8 OCTOBER 1996

7:00 P.M.



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


MEMBERS PRESENT: William Syfert, Councilman Steve Galster,

Robert Seaman, James Young, Councilman

Robert Wilson and David Okum.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Huddleston (arrived at 8:22 p.m.)

OTHERS PRESENT: William K. McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Galster moved for adoption and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.


A. 9/11/96 Letter from Richard Huddleston to Randy Danbury, President of Springdale City Council re approval of Air-Tite and Sterling House Projects


A. Approval of Home Quarters Outside Storage 11360 Princeton Pike

Paul Dugan, General Manager stated I took over the unit six weeks ago, and we had a meeting with Mr. McErlane and came up with points to resolve all the concerns the City has had with storage at the back of the building and selling at the front. We would like to construct a 10í high masonry wall to store the pallets while we were waiting to get them transported off the site. This would block the view from Tri-County Parkway. We also would like to construct a 10í8" high fence with vinyl clad fabric slats to match the existing black chain link fence we have in the front of the building in the lawn and garden area to enclose and screen the view from Tri-County Parkway of the lumber and receiving area.

Mr. Dugan stated we would like to install a dry pipe sprinkler system under the canopy at the front of the building so we can continue to merchandise the product in the front of the building.

Mr. Dugan added to address some of the concerns of safety at the entrance to our lot at Tri-County Parkway, we will no longer unload any live goods, mulch or trucks of any kind at the front of the building; we will do that at the back of the building. Also to alleviate some of the safety concerns with the traffic at the front of the building, we would no longer store or sell mulch at the front of the building or timbers which take up a large area. We would be able to allow about 10 feet of space between the street and the front of the building, for safety of loading and unloading.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Two


Mr. Dugan added we still would like to continue to sell merchandise at the front of the store, live goods in the front of the building, and lawnmowers and merchandise under the canopy, keeping in mind that we would leave enough space in front of the garden center to alleviate the safety concerns.

Mr. Galster commented I donít have any problem with the wall area that will be constructed to store the pallets. This drawing shows no gate on the front, which we agreed to earlier, a reinforced wood gate. I have a problem with the 108í long 10í8" high fence. Iíd like to see that be a continuation of the existing concrete block wall. I have no problem with the sixty foot length being chain link, because you wonít see that from Tri-County Parkway, but the pallet storage wall will hide that from view, and I think it is as important or more important on this 108 foot long area.

Mr. Galster continued as far as the outside storage, I went by there today and what we need to do is come up with a dimension out from their building that they can allow storage and still have proper flow of pedestrian traffic, maybe even paint a line. The front of the store looks a lot better and I think we can come up with a compromise there. My biggest problem is the 108 foot long fence area. I would like to see that a continuation of the existing wall with the same type of material, and the 60 foot back fence can be a chain link.

Mr. Dugan responded there will be no problem with the gate. We are talking to the real state people about enlarging that whole yard 25 feet from the existing yard to Tri-County Parkway. Because of not storing merchandise in the front of the building, it will be very difficult to operate in season, so we were thinking if we could get approval to enlarge that area using existing block and possibly allow chain link in the back.

Mr. Galster said I donít know how much area is there and what they are allowed to have as far as the setback from Tri-County Parkway, but I wouldnít be opposed to expanding that way provided the trees and everything else are moved. I still would have a problem with the chain link fence across the back.

Mr. Okum asked if the canopy in front projected from the building 34 feet, and Mr. Dugan answered that it does. Mr. Okum continued that is much larger than I thought. You referenced a loading area, and I donít have any problem with that. Prior to considering that, I would like to see a traffic flow plan with striping showing how you will handle that area in front your area of retail sales. You are talking about black chain link fence with latticing in it; do we have any photos of that? Mr. Dugan answered that he did not, but it would match the existing front of the lawn and garden area. In addition we would have black vinyl slats. Mr. Okum responded Iím not really sold on your chain link fence area. Iíve been in that rear area where your lumber and ladders are and I will comment that having frequented that area, your shelving and storage area are not utilized very well at all. As a new manager you might want to look at that, because there are empty racks all over. There was stuff piled up against the building, and there were empty racks along that masonry wall on the south side.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Three


Mr. Dugan responded right now we are out of season in the lawn and garden area. Primarily our concern will be in the spring with the large quantities of mulches that we get in. Mr. Okum wondered how often the deliveries come in and Mr. Dugan stated we accept deliveries Monday through Friday and during season on the weekends we accept live good deliveries. Mr. Okum commented I would be very cautious in bringing that wall closer to the road. The city was very resistant to that being constructed the way it was and expanding closer to Tri-County Parkway. Your plantings have not been maintained; the area has a terrible look for a landscaping and planting company. One of the thing HQ promised us was that would be maintained and those trees would be looking sharp. The developer/builder threw trees out there and did no planting. I think you need to consider some mounding, some architectural features in that area and maintenance on a regular basis.

