Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

7:00 a.m.



I.                     CALL MEETING TO ORDER


The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


II.                   ROLL CALL


Members Present              Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Lawrence Hawkins III, David Okum, Tom

                                             Vanover and Chairman Syfert.



Others Present:                  Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

Jeff Tulloch, Economic Development Director

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner


III.                  ELECTION OF OFFICERS


A.          Chairman      


 Mr. Galster nominated Bill Syfert and Mr. Butrum seconded the nomination.  Mr. Okum moved that nominations be closed, and Mr. Syfert was elected by acclamation.


B.   Vice Chairman          


       Mr. Galster nominated David Okum and Mr. Coleman seconded the nomination. Mr. Coleman moved that nominations be closed, and Mr. Okum was elected by acclamation.


B.          Secretary


Mr. Vanover nominated Lawrence Hawkins III and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.  Mr. Okum moved that nominations be closed, and Mr. Hawkins was elected by acclamation.


Mr. Galster said I would like to congratulate Mr. Okum on his selection to the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission.




Mr. Butrum moved for approval and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.  By voice vote all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.


V.                 CORRESPONDENCE


A.          Report on Council

B.          11/9/05 Letter to President of Council re Approval of Major Modification to PUD Plan for Tri-County Mall PUD

C.          Zoning Bulletin – November 10, 2005






Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Two


VI.               OLD BUSINESS


A.          Modification of Dumpster Enclosures – Springdale Town Center


Jeff Baumgarth with Myers Cooper Company said we were before you in October and received approval with various conditions to the development.  We have been working with the Building Department and the City to complete those plans and comply with those conditions.  We are here because there is one condition that we are having difficulty complying with.


We are seeking your approval to eliminate the dumpster enclosures from the southernmost four dumpsters in this project.  You have a copy of the study plat showing what they would look like and the resulting limitations that would be imposed on the rear driveway.  Our basic concern is that they would protrude out into the rear driveway, creating a situation with very limited access, potentially one way which is in most cases detrimental to retail businesses.


There are various other reasons why we believe dumpster enclosures are not necessary.  The dumpsters would be hidden behind the buildings and hidden behind the screen wall, so there is no additional benefit to enclosing the dumpsters.  They already are hidden from view.


We have proposed extending the landscaped screening wall along Speech Street by approximately 30 feet to help pin further shielding any of these dumpsters from any public view.



The dumpsters themselves having gates that swing out into the driveway and an enclosure that would protrude out into the driveway would create a situation where we would be asking for a car to hit it, creating property damage not only for the development but for a customer’s car or delivery truck.  It is a situation that we don’t feel is necessary.


Dumpster enclosures create a maintenance headache for the development.  People like to toss their trash over the top, which creates additional health concerns.


The dumpster enclosure proposed for the far north end of the property has been and will continue to be proposed to have screening and gates.  That is the one dumpster that would be visible from public view, so we are not proposing to change that.  We are just seeking relief for the four southernmost dumpsters.


Mr. McErlane reported that Planning approved the final development plan on October 11th and one of the conditions was that all the dumpsters would be enclosed and that there would be gates on the northernmost and the two southernmost enclosures.


The applicant has clarified tonight that the intent for screening is to wrap that screen wall on the south end towards the west 30 feet, and to enclose the northernmost dumpster.  The rest of the dumpsters will not be enclosed.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Three




Ms. McBride said there was a little confusion because the site plan that was submitted, similar to the one submitted at the time of approval, continues to show enclosed dumpsters in all of the locations with gates, but the applicant is now requesting that the dumpsters, with the exception of the northernmost one, not have gates and not be enclosed.  As Mr. McErlane indicated, they have indicated they will extend the screen wall in the southern part of the property by 30 feet.  That may require modifications to the landscape plan.


We have suggested that if the concern is getting two way traffic in that 23.86 feet for the rear access drive, that could conceivably be a one-way flow for deliveries, and the applicant has indicated that is the way the truck traffic would be servicing that center anyway.


