14 NOVEMBER 1995

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order by Chairman William G. Syfert at 7:00 p.m.


Members Present: Wilton Blake, Steve Galster, Councilwoman Peggy Manis,

Tim Sullivan, Barry Tiffany, Councilman Robert Wilson

and Chairman Bill Syfert.

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Assistant City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Assistant City Engineer

Jim Harrison, Legal Counsel (arrived at 7:27 P.M.)

Anne McBride, Consultant, Pflum, Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Blake moved for adoption and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.


A. Planning Commissioners Journal #20 - Fall 1995

Mr. Syfert commented I found some very interesting things in there

and trust you did also. There might be some things we might want to

discuss when we reassemble the new Commission next month.

B. 10/11 Letter from Steve Galster, Secretary of Planning to Randy

Danbury, President of Council re Preliminary Approval of Modified

PUD Plan for Roberds Furniture - Tri-County Commons


A. Tri-County Mall requests approval of proposed modification to Entrance

A of Tri-County Mall, 11700 Princeton Pike (tabled 10 October 1995)

Mr. Syfert stated we have had no correspondence from them and no

representatives are here. Mr. Tiffany moved to strike this from the agenda, and the item was dropped from the agenda.

Mark Haeger of Extended Stay America stated Mike Flannery of Woolpert who is the civil engineer. Since the last meeting, we have flattened out the entrance so the radius is not so tight. We have addressed this area of the parking lot so the Fire Department has access all the way around the building. We now show signage for the highway sign and the monument sign down here. We have relocated the dumpster from this corner to this corner, and have added bollards along the back curb in case of any damage from a garbage truck. We now have a letter from the Fire Department agreeing with what we have done in this corner. Those were the major issues as far as we could see.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated at this point, we have sign drawings that show a pole sign of l278.38 square feet, and a ground sign at 39.45 square feet, for a total of 317.83 square feet. We donít count the directional signs as part of their total allowable square footage.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Two


Mr. McErlane continued a photometric plan was not submitted; we will need to review this both from providing adequate amount of lighting for the parking lots as well as looking at any kind of spillage into the residential properties.

Mr. McErlane stated the building elevations we received were really for two sides of one building, and we are asking for clarification that brick is going to be used on all buildings and on all elevations.

Mr. McErlane reported the variances required for this site would be for a pole sign, because the Corridor District does not permit them, a fence to screen headlights instead of the plantings that are required in the Corridor District, and the building height, which exceeds 36 feet. The current plan that was submitted doesnít show building height on it as it was shown previously. The previous height was 43í-6", so weíll need a clarification for that, and that probably should receive revised plans before Board of Zoning Appeals so they have a plan that shows the height that they are approving.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were no other signage on the building? Mr. McErlane answered there is no building signage, although there is a canopy which says office. Mr. Tiffany continued as far as the height of the sign, it seems we had come to an agreement as to the height at the last meeting. Mr. McErlane stated it was 65 feet.

Mr. Shvegzda reported I believe most of the comments have been addressed. To reiterate, the sanitary sewer that will be relocated has to be approved by MSD. There is a portion of the parking lot area that is in an ODOT channel easement. There has been some conversations between ODOT and the developer, and we will need to see a written letter eventually allowing the construction of the portion of the parking lot in the ODOT channel easement. One of the things we still need to work out is the main driveway heading northeast, along the bank of the channel there is a portion that juts in. That was done to stay out of the channel, it is a matter of providing a little better transition on the one side. We also need the details for the bollards that were mentioned regarding the location that they are placed directly south of where the dumpster is. There are no details for those.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there has been submitted a legal document that dictates the responsibilities of who is going to finally clean the channel out. That has been sent down to Mr. Harrison for review. They began looking at it today, but before we would recommend that the Certificate of Occupancy be given, the channel should be cleaned.

Mr. Shvegzda commented on the Cross Country Inn property, there is a curb that exists that acts to angle the direction of the traffic to what is shown on the proposed driveway. It just needs to be shown to clarify some things, and a clarification on some of the storm sewer elevations are needed.

Ms. McBride reported I think most of our comments from the previous meetings have been addressed. They are requesting a highway oriented sign that will be 65 feet tall and 221 square feet in the sign area. Given the use and orientation to I-275 and the signage in the immediate area, that is perfectly warranted, and I donít have a problem with it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Three


Ms. McBride continued with regards to the lighting, they are showing 28

foot high poles which is permitted within the Corridor District. I would suggest that you look at a lower pole standard, particularly adjacent to those single family residences. They need a 20 foot pole height if that is possible, but I think we ought to require a photometric lighting plan. The Corridor District requires that there be no light spills on adjacent property owners, but we are not assured of that unless we have a photometric lighting plan to review, so I think that needs to be a requirement.

Ms. McBride stated the Corridor District also requires that all ground mounted signage support should be brick or stone. In their sign detail, they are showing their base to be covered with an enamel corrugated metal, so that will need to be changed either to brick or stone. There were no height dimensions on the elevations we received. The previous building was 43í-6", and it looks like they have added six inches on the first two floors which would take it to at least 44í-6" over the 36 permitted. Again, given the type of use, the pitched roof, and the character of the area, I do not have any problem whatsoever with the height of 45 or 46 feet, given the use and the character of the building. We did not get a south elevation for the building; I am assuming it is of a similar characteristic to the north elevation. We also need to get clarification on building materials and colors. The Corridor District requires 40% of each facade to be brick or stone, so we want some clarification on that, and then just a couple of notes with regards to landscaping. We wanted to see some additional trees on the west property line to separate the two parking areas. The mulch areas need to be indicated, and we would like to see some shrubs to the rear of the ground mounted sign since that will be a blank face.

Mr. Tiffany asked if the applicant could clarify the building materials at this time?

Mr. Haeger responded we submitted an elevation a while back thatí shows over 40% brick, and covers every side of the building. Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if the city requires that all elevations be shown on the plans. Mr. McErlane responded we commonly get all elevations, but as long as we have an assurance that they will be treated equally on all of the buildings, I donít know that it is necessary.

Mr. Wilson said Item 4 relates to the height of the building. When we first talked the requirement said 36 feet and we were looking at 40 feet. Then it is 43í-6" and now it is 44í-6". What is the actual height of the tallest portion of your building? Mr. Haeger asked Ms. McBride where she got the 44í-6"? Ms. McBride responded we didnít have an overall dimension, but the first floor and second floor did have dimensions on them, and they were six inches taller than the prior set that we had. Mr. Haeger added I have reason to believe that we did not change from the 43í-6". It should stay the same. Mr. Wilson commented but you are asking us to vote on something; we need specifics. If Iím to vote, I want some specifics. Obviously you have plans drawn up, and someone knows the actual dimension, and thatís what I want to hear, not what it should be, but what it is.

Mr. Syfert said you state it will be 43í-6"? Mr. Haeger responded it will be 43í-6". We havenít even begun drawings on this; we had it at 41í-6" and went to 43í-6" because of the truss system. I have to confirm the building height; I can get an answer tomorrow, and we can address that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

15 November 1995

Page Four


Mr. Blake commented in reviewing the Minutes, how did you get 221 square feet on the signage? Ms. McBride answered Mr. McErlane provided that at the staff meeting. Mr. Blake added we had agreed on 280 square feet. Mr. Haeger stated we would certainly like to get that amount. Ms. McBride stated I stand corrected; it is 278 square feet, and I do not have a problem with that.

Mr. Galster stated we agreed on 320 square feet total, and 280 square feet on the pole sign, that that is within a couple of square feet. Do you have any problems with the ground sign? Do you have any problem with any of the comments that our people have brought up with meeting the landscaping additional requirements? Mr. Haeger responded our adjacent property is Cross Country Inn, and they have a row of trees. Our property lines are so close together that I donít think you would want to put an additional row; they probably would kill each other off if they are that close. Ms. McBride asked to have some indication as to where the trees are in relation to their property.

Mr. Galster asked if there was brick on the first two stories and then stucco finish on the top. Mr. Haeger confirmed this. Mr. Galster asked if there would be similar brick on the monument sign, and Mr. Haeger said they would.

Mr. McErlane said on the ground sign, it says double faced sign, but since that back side doesnít serve a purpose, can we make it a condition that it only be a single faced sign? Mr. Haeger answered yes, since it faces the residences, I do not have a problem with that. Mr. Galster commented the plans also show an enter and an exit sign. There is only one way in and one way out; are they even required? Mr. Flannery youíd be surprised at how confused a lot of our patrons can get. Mr. Galster asked him to indicate where the fence would go, and Mr. Flannery indicated on the plan that it extends down to the corner of the property and follows the property line.

Mr. Wilson said all your handicapped spots are centered around one building. Is that the only building that will have handicap accessibility? Mr. Haeger said yes, there is a percentage we have to meet for the number of units, and we put them in one area; it makes it easier.

