around 8,000 s.f. increase. This compares to all of our added parking spaces at around 1800 s.f.

Mr. Madl responded let me revise that and look at the calculations a little closer. We are actually using the impervious surface percentages that are provided on the site plan to come up with the post develop runoff.

Mr. Galster said does that mean they will put a little pond in the back of the lot to retain a little bit of that water, is that the bottom line? Mr. Madl said yes, or along the road is where they have noted it if it is required. Mr. Galster commented we are not talking about underground detention. Mr. Howard said if we are it is a significant hit on the budget.

Mr. Galster asked if the dentists’ office has underwater detention and how many cubic feet are there? Mr. Madl said they do and it is just under 10,000. Mr. Galster wondered if it would be possible to add to their detention since they are already building it.

Mr. Kilgore reported I talked to Mr. Duffy a civil engineer and any time we talked about tying into their system he had fits. It has to do with not knowing the future and the relationship between the two people, and possible future owners. His professional opinion is that it is a really bad idea to tie in. We understand the requirement for a shared driveway makes great good sense. I would expect there is periodic inspection required for an underground system to prove it is still functioning and how any kind of significant repair would be handled might be a touchy issue. There would be potential problems and questions around maintenance.

Mr. Galster said the calculations from the driveway go into the dentists’ office because it is all on their property. I don’t see that we have created that much more of an impervious surface than what is there today. By the time you replace the driveway with parking spots, and if we remove two off the front, we end up with nine. It seems to me that we are not increasing anything.

Mr. Madl reported we also evaluated it as if you were looking at just the increase in impervious area, and that comes down to closer to about 1,000 cubic feet over what exists today, based on rough calculations.

Mr. Galster asked how we would usually request that they handle 1,000 cubic feet. Mr. Madl responded it depends on the site. If they can do it above ground they will do it that way because it is much cheaper. We don’t necessarily recommend one way or the other.



Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Galster if he were suggesting waiving that requirement. Mr. Galster responded I don’t know how that site drains and if it is a problem right now or not. I don’t want to have it discharging out onto Kemper Road. I was trying to figure out where the extra surface that they have to account for come from when they have eliminated the driveway and the circle turnaround. I guess some detention could go in the front yard landscaped; it would look okay. One thousand cubic feet is not that much.

Mr. Howard said if we take the two parking spots out we would be almost even. Mr. Kilgore added it actually would be about 400 s.f. reduction. Mr. Galster added if we are talking about 300 cubic feet of water, it might be a matter of changing the grading in front. It is not that much water. Mr. Okum added they will create that when they take out the temporary asphalt. Mr. Galster said I think that is workable.

Mr. Kilgore showed a report that graphically shows you the amounts to be removed and the pavement to be added, including the shed that is to be removed. There is not a significant difference.

Mr. Madl said definitely one of our recommendations is even if you do not have detention; the north storm sewer should tie into the new storm sewer going into Kemper Road. My only other concern would be if you continue to have a south system, you are taking some flow, not a lot, but it is sheet flowing across grass and you are channelizing right now. We have some systems that we have utilized that spread the flow out. Once we see the final calculations and depending on how much flow, it may be a good idea so that you are not channelizing the flow. It all depends on how much, but I certainly wanted to mention that for the north, we need to tie into Kemper road.

Mr. Vanover said looking on Page A-1 of the plan, you have a fall from west to east from 734 down to 728. There is a swale in that northeast corner where the property line juts back to the east that feeds it towards the front. I don’t think there is any additional need. We should tie into Kemper road, but the whole back is a green field sponge. That is some of the best water retention that you can get. So I don’t have a problem if that requirement were waived by Planning.

Addressing Mr. Vanover, Mr. Okum said you say waive the requirement for any retain age, or let the applicant understand that they need to work on it. Personally I think they need to work on it and deal with it at final plan review. Mr. Vanover agreed. We need to know where it is, because he doesn’t want to create a headache in his neighborhood. Mr. Okum added it has been recommended that we worry about channelizing and that we have to be somewhat concerned; there are adjacent properties. I would say we leave it for final and see what they can do with their contours and what they are changing in parking areas. We would have that opportunity to get it corrected and give them more time to think about it.



Mr. Syfert commented we have to remember that this is preliminary and we are making a recommendation to Council. I don’t think there is any doubt that everyone sitting up here wants to see this go in. It looks like it is exactly what we are looking for. We just have to plan a way to make it work.

Mr. Galster said on the sign, what is a wood core material. Mr. Kilgore reported that it is a plywood product but the surface is a painted aluminum finish material and looks like a painted wood sign. It is the predominant material used today, even for a residential type sign because of the ease of maintenance. He showed some examples of the type of sign (passed around pictures). It is not just a matter of the finish material, but the shape and proportions that make it residential in character.

Mr. Galster said my initial concern is about the sign location. It seems like it is as close as it can be to the roadway. That’s a nice big front yard, and it seems like we could back it off the road a little bit. It is 21’ x 7’. The height is more in line with where I would like to see it, five feet total. I am trying to be sensitive o the neighborhood. There is still some debate in my mind as to how big that sign should be. I know that you need signage.