If the commission is going to grant relief to this applicant, you have to look at the possibility that others would come in here asking for the same type of relief.  Maybe we need to look at reamending the code that we have recently amended to suit this type of situation.


Mr. Syfert commented I think without a doubt that extending the wall at the south end will take away the visibility of them.


Mr. Butrum said I agree with the comment regarding the wall on the south end.  I think that will cover the one area that would have been exposed for those southernmost dumpsters.  I think it is a case where we are trying to squeeze a lot into a fairly narrow area and given that the dumpsters won’t be visible to anyone except someone walking through, I don’t have an issue with the request.


Mr. Okum said we would appear to eliminate the section in our code where we require gates on the enclosures, so I have a problem with that.  I think the wall adequately hides the dumpsters  from the motoring public and the neighbors.


I have a problem with the second to last dumpster on the south end because of that courtyard and walkway that goes to the residential area.  I think that dumpster is more visible to the walking public.  It is a quandary, because we have a very significant and nice development.  The screen wall in itself has obviously created a separation of the residential area from the business area and in itself created an enclosure.  I still have a problem with how you tell another business that they are required to have gates on their enclosures when we are not requiring it with this development.  This is a little unique because it is not in the public view but the ordinance doesn’t read that way.


Mr. Galster said I would move to approve their request for the removal of the enclosures and the gates for all but the northernmost dumpster, conditioned upon a resubmitted and staff approval of a revised landscape plan that shows the extension of the wall in the south end of the property.  Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Four




Mr. Hawkins said I would echo these sentiments.  I think the purpose of the code is to protect against dumpsters being seen by the public and in this case based on the wall on the eastern line of the property, you will not be able to see these dumpsters, particularly with the extension of the southernmost part, and with the inclusion of the northernmost part of the property, it won’t be an issue.


I think this is a unique situation compared to what some other business owner may be coming through with.  Based on what the developer has done in terms of squeezing so much into a tight area, I think we can distinguish this from some other situations that may come before the commission.


Ms. McBride said I would suggest that the commission clarify that the enclosure for the northernmost dumpster must meet the requirements of our Section 153.489 with regards to what that enclosure entails, since the drawings do not show it.


Mr. Galster so modified his motion and Mr. Butrum seconded the modified motion.


On the amended motion, all voted aye and the motion was adopted unanimously.


B.  Approval of Storage Container on Property @ 11911 Sheraton Lane (Ramada Plaza)


John Reynolds, General Manager of Ramada Plaza said this is my third month, and I understand that we are on our third extension with the storage container.  That container is used to house the carpet that is being installed from the 3rd to 10th floor, the marble that will be installed in the bathrooms that is being installed from the 3rd to 10th floor and any other product that comes in throughout the rest of the year into the second quarter of next year.


We got a little behind because of FEMA.  A lot of things that we ordered were on back order due to the fact that everything had to go south for the relief workers, and funding became an issue as it seems to be withy this hotel on certain occasions.  I understand that the owner is now closing up the second part of the funding, which will get us into the last phase of the remodeling of the hotel.


I have been very diligent in getting this thing up and running and on its way.  I personally have taken over as the property manager and the contract manager, and am dealing with all the contractors coming through.  I promise you that we are not being idle in getting this property back up and running again.


Mr. Okum said originally the purpose of the dumpster was to hold tables and chairs that were an overage until the remodeling took place.  It appears that it is being used for something totally different, and I don’t have a problem with that.  It is understandable that you need trailers to accommodate your material for the renovation project.  Isn’t that permissible during renovation?  Mr. McErlane responded typically yes, but not for two years.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Five




Mr. Okum asked the anticipated completion time. Mr. Randolph said it probably will be in the middle of the second quarter.  It probably will be April at the latest.


Mr. Okum said then that trailer will be emptied?  Mr. Randolph said and it will be removed from the property.  There are three trailers.  The other two have marble and carpets, nd the third one in question has the remainder of my micro fridges and tile.


Mr. Okum said I don’t see any problem with giving him an extension to May 1st, considering that the unit is being used for renovation materials, and I would so move.  Mr. Galster seconded the motion.