Mr. Tiffany commented at our last meeting we had a concern about an easement for the state property in the northeastern corner. Was that dropped? Mr. Mark reported we recently received a letter from ODOT allowing us to have parking on that easement; weíll get a copy to Mr. Shvegzda.

Mr. Syfert stated we have two major issues that we have to look at. We have not received any lighting photometrics and the second issue deals with the clearing of the creek. Would you like to address both those questions?

Mr. Haeger responded it is my understanding that the photometric plan was submitted yesterday. It was a photometric plan, but was not exactly what was required. We have since taken care of that, and it has been submitted, and probably will need more work before we get final approval, but we are willing to work with Bill and whomever to get the proper lighting so it does not affect the residential area. The photometric plan that we saw this evening shows very little light wash on the residential site, so I think we have achieved what you are looking for.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Five


Mr. Syfert stated Anne had addressed the height issue also; are you working with the higher pole standard? Mr. Haeger answered right now we are yes, the photometric plan shows 30 feet, but we are going to bring it down to 20 feet.

Mr. Harrison arrived at 7:27 P.M.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if he agreed this needs more work, and Mr. McErlane indicated that it did. Mr. Syfert asked if it were something that will work, and Mr. McErlane commented I think the most difficult part of it is to get adequate lighting to the parking area without going over into the residential area.

Mr. Syfert stated I believe the issue of handling the creek itself is in the hands of the legal people. Mr. Haeger confirmed this, adding that they have a document that makes it the sellerís responsibility (Strebel). They had a deal that the other property owner is ultimately responsible to have the creek cleaned and taken care of. If we have to, weíll hold some money in escrow to make sure that it gets done before we close on the property.

Ms. Manis asked if the trees shown on this plan are the ones that they are planting. Mr. Haeger answered yes, adding that Cross Country Inn has others also. Ms. Manis asked the material of the fence, and Mr. Flannery answered it would be a decorative stained wood.

Mr. Blake commented I am trying to put this gingerly and astutely. I have a problem with the applicantís coming in and asking for final approval when photometric plans were submitted late or not complete, and there are other concerns that I have. When they come and ask me to vote on the final phase, I feel I have a responsibility to be able to feel confident that what they are doing meets our standards in Springdale. I am a little disappointed, because we have gone through this song and dance with this applicant, and it seems to me that they would know by now that we have to have specifics before us, particularly when you are asking for final approval. This is a little loose for me.

Mr. Sullivan asked Ms. McBride how the wooden fence would be maintained; can we stipulate that this fence be maintained? Ms. McBride answered the new pressure treated wooden fences do last a lot longer, but we can certainly stipulate that they have to maintain it, and I would think they would want it maintained in a nice condition for their guests. Mr. Tiffany asked how far away from the curb the fence is, and Mr. Flannery answered it is directly behind the curb, it actually abuts it. Mr. Syfert said there is no parking next to the fence; it is strictly drive. Mr. Tiffany said on the south side of the first building there is some parking, and I question backing out into the fence. That would be my concern in terms of maintaining the fence, damage more than wear and tear, but as long as we have your word, that is all we can ask for.

Ms. Manis asked if it were a curb and then a fence, and Mr. Haeger indicated that it was. Mr. Tiffany confirmed that it was an eight inch curb. Mr. Shvegzda added it is to be ODOT type, which is eight inches, actually nine inches.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Six


Mr. Tiffany moved to grant the final approval with the understanding that the comments of this Commission are addressed, as well as the concerns of the building official, the engineer and our consultant, and pending the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals for the variances which are needed. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Mr. Tiffany added I think the legal issue with the creek is addressed in the comments. Mr. Syfert commented the situation we have is that has to be cleaned out, and if it is not cleaned out, the Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted. Mr. Haeger added that will be taken care of one way or the other, whether it is us or someone else.

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Syfert. Final approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


A. Conditional Use Permit for proposed 360 s.f. cellular telephone equipment building & 135í tubular steel monopole and antenna platform, 12000 Princeton Pike

Mike Jones, Architect representing Cellular One stated we have a revised request to install a cellular site at the Perin Interiors property. Based on our past meeting, we have proposed some additional solutions to the issues raised at that meeting. With us tonight are a couple of the engineering staff to address some of the site location issues. I would like to point out the things we have done to revise this proposal and address the issues from that meeting.

Mr. Jones stated the first thing we have done is taken the shelter and monopole and lowered them three to four feet so that it will be flush to the existing pavement as it is installed on the hillside of the ground next to Perin Interiors. It will create a nested surrounds of earth behind it which will help accomplish the screening we are trying to add to the proposed installation. Beyond the fact that we are lowering it, we are adding a row of six foot high Canadian hemlock trees as a landscaping buffer around the outside of a wood fence. We are proposing a wood fence instead of a chain link fence which we proposed before. One of the concerns addressed in the last meeting was the general proliferation of poles and the undesirability of those within the city. We are proposing to relocate an existing overhead electric service that is coming along the exit ramp, actually take out three of the work poles that are there, and relocate that service as an underground service that would come back to a transformer that would feed out site as well as the Perin Interiors Store. Relative to that, I have a photograph that I would like to pass out which shows what the back of the store looks like. We also have prepared a photo simulation, digitized the photograph to put the tower into the photograph with landscaping. He passed both photographs around.

Mr. Jones continued the freeway light poles are 90 feet. At the back of the Perin site where the exit ramp starts, that bank is approximately 40 feet tall. It is flush with the top of the existing building. The store has a 40 foot high parapet around it. As you come around the side towards our site, the grade is coming up a little bit and the ramp is starting to come down, so we end up with a net difference of about 25 feet from our site location up to the top of that bank where the exit ramp is.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Seven


Mr. Jones stated there is the work in progress with the rehabbing of the exterior of the store; in a couple of places they will add a 10 foot design feature to the store, a new facade.

Mr. Jones reported the net effect of this monopole, when you look at the 40 foot difference on the ramp, the 90 foot pole that is there now, we are talking about a 10 to 15 foot difference from where our platform is to where the right head on the freeway lights is now. So as you are coming from I-75, you would see roughly two poles sticking up in the air; they will be virtually the same height as you are coming parallel to this. Mr. Tiffany asked which one would be higher, and Mr. Jones answered ours would be about 15 feet higher. We are dealing with a 135 foot monopole, and I am basing that on a 20 foot difference from the parking lot to the freeway ramp and a 90 foot pole, so about 110 or 115 versus 135 feet, a twenty-foot difference. I would like to introduce Cecil Frith, one of the radio frequency engineers and Director of Cellular Engineering to speak about the necessity for this.

Mr. Frith stated we have a need which stems from increased customer demand. Cellular phones are very popular, and as we add more customers, the current system of cell sites does not have the capacity needed to meet their demand, so we are required to add more cell sites to increase the number of channels in the system.

Mr. Frith reported I have with me a computer simulation for the coverage of our system. It shows existing cell sites; the green represents mobile coverage and the red, portable coverage. We have a site in West Sharonville, one in Forest Park and one that we call Crescentville. Basically our West Sharonville and Forest Park sites are running out of capacity and when a person hits send to try to call someone, they get a busy tone. Or if you experience static, a lot of the times it is because there are no channels available, and you canít hop over to the next cell site. The FCC and the Public Utilities Commission mandates that we provide a certain level of service. To do that, we need to add cell sites.

Mr. Frith stated the location that was selected was selected because it is in the middle of our existing cell sites. If we had it too close to one of the other cell sites, we donít take enough of the capacity off the cell sites that are blocked. I have another prediction that shows what the coverage would be like. You can see that we have picked up some additional portable coverage, and you can see the location of the proposed cell sites. He passed this around.

Mr. Tiffany said you described this as a mobile service and portable service; what is the difference between the two? Mr. Frith responded because of the power level radiated from a mobile that is permanently installed in a vehicle, versus the handheld portable, they have different radiuses of coverage from a particular cell site. The portable covers less

and that is the green area. Anyplace with red, you would have good mobile and portable coverage; anyplace with green only, you would just have mobile coverage; the portable would work, but it wouldnít work as well. Mr. Syfert commented so this is primarily for portable. Mr. Frith answered it is primarily for capacity; the main driver is the amount of busy tones that we are allowed to send out. Our standard is one out of 100 calls would be blocked.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Eight


Mr. Tiffany asked if they didnít add more heads to an existing tower, doesnít it increase your capacity? Mr. Frith answered the problem is the FCC only gives us 417 channels, and we have many more than 417 channels in use in the Cincinnati system at any one time. So we have to reuse those channels over and over. The way we do that is by playing with the tower and the antennas so at one site we use channel A and maybe two sites away we use channel A. There is a certain amount of engineering that has to be done so you donít have interference. There is a limitation of the number of channels we can put in a specific cell site. Typically when we get 57 channels in a cell site, if there is more demand needed, we have to add an additional cell site for the increased demand. Mr. Tiffany asked if there were 417 per cell site, and Mr. Frith answered there are 57 per cell site, 417 are speed channels within the cell site.