Mr. Howard said right now I have a 24 s.f. illuminated sign, and I am trying to be respectful of the neighbors Realize that I have a son coming in who will need space on the sign also. We are downsizing our sign from 24 s.f. to 21 s.f. Mr. Galster said you also are coming from a retail area to a residential area. Mr. Howard responded sort of reluctantly; it wasn’t our choosing to leave the pike. We looked for space on Springfield Pike. We have a lot of clients in Springdale, and we have been defensive of your position, even though it was in a sense booting us out. We have promoted and said that we felt what they are doing on Springfield Pike was in the City of Springdale’s best interest.

What I am saying is I am giving up some things, like being in a larger traffic flow and a site that is illuminated. I am in the business of selling insurance and State Farm has done a study on signs. The average insurance career is 30 years, and there is a big difference between a business who has sign frontage very exposed and a businessman whose sign is less exposed. It is a two to one ratio in the business, so it is a big impact on our business.

Mr. Galster said I will need to see some details on the base, the size and what it will look like because it will be a sensitive issue.

Mr. Okum said I’m not going to spend a lot of time on signage because I don’t think we are ready to approve it, but the dentists’ office was 6,000+ s.f. and your office is 2,000+ square feet. You are asking for more sign space on a single sign than the doctors have on a single sign. There are two on the other building, but the building is 6,000 s.f. and a much larger parcel.



Mr. Okum said I would lean toward lesser rather than greater and I hate to say that but you are next to another single family residence. I think it would be disproportionate to allow a 16 s.f. sign on the doctors’ property and go larger… I know eight square feet doesn’t seem like a lot, but the fact is you are moving easterly, away from the commercial district. I would have to support the direction in which Mr. Galster was going. We need more information on it, but you are going to have to prove to me why you need more than 16 square feet. I would like to see your sign no closer to the street than the dentists’ office signs.

Mr. Vanover said 21 square feet is not a huge sign. I know this is preliminary, but that square footage doesn’t create any anxiety for me at all.

Mr. Galster said if you would look at Page 2, we talked about having the bases for the signs but because of the residential area, my personal opinion is that the bottom left hand corner has more of a residential feel. Eliminate the base; hang the sign like that and don’t get the height. To me this would look much more appropriate than going back to Page 1 and looking at sign 2 in the middle of the page. I like that look and we have eliminated the base and the height feature. I just think it would look nicer in the residential area.

Mr. Okum said are we going to hold signage out or include it in the motion? What is staff’s recommendation? Ms. McBride answered because the applicant has submitted a specific sign design, just like the landscaping and the lighting, I think you need to state that you are not specifically approving a final design at this time, that it is to be included in the final development plan.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the preliminary transition overlay plan for the insurance office at 309 West Kemper Road. This approval is to include:

1. All staff, city engineer and city planner’s recommendations with the exception of the issue of impervious surface area. With this motion the impervious surface area shall not exceed .25 at final.
2. This is conditional upon approval of City Council of the identified changes to the site.
3. The mechanical units for the site if changed shall be in staff approved, Planning Commission’s approved enclosure and screened.
4. The tree preservation replacement section of the code is not to be reviewed at this time.
5. The parking and drive areas on the site plan shall include a reduction of the front parking spaces by a reduction of two in the field of six which would reduce that area to a field of four.
6. The dumpster section of the covenants shall be modified as suggested by staff.
7. Lighting is to be part of the final development plan review and approval process is not part of this consideration.



8. Landscaping is not part of this review and also shall be a part of the final plan review process.
9. Signage is not being approved with this submittal for size or design.

Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.

Mr. Kilgore asked Mr. Howard to speak to the signage issue. Part of what we are asking for is a temporary occupancy and he would like to discuss the signage if we are given temporary occupancy.

Mr. Howard said we have two businesses, my son’s and mine. When we realized that we would have to vacate our property, we wanted to slay in Springdale. When we purchased this, it was with the understanding of his coming in, and his lease expires at the end of October. We have set a target date to try to have the inside of the building completed by that time and our contractors indicate that it will be. That is why we are asking for the temporary occupancy. Along with that if we vacate our premises and he vacates his, we would like to have some kind of temporary signage there so our clients can find us. We would try to make it look nice.

Mr. Galster reported I don’t think you are going to get your public hearing for the use until the November 2nd Council meeting. Mr. McErlane added the earliest would be the second meeting in October. I think there is time to advertise. Mr. Galster continued so the second meeting in October will be the first time we will be able to find out if City Council has approved the use. Are you asking this commission to approve a sign contingent upon Council approving the use?

Mr. Howard answered we are asking for temporary occupancy of the building, temporary parking and a temporary sign. We know that there will be some other grading in there and we don’t want to put a permanent sign in there.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, you are talking temporary until your permanent parking gets in and that type of thing. You are not talking temporary until the zoning goes forward? Mr. Howard answered until the parking goes in. They will be moving earth around out there. Mr. McErlane added you are talking about after you get your zoning approvals and all that, between then and when you get your permanent parking spaces.

Mr. Galster said so the question is regarding a temporary sign. Mr. McErlane added that can be looked at again at final plan approval. That is not something that will occur before then anyway.