Mr. Syfert asked if staff had any major concerns.  There were none.


On the motion, all voted aye, and the extension to May 1, 2006 was granted unanimously.





A.     Concept Plan for proposed new Building Addition at John Morrell, 805 East Kemper Road


Jim Lex, Engineering Director and Jerry McAleece, Vice President of Finance approached the commission.


Mr. Lex said the plant has been here since 1960, and in the six years I have been with John Morrell, we have spent over $25 million dollars on the facility.  Its current output is approaching 150 million pounds of processed meats per year.  The warehouse will have an output of between 200 and 250 million pounds of product because we will be bringing products from some of our other plants to pass through here.  It will be a distribution center where orders will be assembled.  Currently we have 650 employees and our MIS system employees on Century Boulevard.


We have an easement that runs between the two buildings with a sanitary sewer, so we cannot connect the two buildings together and we need this front location.


We are asking to maintain the existing setback before we add on, which in some areas would only be about eight feet, and closer to the bridge it would be about 15 feet.  So instead of 100 feet from the building to the road, you would have five feet at this point and 92 feet from this point (showed on the drawing).  We would bring the truck traffic from the outside and park it alongside the building.   The employee parking would be on the inside, and we would have room back here for a substantial amount of employee parking as well, and wouldn’t have any truck and employee paths crossing.


Mr. McErlane reported that the current zoning on the property is General Industrial, GI.  The applicant is proposing a 120,400 s.f. cold storage warehouse and modifications to the existing drives and the parking areas.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Six




Mr. McErlane reported that, based on today’s right of way, current setbacks do meet code, 100 feet from the front yard, and considerably larger setbacks from the side yards.


Even though there is not a variance currently required today, one of the things that Planning may want to consider is referring the applicant to the Board of Zoning Appeals to acquire a variance with the condition that it wouldn’t become effective unless the right of way take occurs, so it would not be in place until it would be necessary.


The applicant has indicated that the imperious surface ratio is .59.  The maximum requirement is .70.  There are 340 parking spaces provided, and the requirement is 334.  Because this is concept in nature, there are a number of things that will need to be submitted when we get to the final development plan stage.


Ms. McBride reported that the only other option, if the applicant wants some assurance with regards to being able to build the addition, is if they were to pull a building permit prior to the additional right of way being taken, that would also vest their interest. Or they could go to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Board of Zoning Appeals could make that a condition of any variance being that the right of way be dedicated.  We understand the applicant’s concern; if the right of way is dedicated, they don’t want to get locked in and not be able to add onto the building.  So, there are a couple of different alternatives for them to explore


Mr. Shvegzda said I would like to thank the applicant.  We have been having numerous discussions with the roadway project design finishing up and right of way.  We also have been working with Water Works, and I have some information for the applicant that shows that the Water Works impact has significantly been reduced.  There has been a lot of cooperation at this particular site.


On the front end of the building where the drive hugs the north face of the building, some protection for the building needs to be provided because we have truck traffic going in that area.


For clarification, will the guard shack be a part of this proposal?  Mr. Lex responded the current guard shack would be gone, and the new employee entrance would be worked into this somehow.  It probably would be better looking from the street than the guard shack is.  The building would shield the truck area from the street.  We are not sure what your requirements are, but whatever type of façade is required, we would be wiling to comply.  Mr. McAleece added we do use that guard shack to monitor the trucks and will have that situated where the trucks are.


Mr. Shvegzda said on the storm water management, there is an existing detention facility in the southern end of the property.  It is about 127,000 cubic feet.  Depending on how you look at this particular redevelopment of the property, if you take it based on the increase in impervious area, we are talking about 14,000 cubic feet of additional detention.  If you look at it as the footprint being undeveloped, the impervious would be about 26,000 cubic feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Seven




Mr. Shvegzda added the only caveat on this one in regards to the detention is it does discharge into the ditch along the railroad track.  There are some drainage issues along that that drains to the south.  That is why we would recommend that the larger volume be accommodated in that area.