Mr. Wilson commented you mentioned three other cell sites, Sharonville, Crescentville and Forest Park and we are sort of in the middle. What is the possibility of elevating those poles and adding more to that? Mr. Frith responded we can only add so many channels to each specific site because when we add more than a specified number of channels, they donít work. The interference gets so high that a person canít maintain the call. Mr. Wilson asked if they raised the height of the pole would it give better reception, and Mr. Frith answered it is not an issue of reception. It is an issue that you are receiving the signals from all the other cell sites that use the same channel. The more cell sites you have, the smaller the towers have to be, so you could reuse those channels again and again.

Mr. Galster said if you move this tower two or three blocks in any given direction, how much effect would that have? Mr. Frith answered it would depend on the topology; I would say some. Some of the issues we have are more related to the fact that we need it in the general area and we need a piece of property that works for us with the proper zoning that would be the proper use in that area and that meets the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Mr. Galster continued that is my concern. We have an industrial area a block to the west, a block to the north we have a hillside which would be an opportunity, and a block to the east we have G.E. Park which might meet your needs. My concern is this is right on the interstate. We were talking about comparing it to a light post, but we donít have light posts with 30í x 12í buildings. It is different, and is right there when we come off the ramp. It doesnít matter if you are coming up 50 feet above it, you still will see the top of what looks like a trailer, at that point. I have a concern about the location. Mr. Frith asked if it would be an issue with him if the site were buried, and Mr. Galster answered not as much of an issue. I have a problem with the pole and I also have a problem with the building.

Mr. Jones added I want to bring up some things that didnít get addressed enough last time, things that are good for the community. We have about 8100 customers in Springdale. If they are getting dropped calls or not getting access to the phone system, that generates problems, so we are trying to help the people in your community. We have had some phone conversations with the Police and Fire Departments. The Fire Department is using cellular, another company, but they have cellular capacity. They use that as their backup system if the two-way radios are having a problem, if something goes wrong and they have a need to stay in communication, they are using the cellular service to provide that level of protection for the community.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Nine


Mr. Jones continued nationwide, in a recent month there were over 6,000 911 calls, people helping stranded motorists. Most of the time that is to help people who donít have cellular phones. Six thousand a month surprised me; Iím not sure what that would turn into locally, but that is a pretty substantial number of calls. These were 4.3 million calls in 1994 dealing with emergency situations or emergency medical situations. Only two million of those were made by people who have cellular phones to help themselves; over half were made by people with the phones to help someone else with a problem. We touched on the tax benefits; we have half a million dollars worth of equipment in shelter and structure going in here to generate property tax revenue. There are those kinds of things that will provide not necessarily all monetary benefits, but some monetary benefits to the city. We are hopeful those kinds of issues will be part of the consideration, so that we can be able to put the site in place and improve the coverage and capacity that we have.

Mr. Syfert called on Mr. McErlane, who said we discussed the relative height to the ramp and the interstate lights, and I think Don has some information about that. The only other comment I had was relative to their landscaping, and it looked like they did a fairly decent job of planting around it, but I donít know if it is workable. They are showing Canadian hemlocks at four feet on center and they are a pretty good sized tree at maturity. Mr. Jones added the idea was to get them started thick and quick and have them tall enough to provide the screening. We certainly are flexible with what kind of materials we put in. We are going to try to provide that screening immediately with a combination of landscaping and wood fence so visually there wonít be the kind of impact that concerns you.

Mr. Shvegzda reported at one location, the top of the cellular tower would be about 781 feet. There is an existing light tower immediately to the west, and based on the height of the tower and elevation of the base, it would be 752 feet. The light tower on the interstate itself immediately south is 100 foot light tower and with its base elevation, it makes it 779.6 feet. Those are relatively close in terms of top elevations between the tower immediately to the south and the cellular phone tower.

Ms. Manis asked if there would be any lights on the cellular tower, and Mr. Jones answer no, lighting is not required. That is usually an issue that the FAA makes us do or not do. We typically try not to do it but in cases where there is a site located in some kind of proximity to an airport, they might make us light the tower. Ms. Manis asked about lights on the building, and Mr. Jones reported floodlights on the corners. We have in the past put a cutoff fixture, but those are only turned on when the servicing takes place.

Ms. Manis commented I drove it again today down the ramp and I had to break my neck to see anything, so I do not have a problem with it.

Mr. Galster asked the diameter of the pole at its widest. Mr. Jones reported the base starts at 42" or 46" inches, and tapers to 12 inches. Mr. Galster asked the light post diameter and Mr. Jones said I think they are 16" to 20". The taper is probably a foot. Mr. Galster continued would you say this pole is probably twice the size in appearance of a light pole? Mr. Jones said maybe, yes.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Ten


Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Frith about trees causing interference. Mr. Frith reported they donít necessarily cause interference, but they cause coverage to be decreased. We have better coverage in the wintertime than we do in the summertime.

Mr. Tiffany commented I donít have so much a problem with the building because I donít think you will see it; itís not the building with me, it is the pole. I think there are better locations for this pole than right next to the highway. Mr. Jones asked if the removal of the other overhead electric lines help? Mr. Tiffany responded it is another pole. If I could do away with all the poles, I would be happy; personally I think we are beyond our limit now. As Mr. Galster stated, just to the north is G.E. Park, and they have some buildings established that you might want to add on to and all wooded areas that we wouldnít see anything but the head of the pole.

Mr. Jones responded we could not find a willing landlord in those locations. We still have not had response from people in the industrial park or to the north.

Ms. Manis asked about the abandonment of the tower when they are done with it. Mr. Jones stated the lease agreement would be in place, and it calls for Cellular 1 to be responsible for all maintenance and if the site were abandoned, we are required to remove the equipment building, remove the tower and remove the concrete foundation down to 10 feet below ground and put the site back to its original condition.

Ms. Manis moved to grant the Conditional Use Permit and Mr. Blake seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson said by granting you this, you would not pursue G.E. Park as an alternate site. Mr. Jones said yes, we have not had success to date getting anybody to respond from G.E. concerning leasing this space. Mr. Wilson asked if they are referring to the employees union or the company in Sharonville. From the audience, a woman reported that the search area did not encompass going that far north, so we did not talk to G.E..

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Frith his feelings about that site, and Mr. Frith stated we have several issues. One is as you go to the west, there are some rolling terrain, some hills that would cause some blockage. The way cellular works, anything that you can see from the tower you would cover, and anything you canít you wouldnít cover. Off Route 4 is one of the places we are trying to take capacity off of, and we would not be able to take as much capacity as we would need to take off the site, because if we move it up to here, these hills get in and block us from covering Route 4. The closer you get to the interstate, the more you have a direct line of sight, and you do not have an issue where there is a hill in the way. We want to put it in right the first time, so we do not have to come back and add anything.

Voting aye were Ms. Manis, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Wilson. Voting no were Mr. Galster, Mr. Tiffany and Mr. Syfert. The vote was four to three; five votes are needed so the motion was denied.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Eleven

VI NEW BUSINESS - continued

B. Concept Discussion for Proposed Ethan Allen Facility at Princeton Pike and Merchant Street

Mr. Syfert reported this was brought into staff review, and we felt the information was not complete. Bill talked to them and suggested that they not come tonight, so I would suggest we table this until next month. Mr. Tiffany moved and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to December 12.

C. Concept Discussion of Proposed Facility for Vineyard Community Church, Century Boulevard

Mr. Mark Davis the architect representing the Vineyard approached the commission. The purpose of this meeting is to try to get Springdale acquainted with the church. They are very much interested in a piece of property on Century Boulevard. It is the whole green area, 48 acres, at the intersection of Sharonville, Glendale and Springdale.

Mr. Davis showed the artistís rendering, adding that they need 1200 parking spots in the parking lot. They expect congregation seating of 2,000 to 2200 seats, and the building itself is 79,000 square feet. We are laying out the building, and have some decent drawings of what it could look like, but we wanted to introduce the project to you and ask for your comments early in the process. Jim Cochran is here who is one of the pastors of the church, and he will address any questions you have on the church. I think it is a particularly good use of that site.

Mr. Davis continued the site is 48 acres, but the site we are disturbing for the project is about 22 acres, a little less than half of the site. The church has indicated and expressed an interest in dedicating this parcel (five to seven acres) as a permanent green space; it is heavily wooded at this point. Right now there is a waterfall detention feature at the end of this site, and they want to make that a water feature. We have worked with McGill Smith & Punshon and are well into that part of the process. I think it will be a particularly beautiful use.