Mr. Wilson said when customers are purchasing the goods you have stored out front, will they be taking delivery of those items at point of sale, out front? Mr. Dugan answered yes. Mr. Wilson continued did you think in the summertime that might pose a problem with a lot of people purchasing a lot of items out front, you would have a string of cars waiting? You will have in effect a whole lane of one to10 cars waiting, perhaps blocking your entrance, creating another lane which means cars going past you would have to try to get another lane which forces traffic going in the opposite direction to go slow. Have you given that some thought? Mr. Dugan responded that was part of the plan to cut back on the selling of merchandise the front of the store. Previously we had large quantities of merchandise all the way out to the street line. By cutting back to one aisle space off the building and three off the lawn and garden center which is set back, that would allow for a 10 foot space between any merchandise and the actual roadway, and a third lane for loading and unloading. We do have personnel out there to help with the loading and unloading.

Mr. Young said based on this information as presented, I do not have any problem with anything except the chain link fence. We are trying to look for some kind of conformity in the back, and to me it doesnít make any sense to do the pallet wall and then come back with chain link on the other side. Unlike Mr. Okum, I would say if there is anyway of moving the south wall and working with Mr. McErlane I would see that as favorable because we realize you are a growing company and have things that you must store. Keeping it inside the walls makes a lot more sense to me, and there are only a few ways you have left to do that.

Mr. Seaman said I have a question on Item 4, store will no longer unload any live goods, mulch, lumber trucks or any seasonal merchandise in the front of the store. What will continue to be unloaded or delivered at the front of the store? Mr. Dugan said nothing. Mr. Seaman continued Id definitely do not have any problem with the pallet containment area. I have a slight problem with the chain link fence also. I think it is a good thing to have the conformity along the back wall, because it is very visible from Tri-County Parkway.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Four


Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Dugan what he felt about no one wanting the chain link fence on the back side? Mr. .Dugan answered what I would like to do is get a proposal and a plan for a block wall. We need to use that space; operationally I have to have that space for storage and unloading. It is my goal to have everything inside the walls, and without that space, I would not be able to do that. I would go back and work up a plan for a wall. Mr. Syfert asked if anyone on the Commission had any problems with anything else; it appears he is going back, and if we have some other concerns now is the time to let him know about it.

Mr. Okum asked what is on the other side of the wall where you want to build your chain link fence? Mr. Dugan answered it is a concrete pad that projects out from the back gate to the lumber area and runs into blacktop at the end of the loading dock. Mr. Okum wondered if there were any grass area at the end of that building that you might be able to cause a screen of vegetation? Mr. Galster commented it is very narrow. Mr. Dugan added it is eight to 10 feet wide. Mr. Okum added I am not sold on the block wall because it is not attractive as it is right now. It needs painting and upkeep. If you could break it somehow to separate that. I donít have a problem if it is chain link or whatsoever if the view from the road is softer. Iím not saying you have to have a block wall back there, but there has to be more than just a vertical structure going along the back of the building. Mr. Dugan suggested chain link, vinyl with some landscaping and maintained trees. Mr. Okum responded I think that whole area across the back could use it, and the growth could help to soften it a little bit.

Mr. Wilson said I believe Mr. Galster talked about having some kind of marker out front so the merchandise people would know how far to extend the product so there would be ample walking space. As a Commission, do we want to have some kind of markers? Mr. Syfert responded I believe Mr. Dugan indicated that they plan to place it one pallet deep against the wall and have the space out from that. Mr. Dugan confirmed this adding the forward wall would be four feet from the walk or 10 feet to the yellow line of the street. Mr. Wilson wondered if Mr. Galster were comfortable with that and Mr. Galster stated right now if you go in the area, probably 10 feet back from the edge of the canopy are a series of poles and most of the equipment are behind those poles. I have no problem with that since there is enough area in front of the poles to allow access under the canopy. If you look at the mixed area over, right now they have fronts of sheds along this wall which donít stick out as far as the pallet and there is plenty of access. If it is going to be a pallet depth, Iíd like to know how much room is left if you are saying 10 feet to the fire lane marking. Iíd like to see some marker on there so whoever is putting the stuff in has an indication as to where it can go and where it canít. Mr. Dugan reported the sheds are approximately two feet deep.