There are a number of utilities on the site.  On the sanitary sewer that runs between the buildings and along the side, we need to make sure that MSD will require that nothing is done to impact any inflow conditions into the sanitary sewer in that area.


On the adjacent property access, the 1997 Kemper Corridor Study recommended that there be a cross driveway between the property to the east and this property.  At that time, the applicant was looking at the possibility of developing that northern end of the property as some type of retail configuration.  Obviously that is not a part of this right now, but that is what was recommended in 1997.


Mr. Okum said based on what they are submitting, would any of the changes they are making affect that 1997 issue?  It is a sanitary sewer line easement that runs through that space.  Where would the connection be?  Mr. Shvegzda answered it would be out in front where the driveway that comes out between the parking lot field in front of Best Buy and Kemper Road, connecting into that.  Mr. Okum responded that would be if they ere redeveloped, so nothing they wish to change here would affect it.  Mr. Shvegzda answered technically nothing they are asking for here would preclude that occurring in the future.


Mr. Galster said I would like to thank the applicant for keeping Springdale your home and doing the expansion.  I personally do not have a problem with the small setback.  The concerns I will have will be the look of the building from the road.  If it is all brick, I would like it to be broken up so it doesn’t look like a big brick wall because it will be that much closer to the street.


Mr. Galster asked if the right of way would be donated or is the City buying it for Kemper Road?  Mr. Shvegzda reported we are currently in discussion with the applicant about that.  If they feel it is worthwhile and want to donate, that would be fine.


Mr. Galster commented I think he applicant understands that the Kemper Road expansion is a critical thing, not only to the retail center but also to their facility.  I would like to see it donated, why not. I think it improves the flow to and from your facility and allows for better access, and I would be even less opposed to the infringement.


I’m glad to see you are expanding the Springdale facility; I think it is important.  Do you have any idea if there would be job creation from the expansion? Mr. McAleece answered we are looking at 30 to 50 additional jobs.





Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Eight




Mr. Okum said one option would be to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to deal with a variance.  Right now we don’t know how that would impact Kemper Road or how it would look and there probably would be a lot of questions.  The other alternative would be some type of dedication and timing of the dedication tied with the Kemper Road widening so that there wouldn’t be a setback issue involved.


Ms. McBride responded in order to do that they would have to pull a building permit from the city prior to the dedication of the right of way, because that would vest their setback.


Mr. McErlane commented it would take a lot more time.  They would need to come back before this board with a development plan and have building plans in place, and I don’t know that they are close to that at this point.


Mr. McAleece reported we have construction firms coming in to give us layouts.  We are trying to come up with an estimated time but I think some time in January we will have a rough idea so we are a few months out.


Mr. Okum commented it sounds like things can be worked out.  I would hate to see it go to the Board of Zoning Appeals at this early state, and preferably hope you can work it out with the city on timing.  Conceptually I like it, except for building elevation issues and mechanical units being exposed to the public right of way; you are seen from two directions.


I also would concur with Mr. Shvegzda's recommendation for the 26,000 cubic feet of water. I think this would be appropriate because there is significant green space there.


Mr. McErlane said from a timing standpoint, the earliest they would be filing for building permits might be March if everything worked together.  It really comes down to timing for acquisition of the right of way.  If the right of way is acquired before that is all finished, a variance will be required.  Unless the applicant is happy with some feeling from Planning Commission that they think it is an appropriate issue relative to the setback, they could make a favorable recommendation to the Board or Zoning Appeals.


Mr. Shvegzda reported that we would like to conclude the right of way acquisition early in January.


Mr. Syfert said that is an irregular building.  Is it possible to squish it down north-south and expand it out east-west?  Can you get it within the right of way?


Mr. Lex reported we have looked at a lot of different layouts.  Don Cluxton of Hixson said the problem is they are bound by the building on the east side and on the west side there is an easement for a sanitary sewer, so that is preventing them from expanding that building to the west.  Their circulation has to be considered on the back side, so there is really no place to go.  It is a wedge shape piece of property, which adds to the difficulty.  We are trying to find the best solution to a difficult problem.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Nine




Mr. Cluxton added what John Morrell is looking for is a favorable recommendation to take into the zoning board, because if they are going to have difficulty with the setback if and when that expansion occurs, it will have a tremendous effect on the project, maybe to the point where the project would no longer be feasible.  Obviously John Morrell doesn’t want to spend a lot of money on the front end to have it go to naught because of the situation.