Mr. Davis added the church has an interest in allowing surrounding neighbors to come and use the green space. There may be a pavilion or a jogging trail that they can use that during the lunch hour or whenever they want to use it. I think it would be in Springdaleís interest; itís certainly an amenity, and I would think the surrounding neighbors would want to do that, and it makes good sense for the church to be a good corporate citizen.

Mr. Cochran stated I am the administrator for the church. I have been involved with the church since the beginning. We started 10 years ago, meeting at the square dance barn with 35 people. We now have 2700 people attending weekend services. We are located on the corner of Crescentville and Chesterdale and we have six services every weekend in a facility that seats 600 people. We have broken all the rules in terms of utilizing that facility as far as we can. We start our first meeting Sunday morning at 8:30 and the last one starts at 1 p.m., and we have another Sunday service in the evening. We very much want to continue to be in Springdale. We have a lot of residents who attend, and we also draw from surrounding cities and the central access to I-275 and I-75 is very important to us.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twelve


Mr. Cochran continued we are very community minded. In our 10 years

we have been involved in over a million dollars of outreach to the community through various programs, food distribution, etc. We hold all different types of small groups at the church for various recovery issues, and I think a lot of people in the community have benefited.

Mr. Cochran stated the location is ideal in a number of ways for us. A church of our size located in a more residential area can almost be an infringement on the residential area, just the number of cars that come into the area for Sunday services. We think this location takes advantage of major street systems during their off prime time. We have two lanes each direction to two different ramps, I-275 and I-75 at Sharon Road, so it is ideal from that standpoint. There are benefits to the community retail establishments and services. A lot of people come to the church not from the Springdale area. Weíve done some rough estimating, and we would estimate that by 1997 there would be 100,0000 visits to the church location per year from people that would not normally be driving in the area. They are coming on the weekend when it is prime time to do some shopping, or go to a restaurant in the area.

Mr. Blake commented if we go along with this concept, will you still wrap Christmas presents? Mr. Cochran said absolutely. Mr. Blake stated you do a good job, and it is greatly appreciated.

Mr. Sullivan said I agree that it looks like a good use of the land and benefit to you and Springdale, and I would like to see it. One point I would like to make though, is that is a very heavily wooded area, and with the tree ordinance I can almost guarantee that you will not be able to meet the criteria in terms of replacement of trees. You might want to take a look at how you intend to deal with that.

Mr. Cochran responded one of the reasons that we wanted to come before the Planning Commission now is that we are able to purchase this property pretty attractively. In order to purchase it at the pricing we have under contract, we had to have a very quick closing timetable. Our due diligence period ends tomorrow, and we as a church need to make a decision later tonight whether we are going to go forward with this, and we would close on the property by November 30th. It probably would be a number of years before we actually develop the site, but we are on a

pretty quick timetable to make our final decision. We realize the process that the city has to go through does not necessarily allow you to make decisions this quickly, but we thought it was important to get a general sense from the city as to whether they were favorable to the city or not. Weíve looked at sites in Union Township and various other places around, and we want to make sure we are making a decision that the city would consider to be a win-win for them also.

Mr. Cochran continued to the tree ordinance specifically, I have done reading on that, and one of the things that appeals about our use of the property as opposed to a likely eventual industrial development going into the area and most of the trees being removed under that plan, is that we would remove a significant number of trees in the center area of the total property, but in effect we would make the remaining significant number of trees much more accessible to the public.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Thirteen


Mr. Cochran continued with having things like a walking trail to circle the perimeter of the property, we think we actually would take what now is very inaccessible to the public and make it very accessible and a nice part of a business park setting. I would ask you to look at the tree ordinance and see how it is appropriate to apply it to this use and what it ultimately does for the community.

Ms. Manis asked if they have plans for expansion for this building also? I notice the parking lot is built around it. Mr. Cochran answered the plans provide for building expansion. By taking advantage of the existing street system and creating a parking flow, it is a good concept. Putting parking all the way around it is fairly important because you do not want your people to have to walk 300 yards in from the corner of the parking lot to get to the church. We think weíve left a significant provision for some expansion there, and yet provided a minimal walk distance also. Ms. Manis commented I live behind the church now, and it does interfere with the residential area. I donít think they would allow you to hand out stuff at Kemper Road and Century Boulevard, but other than that, I think it is wonderful.

Mr. Galster stated Ms. McBride had addressed whether or not there would be other uses, like day care, and I believe you have a day care facility at your existing location? Mr. Cochran answered the day care is for staff only and during church functions, typical child care during church functions. There is not any kind of day care currently available to the public at our existing location. I think it would be a mistake for us to design a facility like this and not think about the possibility of a day care. Down the road, we probably would want to design and meet the requirements for that.. As to whether we would actually go forward and have a day care available to the public, Iím not sure at this point. Mr. Syfert commented but it makes good sense to plan for it; I think we all understand that.

Mr. Wilson said if you do have this building, what will you do with the current one? Mr. Cochran answered we would attempt to sell it, probably to another church. We feel it is still a very good facility. We would not want to part with it at a price that we felt below its value. In a transitional situation between the two sites, itís hard to tell at this point if we would have a need to operate out of it for a while. Our intent would be to sell it and help fund some of the costs of the new facility.

Mr. Wilson commented if you begin to expand, you will eliminate more trees. By agreeing to this, you would need some kind of variance from the tree ordinance and as you expand as I would assume you would be doing looking at your history, you would be coming back asking for a variance to increase the size of the church and we would lose even more trees. So I think we have to address the tree issue in terms of aesthetics and making a better use of the land than it is now. There are certain exceptions we can make to things that are in place but we still have to deal with that. The issue has to be addressed, and it may be a stumbling block in terms of whether you build the church with the parking areas as they are, or whether you go back in and redesign the whole thing to comply with the tree ordinance.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Fourteen


Mr. Wilson asked if there would be a sign on Kemper Road and Century Boulevard? Mr. Cochran responded that is something we want to discuss with you this evening. Mark has details on that. The owners of the property that we have under contract own the building on the corner of Kemper and Century Boulevard, and in our contract to purchase the property, we have a permanent easement for placing a sign on that corner subject to Springdaleís approval. We think it would be a great service to have a sign there to reference people back to the property, but we certainly wanted to bring that here. It is one of the hinge issues that we feel is pretty important for us to go forward with the project.

Mr. Wilson said if we grant this variance to the tree ordinance, what are you as a church planning to do; how will you deal with that? Mr. Cochran responded I think what we allow for on the expansion could be serviced by the amount of parking we proposed already in this plan. We have applied more liberal standards to parking, and further, if we thought we were going to take on this site with the intention of removing substantially all the trees, this site would not make sense for us. There are other places to go more economically that donít have the costs of removing the trees let alone complying with the ordinance in place in Springdale. We think the site is very beneficial to us for the same reason that the tree ordinance is in place, because we want a site for our church that incorporates some natural beauty. We think by making some water retainage ponds, etc. we can accent the quality of the environment that is already there with the trees. We plan to replace a significant quantity of trees. You can see some of that in the artistís rendering. We would like to take advantage of the backdrop of the trees that would be there and accent that with quality water ponds, etc. Looking at the intent section in the Tree Preservation Ordinance, our intention is to make it a much nicer environment than it is currently. If you drive down the boulevard, a lot of the trees that you can see from the street are more scrub trees. It is not an extremely attractive looking forest from the front, but we think by developing the site the way we intend to and supplementing that with a significant amount of plantings, it will make it a much more attractive site, and much much more accessible to the public.

Mr. Syfert stated I do not want to get hung up on this, and I would like to ask Mr. McErlane for his thoughts as they apply to the restoration of trees. We discussed this somewhat at staff meeting.

Mr. McErlane reported the Tree Preservation Ordinance has two facets. One is to try to save whatever trees can be saved in a development, and fortunately in this case, we are looking at it upfront before final grades are established and before utilities are designed to be in place. There may be some instances where we can save some special trees in the site. The unfortunate part of it is that this site falls 50 to 60 feet from one side to the other, so there is a substantial amount of grade. One benefit to this use as opposed to an industrial use is an industrial user would want to level their sites out quite a bit. On this site they can take advantage of terracing the parking, maybe save a few specimen trees that may fall within an area if grades fall appropriately. The other benefit is it appears that the church is proposing to keep at least the southwest corner as a wooded area, whereas if it were developed as industrial, more than likely they would make whatever use they could of all of the site. That is something to take into consideration.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Fifteen


Mr. McErlane reported Planning Commission has the authority to allow variances and deviations from the Tree Preservation Ordinance; I think you as a board needs to take a look at the overall development as a whole.