Mr. Galster stated I have no problem with coming out to the pallet length and making it the line. You mentioned you still would have cars loading there. When I was reading this letter, I had the impression that there were gong to be no longer selling any mulch or anything out of the front. Right now, you literally have trucks bags and bags and bags of mulch, and it was my understanding that would no longer happen. Mr. Dugan responded it would be diminished. I would like to display plants and live goods out front.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Five


Mr. Galster responded so you are saying that the plants and live goods and mulch and large or bulk items would be delivered out of the back. So the only thing that will be delivered out of the front at the curb or fire lane are small items like plants. Mr. Dugan added some of the trees are rather large, but not quantities of mulch. The idea was to store the mulch materials out front. Mr. Galster added I have a problem with any loading or unloading in that fire lane. Mr. Dugan stated we load and unload the whole length of the store. There is no other way we can see to do that. The idea was to get the loading and unloading out of the main traffic flow and by doing this, we can mark it as a loading area. The loading at the front of the store will be somewhat less because of the moving of the mulch. As it is now we load and unload at the front door throughout the day. Mr. Syfert commented one of our major concerns was down where they were unloading was so close to where they divided the area. With the unloading here, I donít believe we have the same problem. Mr. Galster added my problem is if we start doing the live goods back here, it is right back to where it was before, where the in and out is and we have the same problem. Mr. Dugan said previously the merchandise went all the way to the street, and my point is that I am getting that offset. Mr. Syfert added perhaps with more striping or designated loading area or something like that. Mr. Dugan stated I believe with the limiting of the merchandise you will see a much greater efficiency and a much safer area. Mr. Galster said I donít have any problem with the merchandise under the canopy; I think there is enough room to walk.

Mr. Wilson said Mr. Okum is not crazy about brick and Mr. Galster doesnít like chain link. Let me offer something. If you have a portion of it that is brick and a portion that is chain link covered with vertical hedges, then brick, then chain link so you have so many feet of brick and so many feet of hedges where you can put a chain link for security behind it, and have it broken down, would that be cost prohibitive for you? Mr. Dugan answered it would add cost; I donít know; we would have to work it up. It would not match the existing wall we had. Mr. Okum responded it would partially ;chain link wouldnít match it at all. Mr. Galster commented I agree; I have no problem with brick wall then chain link with hedges, almost in thirds. Mr. McErlane stated I thought the way the wall is set up right now is that it has pilasters every so often that are split face, and the rest of the block is just plain. Mr. Okum said you canít tell the difference at that distance. Mr. Wilson added so are we saying 72 feet of brick on opposite sides and 36 feet of chain link in the middle. Mr. Okum responded I was thinking more breaks than that, if you are going to landscape it. I think there needs to be landscaping no matter what across any flat surface in that area. Certainly the chain link will need shrubbery with minimum starting planting size of five feet. Ms. McBride added maybe another alternative would be to do something like a pyra canther that would climb the chain link fence and derive some texture. Mr. Okum pyra canther looks nice in the summer but not in the winter. If you do evergreens youíll have them all year round. Mr. Wilson suggested that Mr. Dugan take the ideas we have and come back with your plan. Mr. Dugan asked if we came up with a break dimension? Mr. Galster responded five sections evenly divided over 108 feet. Mr. Syfert added unless they canít make it work for some reason, they can come back with an alternate.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Six


Mr. McErlane said if the long term is expanding the outside storage area, Planning needs to give some guidance as to whether or not a 25 foot setback is going to be appropriate. The Zoning Code requires 50 feet or somewhere between 25 and 50 if that works out. One thing that Home Quarters needs to take a look at is there is an underground detention facility in that area, and they will have to try to straddle it one way or another.

Mr. McErlane added the other item is if the storage in the front of the store is year round, is it acceptable to Planning. Mr. Okum wondered if we allowed outside storage year round, and Mr. McErlane indicated that we didnít. We allow a total four calendar months in the year. You can split it up whatever way you want. Mr. Okum stated I think we need to stay consistent regarding outdoor storage. Your stores have all survived with that. If you need extra relief on it, that would be something to be discussed. Mr. Dugan asked if that would include under the canopy area, adding that so we would only be allowed to merchandise lawn mowers in the outside area four times a year. Mr. Okum responded that is consistent for everyone, and that is the way Home Quarters came into the community.

Mr. Okum continued I was going to comment regarding the setback issue. Code calls for 50; relief would be up to 25. It depends on how Home Quarters presents that exposure to the City. If it is done well, we sometimes can be flexible. Mr. Syfert asked the other members if that statement was agreeable to the Commission and the members indicated that it did.

Mr. Syfert continued if there is no further discussion, I think we will table this until next month and Mr. Dugan would bring it back in Mr. Dugan asked if they were tabling the 108 foot wall or the pallet containment. Mr. McErlane reported pallet containment was approved last month. Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and this was tabled until November 12th. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Dugan to get his plans into the city as soon as he possibly can, by the end of the month.



A. Preliminary Plan Approval of Proposed Facility for Vineyard Community Church, 11355 Century Circle East

Mark Davis, Architect introduced himself and Jim Cochran, Church Administrator, saying we would like to give you a brief reintroduction of the church.

Mr. Cochran reported we started meeting 11 years ago at the Hayloft with 35 members, and have grown to 3500 people and seven services on a weekend. We have fully utilized that three and one-half acre parcel. We came before Planning a year ago and were received favorably, and based on a preliminary review, we purchased it and we own it debt free and are going ahead with the design plans.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Seven


Mr. Cochran stated we have an excellent design to meet the needs of the church and we think the city will be pleased with it. We have a lot of Springdale residents who attend the church, but about half drive in and I believe after the service they are frequenting retail establishments in the area. In our 11 year history, we have given over one million dollars in outreach funds to the community. We want to be as cost effective as possible with the building and continue to put a significant percentage of the income into outreach as opposed to the structure itself.