Mr. McAleece added we are trying to maximize the space there.  We have analyzed it for nine months and have come up with this building.  Mr. Hixson commented we have to consider both interior and exterior.


Ms. McBride said in talking to Mr. McErlane, it would seem that the most appropriate thing for the applicant to do would be to come before the Board of Zoning Appeals at their meeting next week.  If the City is looking to acquire that right of way in January, then the applicant needs some assurances before that can happen. 


Mr. Galster said I don’t have any problem stating that this board would probably give a favorable recommendation to BZA based on what we have seen and the comments made.  Even though we are looking at January for right of way acquisition, the construction wouldn’t happen until when?  Mr. Shvegzda answered it will be out to bid in January.  Mr. Galster asked when they want to construct the building, and Mr. Lex answered if all goes well, we could built this summer. Mr. McAleece added we would like to do it as soon as possible.


Mr. Okum asked if the parking field could go more to the east.  You could gain some parking in the front; if I were an employee, I wouldn’t want to park in the back of the building.


Mr. Okum asked why the building is out of square.  Mr. Lex responded it is that way on purpose because this building is not parallel to the setback, and if we squared it, we would cross over the current setback.


Mr. Okum said if I take a square and lay it on this drawing, that dotted line is a perfect 90-degree angle.  I couldn’t understand because doing racks in and out of a square building seems a little weird to me.  Mr. Cluxton answered the ideal situation would be to have a rectangular building, but this is an attempt to maximize the number of square feet. Mr. Okum responded so you couldn’t shift that building a little more to theist and still stay rectangular?  I would ask that you check into that.  Mr. Lex reported in the original drawing they had the building crossing the existing setback. Mr. Okum suggested a drawing of where the racks are located, so when you come to the Board of Zoning Appeals you can show us your layout and the reason why the building is not rectangular.  I’m pleased to see the project moving this way, and we hope it can work out.


Mr. Syfert asked if everyone was in favor of sending this on to the Board of Zoning Appeals with favorable comments.   Everyone voted aye.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Ten




B.     Concept Plan of Proposed Parking Lot Addition at Springdale Church of the Nazarene, 11177 Springfield Pike


Cheryl Vandewater and Adam Berner, civil engineers with Kleingers & Associates approached the commission.  Ms. Vandewater reported that the church wants to add a 187-space parking addition.  They currently share parking with Maple Knoll, which they will be losing and they are proposing this addition to make up for the loss.


Mr. McErlane reported that the property on which the church building and the current parking lot is a Public Facilities – Low Density Distinct.  District.  There also is a property that the church owns to the south of that along West Sharon Road that is zoned Residential – Single Household – Low Density.  The applicant is proposing to construct an asphalt parking lot to the east of their current parking lot with 187 additional parking spaces.  They currently meet or exceed their parking requirements under the Zoning Code.  The current parking field, which is now 345 spaces, with the proposed asphalt parking lot will be up to532 spaces.  The ADA requires 11 handicap spaces, two must be van accessible.


They meet the Zoning Code setback requirements from the parking area.  The impervious surface ratio requirement in the Public Facilities District is .50, and they are proposing an impervious surface ratio of .49.


There are 80 caliper inches of evergreen trees and one 12-inch deciduous tree that are proposed to be removed to accommodate the grading in the placement of the asphalt parking lot.  Of those 80 inches of evergreens to be removed, 40 inches are exempt from replanting because o the size of them.  So they are required to replace 20 caliper inches of evergreen trees and six caliper inches of over story hardwoods.  They are proposing 54 caliper inches of over story hardwoods and 27 caliper inches of evergreen trees for a total of 81 inches.  The primary reason for the overage is the requirements that we have in our code for perimeter landscaping and interior island landscaping in parking lots.