Mr. Syfert called on Anne McBride. Ms. McBride stated if they were going to have any accessory uses such as day care or a grade school, we would need to know that, because it would have an impact on the traffic they would generate, particularly during the peak hour on the weekday, so we need to know that in terms of square footage.

Ms. McBride continued the second item concerns the loading dock. I am not particularly fond of it being located in the front of the facility. If that is where it needs to be located, I think it needs to be very well screened and you need to look at the maneuverability of semi-trailers which would be backing into there. We donít think they would be able to get them in there as it is drawn right now, so youíll want to look at that.

Ms. McBride said regarding landscaping, there ought to be a mixture in terms of size and variety. There should be some shrubs added to the parking area. There should be some particular panting areas at the different entryways to mark those. There should be additional islands added to the parking lot and all of the islands should be planted. We had a question about how the balance of the area that is not being developed at this time is going to be either maintained or developed or in what state is that going to be kept?

Ms. McBride stated with regards to offsite signage, we are going to make sure that the location of the proposed sign doesnít affect any existing signage on Kemper Road now.

Ms. McBride reported the balancing internal circulation is well planned, but we do have a concern about that middle entryway coming in; there are spaces that back out and we would like that main accessway redesigned in some form. We also want to see a breakout of the square footage uses of the building, the height of the building, required parking and seating, that kind of thing so we can do some calculations. There also should be some kind of walkway designation between the parking areas and the church itself to keep people from walking through the planted areas and also to alert vehicular traffic that there is in fact a pedestrian walkway crosswalk.

Mr. Shvegzda reported on the detention, it is indicated on the concept plans that the area of the existing detention basin against the Glendale corporation line will be expanded to handle the additional runoff from the site. Right now there was an agreement with Trammell Crow that almost 5800 cubic feet per acre would be provided. That may adjust, depending on the intensity of the development.

Mr. Shvegzda continued we talked with Public Works Department. Currently in our Thoroughfare Plan Century Circle East and West is to be extended and cul de sacked. If these are going to be left at their current terminus, we need to have cul de sacs added on to that, turning around for maintenance vehicles. Also Tri-County Parkway is currently planned for extension, from the curve behind Burlington that crosses the railroad tracks and intersect at the boulevard facing Best Buy and Dickís Sporting Goods. We would look at another alignment.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Sixteen


Mr. Shvegzda stated regarding traffic, we looked at how this would affect the signal at Century Boulevard and Kemper Road. We looked at separate scenarios. One was the planned development for this area, which was office building and warehouse. The traffic currently at Kemper Road, that level of service would be similar to what is out there now with office buildings, State Farm. The church development would be a level of service C for the weekend. That is just for the church facility itself; it does not include any auxiliary uses for the building or any further development. Once those would be determined they would have to be factored in also. Mr. Tiffany asked about the level of service. Mr. Shvegzda responded that refers to delays; it is a gauge as to how well the traffic moves; it is a comparison.

Mr. Tiffany commented it is going to be some time before you develop this property; how long do you think it will be? Mr. Cochran responded the primary variable is money. From a need standpoint, weíd love to start this coming spring; from a fund raising standpoint, the earliest I could conceive right now would be spring of 1997 to start, and much more likely it would be the spring of 1998. Mr. Tiffany questioned their time frame, adding if it would be a start to finish project or a little at a time project. Mr. Cochran answered given this particular site, a start to finish process makes a lot more sense, so we would intend to wait until we had the money to do it right and do it all at once. Mr. Davis added more specifically, we would want to get all the permits done over the winter and start in March hopefully and get in for Christmas services. I would say the construction duration realistically would be in the seven month range.

Mr. Tiffany commented on the expansion pad shown, what does that remain at this time? Will that be greenspace? Mr. Davis responded probably seeded grass area. It would be graded expansion pad, but it would not look any different to you than a sodded area. Mr. Tiffany said as far as your sign goes, I do not have a problem with it, but I am glad to see that it is not like the sign of the church on I-75. Also, the letters you sent us were nice; it was a nice touch.

Mr. McErlane stated one of the things I think the applicant was attempting to obtain was a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the off premise identification sign. He asked if there was a location plan for that, and Mr. Davis responded I passed it out to the members. It is not a dimensioned drawing; it would be whatever your requirements are. The top of that sign is significantly below the bottom of their existing sign, and we also have a landscape scheme around it. The sign is pretty small with a stone base. Mr. McErlane stated the only reason I asked is because you would need this for the Board of Zoning Appeals. It needs to be located from the right of way in terms of distances. Mr. Davis responded we certainly have that information. Mr. Tiffany said they are looking for a variance from the BZA now? Mr. Davis stated the release period ends tomorrow and they would like to have an indication from Planning Commission as to whether or not that sign is acceptable, and my understanding is it would go to the BZA. Mr. Cochran added we have a fairly short timetable on this, and we are asking for a recommendation to BZA for the concept of the sign. Mr. Syfert commented maybe a comment that they had no objection to it as long as it didnít block any other signs.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Seventeen


Mr. Blake commented I was under the impression that we were discussing this, talking about the concept, and we all are in agreement that the concept is fine, but I have a problem with going to the BZA for an okay on the variance. I draw the line there. I think the concept is fine, which includes the sign, but when it is time to develop it, at that time you need to come to BZA with the specifics. I donít think anybody has a problem with it, but trying to get a commitment on a variance at this time is a little much. I would not feel comfortable with that.

Mr. Syfert stated I do not believe we could make such a statement regarding the variance itself. All we could do is pass it on with favorable comments, which I believe have been made so far this evening. I donít know where we can go other than that.

Mr. Cochran responded that is all we are asking. Our circumstance is a little unusual in that we have to make a decision late tonight if we are going forward with this site or not. We feel a very important aspect of going forward with the site would be to have at least a belief that the city will be favorable to granting a sign on the corner. I have a deposit due tomorrow that is nonrefundable, and I would like to have a good feeling that the city is favorable to the project, and that includes the sign. I understand that there are limits as to how far you can go with our timetable.

Mr. Syfert stated unless I am wrong, I believe the preponderance of the comments were favorable. We know we have some issues that have to be addressed, but it doesnít seem that they are insurmountable. Basically all we can do is take our comments and go from there. Bear in mind that when you come back in again, you will have a different Planning Commission and a different Board of Zoning Appeals probably, but I think this Planning Commission has spoken favorably on it.

Mr. Tiffany commented I understand how you feel and where you need to go with this. If you are asking from a commitment from this board as to what you have submitted, I do not know we can make it. This is a concept discussion and it is a concept right now. Mr. Blakeís comments in reference to the sign asking for a variance right now are valid, and I donít think it would be appropriate to ask for a variance at this time from BZA, and I do not think you would get one because variances go with the land and if they granted one, even if you stayed where you are, you would have a sign on the corner, which wouldnít make any sense. I agree with the chair; I did not hear any negative comments tonight. If it were me, I would take it and run; I think it is a good thing, and unless someone wants to stand up in opposition to it, I donít think you have any opposition to it as it stands.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if he had any questions of the board, and Mr. Cochran responded I guess it is not possible to have a recommendation to BZA contingent on the final plan being approved , that this variance would be okay with you.

Mr. Tiffany stated I think you will have to come back here first anyhow, before you go to the BZA. If you come back with what you have presented tonight, or something similar, I donít think you will have any opposition. From what you are proposing, unless you deviate a lot from it, I donít think you will have any problems.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Eighteen

Planning Commission recessed at 9:00 P.M. and reconvened at 9:14 P.M.

D. Concept Discussion of Proposed New Building for Professional Printing at Church and Walnut Streets

Greg Tilsley of Tilsley & Associates Architects stated I am here to present a conceptual plan for a proposed building for the Springdale Bindery. The owner, Dan Dehamer is here to speak about the business and what will happen inside that building. We want to show you what we have planned for the site, and get your comments.

Mr. Tilsley continued the existing zoning for this site is R-1D, Residential. In order for us to do this project, we are going to need to have this designated a transitional zoning and allow us to build a business.

Mr. Tilsley showed pictures of the existing conditions on the site. For a residential site, it looks fairly businesslike. We would like to illustrate for you exactly what we have here in terms of the physical condition. Looking across Elm Alley, you see backs of businesses which front on Springfield Pike. There is a restaurant with a dumpster behind, two story structures with parking and other items, behind there you have a garage area where they fix cars and park them back here. Some look like they will stay there for a while. Dan wants to build his building on this site. We feel that it is a good useful site because of Danís proximity to this location. He is located a block north of this site, and he wants to expand onto this site and also maintain his present location. He is busting at the seams where he is, and there is nowhere else to expand on his existing property. So this is an ideal situation for him to be able to have additional building adjacent to the existing facility.