Mr. Davis added this will be a 96,000 square foot building which will seat 2250 people in the main auditorium and will expand ultimately to about 4,000 seating capacity. We are using a ratio that is a little more restrictive than what is required so we are providing more parking than required. There is a two story classroom entity on one side that is being set up as a day care. We have discussed that potential use group. The church has indicated it probably would not initially have a functioning day care, but for future possibilities, we have set it up. We also have identified the expansion capabilities to the building. It could ultimately reach 136,000 to 140,000 square feet and that is the realistic goal. All of that expansion would be within the building pad with plenty of green space behind it.

Mr. Davis reported that on the southeast side of the building is a gymnasium facility which is two story. There also is a worship hall area where weddings can be held. The building has been designed for full internal expansion of the auditorium space. With the internal expansion, there is a flex space underneath the upper auditorium.

Mr. Davis continued the way this parking lot and the site is set up, they have to keep an eye on cost effectiveness, but there are certain things you can do with the architecture. The site slopes very significantly from this portion of Century Boulevard down to the existing detention facility. It is important for the site to be designed to work with the topography ; when you are disturbing 14 acres of land, you are dealing with a lot of dirt. We are leaving the detention facility in the current spot and making it a lot bigger and an aesthetic factor. We have designed the surface area detention facility to be large enough to look like a retention facility. We are taking a facility that is about one-half an acre and making it two and one-half acres. We are in the process of completing a site model of the facility, and I believe we will have the opportunity to bring it before you at another meeting.

Mr. Davis added we engaged a traffic engineer and he recommended the traffic circle idea. We presented this last time and had a lot of interesting comments. Traffic circles are sometimes used where they should not be, but this is clearly destination oriented and that is where traffic circles work the best. We feel good about it and see no reason not to do it.

Mr. Davis reported there is an existing drainage here and we are trying to stay away from that and leave it as is.

Mr. Davis added I notice some comments from staff members about loading docks and we have addressed most of those issues or are in the process of addressing those. Currently we have a loading dock directly behind the building in a screened situation. . We also have a mechanical pad with a wall around it of block and brick. We probably will use an ice builder system to cool the facility.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Eight


Mr. Davis reported we know there is multi-family over here and the Glendale limits have high real estate values here and we have done everything we can to respect that space. The building to the nearest property line is probably 400 feet. The parking lot will be set up so that no paving or man made structure comes within 100 feet of the property line.

Mr. Davis stated we have addressed the photometric issues. The reason I bring that up is it is important that there is no reason to not angle the lights so as to not impact on the multi-family and Glendale properties. Mr. Syfert said for the benefit of some of the other Commission members, you might give some commentary on the east exit and where it goes. I donít think they are familiar with what you are trying to do there.

Mr. Davis reported the church has negotiated an ingress/egress easement with a business owner in Sharonville. This is the line of Sharonville, and this is the line of Glendale, so you are on a tri municipal area right there. We have represented this to Sharonville and have had no adverse comments. The main comment was that we need as many exits as we can have with a parking lot of this size. It could all work out to Kemper Road if only because we have significant off parking storage for those vehicles.

Mr. Shvegzda reported concerning the storm water management, we met with the engineer of the project and he is aware of the situation. Detention in this area is critical. There are some areas immediately downstream within Glendale that have experienced flooding problems in the past. A formula has been worked out for the overall detention on this site. There was a question about the detention basin that has been answered; that will be a retention basin with a permanent body of water. There appeared to be a second detention basin on the landscaping plan, but it is not there; that has been answered. Information in terms of the storm sewer calculations and major storm routing will have to be submitted. As far as utilities are concerned, we will have to take a look at the routing for sanitary sewer which has been worked out in terms of gravity flow to the existing sewers in the area. That was a concern too because the existing sewers are basically at the terminus of Century Circle West. It may be something to look at in terms of floor elevations of the building and servicing the building. Mr. Davis stated I think he determined that it could be done with gravity, but it was a close call.

Mr. Shvegzda reported on site access, one of the problems has been in the area where the railway and public right of way terminate into private driveway or parking lot. The request has been made that the termination be in some cul de sac to provide the ability for service vehicles to more easily turn around, and not have to enter onto private property with situations of possible damage. We have two public roadways that are terminating into private property, so that would be something to be looked at. There was the access point to Lippelman Avenue within Sharonville, and Mark indicated he has discussed this with the City of Sharonville. We are looking for a letter indicating that this is acceptable to the City of Sharonville.