Ms. McBride said the applicant did submit a preliminary landscape plan, and the landscape material needs to be in beds with three inches of hardwood mulch.  In order for the Norway spruce to count toward the tree replacement, they need to be a minimum of 10 feet in height.  Some of the plat material is shown on the 3 to 1 slope and we have a little bit of a concern regarding the long term viability of that plant material.


We did not get any cut sheets for the lighting fixtures or poles for that.  The Zoning Code designates the church use as a low intensity use and recommends 10 to 15 feet in height for the fixtures.


The applicant is proposing to mount them at 28 feet in height which is consistent with the parking lighting in the other part of the lot.  I think we need to see what those cut fixtures are going to be, and whether or not they will match the existing fixtures before we can approve that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Eleven


C.    Concept Plan of Proposed Parking Lot Addition at Springdale Church of the Nazarene, 11177 Springfield Pike


Mr. Shvegzda said the grading along the eastern portion of the proposed parking lot is about 3 to 1.  There is a proposed retaining wall that will be constructed as part of the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority development.  We need the applicant to coordinate with their engineer to make sure this won’t affect the design of the retaining wall that is being constructed there.


In addition, the 3 to 1 setback is fairly high in some locations.  It may be the recommendation that some type of vehicle barrier be placed in that vicinity, on the eastern portion of that parking lot.


On storm water management, the current basin in place is about 9,000 cubic feet of surplus detention. With the additional impervious area, we are talking about an additional 3,000 cubic feet being required.  Today we did see the plans for the new development that is going into Maple Knoll Village Outreach Center, and it is noting a common detention basin between that development to the north and the Church of the Nazarene development, so this opens up a whole new wrinkle in terms of detention design, and it will have to be submitted in a complete format for the two developments.


Mr. Syfert said do you mean that part of the detention will be in the new Maple Knoll development?  Mr. Shvegzda reported essentially they will expand out from a portion of what they have now and make it essentially one and join up with what is currently in place at the church property.


Mr. Okum said I think the lighting needs to be looked at very closely, because if you look at their elevations, you are going from 1047 down to735 so the parking field is already 12 feet higher than the grade.  If you put a 25-foot fixture on top of that 12 feet, that is a significant height for those fixtures which are closer to Route 4.  Ms. McBride reported actually it is a 25-foot pole mounted on a three-foot concrete base, so it would be 28 feet.


Mr. Okum said on the south side, isn’t it going to be residential, the new elderly housing?  Ms. McBride said right, but they do meet the maximum foot candles at the property line.  Mr. Okum commented rather than meet them, I think they should be 0 at the property line. Ms. McBride responded that is not what the Code requires.  Mr. Okum said I understand, but these lights will be so close to that facility, I think they should have a 0-fall at the property line.


Ms. McBride reported that a portion of the Metropolitan Housing project is actually parking and where the dumpster is, they will have their own parking lights.


Ms. McBride said this is a concept plan only, but we suggested that the lighting plan needs a little more work.


Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr.Okum said I don’t want to see a guardrail along that side.  Mr. Shvegzda answered I didn’t say guardrail.  I said posts as opposed to a continuous rail could be used or an extended height on the curb itself.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Twelve




Mr. Okum said personally I would not like to see a guard rail around the perimeter of the parking field.  I can understand the need for expansion of the parking.


Ms. Vandewater said we  were aware of the fact that Maple Knoll wanted to combine the basin into one big basin, and we thought that was an excellent idea.  One of the reasons that we didn’t submit that with this concept plan is because of the time.  The church has an Easter program and they need the parking spaces, and they didn’t want to hold up this project because Maple Knoll wasn’t sure what they were doing yet.  We submitted detention calculations to you Monday, so this basin can stand alone.  If Maple Knoll is ready to combine into one, we are open to doing that, but we wanted to make sure this project could stand along and was approvable  by itself.


Mr. Coleman asked the applicants if there were any items within the staff comments that are problematic.  Ms. Vandewater answered I don’t believe so; there is one issue, the sustainability of the trees on the 3 to 1 slope, but we’ve addressed all the other comments as far as I know.