Mr. Tilsley continued we want to show you what we have proposed for the site plan. Danís property is on this block, so it would be a short walk to the new facility. We want to locate the building on the southern part of the site so it would help screen off the automobile repair shop and the backs of these buildings and the open area of Springfield Pike.

Mr. Tilsley reported parking would be in front, landscape it and have an entrance on the front. A loading area would be on the side of the building away from the church, and we would put some type of privacy screen fence to screen any trucks that would park there for delivery. The deliveries are mostly city vans, 34 foot single axle trucks. We would have 12 parking spaces which would accommodate the four employees.

Mr. Tilsley continued our intent for the building is to make it a transitional style. It would be masonry exterior some type of roof feature which will blend in or mimic some of the residential characteristics and hopefully, create a nice transitional building for busy businesses along Springfield Pike. We believe this site has been here for a while; it is very unlikely that a residential developer would come into this site and develop it because of these existing conditions. It is our believe that if somebody comes in here and tries to develop it, it would have to be on a lower income type scale because of the unsightliness of the site and the lack of appeal it would have for a higher income residence.

Mr. Dehamer said I own Professional Printing and Springdale Bindery, and I live at 605 Glensprings Drive. I started Professional Printing in 1979 while I worked the second shift at another job. The business grew, and in 1990, we purchased the building at 11500 Springfield Pike. We quickly filled that up.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Nineteen


Mr. Dehamer continued for about three years we have looked for a niche to expand the business. Small commercial printing is very competitive, and it is hard to grow as fast as we wanted to. We started the Springdale Bindery, a service for printers, and that has really taken off. We started it last spring, and already we are rejecting some jobs just because of space limitations. We need to get additional equipment and add more products and services, and we just canít right now. There are three lots back there; two of them 84 x 130, and we bought the abandoned alley from Dan Comer several years later, because we knew eventually we would need more room. We wanted to build back there, but then we grabbed the frontage on Springfield Pike, because that is important to us too. This building would be very convenient for us; it is within walking distance of our other building. It is important to us to stay the City of Springdale. I and my two managers, who are my brother and sister, and my father have all lived in Springdale since 1968. We rally like Springdale, and we donít want to move. I think it would improve the area because of the way it backs the businesses, there is only one residence. It wouldnít generate much traffic. Right now, we get five or six deliveries; sometimes none. Most of them are courier or cab pickup, some cars or vans. When we do get bigger loads, it would be a 30 foot Ryder type truck. We do not get semis. The kind of work we get is quick, and it is S & S type trucks, so I donít think traffic would be an issue. We have very little walk in business. Most of our customers send a courier or their own drivers.

Mr. Syfert commented if you do not get any semis, I do not know why you show it on your artistís rendering. Mr. Tilsley commented we had an overzealous draftsman draw that up. It is just a loading dock for smaller trucks.

Mr. Blake commented your pictures show the business area, and I am trying to find out about the residence. It is zoned residential. Mr. Tilsley responded there is one house you can see. It is fairly well hidden; it is a smaller house.

Mr. Sullivan stated I received a package from Planning Commission and was trying to understand exactly where this location was. Having traveled this area in the past, walking through that area, it looks like that lot has been cleared recently. Are you preparing this lot? The last time there were trees, and now it is cleared. Mr. Dehamer responded yes, they were rather small, what I call weed trees, and the chipper took almost all of that away.

Mr. Wilson asked if he had spoken with the resident that would be affected by this? Mr. Dehamer responded when we first bought these two lots, I spoke with the Stegmans next door, and they had no problem with it. They understood something had to be done with that. When I was clearing the trees out, Mr. Stegman came out and said again that he had no problem with it. Mr. Wilson commented that is just one neighbor. Mr. Dehamer answered the next closest neighbor is backing up Oldegate, which is kind of far away. On the other side is the church parking lot, and the adjacent property to that which backs up Gold Star Chili is owned by Gold Star Chili. He has had quite a turnover of renters; I think he keeps that house for additional parking in case he ever needs it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty


Mr. Tilsley added it is a fairly sparsely populated residential district and h as a businesslike feeling on Elm and Walnut Streets. Because of the permanent views of all these buildings, the residential portion is very nominal. We feel this is a perfect use for this site. It would add to an beautify this unsightly site. Residentially speaking, it is very unlikely that someone would come in there and build. We think we will be making the best use of this property.

Mr. Wilson commented I do not know much about binderies and I have concerns about businesses moving close to residential homes in terms of lighting affecting the neighbors, the smell, water and the grading if it is not proper, particularly people parking and the lights shining into the neighborhood. Mr. Dehamer responded we do not like to work overtime or weekends. When we have to, we do, so we do not have a second shift. Sometimes we have to call people in, but right now all we do in the bindery is mechanical binding, we punch small holes in a document. There are no chemicals. The waste is just the small holes that are punched out of the paper, and we recycle those. The biggest equipment is the size of a refrigerator.

Mr. Wilson asked the height of the building. Mr. Tilsley answered it has not been determined, but probably between 14 and 16 feet at the front eave with the roof going up. We are thinking of a building with a

roof similar to Provident Bank, using brick and incorporating drivitt. We doní t need that many windows, just some for the front office area. It would be a pattern with drivitt, a lower scale building. We will probably try to keep some of the space created by the higher roof pitch and be able to have higher space in the middle of the building.

Mr. Wilson asked if he were familiar with the Corridor Study, and Mr. Tilsley answered yes, I have seen it and I know that this area has been designated for residential use in the future. I do not know how to respond that that, except this is a conceptual idea and there are a lot of conceptual ideas in that Corridor Study. I think realistically and objectively, their concept is probably not right on target with this particular site. It may be in the grand scheme, but it is not on this specific site because you can look at the physical conditions of the site and see that it is not highly suitable to residential. Mr. Wilson commented so you are telling us up front that you will not comply with that Corridor Study, so you will be asking for a variance for that as well? Mr. Tilsley responded I didnít realize you needed a variance for the Corridor Study itself. Mr. Wilson commented you will need some kind of exceptions, because this wonít comply with the Corridor Study. Mr. Tilsley stated I was under the impression that this was a set of recommendations. Mr. Wilson said yes, but we try to stick with them. Mr. Tilsley responded then we would like to apply for both at the same time, the exceptions to the Corridor Study as well as the variance to designate this a transitional zone. Mr. Wilson commented that is asking for a lot. Mr. Tilsley responded I think it is a good use for the property, I really do.

Mr. Galster stated the zoning change is one issue, but the Corridor Study issues would be brick construction as opposed to a metal building or concrete block, and I donít know that you need to necessarily make an exception to the Corridor Study if in fact you get the zoning change, because you can build a nice attractive building in brick if it gets that far.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-One


Mr. Galster continued I think there are 20 to 25 houses total back there, and you might want to survey all of those people before it goes a whole lot further, because it is going to be a very important thing. I would recommend going around that whole neighborhood, all the way over to Kemper to get the feelings from all those residents. It is a small isolated residential area, and any time you are trying to switch from residential to business, there will be a certain amount of wall that you will hit, and the only way you will be able to do that is to show me in particular that all the residents are familiar with what you are proposing and have had an opportunity to give a response to it. It might not be a bad idea to give them a questionnaire and get it returned so we can see their responses and their actual feelings, because it will be a tough step. And that is just on the zoning.

Mr. Tiffany stated to look at the top set of pictures there, on the left is a white building, is that the house or a garage to the house? Mr. Tilsley responded it is a house that sets across from the church. Mr. Tiffany asked if the large trees shown in the pictures are gone, and Mr. Dehamer said they were not. Mr. Tilsley added these pictures were taken two days ago. I have a survey that shows trees on it. Mr. Dehamer added they werenít very good; some were growing together. Was there any problem with doing that? Mr. Tiffany said we have a Tree Preservation Ordinance. Ms. Manis said that property is zoned residential right now, so the Tree Ordinance doesnít apply.

Mr. Tiffany said on the Corridor Study, I understand how you feel. It is a good use for the lot, and the Corridor Study is very conceptual, but long term, it is the direction in which the City desires to go with the entire corridor. If we as a Commission allowed this to be changed over and put this business on this lot, it goes totally against the Corridor Study. It changes that section of it entirely. It moves the business off Route 4 and back into the subdivision. I know that is not the intent of the Corridor Study nor is it the direction that the City wishes to go and for that reason, and the fact that to me it is a case of spot zoning, I am very much opposed to it.

Mr. Syfert stated I agree with Barry 100%. No one had mentioned this before, but it does fall into spot zoning. The term transition was being used quite a bit here tonight, but I donít believe this falls within the intent of what I consider transitional. I think all we are doing is creating another commercial area, and we have a very fragile residential zoning down in that area right now, and to infringe further upon the residential is not something I want to be a part of, so Iíll tell you right up front that I am against recommending recommending rezoning and going against the Corridor Study.

Mr. Wilson stated I am in favor of growth and retaining quality business in our city, but I have concerns about infringing on our residents. I would much rather you look at another location in Springdale that would not infringe on residence. I have a concern about a building like that being that close to residential properties. I agree with my coworkers on spot zoning. We would rather keep you in Springdale and as a neighbor, but we have a concern about that particular area. You mentioned about that area and low income housing. I can guarantee there will be no low income housing in Springdale. I think you are saying $40-$50,0000 houses, and itís not going to happen. I can envision $70-80,000 range on that property, and I do not consider that low income.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Two


Mr. Wilson continued I would rather you look at other areas within Springdale. At the rate you are growing, that building might be obsolete in three to five years, and we would have a building that is of no use; then we would have two buildings, the original one and that one. I would like to think you would stay here until you retire and pass it on down to your children. I do not think that is the location for that.

Mr. Tilsley stated I meant no offense by saying this would be a site for low income housing. I wanted to make a comment about the general aesthetic appeal of the site, and the fact that it does not have an aesthetic appeal to upscale residential clientele. I apologize if I offended.

Mr. Dehamer commented years ago when we got these lots, we talked to people in the city about transitional zoning, and I was under the impression that the transitional zoning is good for something on the border like this, because it doesnít set a precedent. I had the feeling that the t-zoning is suitable.

Mr. Wilson asked if he felt that would be adequate space in the year 2005 or 2010, and Mr. Dehamer answered we are building for expansion. The Springdale Bindery is a 600 square foot corner of our 2625 square foot building. I think it will hold us for a long time. I do see it lasting a long time; we are not a business of here today and gone tomorrow; weíre going to stay with it.

Mr. Tiffany stated I would like to address the t overlay. The spirit is to create a transition between two zones. Another office building does not create transition or flow between the two. As Mr. Syfert stated, the status of that residential area is fragile at best now; we would not infringe upon that. I can tell you from my standpoint it is not a transitional use, it is not a zoning, it does not fit.

Mr. Syfert asked for other comments from the members. There were none, and he added that this is a concept discussion, and you have heard the comments. No vote needs to be taken, and the next move is yours.

Mr. Dehamer asked if it would make a difference if he surveyed the residents to see if they think it would help the area? Mr. Syfert said it was suggested but it probably would have been prudent on your part to have done it before you came in tonight. Hindsight is 20/20, but you have our comments and it is up to you to present a good case if that is your desire.

Mr. Tilsley asked if it would be possible for them to come back for an additional open discussion about the proposed plan, letters from the neighbors a little more survey work? To develop plans is expensive, and we want to try to limit that as much as possible until we have a clear feel on which direction the board will go. Mr. Syfert stated you have heard the comments and concerns. It is your right as the applicant to come back in again. I say to you as I said earlier this evening, we are the Planning Commission of November of 1995; December we will have a new PlanningCommission. You will be addressing some new concerns or maybe some that have been expressed will not be as prevalent.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Three

E. Final Plan Approval of Pine Garden, Landominium at 309 Princewood Court

Stan Messerly of Messerly Engineering stated we are here this evening for the final plan approval of the proposed 16 unit landominium Pine Garden. First I would like to address the comments I received yesterday from the staff. On the color pallet, I would like to submit to the Commission the brick sample as well as some photographs submitted to the City Council. They are photographs of existing buildings at the site in Sharonville, which is an identical development. He gave each member a copy of the proposed entrance sign for the development, adding that this would be all wood.

Mr. Messerly said earlier I submitted a copy of Exhibit A which will detail the proposed land ownership. One of the zoning comments was concerning the assignment of the land use.

Mr. Messerly added the plans submitted indicated some deciduous trees. That was my error. There are no deciduous trees proposed for this site. Since this development is called Pine Garden, we ask Planning to accept replacement of all trees with non deciduous type trees to keep in with the theme of the development.

Mr. Messerly continued relative to the tees, one of the comments made by Anne McBride concerned the placement of the trees on the landscaped mound on the east side of the property. They were shown on the submitted plans to be at the toe of the landscaped mound. We intend to change that and be consistent with Ms. McBrideís comments that the trees themselves would be placed in a combination of on top of the mound and also some miscellaneous locations along the slope of the mound, not as was shown on the submitted drawings.

Mr. Messerly stated the question was asked by Mr. Shvegzda relative to the proposed protection of the existing bank. What we would anticipate would be to protect that bank as it is today with a grass surface.

Mr. Messerly concluded that is all I have on these comments. What we would ask is Planning Commissionís final approval contingent upon the addressing of these three comments by the staff.

Mr. Galster asked if they would have an earthen mound by the existing residences, and Mr. Messerly confirmed that they would, and it would be four feet high. Mr. Galster asked if the fence issue had been settled, and Mr. Messerly answered we have shown it being removed on the drawing. Ms. Manis said didnít you say at the Council meeting that you were going to put a fence in? Ms. Muehlenhard stated we are putting some type of wire fence, a livestock fence. Mr. Galster commented that is what they have now, isnít that correct? Ms. Muehlenhard answered what is there now is falling down. Some of them wanted it down, and some of them wanted to replace it. Nobody wants to share the cost. We donít have any problem with putting the fence up, but I donít think we want to go to the expense of the chain link, and I donít think it is the nicest looking one. Mr. Galster commented I think a chain link would look better than a livestock fence. Mr. Messerly added you are taking an existing wire fence and enhancing their property with our wire fence that we wouldnít even see since we have a four foot high landscape mound.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Four


Mr. Galster responded that fence was part of the property and the original property owner didnít want to replace that part of the fence when they were asked to. The residents have been trying for many many years to get a regular chain link fence across there. I understand this is not your problem, but when you are buying the land, you are buying that problem as well in my view. I think it needs to be addressed, and I think it needs to be addressed satisfactorily because there is a lot of concern from those residents there. So, I have a problem if there is no fence going up there.

Mr. Galster asked for pictures of single units, and Mr. Messerly stated the only one would be the duplex; there are only three out of the 17 that are single units in Sharonville; the rest are duplexes. Thatís where we got our feel for the marketing of it; the potential buyers greatly prefer the detached unit over the duplex.

Mr. Wilson asked the dimensions of the sign and its location, questioning if there would be other signage in the area. Mr. Messerly answered there would be no other signage in the area. The proposed location is on the west side of the entrance; it is approximately six feet long and four feet high. Mr. Wilson asked if there would be a sign on the office or model home? Ms. Muehlenhard added we would have a site sign during the construction period, but we are not anticipating having a model there. We are using the model at Sharonville.

Mr. Wilson responded it was my understanding that you are going to build based on the person giving you a downpayment, so you will not have any vacant units. Ms. Muehlenhard said that is correct; there are so many people who want this type of housing, and we are customizing these to accommodate what they want.

Mr. Tiffany said the first issue for me is the fence. You are proposing a stock fence? Ms. Muehlenhard answered something new that would hold up and look decent. The one ladyís concern was her children and she wanted it to stay up. The person in the third house had offered the previous owner to replace it herself, and he didnít want her to do that. Mr. Tiffany asked about the remaining four residences, and Ms. Muehlenhard answered no one has made a comment. Mr. Tiffany commented my concern is that this thing be worked out ahead of time. Because it is a shared property line, it has to be a shared concern and worked out as a group. It is very difficult, I know when you are dealing with seven parties here.

Mr. Smith said I am sure if we surveyed all of the property owners, they would want a top of the line fence. If you take the fence down and put a new wire fence up with new posts, it will look fairly decent, better than what is there. The main concern was trying to get something that was not old and run down and falling over. We have to stay within a budget too, and it is about 458 feet. Mr. Tiffany commented all I am asking is that it is resolved before this project is done. Some kind of agreement needs to be in place.

Ms. Muehlenhard commented I have always put a fence within my property line, and if we put a fence in, my preference would be to be in six inches of our property line so it will be our fence to maintain. Mr. Galster said if you put it in six inches, who would take care of that six inches? Mr. Tiffany added if you put it back six inches, it creates another problem.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Five


Mr. Tiffany continued all I am asking is that you get an agreement with these folks. If you go with this fence and it is new and shiny, I donít think anybody is going to have a problem.

Mr. Tiffany said you have addressed some of the concerns of the staff; what about the other concerns? Mr. Messerly responded I wanted to point out some of the points we did have. To get the final approval from Planning Commission, we assume that all the comments have to be addressed prior to construction. Mr. Tiffany responded I think as long as staffís concerns are met and you get square with the fencing, I donít have a problem with it.

Mr. Messerly asked if all the people own those houses, and Mr. Galster responded I think there is one renter. Mr. Messerly continued sometimes you find out the owner is in Florida and you have to contact them for a signature on a document. Secondly, what would you feel would be something would relieve you of your concern? Do you want some sort of formal document they have to sign off on? Mr. Tiffany answered I do not know that we need a legal contract. As long as you have an agreement in writing, give us a sample of it and go, as long as there are no questions.

Mr. Syfert stated the applicant indicated they would not have any problem with the comments from our engineers or planners. Do any of you want to make a comment?

Mr. Harrison reported there are a couple of slight language issues in the covenants that easily can be handled if you approve this project, but should be subject to those things being resolved. They are relatively minor, but should be addressed. Mr. Messerly asked if they would get correspondence indicating what those were and Mr. Harrison indicated they would.

Mr. Tiffany said as far as the deciduous trees, you are not planning on putting any in at all? Mr. Messerly confirmed this, adding that it will be total needle bearing trees. I talked with Bill about it briefly and he did not have any objection to that. This would be in keeping with the theme of Pine Garden. Mr. Tiffany asked how many inches are deciduous trees that they are taking out? Mr. McErlane reported they are removing 481 caliper inches of trees, but only 127 inches of those are required to be replaced because the majority of those fall in the building footprint. Of the 127 inches, 90 are deciduous. Mr. Tiffany commented there are no ornamentals, just total pine. Mr. Messerly confirmed this, adding that they are flexible about it. Mr. Smith added it will stay green year round too.

Ms. Manis asked where the sign is going, and Mr. Messerly reported it would be on the west side of the entrance drive. The review comment from Don Shvegzda about removing the 10 foot radius on the pavement. It was thought that traffic would never turn to the west. We would like to leave that radius. Someone might come in and a larger vehicle might take a wider turn, and you would have to get off that side, so we would like to keep that radius there.

Mr. Shvegzda stated essentially it leaves an open area that needs to be maintained. It is an added attraction for someone not familiar with the area to continue forward. There is a guardrail there with reflectors, but it doesnít seem to be of any value.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Six


Mr. Shvegzda continued so long as the limits of the reconstructed area of the private road are defined, rather than the general note that is there now that indicates it will be replaced, if they want to replace it all the way to the guardrail, that is fine.

Mr. Syfert asked the applicant if that is what their intentions would be. Mr. Messerly answered we would replace all that is existing there, assuming that goes to the guardrail, that would be our intention.

Mr. Shvegzda continued there is a real concern involved with the area between Units 1 and 2 and the channel that is being filled in to raise that area up. Mr. Hitchcock has battled erosion for years on that side of the channel. Gras will not hold on that bank; it needs something more substantial, and that is why we asked for details indicating and defining what kind of bank protection would be provided. The other issue concerns the covenants, which define maintenance responsibilities. The documents we received yesterday indicate that the developer or the Pine Garden Homeowners Association will be responsible for detention basin maintenance, channel capacity maintenance and drainage maintenance. Our question would be which one will be responsible?

Ms. Muehlenhard responded it would be the Homeowners Association. It is the developerís responsibility until it is turned over to the Homeowners Association. The attorney was out of the office and another attorney did that and I did not get to read it before she faxed it over to you. It will be the Homeownerís Association responsibility.

Anne McBride added with regards to all nondeciduous trees, aesthetically I would personally prefer some type of mixture in there, but that is the Commissionís decision. On the southern end of the four foot earthen mounding, they are not showing anything, and we need to continue those plantings on down. I also want to make sure we are straight on the size of those plantings. The material at the time of planting needs to be a minimum of at least six feet in height. Mr. Messerly asked if it were six feet or 10 feet, and Ms. McBride responded your Tree Preservation Ordinance says 10 feet; certainly not two inches. Mr. Syfert stated the applicant indicated that there was no problem with that. Mr. Messerly confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert stated getting back to Mr. Shvegzdaís concern about the area between Lots 1 and 2, what is your comment on that? Mr. Messerly responded we had proposed a grass lining to that earth, and Don stated that he doesnít feel that would be necessary so I donít know that we have a choice but to agree with the staff. If rock channel protection is required, we would agree. Obviously I donít know the history of that bank and what kind of erosion problems they had. Mr. Syfert commented which we do, and it is basically in your best interests. So that will be addressed without any problem, and Mr. Messerly indicated that it would.

Mr. Tiffany commented I would like to hear some discussion from the Commission regarding the makeup of these trees. I tend to agree with Anne and would like to see a little bit of a mix to it. Mr. Syfert stated I believe the applicant indicated that they were somewhat flexible on that but would like to stay with the pines primarily.


Planning Commission Meeting

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Seven


Mr. Messerly added we can meet the regulation verbatim, the one to one correlation on deciduous and vice versa. With the lack of nondeciduous after we have removed the trees, and the idea that we have called it Pine Garden, we asked in essence for a variance to that aspect so that we could go with the nondeciduous again. We can meet that as the regulation reads, if that is what Planning prefers.

Mr. McErlane reported the majority of the trees that are being left on the site will be deciduous trees, the existing ones. . However, they all will be a lot larger than the pines are, so it does make sense to mix in a little bit of smaller deciduous trees. There are additional trees required in the tree replanting requirements, and it may be a substantial amount, depending on how many of the trees showing the detention basin will end up having to be removed. It could be as few as seven additional trees or as many as 35 more additional trees. If you stayed with the same number of pines currently shown on the plan, they could mix in some additional deciduous trees.

Mr. Sullivan said I would like to see a mixture of smaller deciduous trees in there. Pine Garden is not called 100% Pine Garden and you can mix other things in there and still call it Pine Garden.

Ms. Manis stated I would like to see mostly pine on the east property line and definitely at the entrance by Mrs. Melvinís house. Mr. Syfert said can we come to some agreement as to how much deciduous we want? Mr. Tiffany suggested 25% and the Commission agreed with that.

Mr. Tiffany moved to grant final plan approval pending all concerns are worked out, especially that the covenant language be taken care of, that there be 25% deciduous trees, the fence as proposed with proof of agreement from the homeowners prior to doing anything with the fence, and the trees on the east side to remain pines to give year round screening. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Tiffany, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Blake, Mr. Galster, Ms. Manis, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Syfert. Final plan approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


A. Tumbleweed, 11305 Princeton Pike - 2 Wall Signs, 2 Window Signs

1 Ground Sign

B. Kelly Services, 11336 Princeton Pike - Wall Sign

C. Uniquely Yours, 11776 Springfield Pike - Wall Sign


Mr. Blake commented I think it was Shakespeare who said parting can be such sweet sorrow ; out out brief candle; I think the candle has blown. Since this is our last meeting, I want to thank the members of Planning for the cooperation and the way we got along and were able to take care of the business in a very professional and nice manner. It has been a pleasure for me to serve on this board and the confidence you have given me as your representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals. It will be something that will be with me for a lifetime and I always stand ready to serve Springdale. To all of my fellow members, I bid you a pleasant Thanksgiving and a wonderful holiday season. It has been a pleasure.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 November 1995

Page Twenty-Eight

IX DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Tiffany commented I would like to concur with Mr. Blakeís thoughts. It has been a great four years. We have seen a lot of things come in here and have disagreed on a lot of things but we went through it. I want to congratulate our two new councilmembers, Mr. Galster and Ms. Manis, and best wishes to Anne McBride, who got married a week ago. Thanks for what you did for us tonight with the cellular article.

Mr. Syfert stated I want to express my thanks to the members for the way we worked this past year. I think you could tell the homework was done quite well. I do not know who will serve here next month, but wherever we may be next month, good luck. I think we are all for the benefit of Springdale, and that is the way we have to be.

Mr. Sullivan commented I think there has been chemistry with this group; we have worked well together. There have been differences, but we all have worked together and I wish we could stay together forever. To quote the 20th Century philosopher Mick Jagger who said you canít always get what you want. Itís been a pleasure working with you all.

Mr. Wilson commented everything has been said. I donít know what to say, but I think ink Iíll have a chance to say it next year, because Iím the only one left. It is very rare that we have a group of seven people that can agree to disagree and still walk out and be friends. That is a rarity. I have been on the Commission four years, and seen people come and go. I hope that whoever stays or joins us can continue to work in this manner, and we will do ourselves and the city proud.

Mr. Syfert stated I would like to extend our thanks to all the staff people who assisted us. Without your help we would have been flying by the seat of our pants; thanks very much.

From the audience, Jim Lutz of Plum Street asked to speak. I was here interested in the issue of the print shop changing the residential area, and I appreciate your opinions on that. They support what I hoped they would be. The way you handled yourself tonight, if this was indicative of the way you handled yourself over the past four years, has been very professional, very thorough and for Springdale, I applaud you.


Mr. Blake moved to adjourn and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,1995 _______________________




_____________________,1995 _______________________