Mr. Shvegzda stated the Thoroughfare Plan notes that the existing Century Circle East and West would be continued to cul de sacs approximately 600 feet further to the south from the existing location. One of the things that would have to be done by the Commission would be to modify the Thoroughfare Plan. If we are going to terminate the public roadways where they are right now, we would have to reflect that on the Thoroughfare Plan.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Nine



Mr. Shvegzda continued also on the Thoroughfare Plan it showed a connector between Tri-County Parkway and Century Boulevard. Through the development of Best Buy and Dickís Sporting Goods it has made that unfeasible. The next alternative to still provide a connector would be to move it down to provide a roadway that would travel through the northeast corner of the Oak Hills Cemetery and down to the corner of the church property and connect up with Century Circle West. This would be a Thoroughfare Plan change; there havenít been any detailed plans. This was something brought out in the traffic study initially done for the development that had been planned prior to Tri-County Commons. There was discussion of providing a circular road either through private roadways and public roadways that would go from S.R. 747 in the vicinity of Tri-County Mall back to what is Tri-County Commons to Century Boulevard and back over to Tri-County Parkway across the railroad track. This would be an adjustment of that plan.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there was nothing indicated on the plan as to where curving would be. In regards to traffic, the city had asked us to provide a basic look at what would occur at the intersection of Kemper Road and Century Boulevard with this development in place. The last sheet indicates the premises that the study was based on. They are all good except we might have to take an additional look. What was the ultimate expansion? Mr. Davis answered it is going from 2250 to 3750. Mr. Shvegzda added the initial seating capacity that we based it on was 1800 and the one thing not reflected in that was the connector to Lippelman so there are some offsetting conditions there.

Mr. Okum said since we donít have a road plan here for the development, how does that tie in? It would be nice to see it in the long range plan. Mr. Syfert commented your landscape plan shows approximately where it would be, showing it to Mr. Okum. Mr. Okum commented so if along your property line edge you wanted to dedicate some of that right of way to the City for potential future expansion of Tri-County Parkway, it would be to your advantage obviously. Certainly we wouldnít want to carry in the Thoroughfare Plan a public right of way into a private roadway. That section would have to be under our subdivision regulations and be deeded roadway. Mr. Shvegzda added I donít know that we are asking that to be dedicated at this point of time because there is a lot of additional work to be done. Mr. Okum added if we are going to do long range planning, that is something we and they should consider. I donít want you to consider that as part of your traffic analysis, because this may be 20 years from now, but for your benefit and the communityís benefit, it would be nice to see it incorporated into a long range plan. You will have expansion; maybe the City would see the need to pull some of that traffic off Kemper Road. Kemper Road is getting very busy, and we need to pull some of that traffic off there if we can.

Mr. Galster commented on Tri-County Parkway ever going in, there is no benefit to the City other than the traffic coming out of the church onto Kemper Road and trying to disburse it to different areas. There is nothing else back there that road does. I think we are better off to try to get it over to Lippelman as opposed to Tri-County Mall. My personal opinion is I donít think this will ever be built.

Ms. McBride stated the church and most of the accessories are permitted, but we do not have any kind of breakdown in terms of are they going to do a preschool, is there going to be any kind of regular school facility? The last time they were in there was talk about a food distribution center. We need to find out exactly what is going to be going on in this building.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Ten


Ms. McBride stated comment number two indicates that we canít determine what parking will be required until we know what the uses will be. Until the meeting this evening, we didnít even know how much seating there would be, so in terms of being able to tell if the parking requirements were met or not, we were not able to determine that.

Ms. McBride reported there are some differences between the grading and the landscaping plan. I believe the landscape plan is a better circulation plan than the grading plan, but until you get the final design, we will reserve our comments on that. If they are going to go with the one way parking lanes, it is important to have that properly marked. We would like to see some additional pedestrian crosswalks in the front of the church, if they are going to use the landscape plan. If it goes to the grading plan, that may all change so we might hold some of those comments.

Ms. McBride continued specifically addressing the landscape plan, it as pretty hard to read. There was a lack of plant symbols and the patterns were all pretty similar. There wasnít any labeling, and we guessed what the lake and lawn areas were to be. In terms of the exterior circulation road, we would suggest that the plant material be the same on both sides to offer a boulevard effect going in that would be effective for the church as well as receptive to the community. I have seen traffic circles work very well and I think that is a nice feature particularly in this type of development. In terms of plant material in the traffic circles, we would want to see the type of material going in there as well as in the beds but particularly in the traffic circles and anywhere there might be a sight distance problem to limit the height of the plant material. All of the trees in the internal parking lot are exactly the same . One of our comments the last time they were in was there should be a mixture of trees in there, not only from an aesthetics standpoint but also for their own safety sake. If there is one type of tree planted and a disease came in it could wipe out the entire parking lot and they have a lot of trees in there.

Ms. McBride continued on the edges of what we presume to be the lakes, we would like to see how you will treat those banks to prevent erosion. WE need to label the lawn areas, and would suggest grouping some of the trees both for more effect and also to more easily maintain the grass areas. We would like to see the plant details both in the beds and in the traffic circles.