Mr. Coleman commented I wanted to make sure you felt comfortable that you were on the same page with the staff comments.


Mr. Galster said right now we ha that access drive that goes out t o Sharon Road which is gated. Is that gate ever closed, or is it always open?  I don’t know how much of your traffic is using that access point to Sharon Road.  What happens when we put another 300 cars in that field that will have more of a tendency to use the Sharon Road access?  I am a little concerned that we are not putting too many more cars out through that residential access point.


I thought originally we had an agreement that there were certain times and events that were happening at the church that the gate would be opened for.  Otherwise, I thought the gate was to be closed.  I would like to see what is happening there, to check with the residents in that area.


Mr. Okum said I believe the motion included restrictions on the opening of the gate.  There also were lighting restrictions as well.


Mr. Syfert asked if everyone was in agreement that the 28-foot poles are a little high and the applicant will address that issue.  Members agreed that they were.


Mr. Okum asked Ms. McBride if her recommendation was that the poles be brought down to 15 feet.  Ms. McBride answered we approved the other poles at 28 feet, so to go from28l feet to 10 feet probably isn’t realistic.  We are going to se the final development plan, and I would like to see the applicant go back, look at the photometrics and see what they can get them down to, rather than us saying tonight 12 feet or 15 feet.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page Thirteen




Mr. Okum moved to approve the concept plan presented 1 or 1 through 1 of 11 dated 11/14/05 to include staff comments and recommendations as presented this evening.    Mr. Butrum seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the concept plan was approved unanimously.


VII.              DISCUSSION


A.          Zoning Code Amendments


Mr. McErlane reported that the majority of those changes are clean up items.  The first set of changes applies to every residential district.  In each residential district there are additional principally and conditionally permitted uses that are not necessarily residential uses, such as churches and some recreational uses.  For example, when Temple Baptist Church was in for their library expansion, we had to send them to the Board of Zoning Appeals because it was an accessory building that exceeded 120 square feet and wasn’t in the rear yard.  I have tried to rearrange it so it only applies to accessories to a residential use.  The first section does that.  At the bottom of the same page, the section that deals with residential accessory uses, the wording has been changed to accommodate that as well.


Between those two, there are two clean up items, 153.072 is under the title of rear yard but it says side yard.  Section153.269 says the opposite of what we want it to say.  On the second page on access, the first part of that paragraph talks about not permitting residential districts to be utilized to provide parking or access to non-residential districts.  The second line in that paragraph doesn’t say anything about access drives or Planning Commission having the ability to give a conditional use permit to allow those.  We have stretched that interpretation to do that in the past.  This adds the words to give Planning the ability to grant a conditional use permit for an access drive through residential property.


Paragraph E does not change the text at all; it just changes the order of it.  The reason for this is because of enforcement.  We have had instances where somebody has been parking on grass and we point to this paragraph.  It starts of saying “any off-street parking area of more than five vehicles” – they get to that point and say that doesn’t apply to me.  The rest of the paragraph does, so we have changed the order of the paragraph around so they can’t say it doesn’t apply to them.


The revision to 153.504 is to address the service areas of a restaurant.  In the past we applied it this way, but this codifies it.  The one space per 50 square feet should only apply to the public areas, because that is where the more dense areas are.


The whole table in153.608 has a lot of misnoted zoning districts which are not labeled correctly. As it stands right now, one of the residential single household zoning districts is reiterated twice in each one of those paragraphs, and it should have been a multi-family.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

13 December 2005

Page  Fourteen




Mr. Galster moved to recommend the changes to City Council, and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the motion was adopted unanimously.




A.          Uncle Bob’s Self Storage – 11378 Springfield Pike – Ground Sign

B.          Buffalo Wings & Rings – 11305 Springfield Pike – Wall Sign



IX.               ADJOURNMENT


Mr. Butrum moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion.  All voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m.


                                                            Respectfully submitted,




____________________,2006     _________________________

                                                            William G. Syfert, Chairman




____________________,2006     _________________________

                                                            Lawrence Hawkins III Secretary