On the motion to approve all present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

B. Minor Modification PUD (625 s.f. addition) – Tri-County Mall, 11700
Princeton Pike



Robert Rich, Architect for Tri-County Mall said currently we are developing plans for a redevelopment of Tri-County Mall. Because of the leasing coming to term, this project does not fall within the time frame of being able to include the expansion of Men’s Wearhouse in those redevelopment plans.

So the owner, in order to keep Men’s Wearhouse wants to proceed with an enlargement of their space. There were attempts made to try to expand Men’s Wearhouse inside the mall next to Lenscrafters and Lenscrafters has along term lease and didn’t want to move from their location, and Men’s Wearhouse really wanted to stay in their location. So this is a very expensive project for the owner, but it essentially adds a little more than 600 square feet out in front of the current location. There are a lot of utilities that have to be moved to accomplish this, which is the major expense for this project.

This was a weakly landscaped area at the mall at the front door, so the mall didn’t feel they were losing much to execute this project.

The finishes will be an extension of the current finishes, the masonry block and EIFS finishes that are there, and the sign will be the same.

It is changing the configuration of the exterior wall to give Men’s Wearhouse the additional square footage. Appearance wise it is pretty simple.

We have read the staff comments and have no objections to any of the recommendations.

Mr. Galster asked if the owners intend to use the cost of this toward their projected $30 million dollar ilmprovements to the mall, or is that something that is coming down the road?

Mr. Rich answered we are currently developing plans for the redevelopment, but that is a 150-day process. In this case they have a lease with Men’s Wearhouse that can’t wait for that whole process to happen. They need to do this to not lose Men’s Wearhouse.

Ms. McBride said the members of Council will have to determine that this is not a major amendment to the PUD so it will not have to be reviewed by Council. Mr. Vanover and Mr. Galster said it is not.

Ms. McBride reported there was some landscaping such as it was in that area, and we would like to see a landscape plan for that area, how we could incorporate something in there.

The ubliidng materials will be a continuation of lthe existing materials. With the 600 s.f. addition, there would be a total of three additional parking spaces required and staff is suggesting that the commission waive that requirement due to the nature of the location.



Mr. McErlane said I don’t have much to add. It is zoned PUD and the applicant is proposing 625 s.f. The applicant has indicated that the present sign would be moved up on the façade so it clears the new roof line of the addition. There used to be two trees in that location that somebody has cut down and some shrubbery that has been removed. I can’t tell you the size of those trees. One of them falls within the footprint of the addition, so it is exempt from replanting. The other one falls outside of it and as part of the landscape plan they would need to incorporate a tree or two.

Mr. Okum asked how high the addition would be
, the same height as the first lane on the EIFS above Men’s Wearhouse? Mr. Rich answered I think it is that section that you see just above Men’s Wearhouse.

Mr. Okum said it seems to be such a small item, but there is a tunneling effect that occurs on those entries. I see people hanging around smoking, and I would hate to see that enclosed. That area doesn’t need to be any more tunnelized; I would be concerned about that. I know this is just one entryway, but it is an entryway to that mall. Are you going to continue the angle; are you going to square off and come straight out through the bushes? How close will you go to the curb?

Mr. Okum said it looks like it’s going to be held back to those vertical panels. Mr. Rich said the angled wall that is there now will remain and we will be coming out from the end of that angle. Mr. Okum said then you will have a tunnel effect. I hate to say it but I’m not happy with this. You may think it is menial and doesn’t amount to anything, but you are talking about one of the entrances into the mall and you are putting an abutment out onto the roadway. I’m not happy with that, and I will not be supporting it.

Mr. Syfert commented I do not see it quite that way.

Mr. Galster added you could look at it as it is no more than Sears has there right now. Mr. Okum said I don’t think that is good either. Mr. Galster said I don’t know what will happen to that roadway when this redevelopment occurs. Mr. Okum said you still have parking fields and requirements for that area of the mall and still need to drive there.

Will that be an entrance when the redevelopment occurs? Mr. Rich indicated that it would be. I disagree that there will be a tunnel effect. It is one story and I would not have advised my client to proceed with it if I thought it would create a tunnel effect.

Mr. Okum said I understand; I just can’t see bringing the building any closer to the roadway.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the applicant’s request based on his commitment to meet all the staff’s comments, concerns and recommendations. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

All present voted aye (except Mr. Okum who voted no) and the approval was granted by a vote of 5 to 1.


Mr. Rich commented you have a really good staff. We have been working on Tri-County since 19jj88 and you staff is helpful and thorough and we liked working with them.



A. Halloween Express, 11711 Princeton Pike – 2 Wall Signs
B. Hoxworth Blood Center, 11812 Springfield Pike – Wall Sign
C. NAPA Sign – 11452 Springfield Pike – Replace faces in ground sign and install wall sign


Mr. Syfert asked if anyone other than himself would not be present at the next meeting, October 11th.

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Planning Commission adjourned at 10:32 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,

_________________________,2005    __________________________
                        David Okum, Acting Chairman

_________________________,2005    __________________________
                        Lawrence Hawkins III, Secretary