Ms. McBride stated in the area labeled future parking, awe would like to know how that will be treated. Prior to it turning into parking, we would suggest seeding it and maintaining it as lawn area but that should be noted and provided for. The location and screening of the waste receptacle has not been provided. The loading dock arrangement isnít consistent on the grading and on the landscaping plan and we will want to see adequate screening on that and more details on it in terms of making sure there is adequate truck turnaround.

Ms. McBride added the photometric lighting plan indicates a 24 foot mounting height pole and there are some pretty significant light levels shown on the photometric plan. It only goes to the edge of the parking area and is quite a distance from the edge of the parking area to the edge of the property line. I would suggest that they carry that to the edge of the property line so that we can make sure there isnít any light spillage. I doubt that there is anything significant, but I think we would want to see that and it isnít difficult to do.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Eleven


Ms. McBride stated we didnít see any building materials or colors, and in particular I would be interested to see the facade that has the dock on it. The final comment is that we would like to see a traffic impact analysis prepared. The church itself is a very off peak hour generator and user, but if you re talking about any kind of day care, that is a very peak hour oriented use. Dependent on the number of children they are planning, that could have some impact on the operation of that intersection.

Mr. Huddleston arrived at 8:22 p.m.

Mr. Davis said the landscape plan preceded the other plan by quite a bit. The grading plan scheme is the one we intend to go with. We have studied the one way traffic circulation, visited some facilities that were implementing it, and found that with those kind of traffic loading it didnít work particularly well. We felt we had the 90 degree parking and two way traffic fairly well resolved, and weíll get down to the minutiae of final arrangements in terms of interior circulation. On the parking lot, we are shooting for specimen trees with small leaves. Generally speaking the way the parking lot is designed there are green spaces that are a little wider than they were on the landscape plan. The parking lot slopes at one and one-half percent and it slopes down again at four to one. The church building itself does not have a ceremonial front door. There are four entries along the front and rear. I think most of the issues we will address satisfactorily. The dumpster is in a screened location at the rear of the building. The future parking area is totally undisturbed.

Mr. McErlane reported I want to point out that the property is currently zoned General Industrial, and under one section in the Public Facilities area of the Zoning Code, it allows churches within any zoning district and in areas that are not residential districts the standard is either OB District setbacks or GI District setbacks whichever is the lesser of the two. In most cases it will be the OB Districts, and in all cases they more than exceed the setback requirements and are less than the height requirements and are less than the land coverage requirements.

Mr. McErlane stated Public Facilities is the ruling section for parking requirements. Our Code requires one parking space for every four seats in the main assembly area, and it looks like based on the numbers presented tonight, it meets Code easily. What type of ratio do you shoot for? Mr. Cochran answered 2.4 seats per vehicle. Mr. McErlane asked if the auditorium would be the driving force for the parking lot, or would you have the auditorium full and have additional activities going on that would take additional parking spaces? Mr. Davis said no, adding that we analyzed how many people were in the building, at what time they were in the building and. Mr. McErlane added I realize your parking lot area is preliminary at this stage, and I donít know if 1281 is correct, but looking at the ADA requirements for the parking lot the requirement is 20 standard handicap spaces and three van accessible.

Mr. McErlane stated the only zoning issue that needs to be addressed is the loading facility on the south side of the building. Zoning Code prohibits a loading facility in a yard that is adjacent to a residential district. The residential district in this case is in Glendale and as it stands right now is pretty much undeveloped back to a certain point, but that is not to say that it couldnít be developed as residential in the future. However, the loading as shown on this drawing is in excess of 300 feet from the property line, so it is not an imposing facility on the residential use to the south. If there is a concern about buffering, I think it probably can be addressed by putting some evergreen trees there. Mr. Davis added there

will be over 100 feet of mature trees there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Twelve


Mr. McErlane reported the dumpster location is not shown; I would assume it probably would be in the same area as the loading area. Totaling up what was shown on the landscaping plan, I realize that is not the final one but we are looking at approximately 1427 caliper inches of trees. Iím sure you want to address the tree issue tonight.

Mr. Davis stated if you look at the ordinance as I understand it on the one for two caliper inch replacement of trees over six inches in caliper, we would be required to put in 1965 caliper inches of trees. You get credit for what is in the building footprint, and we have an acre and a half of building footprint. We have come up with around 2,000 caliper inches. That is almost 1,000 two inch caliper trees. We would like nothing better than to landscape this spot beautifully; it is in the best interests of Vineyard and Springdale. We have no inclination to do anything otherwise. It is just that meeting the full requirement of the Springdale ordinance, and it is a very good ordinance, is extremely prohibitive in this case. The construction project is anticipated to run from January 1998 to January 1999. We are proposing to plant 425 caliper inches, which is 25% of what we determined, and we are not counting florals or things you put around the building. We are just talking about trees. We came up with a target figure of 1200 caliper inches rather than 1427. We propose by the end of the planting sequence of year 5 to have 1200 caliper inches of trees. This is not substantial compliance but is taking the best step forward, and gives the Vineyard the chance to try to be able to afford to do this. We are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars of trees.

Mr. Cochran added I agree with the tree replacement ordinance. It is a good one but in this situation, we have not asked to be let out of this completely by any means but have proposed something that we think is significant. On the other hand, we would ask for some grace on this project. This is a non profit organization; we like to put back into the community in the form of outreach and things consistent with our mission. The other issue is that the area is not accessible to the public right now. If it had been an industrial development, there would have been much more thorough tree removal than what we are proposing. What we are trying to create is a parklike setting with walking trails and water features and a significant portion of the trees retained. I think the proposal is a reasonable attempt to try to comply and is economically workable for us.

Mr. Syfert wondered how they would place the 200 trees in the first year. If that many trees were planted in the first year, that would give us a pretty good gauge as to what else is needed. It could be we donít even need what you are proposing.

Mr. Davis stated we do industrial developments all the time and many times you take one out of sequence all the way around. You can easily come back in and plant between them. From an aesthetic standpoint it would be really nice if you are mixing them. When you grow with your design, you have more pleasing results. We are trying to quantity it and say we will work with you however you feel comfortable.

Mr. Wilson said your spacing of trees; is that based on spacing required at maturity or at planting? Mr. Davis answered the caliper inches are based on the time of planting. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane to address their tree proposal. Mr. McErlane stated from the standpoint of replanting trees and the number of trees that have to be removed, Planning has addressed that in a couple of other developments in the past. Planning has reviewed it from the standpoint of how feasible it is to even plant this many trees that are required.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Thirteen


Mr. McErlane added if the applicant shows a reasonable planning plan, even if he does it over a five year period, which is not a long time for replanting, that is an acceptable method. The question is how Planning wants to address the 61% of the required planting versus 100%.

Mr. McErlane stated in looking at the description of how the number of trees were determined, in the process of reviewing the site were there any large major trees? It looked like on average there were fairly small trees. Mr. Davis answered there were a lot of four inch and three inch scrub trees. There might have been one or two. The problem we have in that circle is there will be some substantive grading.

Mr. McErlane added we have found that if you change the surrounding topography at any great degree, itís not worth trying to save either. It would only be perimeter areas that would make sense to try to do. If that meant reworking something around the perimeter, it may make sense to do it. We looked at an old aerial photo from 1960 and it was primarily farmland, so the majority of the trees that would be of any substantial size would be on the drainage courses. Probably one of the drainage courses was cleared out when they built the detention basin in the first place. There probably are a limited number of sizable trees on the site altogether. Are you saying you do have some idea of where some of the sizable trees might be? Mr. Davis answered we have a tree count but the problem we had was it is so thick with small stuff so we donít have an accurate count. Mr. McErlane added if it is within your parking area or your building area it doesnít make sense to concern yourself with it. Mr. Davis commented all of that mature stuff is on the border. The company I worked for had looked at this parcel for two or three years to try to figure out if we purchased the land could we develop it as an industrial park, and we could not make it work. I think 61% compliance for this situation seems reasonable.

Mr. McErlane asked the number of acres on the site and how many are being developed? Mr. Davis answered 48 acres total and 14 being disturbed. If you put three acres in for the lakes and the natural water feature and the trees on top of that. Mr. McErlane said to give Planning Commission another perspective, we looked at a couple of other developments where we have given relief on tree replanting, such as GE Park and some minor things at the Oak Hills Cemetery, basically because Oak Hills Cemetery has an internal tree planting program, and GE Park had a pretty substantial green area to begin with. The fact that we are looking at a little over a third of this which will be developed; the rest will remain as is. Compared to what it could be if it were an industrial development that would pretty much take all the foliage out, there still will be a substantial greenspace left on the site. Mr. Syfert added roughly 60% of it will not be touched.

Mr. Wilson said there are some alternatives that you can deal with if you are not in compliance with our tree ordinance. We are looking at 62% compliance which I have a problem with, but I also am astute enough to realize that you canít replace at 100% and have parking spaces and the beautiful landscaping you have there. My question is would you consider that?

Mr. Davis answered yes. There is a qualitative issue as well as a quantitative one. The quality of the materials that go in will have a lot to do with what this thing looks like. I would urge you to consider the qualitative aspects as well.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Fourteen


Mr. Cochran added I guess I can understand the concept in the area of Dickís where the area was fully cleared of trees, but I think this is such a different scenario where we are making an area nice and publicly accessible. For me to go back to our congregation and tell 4,000 people that we have agreed to plant 600 trees but Springdale also wanted $100,000 in the reforestation fund would be a tough message. Mr. Wilson asked if this were in terms of their not being able to afford it or not being able to accept it because they are a nonprofit organization. What would be the rationale for them not wanting to comply? Mr. Cochran said we are doing everything we can to get the downpayment that we need to move on the building, which would add to our debt load.

Mr. Wilson responded I can understand and appreciate that, but you have to understand too that is your church and what you are doing is to benefit yourself. The more beautiful that church is, the more residents will be there and the more money the church will make to use for outreach as you have indicated. With that, there are monies that can be used for this program if that is the approach we want to use. Weíre not suggesting in order for this to go to final approval that you give us x dollars for funding. Just as you have spaced this out over five years, if we arrive at a dollar figure you want to offer and we accept, we can space that out over five years. I donít agree that your parishioners wonít feel you can do it because you are asking too much. The church is operated as a business, and you can allocate it over a five year period. I donít want to rule out something in lieu of noncompliance.

Mr. Davis stated we began to address this in small measure. I met with Mr. Syfert, not asking for special favors because it is a church. We said we are treating this as a business. Here is something that is coming in with a beautiful facility. We are complying with everything Springdale is asking us to do, and we are asking for 39% relief in this one area.

Mr. Seaman commented it is obvious that a lot of thought went into this; it is a beautiful presentation. It will be a great addition to Springdale. We have to take the tree ordinance as a whole and look at the overall impact. You are in substantial compliance with just about everything, and have indicated a willingness to work with the City on the landscaping plan. With 61%, given the fact that there will be a lot of undisturbed vegetation, I do not see a need for any donation to the tree fund. I would view your project versus a business generating a lot of shoplifting calls; your proposal is wonderful given the fact that you are willing to work with the City.

Mr. Galster added I agree with Mr. Seaman. Given the undisturbed area, I have no problem with the 61%. Are there any other plans to develop any more of the site to more infringe on the 48 acres?

Mr.Davis answered no, we are discussing a potential small office building, and we are coming before the Board of Zoning Appeals to get permission to put a trailer on our present lot.

Mr. Galster asked if they sold off the other 50% of the property, and suddenly we lose all those trees. I have no problem with this based on an agreement concerning the possibility of a future development. Otherwise, I believe that, given this particular site, the intention of the ordinance will be met.

Mr. Huddleston commented Mr. Galster stated a lot of my sentiments. If the applicant were willing to cover that in some way have some restriction that would kick in the event of a future development, I would be in favor of this. It is a beautifully planned development.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Fifteen


Mr. Huddleston questioned how a major development like this would impact on the Police Department and Fire Department. Mr. McErlane stated I donít believe we have talked about city services. We looked at traffic and its impact. It is not the type traffic that an industrial or retail operation would generate.

Mr. Cochran reported 50% of our parishioners commute to Springdale, and that translates to over 100,000 visits per year.

Mr. Young commented I can appreciate what Mr. Huddleston is asking but from my personal view, this is the best idea you could present for this parcel. As a Commission, we do not need to look at the dollars; we have to look at the overall picture, and you would be hard pressed to come up with something that would be better for this parcel of land. I think the design is great. I do not have problems with the tree program, but I agree that there needs to be a stipulation as to future development. What happens to the property you now own? Mr. Cochran answered we would attempt to market it, and the potential buyer would be another church. If not, we would keep it and use it for training during the week.

Mr. Okum said having had some personal contact with your organization, and knowing the residents of Heritage Hill, I agree with Mr. Young that I canít think of a better use for the land. I have been on the commission quite a bit, and you look at industrial, and general business projects, and it is nice to see something softer for a change. It is an ideal location, because it is on the edge of Springdale, Sharonville and Glendale. I am a little concerned with how you treat the appearance of the buildings from that 25 foot grade differential. I am happy you will be using chillers, and since your roof will be what you see from the street, we would want to see a view showing lower and upper roofs.

Mr. Wilson said I am in favor of what you are doing, but I am trying to offer alternatives for future compliance so we do not set a precedent. I view this as the best use of that land, and I am encouraged to hear you talk about expansion of the site.

Mr. Galster moved to grant preliminary plan approval with staff concerns taken into account (trees and future development) and Mr. Young seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr.Young, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Preliminary plan approval was granted unanimously.


Mr. Galster commented we were impressed with the overview shot, and they subscribe to a service. We are trying to get information on how to get such pictures of Springdale. Mr. Davis stated you can buy their catalog for $1200 to $1500, but tell me what area you want, and you can pay for the negatives.

Mr. McErlane reported we have set the date of January 4, 1997 for Planning and BZA Workshop. David Auer who is soon to be president of the Ohio Planning Conference will be participating.

Mr. Syfert checked to see if everyone would be present at the next meeting, November 12th and members indicated that they would.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 October 1996

Page Sixteen

IX - DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Wilson stated it was suggested that Mr. Okum supply us with his pager number so that if we are going to be late, we can call him.


Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:29 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,1996 __________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



______________________,1996 __________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary