PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
7:00 P.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:    Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Tom Vanover,
    Robert Sherry and Chairman Syfert.   
Others Present:        Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer
III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF 13 MAY 2003
Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.
Mr. Coleman said I need a clarification on the BZA minutes. Mr. Okum was discussing the Final PUD Development Plan with a number of final adjustments – what project was that? Mr. Okum answered it must have been CVS Pharmacy. Mr. Coleman said also there is a right of way plat for Oak Hill Cemetery to clean up some issues. What issues were they? Mr. Shvegzda responded that there were certain parcels acquired by the city at an earlier time, and the right of way existed as an easement. This was to dedicate the easement and the parcels owned by the city.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Report on Council – Steve Galster
Mr. Galster reported that Council passed Ordinances 12 and 14 referring to zoning code changes. The Veteran’s Memorial Fund Raising Committee became a not for profit organization. The community review of the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission has been completed and the city is submitting their vote in favor of the revisions that were made to the strategies of the commission.
B. Zoning Bulletin – May 10, 2003
C. Zoning Bulletin – May 25, 2003
D. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – 15 April 2003
Mr. Syfert said you have before you a faxed letter addressed to Mr. McErlane, and I’ll read it into the record:
"I think I need to do a bit more work for the submittal for next hearing. I will not be able to make it in June. Please schedule me for next month. After I receive your recent comments, I will finish revisions/illustrations and schedule a work session before next hearing. Your consideration is highly appreciated. Thanks.
Wayne Fan:
 
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWO
V. OLD BUSINESS
A. Conditional Use Permit for Proposed Drive Through at Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike – Hearing continued May 13, 2003
Mr. Galster said per the applicant’s letter, I move to table and continue the hearing in progress until our July meeting. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion and the item was tabled until July 8th.
B. Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Seating Area to be located at Graeter’s Ice Cream, 11511 Princeton Road – Hearing continued May 13, 2003
Mr. McErlane said Ms. Stiles received a call from Mr. Graeter yesterday, indicating that he would like to schedule a work session with the city planner and myself and her and try to come up with a landscaping plan that might work on the site so he has requested a continuance. Mr. Galster moved to continue the hearing in progress and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. The item will be considered on July 8th.
C. Zoning Change and Preliminary Plan – "Crossings at the Park" (GEEAA Park) from GB, OB and RMH-L to PUD
Glenn Shepherd President of Shepherd Industries said when we left the last meeting, there were two primary issues. One was related to the park’s commitment to the improvements as represented on our plan. The second item was the traffic, in particular the ingress/egress onto Crescentville Road. We have addressed both of these situations
First, we have stated on our plat that the park will do their improvements as represented within 3-4 years, conceivably even faster.
Secondly, on the Crescentville Road exit, we tried to define a way to maintain the park’s integrity as well as address the concerns that have been raised, i.e. that there are drives on the other side of Crescentville that are not lined up with our exit. We tried to move the drive between the two public thoroughfares, which required the park to agree to things that we weren’t sure that they would. We think this is a much better solution to the traffic situation.
In addition we took the retail that fronted the west quadrant and oriented it to face the intersection to create some identity to Crescentville Road. At the same time, we think it will create a nice area here as a gateway to Springdale.
There were other minor issues that we addressed. One of the comments was that parking related to the retail should be specifically to the retail, and not part of our assisted living parking area, and we think we have taken care of the problem. Those are the primary changes that we have made.
 
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THREE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. McErlane reported that Planning is looking at the rezoning of 135.7 acres, a net acreage after the right of way is taken out. Approximately 23 acres is senior housing, which includes 58 condominium type units, 50 stacked condominium unit, 140 assisted living apartments and a facility to accommodate adult day care, and 120 units for extended care. Approximately 10 ½ acres is for retail use, with 107,000 s.f. of retail building area proposed, an additional 2,000 s.f. over what we saw last month. The remaining 102.2 acres (net) is proposed to remain as private recreation area until future development improvements are shown to the park, including relocation of facilities and improvements to the picnic area.
Overall density for the senior housing phase is 16 units per acre, and that includes the assisted living buildings. There are a few minor changes to the setbacks in both the condominium and apartment type units but all of the setbacks meet or exceed code.
The one deviation from the code that Planning will need to approve is parking. As it is shown on the drawings, there is a one car garage where the code requires a two car for both types of independent living units. Within the covenants there is an indication that there is one additional parking space, but the plan shows two so those need to be consistent.
The minimum lot width required for the assisted living extended care facility is 200 feet and there is 60 feet of frontage that touches the proposed right of way close to the intersection of the railroad right of way and the 747 right of way. The other setbacks do meet or exceed code.
We don’t have an indication of maximum height which is allowed to be 50 feet. The impervious surface ratio maximum is 60% for the assisted living and extended care facilities and with this being conceptual, we are not sure what that is.
The parking requirements for the nursing facility and assisted living adult care facility total 95 spaces, plus spaces for employees. The applicant has indicated 120 spaces, but on the drawings it indicates 35 or 40 required for employees, so we are a little short there. Ms. McBride refers to an APA study on parking that lends a little more in terms of what might be required for parking.
The setbacks for the retail facilities meet or exceed the requirements in the code. The maximum height permitted is 48 feet; it is not indicated, but I don’t believe we’ll get anywhere near 48 feet. The impervious surface ratio maximum is 75% and we’re not sure what that is. The parking and drive setbacks are 10 feet and they meet those with the exception of the cross access easement on the south of the northern parcel and the north of the southern parcel and the west property line.
 
 
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FOUR
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. McErlane said if we use the gross area, the parking required is 482 spaces but there was a net area established at 95% of the gross, which is not too bad of an estimate. The applicant has indicated 457 spaces. The 482 requirement doesn’t take into consideration any assembly uses or restaurant uses on the site.
The one concern we had is that the distribution of the retail parking spaces; they are not even. The northern parcel provides for 58% of the parking spaces for 53% of the retail floor area. The southern parcel provides 42% of the parking for 47% of the gross retail area, so there is not an even distribution of parking spaces on the two parcels. It looks as though that there is adequate parking for the golf course facilities.
.No new covenants were submitted. There were some discrepancies in the parking ratios for the independent living units.
Ms. McBride in her report indicated that traffic studies were based on specific types of retail users in that development. Potentially we could end up with a pretty heavy retail user in there to throw the traffic numbers way out of line from what the study was based on. As a minimum, there should be some limitation on the types of retail uses based on how the traffic was evaluated.
On future uses on the park property, it says that it could be used as the underlying previous zoning is laid out. However, once it becomes PUD that underlying zoning disappears. As a minimum there should be either verbiage in the covenants that indicates what those acreages could be or possibly an additional exhibit that shows what those uses could be in the future. The way it is laid out right now is that there are old zoning lines that cross new zoning lines and little triangles are left that are allowed to be office building that are mixed in with senior housing. So it is not a clean exhibit at all with respect to trying to use the underlying zoning.
There is an issue in the covenants that allows stucco beyond 50% of the surface area of the buildings which needs to be addressed. There is some verbiage in the covenants that relates to square footages and maximum heights of signs and eventually we will see a sign package that comes with the development.
There needs to be a commitment to try to save mature trees where possible. To put the applicant on notice, there may be quite a bit of tree replacement that will be necessary, particularly wit
h respect to the redevelopment of the northwest corner. Now with the elimination of the one pond on the park property, that probably will eliminate a lot of the removal of trees on that piece of land.
Mr. McErlane said concerning Ms. McBride’s comments, she recommends that if Planning Commission is going to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment and preliminary plan to Council, parking should be provided to meet and exceed the Zoning Code requirements except as modified by the commission. Actually it may be worthwhile to look at the parking with respect to assisted living.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FIVE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. McErlane said it is recommended to have .6 parking spaces per unit in the assisted living building. That is just that building and not the nursing care facility, which are one parking space for six units.
The one thing she is asking to look at is the assisted living facility. There may be some people living there with automobiles. I don’t know that we need to go into the detail of how many spaces are required, but her recommendation is that they meet the APA parking standards for assisted living.
She also recommends that the rear elevations of the retail buildings be treated as finished elevations, with architectural elements and appropriate building materials, and that adequate buffering be provided to screen waste and loading areas from view. She specifically talked about the drive which is a fairly main one that runs on the back side of the retail development.
All mechanical equipment in the commercial development should be screened from view. There were comments earlier about a walking pathway system to be incorporated within the development, particularly from the proposed senior housing to the golf facilities and up to the retail facilities. She feels there should be some commitment to complete that when 50% of the residential development is complete.
A minimum of 20% of the PUD remains open space for each phase of the development. The concern is that we are not looking at it in total, that we look at each individual phase for 20% minimum open space requirement.
A landscape plan should be created to provide a uniform boundary treatment along S.R. 747 and Crescentville Road as well as an internal streetscape provision.
The covenants should be amended to include staff comments. She also indicates that prior to the approval of the final development for the extended care facility, evidence should be provided for a certificate of need for the 120 beds. A lighting plan should be prepared that demonstrates unified lighting standards and provides lighting for the development in conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Part of the concern there is to try to get the same type of light fixtures, i.e. that they are all either sodium vapor or metal halide.
Her final comment is that an easement should be dedicated to the City at the corner of S.R. 747 and Crescentville Road for the purpose of creating an entryway feature.
Mr. Okum said there is a reference to the building elevations on the retail being treated as a finished side on all four sides. There also are comments regarding mounding. Was mounding an alternative by the applicant to finished sides?
Mr. Shepherd said we had the same concerns you have, and we intend to mound and extensively landscape to shield this as much as we can. We do have a concern about how the rear looks.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE SIX
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Shepherd added that my only comment would be that it still has to be functional to accommodate deliveries, but we concur with everything that has been said. My idea would be that when the final architectural plans are prepared, these things can be reviewed by the Building Department and approved. Mr. McErlane stated that it would be a part of the final development plan that would come before Planning.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said so you are saying that the buffer mounding and landscaping would be between the roadway and the park, not the roadway and the retail. Mr. Shepherd responded no, I would really like to see as much of the buffering between the roadway and the retail as possible. Mr. Okum commented then you are pushing the noise level of the roadway into the park area. Mr. Shepherd answered possibly, but the problem would be that it would be self defeating to landscape the buffer on this side in terms of the staff comments on the ingress/egress. We want this road to look as pleasant as possible.
Mr. Shepherd added one of the things that I tried to do in the design is to create an offset here. Part of that is to try to create enough area so we can do mounding and things like that.
Mr. Okum asked how close the roadway was to the retail structure, and Mr. Shepherd answered I would guess 30 to 40 feet.
Mr. Sherry said Ms. McBride refers to the commercial development mechanical equipment needing to be screened. Shouldn’t that include the assisted living area? Mr. McErlane responded probably so. Mr. Sherry added in Item #7 20% green space doesn’t seem to be enough, given the impervious surface ratio as 75% on one part of the development, and then on the residential end it is 25-75%. It seems a little on the light side.
Mr. McErlane responded that Planning can recommend higher percentages than that. The 20% is a holdover from the old zoning code, which required 20% open space in PUDs prior to the Zoning Code having minimum impervious surface ratios for uses in the code. The only reason I can understand it is in there is it was left in the code. It probably should either be replaced with verbiage that sends you back to the types of uses within the Zoning Code, or modified to some other percentage.
Within the residential districts, there is no impervious surface ratio indicated. There is a building to lot coverage, but it doesn’t address parking and drives There is a 60% impervious surface ratio in the assisted living, so we are giving quite a bit going to 20% open space. And, in the retail facilities, it is 75% maximum impervious surface ratio, so we are giving a little bit there as well.
As a condition of the approval, you can consider holding them to those impervious surface ratios listed for those uses in the Zoning Code. Mr. Sherry responded so as a practical matter the percentage would be higher than the 20%. Mr. Okum asked what it would be.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE SEVEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. McErlane reported that they would have to be addressed individually. The only ones spelled out specifically in the code are 60% for the assisted living and extended care facilities, which would be 40% open space and 75% impervious surface ratio surface for the retail, which would be 25% open space. You could hold them to 20% or something greater than that on the independent living units. My guess is that it is probably more than 20% anyway; there are fewer pavements involved in that than in the retail. .
Mr. Galster said I think the bigger part of Ms. McBride’s comment is that we don’t want to see the retail space go100% impervious surface and then claim that we still have the park back here so we have made it up on the whole site. I think the 20% in any particular phase based on this plan is still a pretty reasonable number, considering the park space. If you were going to designate some other use than the park space in your plan, that would be a different story.
Mr. Huddleston said in 9 (d) of Mr. McErlane’s comments, it is indicated that text should be in the covenants to cover the land use
And Ms. McBride said that the applicant should address the future redevelopment of the recreation area. The word redevelopment bothers me. I believe that the park administration has a commitment to have the park space in perpetuity, isn’t that correct?
Mr. McErlane responded I can only say that the applicant ha proposed language in the covenants that indicates that a future use could occur on that property. I think what they are looking at is the existing zoning on the property. The majority of what is not being developed during the first phase is zoned multi family. Another big portion is zoned office. I assume they are trying to reserve some right to develop that in the future.
Mr. Huddleston commented my position on that is that the applicant should be willing to covenant that to remain in the recreational use. If at some point in the unforeseeable future that changes, they would have to come back. Otherwise, they do not deserve a PUD overlay.
Mr. Shepherd responded it is not ours to say. We are really applying for the retail and the senior project. When we first came to the Building Department, we stated that we couldn’t speak for the park as to what their intent was. That was the only reason for that language. We don’t have any intention to further develop it. We aren’t trying to reserve those rights.
Mr. Huddleston answered I would have the same concern whether it is you or them. We need to legally clear that up between yourself and the park authorities, because you are asking for a PUD overlay for the total acreage, not just for your acreage.
Mr. Syfert said I totally concur with Mr. Huddleston, and unless the covenants are straightened out to that effect, I think we are going up the wrong alley.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE EIGHT
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Huddleston added that I don’t believe that in perpetuity precludes you, they or someone else from doing something else, should the time and the application be correct, but we’re not going to grant that here without any idea of what that might ultimately be.
Mr. Shepherd responded our only concern was that it was difficult for us to tell them that we wanted to buy some of their property, and in order for you to sell it, you would have to take away all your future rights as to what the property is really worth, because you are going to have to undergo some kind of a zone change.
Mr. Huddleston said I understand, but I still feel strongly that this is something that you and the park authorities will have to get together on to consummate this in the covenants.
Mr. Galster said if in fact there are notations on the drawings or covenants that will say we reserve the right for future development in this kind of an arena, there are kinds of ramifications. For example, parking. Do we need to start looking at parking and traffic for those future uses at this point? If all of a sudden we are going to put an office tower back here on this little sliver of land, or multi-family housing back there, if that is to remain as a part of the plan as opposed to leaving it as the green space, then that traffic impact has to be in the traffic study.
Mr. Shepherd said if for some reason the park gets into further financial trouble and needs to sell off another 10 acres, wouldn’t they still have to go through the same type of hearing to get a plan approved and have the parking reapproved?
Mr. Galster responded that if there were any change to the plan that we approve on your application, there would be a presentation of a requested change to the PUD plan which would come before Planning Commission for their review. If Planning determined that it was a major change, it would have to go before Council again but if it is not, Planning would handle it. What you are asking us to do now, with the covenants and the future development issues, is to say that those are okay without us having a clue as to what they are, and we can’t do that.
Mr. Shepherd answered that is not our intent. My intent was to not deprive the park of any underlying value of the property that they may have, just because I am buying apportion of it.
Mr. Galster responded that there can be an application made by GEEAA at any time to modify the plan that we approve, and it would be subject to obtaining approval of Planning Commission and/or Council if required. So, not only do we have parking, traffic flow and those types of issues, I know from all the comments that we have had that there will be tree preservation ordinance issues. Personally when I look at replacing trees and leaving a wide open park space, I am much more forgiving because of the green space that we are keeping. If you would say that we wouldn’t have the green space in this plan, that would change how I would look at the tree preservation ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE NINE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Galster said so before we go a whole lot further, we might as well get to the bottom of the issue, which is GEEAA. The last time we talked you were looking at the green space that is shown on this plan as a 50 year vision, which made me much more comfortable with this.
Tom Wahl of GEEAA said I mentioned at the last meeting that we have had a number of offers over the last several years, and have had the opportunity to evaluate more than just this proposal before you. Most of the other offers that we had were for the retail portion. We recognize that by going with 10 acres we have effectively cut out 75% of what could have been increased income because of the value of the property. On the other hand, it is not what the park is interested in anyway. We are not interested in a 40-acre retail next to what would be the golf course itself. We want to extend and keep what has been there for the last 54 years.
We want to keep all the activities that have been sponsored by the association and by General Electric. We want to maintain the integrity of that, so we have no immediate concern with this issue, and speaking on behalf of the association, we will say that if it needs to be a PUD with no stipulation for previous zoning, we will be willing to agree to that. We don’t want that to be an issue. We recognize the ramifications of that. We recognize that the city for the last 20 to 25 years has been very keen on PUDs and we understand the logic of that. We want to be a good neighbor like we have been for over 50 years.
Mr. Galster answered and that is the way we would like to keep it as well, speaking as a council member and a Planning Commission member. We would like to see the park continue to operate there forever.
Mr. Wahl responded I respect Mr. Shepherd for making the comment that he made. I know that he recognizes that he didn’t want to feel in anyway that the piece that you would do would have an impact on us having some opportunity in the future to generate additional income based on the value of the land. We appreciate that as well and we thank you for your consideration.
If we can move this whole thing forward, we will take the position that we want to work with the city and Mr. Shepherd. WE love the project; we think it is the best for all parties concerned, and we want to move forward.
Mr. Galster said so for clarification, the plan that we are looking at which shows the golf course, your shelter area and the development that Mr. Shepherd has proposed is the plan that you are submitting for approval with covenants that will not try to dictate, outside of a regular PUD submittal that could be submitted in the future.
Mr. Wahl confirmed this, adding we want to make this work for the next 50 years. We think it will, and if it only works for 40 and we need to come back to you, we will.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum said I want to understand, that in all submittals and all exhibits that we have received, the reference to the underlying zoning shall be stricken. Even the two documents that we received with this submittal showed office building, residential, etc., and all those references should be removed from any of the PUD applications. My motion would so state that the underlying zoning would be removed from the plan.
Mr. Shepherd responded that is my understanding, and Mr. Wahl also agreed.
Mr. Okum continued as part of that PUD if this development would happen it would be a joint request by all parties for a modification to the PUD, is that right?
Mr. McErlane responded typically it would be a request by the property owners involved, so if it involves something relative to the retail or the senior housing part of it, it would be a request from them as well.
Mr. Okum said if GEEAA comes back 30 years from now, would they involve Mr. Shepherd? Mr. McErlane reported if they weren’t impacting his development they wouldn’t. If it were referred on to Council, he would be given notification of the public hearing involved. Mr. Shepherd commented I think there is wording in the covenants that give us that right, because we would be concerned. Mr. McErlane added that typically there are amendments to covenants that they will be a party of as well.
Mr. Van over commented this is what we talked bout last time. We can’t piecemeal this. We have to look at the big picture. My question is if it is your intent to develop that retail, and Mr. Shepherd indicated that it was.
Mr. Huddleston said for clarification, I believe you have an attachment to one of your response comments that says that you have a preliminary agreement to go forward with the construction of the recreational improvements.
Mr. Shepherd answered we have a memorandum of understanding. We thought that would help this group if we had this. Mr. Huddleston responded I wanted to bring that to everyone’s attention, recognizing that is a preliminary and non-binding agreement, but going forward
Mr. Shvegzda said in response to a comment Mr. McErlane made about the traffic report on the trip generation for the retail area, what was utilized was the classification of shopping center in the ITE Manual which assumes certain associated retail uses within that area. If this would become a big box type store, that would significantly change the trip generation numbers.
One of the things that have changed is the elimination of the retention pond in the north recreation area. That was about 32,000 cubic feet of detention that has been redistributed through the other detention basins.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE ELEVEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Shvegzda added that it is about 15,000 cubic feet short of what the previous submission indicated. Based on the preliminary analysis, that still is a sufficient amount of detention, pending the final analysis.
One of the other issues that was not addressed in this submittal was the comment regarding the permanent easement for the corridor along Beaver Run. That was something that would be done to preserve that quality stream.
There was a second addendum to the traffic impact study. The key issues were in regards to the proposed access points. It indicated a full access signalized drive intersection at 747. This would be approximately 780 feet south of the SR 747-Crescentville Road intersection which is about 120 feet north of the existing drive that goes back to the GEEAA site.
The signalized drive intersection on Crescentville Road has been moved to midway between the two public roads within Butler County, Business Center Drive and Transportation Way. This location is about 1,000 feet from the Crescedntville-747 intersection. The quasi-service drive located immediately adjacent to the retail area has been eliminated.
Recommended improvements in the traffic impact study addendum are to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of the GEEAA Drive and 747, construct a 311 foot right turn lane at the same intersection, construct a 311 foot left turn lane southbound, (which consists of restriping the existing pavement) and construct a 161 foot left turn lane at the intersection of the drive on Crescentville Road.
We had indicated that the recreational use would not need to be factored into the traffic impact study, because of the low trip generation from that under normal circumstances. This is based on the normal weekday and weekend operations, but we asked for it to be clarified as to what actual recreational uses would be in place.
We recommend that a full access signalized intersection not be permitted on 747. With the amount of money being spent on the grade separation, this is looked at as another significant traffic delay point.
Since the time that we put the comments together, we have looked at the possibility of an unsignalized intersection having only one movement prohibited, the exiting left turn from the site with a possible permissive southbound left turn into the site. This would be similar to Mike’s Car Wash at Kemper Road. At first glance it appears feasible, but there are some issues we have to look at, i.e. intersection stopping and sight distances. The drive location might have to be moved a little bit to insure that, but that is one possibility.
With the drive at Crescentville being the main entrance, it is probable that the inclusion of a right turn lane may be necessary at this location.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWELVE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Shvegzda stated that with the new location of the drive on Crescentville, we have preliminary comments from Butler County. From our point of view it is a much better location. Butler County concurs with that. They haven’t had significant time to talk to the property owners to the north, but their concern would be that it would be a signalized intersection that would not align with the drives to the north. They are still assessing that situation.
On the analysis done on the 747-Crescentville Road intersection, it is apparent and the City is planning for that. Even if the development doesn’t go through, in 2007 the intersection will be operating at a Level of Service F. WE have been working with Butler County to try and get funding for not only that intersection but the entire corridor. We approached Butler County to try and break it out into several phases. We are looking to them to see if there could be any other possible funding sources.
In looking at this particular intersection, even though it would be at a level of service F, obviously the additional traffic that would be generated from this development going through this intersection would further deteriorate the intersection. Therefore, consideration should be given that there be a particular amount that the applicant contribute towards the improvement of the intersection, much like the Wal-Mart and Sam’s development. At that time the bridge over the CSX had to be widened by an additional lane. As part of the approval, they agreed to contribute $100,000 to the widening of the bridge.
Mr. Galster said if they don’t have the signalized access at the 747 entrance, what does that do to the traffic study? Mr. Shvegzda said they did submit the traffic impact study with what was referred to as a preferred and an alternate scenario. The alternate dealt with the unsignalized intersection at 747 and the main entrance on Crescentville Road. Mr. Galster commented right now the plan is for a right in and right out only. Mr. Shvegzda responded that what they have submitted on 747 is a full access signalized intersection.
Mr. Shepherd said what we really would like to do is wait until all the improvements are completed on 747 and then commission another traffic study.
Mr. Galster responded you would be open to do that, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that there is no indication that this city or this board is approving a traffic light at that intersection at this time.
Mr. Shepherd responded all we are asking is that you do not stipulate that it can’t be done.
Mr. Okum said so if we said do not include a traffic signal at this time, that would be sufficient. Mr. Shepherd indicated that it would be.
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Galster commented if in fact there is no signalization there, is there any consideration to flipping the front of your retail store more toward the inner circle road and have the signalized access off Crescentville?
Mr. Shepherd responded that would totally destroy the majority of the mature trees that we were saving. That is why we oriented it towards 747, plus from a retail standpoint, it makes so much more sense to front on 747.
Mr. Galster answered I understand, but we have DSW and Circuit City with the back side of the building on Tri-County Parkway, and the back treatments of those buildings have pretty good design features to try to help mediate that.
Mr. Shepherd added that doing that would eliminate golf holes. Mr. Galster said I am suggesting that you flip the parking lot on the other side of the building, but you are not ready to develop the retail at this point.. Mr. Shepherd commented that the retail is not as strong. It appears that it should be a strong area, but it is not as strong as people think. The retail corridor is specifically defined as being south of 275. We feel that the only way our retail will work is for it to be a unique destination type retail.
Mr. Galster said so to clarify, right now there is no limitation on the enter or exit from that intersection. It is a standard intersection, non-signalized. Mr. Shvegzda responded as presented. We had indicated that we were looking at what could be done in terms of prohibiting the left turn exiting the site.
Mr. Galster asked how many lanes would have to be crossed once the 747 modification is completed. Mr. Shvegzda answered that there would be a total of seven lanes. Mr. Galster asked how many of those are northbound, and Mr. Shvegzda responded there are three through northbound, your two way left turn and three southbound. Mr. Galster commented so you would have to cross at least four to get into a traveling lane.
Mr. Sherry asked if there were recommendations for improvements on West Crescentville, other than the left turn lane. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this adding that if Crescentville entrance becomes the major entry point, a right turn only lane eastbound probably would be required. Mr. Sherry wondered about any other widening, and Mr. Shvegzda indicated not, at least not directly as a part of this development.
Mr. Vanover said on the retention/detention, do we have any idea of the release rate? That creek back there is my back yard and I see the influx with the two 50/500 year storms we have had since I have been there. How are we looking at that?

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the bottom line is they are required to release no more than the 25 year intensity redeveloped rate. Because of the past history in this area, they are held to the higher category in terms of detention.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FOURTEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. McErlane said Ms. McBride made a comment about garages. She based that on what she had seen at your other development. From the photos she took, it looks like there are a variety of different types of dwelling unit configurations.
Mr. Shepherd reported that there are two building types, A and B. One is a four unit configuration, two up and two down. The other is seven units, four on top of three.
Mr. Okum said in the residential area, it appears that the only areas you are using curb and gutter are on the main access roads. Is that correct? Mr. Shepherd said that was the development design control. Mr. Okum asked the design control for this development. Mr. Shepherd answered that we haven’t looked at it in precise detail, but I am sure we will see more curb and gutter. Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shvegzda if he saw a need to address this now in the preliminary stages? Our current standards call for residential units to have curb and gutter. We have private lanes here. Mr. Shvegzda answered if it is a matter of controlling the storm water runoff, it may be necessary to specifically define those as they get into final design. If it is strictly for preventing vehicles from going off the edge of pavement, that would be a matter of the developer’s preference in controlling those kinds of things. The requirement is that the perimeter of the parking lot has to be delineated by some sort of barrier. Some of those lanes are for both uses of a parking lot and travel lane, so maybe it would be appropriate to have the curbing in that because of people having to turn around, etc. Mr. Okum said wouldn’t it be better to say curb and gutter throughout the development? Do we need to address this issue now? Mr. Okum wondered if we needed to address this issue now, and Mr. Shvegzda answered I don’t think so. There is a lot of detail that needs to be worked out before we make a blanket statement on that.
Mr. Okum said I want to make sure that we are not approving a non curbed and gutter application throughout the site. By virtue of not saying anything, the standard subdivision regulations would apply for all the rest of the development. Mr. Shvegzda answered that would be my interpretation.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum asked what he intended to do about the tree replacement requirements. Mr. Shepherd answered we would work with the city on this.
Mr. McErlane reported that at this point they have identified the major trees, 24 inches and above. It is not complete, but it will take a lot of work to determine the total caliper inches of trees over six inches that are on site. It will impact to a great degree on the retail development, and it will take an inventory of that final development stage. At this time, we were trying to get a commitment to preserve
Trees as much as possible and then meet the replacement requirements.
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FIFTEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Shepherd commented that landscaping is something we stress. Mr. Okum responded it may come to thousands of dollars in costs to handle this issue. My motion would say that tree preservation shall be invoked throughout the site in this development. Tree replacement standards fall under the code and we don’t have to address that because you are bound to that. Is that right? Mr. McErlane responded no, unless Planning Commission wants to give relief to that, but at this point we don’t know what the numbers are so we can’t discuss it.
Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride’s recommendations were stone and brick for the building elevations. Mr. Shepherd answered that there is a design concept which we are thinking about and would like to pass by the commissionk,m which is a combination of stone and stucco to create a European look. I’m not sure if it is 45 or 50 or 55% stone, but we feel aesthetically it will be nicer than what the standard should be for usual approval.
Mr. Shepherd added I would ask that the stipulation be made that 50% be stone and brick unless there is a combination which would require Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Okum responded what if we make it that all building elevations shall be masonry, excluding concrete block. Mr. Shepherd said that is fine. Mr. Galster suggested leaving it the way it is until we actually see an elevation and determine what it is they are proposing. Mr. McErlane reported that the covenants actually won’t be finalized until the final plan stage. If at that time you decide it is appropriate to modify them, they aren’t recorded at that point, and you can modify them based on what is presented at the final plan stage. So the recommendation would be 50% brick or stone or a combination thereof, until such time that you come in with a plan that seems acceptable and the verbiage could be modified to cover it.
Mr. Okum wondered about the issue of one visitor spot for each unit. Mr. McErlane responded that there is space in front of their garages, which is one parking space per unit in addition to the garage, and there is an additional parking space per unit, so realistically there are two parking spaces outside of the garage. The covenants say one.
Mr. Shepherd added that there is one in the garage, one in the driveway and a visitor parking space for each unit. In addition to that, there are some situations where we can have two car garages if necessary.
Mr. Okum said if we were to allow the one-car garage, I would like to recommend that there must be an oversize single car garage constructed. Mr. Shepherd asked how he would define that, and Mr. Okum answered something wider than 10’-6" and 22’ deep. If you are only going to a single car garage, there has to be some relief for that person to put things. You say you are encouraging people to get rid of things, but on the other hand, people tend to have some things in these narrow one-car garages with eight-foot wide doors.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE SIXTEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Shepherd responded we do nine-foot wide doors, plus we have a storage area off the garage on the current units. Mr. Okum asked the size of the storage area, and Mr. Shepherd answered that it depends on the unit. Mr. Okum said so there is a storage area on all the units? Mr. Shepherd answered I know for sure that on the garden units there is and I can’t speak about the townhouses. Mr. Okum said if you are going to go with a single car garage, you have to have a storage area in the unit. If you are already doing it on the one, you should do it on the other
Mr. Shepherd commented that he didn’t know how it would affect the design. There are situations where we can have two car garages on end units. Mr. Okum responded if they have a two car garage I’m not concerned. I am just saying that if it is a single car garage, it needs to be a storage area of at least 100 s.f. I’m putting it up to the commission; I am open to suggestions.
Mr. Syfert commented perhaps you could say to have a total garage and storage space of 240 or 260 s.f., and let him work with it any way he wants to.
Mr. McErlane reported that a 10 ½ x 22 foot garage that you were talking about is slightly less than 240 s.f. I don’t know what you want in addition to that.
Mr. Okum said the code calls for a minimum 400 s.f. garage. If you haves 400 minimum and are at 240, that is 160 s.f. short and if you split the difference, 80 s.f. it would make it 320 s.f.
Mr. Syfert commented I think that is heavy. Mr. Galster said we have a lot of single car garage homes in the city right now and these are homes that have three bedrooms, two parents three kids bikes and lawnmowers in a single car garage. I would envision a senior complex as a place where they won’t be cutting their own grass. I personally have a problem with requiring this development to have more space inside that basically would expand the units and create less green space and bring the buildings closer together when I don’t think the need is there. I think this requirement would be too stringent.
Mr. Vanover said I have no garage, but part of that is what is driving the propensity of the numbers of storage buildings. Of the five or six homes in our cul de sac, there is one that doesn’t have an auxiliary building out back. Mr. Galster responded my point is that if you leave your garage a garage, you don’t need that other storage.
Mr. Vanover asked if there were a ban on on-street parking in this development. Mr. Shepherd answered we have covenants that prohibit parking in the grassy area in front of the units; there are designated parking spaces. Mr. Syfert commented that is pretty standard.
 
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE SEVENTEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Coleman said if you went to visit your mother in law, where would you park? I have an issue with visitors’ spaces. I am okay with the storage and two car garages but there is a concern about the number of visitor spaces in the event we have a resident with four grown children who come to visit. Where do they park?
Mr. Shepherd answered that is why we have the visitors parking. There is one space for each unit, and chances are that all units would not have all children visiting at the same time. Mr. Coleman said with one visitor space per unit, on special occasions such as Mother’s Day, it would be likely that there would be more than one visitor.
Mr. Shepherd answered that our concern is that we don’t want to have a sea of parking. We are trying to maintain a residential character, and trying to landscape these as much as possible. Mr. Coleman responded I understand; I am voicing my concern, but I certainly would not like to see you take away from the aesthetics of the development. One car garage and one visitor space seems a little tight fit. Mr. Shepherd answered you actually would have three spaces per unit and with a two car garage, it would be four spaces.
Mr. Huddleston asked the width of the pavement section which is your primary roadway. Mr. Shepherd answered that it is 24 feet and there is no parking. The only place with visitor parking would be back in the lane area. Mr. Huddleston said but you are still asking for a 50% reduction in what our parking requirement would normally be. Based on that, I would support Mr. Okum’s position that somewhere there should be a storage element incorporated in there that would permit 80 to 100 square foot additional. I don’t see that seriously impacting it, and it would prevent people from converting garages to storage units and keep another vehicle off the street.
Mr. Sherry asked if the covenants included restrictions on how long vehicles can be parked before they need to be moved, and Mr. Shepherd answered I am not sure. Mr. Sherry asked if there were a requirement that if they have a garage they have to use it. Mr. Shepherd responded we haven’t drafted the covenants for this project but we find without exception that people use their garages. I also don’t know of any situation where they converted the garage to living space. We are dealing with seniors.
Mr. Syfert commented that if you go to Mapleknoll, you will find that there are very few cars that set outside. I think we are getting really hung up on this parking space, and I don’t believe it is a factor that we have to be concerned about.
Mr. Okum said I agree in some ways, but this is a new development and Mapleknoll has other types of developments surrounding it so there is a blend of different uses in Mapleknoll. Mr. Syfert commented that is the same as this development. Mr. Okum added that I see the applicant already allowing for storage area within the one type unit. All I am saying is that the other type unit should incorporate the storage space into it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE EIGHTEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum said I don’t think asking for 320 s.f. versus the required 400 s.f. is an over burdensome issue for the applicant. I would be willing to put that portion of this to a vote so we can move on.
Mr. Shepherd said when you are comparing the village units to the garden units, the living area alone is probably 500 s.f. larger.
Mr. Galster said if you use a nine-foot wide garage door, how much space is in your garage? Mr. Shepherd answered it would be 240 s.f. Mr. Galster said so we want to add 80 additional s.f. Is that driven by the idea that the garage might be lost, or that you would need more space? Mr. Okum answered I think that the garage would get lost.
Mr. Okum said there are other issues to be resolved and I would like to get past this. I would like to make an interim motion that all single car garages shall have nine-foot wide doors, and be 320 s.f. minimum. I think the motion should state including storage area so that their application of storage area currently being used in the garden units is part of that total square footage. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Coleman and Mr. Huddleston. Mr. Galster, Mr. Syfert and Mr. Sherry voted no, and the motion was passed 4 to 3.
Mr. Syfert said can the applicant live with that? If you can’t, say so right now. I think we are designing something here that goes against his marketing strategy and everything else. Mr. Shepherd said I don’t have my plans in front of me.
Mr. Okum said Ms. McBride indicated that the walkways should be constructed all at one time. Mr. Shepherd responded they should be completed as we complete each section. The reality is that when you are doing a section, you want to put all the improvements in.
Mr. Okum said you have set a time line on the park area to be completed within four years of final plan approval. Mr. Shepherd answered that we can live with all pathways to be completed within the four year development plan.
Mr. Huddleston said what are the potential uses of the retail area, and does there need to be further administrative oversight to that? Mr. McErlane responded I was leaving it up to Planning Commission with respect to which ones they felt were undesirable. I don’t know if Don needs to expand on what types of retail uses are acceptable from a traffic standpoint.
Mr. Shvegzda reported that ultimately if you get into that type of scenario, it depends on the overall square footage of each portion of the retail. It is hard to preclude that based on traffic.
Mr. McErlane wondered about precluding major regional retail uses? I think that was a concern if you had some big regional draw. I don’t know how you define that. Mr. Okum said you are defining big box.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE NINETEEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Huddleston said I would have a concern about the density and traffic movement of that because it can vary pretty significantly..
Mr. Shvegzda commented we may have to take a look when the final actual usage of the retail is and compare it with the traffic study that has been submitted.
Mr. Galster asked if the applicant were opposed to specific examples, automotive filling stations, automotive sales, automotive wash and no drive through restaurants? If we incorporate those and say any other usages must be able to be handled with the existing parking.
Mr. Okum said Mr. Shvegzda has referenced the applicant’s responsibility on necessary road improvements to support the site, is that correct?. Mr. Shvegzda reported that this is what the traffic study had indicated as far as the improvements that they are responsible for, and not contributions to the overall improvements of the Crescentville-747 intersection. That was another issue in the comments. Mr. Okum said you said contributory to that 747-Crescentville intersection, and I want to make sure that the applicant understands that.
Mr. Shepherd responded I have no idea what the definition of that is as far as what it means economically. For a $10 million improvement if you want me to put up $5 million, obviously economically that cannot work.
Mr. Shvegzda reported at this point we haven’t put together those numbers, to reflect the percentage of the traffic they are contributing and factor it into that improvement cost. We don’t have that at this point. I don’t know if there is a cap that we can put on it at this level.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said I can understand what you are saying. Someone comes up with this wild plan to do an interchange with spaghetti junction on top of 747 and Crescentville, and you are going to be held accountable for the cost of that project. I would be concerned about that too, but on the other hand if there is a change to that intersection that is driven by more your retail development, then your business along with the businesses across the street would have to be tied to that. Wouldn’t the Butler County businesses have to be as well; wouldn’t there have to be a common fee?
Mr. Shvegzda responded that the concern expressed by Butler County was that if the Crescentville Road intersection was to be signalized and because two of those poles are going to be in Butler County, they’re going to have to give a permit also. It appears from their first review that they would prefer to have the access to that development be aligned with the new drive into GEEAA in some manner. They haven’t had an opportunity to define that manner, but apparently that would be their requirement for allowing signalization of that intersection on Crescentville.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum said the need for the signalized intersection would be driven by the applicant, is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this, adding that the traffic impact study for the city’s preferred alternative, which would be non-signalized at 747 and signalized at Crescentville, the 2007 buildout at that point barely met warrant for a signal at that location .
Mr. Okum said so his development, all GEEAA development and the development north of that would be jointly responsible for the cost of that signal, if they wanted to have one.
Mr. Sherry said no, just him. Mr. Okum said I don’t think that is fair. Mr. Sherry said I don’t either; the guys north of them are already there. Mr. Okum said right, but if the guys north of them want to have a traffic signal there, they will have to get together to pay for it. I don’t see the City building it. Mr. Sherry commented I think that is what Don said.
Mr. Shvegzda reported that the problem is that we have two property owners and two jurisdictions that we are dealing with. In the ideal world they would both cooperate to have that occur, but I don’t know what particular carrot or hammer there is for the existing development north on Crescentville Road.
Mr. Okum said so whether there is a traffic signal on 747 or a traffic signal on Crescentville Road ultimately constructed, somebody has to bear the cost of the signal construction.
Mr. Shvegzda said in the report, we didn’t make it the responsibility of the property owner to realign the road that currently exists in Butler County.
Mr. Sherry commented but what you are saying in your report is that Butler County may require that as a condition of giving him the permit to install the poles. Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this We don’t know if it would be physically realigning the road, or providing an access point into the parking lot area and coming out to the roadway. At this point, nothing has been reviewed at any concept level to see what would be required.
Mr. Okum said so basically you are saying that nobody is paying for a signal, but if you have to have one and you need it, you’re going to have to pay for one.
Mr. Shepherd commented what we are saying is that if we are granted the right to put the signal in, obviously we will pay for it. What we are not saying is if they come back and say we’re going to do $10 million worth of improvements to Crescentville Road, and we want you to pay for 50% of that, we just can’t do that.
Mr. Shvegzda said that was another issue. We know that improvements will take place at Crescentville and 747 in the future. We have been speaking with Butler County at some length for those improvements to occur. I know that the applicant has no figure to make a commitment to, and I don’t know if we can put a cap on it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY-ONE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum commented that some time ago there were other projects that we assessed back against property owners for the cost of the road improvement, i.e. Tri-County Parkway, but we ended up paying for it. I guess roads can be done that way; you build the road and assess all the property owners along that roadway, is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda confirmed this.
Mr. Okum continued so if that were to happen, wouldn’t that be a way of dealing with the issue of 747 and Crescentville and any other road improvements that are necessary? Mr. Shvegzda responded that it would be an option to assess based on frontage for the improvements. Mr. Okum commented that it might be a more equitable way of dealing with it. Mr. Shvegzda answered that what it does is allow that point of time where we have developed actual construction costs so that it can be applied when more information is available. Mr. Okum said I want to be fair to the applicant. Right now no one knows how much the cost will be. The only thing I have now is road improvements recommend by the city engineer shall be at the developer’s cost, and that’s not fair. Mr. Syfert suggested developer’s apportionment. Mr. Okum said or proportional cost, and he’s not happy with proportional cost.
Mr. Shepherd commented I can’t agree because I have no idea what the proportional cost would be.
Mr. Galster said the city has plans to rework that intersection. We don’t know exactly what will happen, but something will happen at that intersection. I think to expect this development to pay a percentage of that without our knowing what we are going to do is extremely unreasonable. It might be reasonable to say that if in fact there was land acquisition requirements in order to facilitate another lane that they might agree to provide the public right of way to improve that intersection at no cost to the City. Of course the City would not move it over there because we have this deal to do that.
The Wal-Mart project was building abridge over the railroad, a big deal. This is an intersection. The City is responsible for maintaining the thoroughfares in the city. We get a benefit from the businesses being there; we collect property taxes and part of those property taxes maintain the roadway system. Anything above and beyond, a donation of right of way is pie in the sky.
A point of order. If this motion that you are about to make includes the preceding motion on the storage space, if for some reason at the final plan stage we find that he can’t make it happen, it doesn’t fit, he can’t possibly construct it, do we have the ability to go back and change that? You are making a motion that is contingent upon another motion that was already passed. My question is, can’t we just delay the inclusion of that part of the motion until the final plan approval?

Mr. Okum responded we are waiving the requirement for a two car garage in this preliminary plan approval. PUDs give you the ability to give and take, and because we are waiving that requirement in this phase, I would not want to hold that out.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY- TWO
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum said when you are doing the final plan, you are modifying the preliminary plan, finalizing and modifying. Mr. Galster added we are modifying a motion made prior to the adoption of the preliminary plan. I wanted to make sure that we would not have to go back three motions. Mr. Vanover said that motion would be a part of this approved preliminary plan, and when we move to the final, conceivably anything could be revised.
Mr. Vanover asked what changes took place with the original concept for Crescentville primarily the corner retail and the old Sam’s development? Part of the thing we were set on when we agreed with Butler County initially was that they weren’t shoving it south on us. We were holding it so it wouldn’t invade any further south than it currently does. What were the improvements on the frontage along that roadway? Was there any reconfiguring of those roadways?

Mr. Shvegzda you are talking about the area where the critical southern portion of the improvements, the residential area. Basically as we got across the GEEAA property, the roadway came back more or less about to the center line alignment of the existing Crescentville Road. There wasn’t any detail on realignment of those existing roadways, and quite honestly the level of design wasn’t completed at the Crescentville/747 intersection. When Butler County had the plans done to 60% level of completion, the final traffic analysis for the Crescentville/747 intersection wasn’t completed. We didn’t have the numbers that I thought we had.
Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Huddleston said your report says the summary of recommended improvements in the May 23rd addendum to the traffic study and you have four points there. Further on, you say "in order to compensate for the portion of traffic generated in the proposed development, it is recommended that this percentage of traffic be applied to the estimated construction costs of 747." Are you talking about these four specific points, or what are you referring to?

Mr. Shvegzda responded that concerns the 747 Crescentville Road intersection. Mr. Huddleston wondered who was expected to pay for the recommendations from May 23rd.
Mr. Shvegzda answered that those specific improvements that were noted in the report would be required because of the development, and therefore would be the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Huddleston commented so that would be your recommendation to be the responsibility of the developer.
Mr. Shvegzda answered yes. Mr. Huddleston wondered if the developer was clear on that. Addressing the developer, he outlined the four points (1) construct a traffic signal at the intersection of GEEAA Drive and State Route 747. I thought we didn’t want a traffic signal there.
Mr. Shvegzda said that is referring to what they are submitting in their report. We do not want a traffic signal at S.R. 747.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY-THREE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Huddleston said there are four points here, and you say that these are the obligations of the developer. What portion of these do we want the developer to do?
Mr. Shvegzda responded they are 747, and we are indicating that eventually that would be constructed at Crescentville Road.
Mr. Okum said so we are going to say a traffic signal at the owner’s cost. Mr. Huddleston added it should read to be determined by the city on either 747 or Crescentville Road.
Mr. Huddleston said I want to make sure that all parties are on the same page.
Mr. Shvegzda reported those are just taken out of the traffic impact study. Mr. Huddleston responded my point is that if we expect this gentleman to agree to something, we have to be pretty specific about what we are asking him to agree to, and I’m not real clear on that myself based on what the report says. There are four or five items in there and we say it is our recommendation that he comply with this.
Mr. Shepherd read the items. He said I am not sure how we can agree, because we are not sure what improvements will be approved.
Mr. Huddleston responded that in my mind, the additional turn lanes would become a part of the development. The other point is that you want a signalized intersection at 747 and we apparently want the signalized intersection at Crescentville Road and not at 747. Mr. Shepherd said we’d like to have two lights. Mr. Huddleston continued I am not a traffic engineer and I’m not going to debate that, and I have to go on staff’s recommendation. What I am trying to clarify is the turn movement lanes that are necessitated by your project are your obligation. I think that is reasonable. Mr. Shepherd commented I agree; if it is specific to our project, we should incur the cost. Mr. Huddleston said there is one recommended traffic light in that report will be as determined by the city and the applicant if it is required at all.
Mr. Sherry asked Mr. Shvegzda about the traffic impact study, wondering if it were on existing conditions or post grade separation at 747. Mr. Shvegzda answered that it is post grade separation. Mr. Sherry continued that they have indicated in the study that should these improvements be made there won’t be a problem, is that correct? Mr. Shvegzda responded that basically they indicate that essentially the incorporation of these improvements will alleviate or mitigate the potential problems with the additional traffic coming in.
Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said that the engineer has said that there will be some association to Crescentville and 747 with your development, and Mr. Galster’s comment was that a dedication of necessary right of way would be an appropriate way of dealing with the issue. We have done this with a number of projects. That would either be on Crescentville or 747.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY-FOUR
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum continued that if their final study says that they need to add a lane on 747 North and a lane on Crescentville East, your side of the road may be impacted, and there would be a right of way, which would typically constitute a take. When the Springdale Plaza improvement came through, they dedicated right of way to make that widening happen. I did not want to include something in the motion that was based on one reference from Mr. Galster as a resolve to the issue of your commitment on the cost, and you know what that cost is.
Mr. Shepherd answered we will know, yes. Are you asking me about the right of way taking? Most of the right of way would apply on Crescentville Road to the park, and I can’t speak for the park. For that part which would apply to the property we are acquiring and developing, I have no problem with it as long as it does not physically impact our project.
Mr. Okum responded that it could affect your setbacks and parking fields. Mr. Shvegzda said in the past where we have done that and have affected the setback available, that was something that was specific to that particular development and was acceptable in that condition. Mr. Okum added if you know going in up front, you design based on the possibility that there could be a right lane on 747 North on the east side and you work from that line in. Mr. Shepherd answered we definitely want to cooperate with you because any improvement would benefit us as well. Mr. Okum said we are trying to eliminate the 747/Crescentville issue cost being attributable to your development.
Mr. Shepherd said I don’t have any problem with it as long as it doesn’t impact our project too much. If you would have to eliminate 50 parking places and 5,000 s.f. of retail, that would obviously impact our project.
Mr. Okum said based on what I see there, I wouldn’t anticipate that. Mr. Shvegzda added at this point with what we have as far as plans showing where that concept is, I don’t think that is the case. I don’t think there will be a problem.
Mr. Okum wondered if he saw anything going east on Crescentville further along the park property so Mr. Wahl could address it. Mr. Shvegzda reported that potentially those improvements would go probably as far as the proposed driveway to Crescentville. Mr. Okum said so there would be 150 feet or so of park property that might be impacted to that entryway.
Mr. Okum asked Mr. Wahl about the possible dedication of necessary right of way along the northern part of the park for potential Crescentville Road improvements. Mr. Wahl said are you making a specific request of us for dedication of right of way? Mr. Okum said yes, because it is a combined application for a PUD for the total site. We are asking for a commitment on the part of GEEAA for the necessary right of way along the northern part of Crescentville Road, which doesn’t involve Mr. Shepherd. There will be some necessary adjustments to that roadway.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY-FIVE
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Galster said we don’t even know if it is required yet, but if in fact the expansion of the 747/Crescentvillel intersection requires any additional right of way land between the intersection and your northern entrance point, you would donate that public right of way in order to facilitate the improvement of that intersection. You wouldn’t pay any costs for the construction. Somebody else would be paying for the road to be built. You would be giving us the land to build it on, if it is required.
Mr. Wahl said I do not see that as something that we would be vehemently opposed to, but it would be something that I probably would want to through our Board of Trustees and let them agree that it is the right approach to take. Mr. Galster said we are talking about a small sliver of land, maybe 20 feet.
Mr. Galster said if for some reason there would be an objection to it, at the time of your final submission we could bring it back up and rediscuss it, but that would be a condition of the preliminary approval. Mr. Wahl agreed with that.
Mr. Okum moved to approve the GEEAA Crossings in the Park PUD, to include the specifications and design contained in the exhibit submitted and with the following conditions:
1. To include all staff, city engineer and city planner recommendations
2. The PUD staff and law director’s approval on the final covenants, with the following exceptions:
Our city planner’s reference to consideration number 5, to delete the word "commercial";
Delete and strike reference to future development of park area and all references from staff;
All mechanical units shall be screened from view via adjoining properties and public right of way;
All mechanical units shall have staff and Planning Commission’s approval for the enclosure and screened from view;
All exterior lighting shall be non glare type and be designed so as to not adversely affect the adjoining property owners and the public right of way;
Pole lighting to be down lit non-glare type with flat lenses set within the case;
Wall mounted light packs, if used, shall be shielded and down lit only so as not to affect the adjoining property owners and/or the public right of way;
Lighting fixtures shall be consistent throughout the development;
Buffer yard conditions shall be reviewed and approved in the final plan between the retail area and the roadway and park area;
Tree preservation conditions shall be invoked throughout the site in this development;
Traffic and street improvements do not include a traffic signal on 747 at this time;
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY-SIX
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Dumpster and refuse enclosures shall meet current designing standards;
Parking site plan conditions to include assisted living to meet most recent APA standards report;
All four building elevations to be treated as finished elevations;
Final plans shall show grade lines on all elevations;
The four points referenced in Mr. Shvegzda’s report, Item 2. Traffic, and Item 1 b page 3 specific to this development, shall be included;
Any approved traffic signal at owner’s cost to be determined by the City;
Sign conditions shall include ground mounted signs incorporating all uses within the PUD;
Underlying zoning shall not apply and specific uses shall be required and submitted as exhibits;
Park improvements shall be completed within four years of final plan approval;
Entryway easement at 747 and Crescentville shall be dedicated and given to the City;
Impervious surface ratio shall be considered in each phase;
Roadway improvements recommended by the City Engineer, if determined necessary, the right of way shall be donated to the City by the developer and GEEAA;
The PUD plan represents the entire site; recreation shall remain recreation and any reference to underlying zoning shall be removed from the plan;
A final time line shall be submitted and approved by staff and be included in the final plan;
All internal walkways to be completed within four years of the final plan and shall service the entire development;
All single car garages shall have nine-foot wide doors and be 320 s.f. minimum including the storage area;
Retail uses shall be based on parking limitations and our code;
No automotive, filling wash service or drive through restaurants shall be permitted.
Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.
Mr. Shvegzda said regarding the unsignalized intersection at 747, we recommend that the exiting left turn on that be physically prohibited.
Mr. Okum said I will modify motion to include control exit onto 747 south (left turn) shall be physically prohibited. Mr. Vanover seconded the amended motion.
Mr. Sherry said I don’t think standard lighting requirements would be appropriate, particularly in the residential area. We are not allowing him any flexibility to introduce more appropriate lighting styles.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY-SEVEN
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Okum responded that Ms. McBride’s comments were that there should be consistent lighting design for the development. Mr. Sherry responded but we were talking about flat lens down lit type fixtures. I understand the consistency, but I think that is different from what Ms. McBride is saying.
Mr. Okum responded I understand because if you are looking at a residential area, you might want to do post lights or something more attractive. Mr. Okum said it will be on the final plan anyway.
Mr. Huddleston said she was talking about type of lighting, rather than type of pole.
Mr. Okum said the flat lens lighting shall be in the commercial area. Mr. Vanover said the consistency was on the type of light, metal halilde, vapor, etc. using the same light throughout so the lighting itself is consistent.
Mr. Okum said I think if they submit the lighting plan and have non glare lighting it doesn’t need to be in an enclosed case flat lens. I understand what you are saying. What if I strike with flat lenses from the motion.
Mr. McErlane pointed out that the majority of what he included in the motion is already in our code, and we have implemented it recently. I don’t know that it is necessary to be in the motion.
All members voted aye, and the zoning change and preliminary plan were approved unanimously.
Planning Commission recessed at 9:27 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
I. NEW BUSINESS
A. Minor Façade Renovation (Pier 1 Imports) Princeton Plaza – PUD 11711 Princeton Pike
Bob Gilhart, owner of Princeton Plaza said this is a pretty basic project. Pier 1 wants to expand and relocate in our center. They want to double their size, change the façade on the Fashion Shop space and Fashion Shop will be relocated elsewhere.
Mr. Syfert asked if Fashion Shop would be relocating in the center, and Mr. Gilhart answered I won’t say. They will relocate, and that will be up to them.
Mr. Galster said the only thing I see in the staff comments that needs to be addressed is the color pallet that will need to be submitted to meet staff approval. Otherwise I would like to move to approve the modifications with the color pallet submitted to meet the staff approval and Mr. Okum seconded the motion.
Mr. Syfert asked if the façade would be similar to Old Navy. Mr. Gilhart answered that it would be pretty much the way it is now.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY- EIGHT
VC ZONING CHANGE & PRELIMINARY PLAN – "CROSSINGS AT THE PARK"
Mr. Gilhart commented that f my own benefit, I wanted to see what it would like taking the Hyde Park entrance and putting it on the Fashion Shop space. The materials are the same. It will be an EIFS material on the entrance, but everything else remains the same in terms of the product. The split face block stays on the upper levels and the sloped metal work stays the same. They are taking off the front edge and adding EIFS there to make it a blend between Old Navy and themselves, and a transition into the rest of the center. The EIFS color will be the same as Old Navy.
On the motion to approve, all members voted aye and the approval was granted unanimously.
B.    Map Amendment – CMHA Senior Housing Complex – 11111 Springfield Pike – GB and RSH-L to PF-M
Derek Howard of DH Architects in Fairfield said we have with us Troy Stevens from my office and Tim Charles and Ed Patch from Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority.
The project is on a 5.6 acre site and we are proposing a two-story facility that would include 84 one-bedroom units (739 s.f. each), and 16 two-bedroom units (935 s.f. each). The complex also includes a 1,000 s.f. commons area and a 200 s.f. management office.
This is the site plan that we submitted. One of the issues that have come up is the fact that the parking requirement is 158 spaces and that was shown in one of the earlier submittals that we included. The American Planning Association’s parking standards when applied to this project would require around 83 parking spaces, so we are showing 90 spaces, but we can provide 158 spaces. The capability of doing that is there, but we are proposing 90 because we feel that is ample, considering the fact that the user group of this facility is the elderly.
The other item that the owner wants to make sure that we consider is the potential future development, which would include patio units. With that in mind, we still seem to comply with the setbacks that are required, and this is something that the owner wants to make sure that we have on the table in case development is realized down the road.
Our building material is primarily masonry walls, and the field brick would be a rich red or brown with a little lighter accent, and we have samples here. The roof would be pitched and shingled.
On the landscaping, the detailed plans with species would be included on future submittals. The lawns and beds would be irrigated.
Mr. Howard said our buildings would be two story, approximately 40 feet, and the maximum height is 60. Our maximum impervious surface ratio is 70% and we are proposing 52%. Even with the future development, we are below that.
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE TWENTY- NINE
VI B CMHA SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX – 11111 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
The maximum building coverage is 25% and we are proposing 20%. When we look at the potential for future development, we are still around 25%.
We are proposing to screen dumpsters with a masonry wall and solid gates, and we would do the same thing for the mechanical equipment.
The signs are in the development stage, but we would develop them to be in compliance with your code. That is something we still need to review in detail with the owner.
The site lighting proposed a Grandville style fixture, 175 watt metal halide 12 foot high poles and cut off fixtures would be proposed where required.
Some of the information that you have in front of you may be a little different, but we have tried to address some of the comments that we received last week. We have an average foot candle of around 2.1 in the parking lot and drive area, approximately .7 foot candles at the property line and .2 foot candles at the adjacent property. I have this information here. Lighting will be located on the building; we have to have it at every point of exit.
The future cross access to the north and south properties is something that the owner and adjacent property owners need to confirm and negotiate, so that is something that still needs to be addressed.
We submitted calculations for detention, but the owner prefers retention as well as the staff, who reviewed our calculations thus far, so we are on the same page there.
We do have more detailed information based on the comments we received last Friday, as well as the owner’s signature for the affidavit.
Mr. Shvegzda reported that the concept plan notes two access points to State Route 4. The northerly access point appears to be the main access point. It does align opposite the drive on the eastern side of State Route 4 that goes into Mapleknoll, and it is noted to have a right turn lane at that northern drive. The south drive is noted as right in right out only.
The final site plan development needs to take into account the future Phase II improvements of State Route 4. The improvements that will be a part of that are noted.
There is a significant slope that has been constructed to the west of the submitted site as a part of the regrading that has occurred on the Church of the Nazarene property. That will have to be accounted for, and it is not indicated on the concept plans.
On the issue of retention versus detention, it would be our suggestion that it be a retention basin with a standing body of water.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY
VI B CMHA SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX – 11111 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. Shvegzda added that in terms of preliminary detention basin analysis that was provided, it took into account existing impervious area, insofar as what would be allowed in the release rate. The entire area should be considered undeveloped and be utilized as impervious in the analysis.
Mr. Galster said you had noted that there was an attached drawing showing the site improvements to State Route 4, but I don’t see the drawing so I need clarification that the site plan that we have has incorporated those items. Mr. Shvegzda stated that it basically incorporates it insofar as the setback away from the roadway. It reflects the right of way that would be necessary, and you can see what has been constructed at the intersection at Sharon, which would continue to the north.
Mr. McErlane reported that the property consists of 5.6 acres. The majority of it is zoned GB (General Business, and there is a portion to the rear which is RSH-L (Residential Single Household – Low Density) in Subarea D of the Route 4 Corridor District. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning to PF–M (Public Facilities Medium Density). The PF-M District allows institutions for the elderly as principally permitted uses.
UP to this point we have not received the owner’s affidavit and Mr. Howard has brought it tonight. The applicant has shown on the site plan that he meets all the setback and height and density requirements per the Zoning Code. The only deviation from that is the number of parking spaces, and those were modified at the recommendation of Ms. McBride, based on recent APA studies relative to senior housing facilities.
Because this is in the Route 4 Corridor District, there are a few items that apply that the applicant has indicated that they would comply with. Those are that at least 50% of the elevations visible from the right of way must incorporate brick or stone, at least 50% of the roof area is to be a pitched residential roof form and he has indicated that all of the roof is a pitched residential roof. We also would recommend that there be conformance with the tree removal and replacement plan requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
Mr. Galster said I want to clarify that the building is 100% brick. I don’t have an elevation that shows the whole frontage of the building. How many peaks would be across the front elevation?
Mr. Howard responded every other unit has a gable. Mr. Galster wondered if it would be possible to put some sort of accent brick or your accent color up the side to break up the solid wall and add some dimension to the building? Mr. Howard said sure.
Mr. Okum asked if they had a development in the Milford area, and from the audience, Mr. Charles answered that you are referring to Sunrise. Mr. Galster said it looked like siding on each of the ends of the building, but in this project, it will brick wrap all the way around on the edge of the building as well. Mr. Howard answered that is what we are proposing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY-ONE
VI B CMHA SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX – 11111 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
From Ms. McBride’s report, Mr. McErlane said to expand on the zoning for the property, there was an urban renewal plan that was adopted for this area and as part of their recommendations were that redevelopment include rezoning to a medium or low density public facilities district or to a PUD district, and that the site be redeveloped in accordance with the Route 4 Corridor Standards and the Corridor Review Overlay District. Also, the recommendation was that the site be redeveloped as senior housing and/or neighborhood oriented businesses and that vehicular access to the site be limited. It looks like all of those items have been addressed in this proposal.
Also as a part of the urban renewal plan for the site, there were a number of design elements incorporated into the redevelopment concept, i.e. intensive landscaping to be planted along Springfield Pike in the right of way within the development. There are specific requirements within the Corridor District with respect to the plantings, and the applicant has shown how that can be accomplished.
Another recommendation is that the redevelopment include pedestrian access on Springfield Pike. The applicant has shown a sidewalk which would lead out to a public sidewalk system that is proposed to go along with the widening of Route 4, and that there be a maximum of two curb cuts on the property.
The building is 40 feet high, and signage is to be ground mounted and designed and located consistent with the Corridor Review District requirements.
We talked about the parking requirements, and Ms. McBride steered the applicant towards the APA standards, which require 90 instead of 158. The Zoning Code allows Planning Commission to make that modification based on the unusual use for the site.
On Page 4, Ms. McBride’s considerations were:
If Planning Commission chooses to recommend approval of the Zone Map Amendment to Council, the following items need to be considered:
1. That Planning Commission modify the required number of parking spaces to 90
2. That waste enclosures be screened consistent with the requirements in the Zoning Code, and that solid gates be included;
3. That consideration be given to providing future cross access to properties on the north and south. We are not really sure if there are uses that would be consistent with that. The property to the north is a church facility. Right now there is some business immediately south along Route 4. The majority of the uses directly adjacent to it are residential right now. At this point it would be premature to try to provide access. It would just be a consideration if the uses are compatible that the applicant would be amenable to cross access easements should that redevelop in the future.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY-TWO
VI B CMHA SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX – 11111 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. McErlane commented that we are not really sure if there are uses that would be consistent with that. The property to the north is a church facility. Right now there is some business immediately south along Route 4. The majority of the uses directly adjacent to it are residential right now. At this point it would be premature to try to provide access. It would just be a consideration if the uses are compatible that the applicant would be amenable to cross access easements should that redevelop in the future.
4. She also recommends that the landscape plan be revised for future submittals per staff comments.
5. Signage as permitted by the Zoning Code shall be included in future submittals, which would show up on Final Development Plans;.
6. Building elevations and samples of materials and colors shall be submitted in future application with the Final Development Plans as well.
Mr. Galster said to clarify her consideration that the site plan be revised to indicate that 90 parking spaces are required. Mr. McErlane responded that the most current site plan shows 90. A previous plan showed 158. Mr. Galster said so that staff comment would be revised to 90? Mr. Okum asked if 90 spaces were okay, and Mr. McErlane responded 90 is acceptable. I think Ms. McBride is indicating that 158, which is what the tabular section of the code says is required, should be shown on here even though Planning Commission can approve 90.
Mr. Syfert wondered why it should show 158 if she is recommending 90. Mr. McErlane responded as it stands right now, none of the tabular values say that 90 is an acceptable number, but it does allow Planning Commission to make that allowance, based on the use. Mr. Syfert said so it is not a Board of Zoning Appeals item. Mr. McErlane answered no, because there is verbiage in our code that allows Planning Commission to alter those based on unusual uses. Mr. Okum wondered how this was an unusual use, and Mr. McErlane answered yes, as opposed to a straight apartment complex.
Mr. Okum said I have some concerns about how the development will look on the south side coming in. Do you have an elevation of that southernmost wall where the roofline breaks? Mr. Howard said we don’t have that but it looks like it would be similar to what you see at this end. Mr. Okum said it looks like you have three roofs stepped. WE don’t know what that wall will look like, and it will be a main focal point coming into Springdale.
I think Mr. Galster’s comment regarding breaks is important. We are talking about the one section on Springfield Pike that is over 300 feet. Based on my rough calculations, it appears that the gables are going on top of dual bedrooms. If you look at the drawings that means you will have six gables along Springfield Pike. Mr. Syfert commented that it would be three. Mr. Howard said there would be three.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY-THREE
VI B CMHA SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX – 11111 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. Okum continued that is 300 feet, and you are only talking about three gables that are about 22 feet wide. That is not much; otherwise it will look like an apartment building. I am looking at your Section A 101; I count six peaks but you are saying three, and I want to make sure that we have six. Mr. Howard showed the six peaks on the elevation, but at this stage it is very preliminary.
Mr. Okum responded I understand. I am as concerned as Mr. Galster is that we will have a flat faced 300 foot two story building going down Springfield Pike 300 feet plus the entryway, and that can look really nasty.
Mr. Howard responded we will not have that. That is the reason we have brought this concept to you; there is not a flat wall indicated here, and that is not what we are proposing. Mr. Galster said so every place where two bedrooms come together has a gable, and that totals six.
Mr. Okum said I really like the idea of the area with the picnic and park benches where they can go out and sit, but they literally are walking across the parking lot to get to it. That seemed a little strange; I guess there won’t be many cars in that area. Mr. Howard said my only comment would be that we want those parking spaces close; we wouldn’t want someone to have to get out of the car and cross the roadway to get to their unit. This concept has a passive recreational space in the center and it is less likely to have some conflict there.
Mr. Okum asked if it would be a single directional lane, adding that it probably would be simpler for the elderly. Mr. Howard said we can do that. Mr. Okum asked if there would be a commissary or would Meals on Wheels be involved. Mr. Charles answered that Meals on Wheels would bring food in, but actual preparation of food on that site, no.
Mr. Okum wondered if the radius at the corner had enough space for Meals on Wheels to park. Mr. Charles said it would be a16 passenger van. Mr. Okum asked if there would be enough room for him to pull in there and unload and cars still be able to navigate around him, and Mr. Howard indicated that there would be.
Mr. Okum asked if the balcony space was calculated into the total square footage. Mr. Howard responded that the square footage that we have listed is including just the interior. Mr. Okum said the balcony is listed in your tabulation. Mr. Howard added that our gross square footage for the one-bedrooms is 739 s.f. and for the two-bedrooms is 935 s.f.
Mr. Okum asked if the bathrooms were ADA approved; they don’t appear to be. Mr. McErlane reported that there are Type A and Type B units that have to go into multi-family developments. Type A’s are fully accessible and Type B’s have some form of accessibility to them but are not totally accessible.
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY- FOUR
VI B CMHA SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX – 11111 SPRINGFIELD PIKE
Mr. Okum said I can’t see navigating a wheelchair in either one of those bathrooms. There is no five foot turnaround in either the one bedroom or two bedroom plan. Mr. Howard said they will be handicap accessible. Mr. Charles said because it is a mixed income building, 60 of these units are market rate and only 40 of the units are assisted, but we are required by HUD to have 10% fully handicapped units, which will be the two bedrooms in case there has to be a live in. Then all of the other units have to serve the new definition to have home visitability. That means when a handicapped person visits your home, they have the right to use the bathroom.
Mr. Sherry asked if the shingled roof was three dimensional and Mr. Howard answered I don’t know if we have gotten that far yet to determine the actual shingle type.
Mr. Sherry wondered about the mechanical units, and Mr. Howard said there are individually controlled furnaces, and the commons area would be controlled by a major unit within the mechanical space. Mr. Sherry said so the outside wall would have 100 different air conditioning units. Mr. Howard responded not necessarily, it depends on the mechanical system. That is an option, but it is one that we are trying to get away from so as not to have something that would look like a hotel.
Mr. Sherry asked if one dumpster would handle the whole facility, and Mr. Howard answered that right now we are showing one in the northwest corner. If we need more, we will provide them in another area on the site, and we will screen it.
Mr. Sherry commented I don’t see any storage area for any of these units. Is that needed or necessary? Mr. Howard said at this point of time we have not included any storage area because of the type of usage. We do have some areas of storage in there, but not to the extent that was discussed earlier.
Mr. Okum moved to recommend to Council the rezoning of this area to PF-M. Mr. Coleman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the motion was passed unanimously.
A. Concept Review – Condominium Project -309 West Kemper Road
Holly Todd of Emkenn Homes said we were here last time and went back with a lot of the ideas that were thrown out at that meeting. We are purchasing the property further west by Hickory so we could get away from the spot zoning. We had a work session with the city and got a couple of ideas there, and we put together a totally different concept. It is still a condominium project, but considering your concerns, we now have access to Hickory rather than Kemper Road so we are not dumping all the traffic onto Kemper, and we have changed the design. Instead of going with the row of townhouses, we have gone to either the single or the duplex patio homes or landominiums, whatever you want to call them. This would make it more appealing and more like Pine Garden, except we are proposing more land space between them.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY- FIVE
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Ms. Todd said we got away from the spot zoning. Pine Gardens has multi-family in the rear, retail on the side and residential on two sides. Hamlet Manor has multi-family on one side, business across and residential on two sides. We are now going to the same thing. We have a church on one side, a school across the street, multi-family in the rear and residential on the other points. We tried to get away from a lot of the concerns that you had and a lot of the design.
This was a very preliminary design. With all the opposition that we had, we didn’t want to put a lot of time and effort into it, until we saw what the City would like to see more than anything, to berm up and block off Kemper Road and make it a part of the Old Town concept pulling back from Route 4. If we get some positive feedback on that, we will go for the full scale concept plan with the landscape and lighting. We are trying to work as we go along with work sessions with the City to do it all and pull in the Old Town design and make it the way that the City would like to see it. We are here to see if you would like this type of plan and listen to any comments you might have on it, and if it is a more positive approach, if we should go forward with it.
Mr. McErlane reported that the property consists of 3.13 acres currently zoned RSH-L, Residential Single Household Low Density to the east, and RSH-H, Residential Single household High Density to the west. There also is a 15-foot wide alley right of way that extends from Kemper Road south to the end of Cherry Street.
The applicant proposes to build single household dwellings and duplexes on a private street. Six duplex buildings and five single household dwellings are proposed, and one existing single household dwelling is to remain for a total of 18 units. Three existing single household dwellings are proposed to be removed.
In a letter submitted June 3rd, the applicant clarified that the project is intended to be condominiums and not on individual subdivided lots so that the site plan as shown with all the individual lot lines drawn on it was not intended to be that way. It would be similar to a common property with zero lot lines drawn around each individual unit, similar to what you see on landominiums or condominiums.
A lot of the comments that both Anne McBride and I have relative to setbacks, don’t necessarily apply with respect to the internal lot lines, although they do apply to the surrounding property lines.
The development will require rezoning of the property to Residential Multi-Household – Low Density (RMH-L) or it could be developed with a Transitional District overlay and staff recommends the latter if it is to be rezoned. The Transition District Overlay allows more control from the City’s standpoint to the type of development on the property, and allows the developers some flexibility with regard to setbacks.
 
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY- SIX
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Mr. McErlane reported that what the Transition Overlay does is it leaves the current Residential Single Household zoning designations in place and tacks a T Overlay designation on that. What it would allow a developer to do is under the current underlying zoning develop single family housing as it currently is permitted today, but the T Overlay District allows other types of uses to be developed similar to a PUD. In other words, the only way something else could be developed would be by a specific plan approved by Planning Commission and Council. The advantage to that is if it were to be rezoned to multi-household, this developer could walk away and someone else could come in and build apartment buildings on the property. The Transition zoning will apply to a specific plan approved by Planning Commission and Council. So if it were to be rezoned, it would be our recommendation to go in that direction.
Looking at Residential Multi-Household Low Density zoning, the front yard setback required is 35 feet. The smallest setback is actually the existing house that is to remain on Hickory Street, and it is shown at 22’-4". The front yard on Kemper is required to be 35 feet as well and it is shown at 30 feet. The side yard to the south for one of the single family units is required to be 18 feet and it is 25.1 feet. The side yard dimensions do meet code. The single units and duplexes have different setback requirements. The single unit rear yard is required to be 40 feet, and it is indicated at 20.4 feet. Duplex is required to be 30 feet and it is indicated at 25 feet. The minimum distance between buildings is 20 feet, and it is shown at 20 feet. The maximum building to land coverage is 25% and we don’t know that number.
The applicant is proposing two car garages as required by code and additional parking is required to be two spaces per unit. It could be accommodated on driveways, but the way the driveways are configured and combined into one driveway apron, some of those are difficult to even maneuver in and out of them.
The minimum dwelling size is required to be 910 s.f. We don’t have an indication what is being proposed with respect to dwelling unit sizes. On June 3rd we did receive some building elevations which are general in nature.
If it did go with transitional zoning, we would require that the covenants include provisions for maintenance of the detention basin, landscaping and those type of things. Our recommendation is that the developer consider extending the berm that is shown along Kemper Road and wrapping it around Hickory Street adjacent to the church to try to provide some buffering for the church as well.
Mr. McErlane reported on Ms. McBride’s comments that she indicates that the Comprehensive Plan designates this property to be low density residential. By that designation, it provides for single family detached homes on 7500 to 20,000 s.f. lots, so the proposal is a deviation from what the Comprehensive Plan indicates.
 
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY- SEVEN
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Mr. McErlane added that there is no indication regarding height of the buildings. The maximum height is permitted to be 30 feet. Two household dwellings must be a minimum of 1200 s.f. without basements and 910 s.f. with basements. I think the applicant supplemented the information saying that they would have basements.
No provision has been made regarding visitor parking. Two parking spaces are required per unit, exclusive of the garages. We have permitted driveway space to be used as the additional two spaces. However, the Fire Department has indicated that they would not permit parking on the street, so there may be a need for some additional visitor parking in the development.
Ms. McBride indicated that future submittals need to include building elevations, materials and colors, landscaping, lighting and signage. Based on the fact that it was going to be split up into lots, you would need a Homeowner’s Association to take care of things like the detention basin and landscaping and the streets and those types of things. Those typically would be covered in condominium association bylaws and covenants. Some of those we would require to be included in covenants that the City would have an interest in as well.
Mr. Okum said there will be a blend of single units and duplexes. Mr. Okum said the single unit’s are1656 s.f. and Ms. Todd added that all of them are on full basements. Mr. Okum continued that the duplexes are 1200 s.f. on the first floor.
Ms. Todd reported that we are looking at some pretty good sized units. The whole idea is to try to keep the concept of a regular home.
Mr. Okum asked if these would be spec built, and Ms. Todd answered no, if this works, we already have four presold. We probably will have stone and brick, and we may use siding on the gables. Mr. Okum said that would be four sides masonry, and Ms. Todd confirmed this.
Mr. Okum commented that this does address a lot of the questions that I had. I think that the lot lines of the existing residence, the one to the south on Hickory Street, would probably remain, but all the
rest would go, so that leaves that with a 10 foot setback, would that be a rear yard? Mr. McErlane reported that the rear yard is opposite Hickory Street. Mr. Okum added so that would require a variance, or is a legal non-conforming? Mr. McErlane responded it depends. If it is ends up being a part of the transition district, that can be approved as part of the plan.
Mr. Shvegzda reported that they assumed that the internal roadways would be private. The access is now off Hickory Street and not Kemper Road. The internal roadways will have to be reviewed for fire apparatus accessibility. With the landominium arrangement, the issues on frontage on public roadways is taken care of.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY- EIGHT
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Mr. Shvegzda reported that we need to know the kind of curving would be proposed for the roadways. Now that this will have a Homeowner’s Association the maintenance of the detention basin will be taken care of as a part of that. No preliminary analysis was provided to verify the adequacy of the detention basin size.
There were rough numbers put out in terms of trip generations. You can see that the a.m. one hour peak around 16 exiting and 5 entering. The p.m. one hour peak has 14 entering and 8 exiting. At some point, the applicant would have to provide this in more detail.
Percentages of traffic heading northbound and southbound on Hickory will vary a lot to do with the amount of traffic backing up on Kemper primarily, and also would be affected by the destinations and origins of the trips. Most of the time when there is not a traffic backup on Kemper, the majority of the traffic probably would enter Kemper Road via Hickory.
In terms of utilities, CWW and MSD availability letters are needed. This will require the vacation of that portion of East Alley. Within the development, there is an existing sanitary sewer that does serve several of the existing homes there, and some arrangement will need to be made to provide sanitary service to the homes that will remain as part of the development.
ON the 30 foot setback at Kemper Road, the earth and berm was scaled off the plans, and if you consider a 3 to 1 maximum slope on it, it would line up to just under three feet of height which doesn’t seem to be enough in terms of screening and considering the close proximity to Kemper Road. Consideration may be given to stating a minimum height of earth and berm and/or some type of decorative wall in that vicinity.
Mr. Syfert said we don’t have a formal proposal; we are in concept discussion.
Mr. Okum said instead of 20 feet, I think 24 feet would be more appropriate for the roadway. Mr. Shvegzda commented that 24 feet would provide less potential conflict between opposing traffic.
Mr. Okum said I think Mr. Shvegzda has a valid point regarding the units that back against Kemper Road. I would be very concerned about those exterior features on those back sides as they pertain to Kemper Road.
Besides that and in general, I don’t have a major problem with the plan.
The transitional District is a zoning change with conditions. Are those conditions set before we send it to Council? Mr. McErlane responded it is basically a mini PUD. The plan and the transition overlay designation would be recommended by Planning and adopted by Council. The applicant is looking for feedback right now as to whether or not it makes sense to go that direction.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE THIRTY-NINE
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Mr. Galster said I think the units coming out to Kemper Road are way too close. I get more of an apartment feel from that as I go by there instead of a residential feel. They are too close to the roadway. The earthen berm with plantings won’t get very high in that short of a distance. In general I think you are trying to fit too much onto this one site. In addition to that my concerns are traffic. I know it is coming in on Hickory, but where is all that traffic going to go? There are quite a number of units; are they all going out on Kemper? What if they try to come out on Pear Street? That is a lot of traffic to go in the back corner.
If it is going to have more density than it presently has, my preference would be for it to come out of Olde Gate and out the back that way. If you would take the back half of the lot and access off Olde Gate, I wouldn’t have anywhere near the same opposition. Ms. Todd responded we approached them with that and we didn’t get anywhere with Olde Gate. Mr. Galster commented maybe it would be more attractive to Olde Gate if there were more properties interested in doing it; I am not sure.
This is extremely dense to me. I don’t like all the traffic coming into the old part of Springdale. The road system is not anywhere near the same standard as it is throughout the rest of the community. I think it would be awfully tight back there.
Mr. Vanover said I also have some problems with those units, because if you look at the 30 foot scale, the unit on Lot 15, the berm is right on the corner of that structure. The unit on Lot 14 is not a whole lot better off. I don’t think the berm is going to give the protection that they are looking for and we would like to see. Also, this is the City of Springdale, not Springfield.
Ms. Todd responded that this plan was very preliminary. We had our work session and had four days to get the surveyor to draw it up. If we can change the configuration and get actual house plans for these lots, I will take the berm up to six feet so it will be wider anyway. If we change the house plans and pull it back from Kemper Road, I don’t know what you think would be a good distance. We are just trying to get the concept. A lot of these we can change. We can make some of the units wider versus deep and change it that way.
After the last meeting, we made a lot of changes, and got some more property. What I am trying to do is get a feel of if we make these changes, would you be more likely to approve it?
Mr. Vanover commented I can’t say that if you do this that it will guarantee or insure a yes vote. I am speaking for myself. Unfortunately that’s a risk that desvelopers take. We can give you the input and you can go from there and continue the process.
Mr. Sherry said I share the same concerns about the Kemper Road situation. Maybe a redesign or something can work through that. I feel much better about the density. I was concerned about that laslt time, and I think you have satisfied that.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FORTY
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Mr. Sherry added that I also share Steve’s concerns about the traffic on Hickory Street; maybe the traffic impact study that they suggested would answer that. It is a much better plan than what we saw last time.
Mr. Syfert commented I’m going to let you know where I am coming from. I share the same concern about Hickory. If you want to rebuild Hickory, that’s an option you might consider. No one has mentioned the Comprehensive Plan on which we worked very diligently. I probably will not favor you with a yes vote because that was all designated in the Comprehensive Plan to remain as a low density residential area, but I do like what you have done with your plans.
Mr. Huddleston asked the long range plan for Kemper Road. Is there any proposed widening there? Mr. Shvegzda responded that at this time there really isn’t. There have been some concepts that were looked at a number of years ago, but nothing has ever developed in terms of additional improvements for that length.
Mr. Huddleston said it appears that we are pretty consistent with the 60 foot right of way throughout there, except for one portion. Would you want to clean up that deed if anything goes forward on this? You have an ownership where the tract goes out into the right of way. Mr. Shvegzda answered we may look at those kinds of things.
Mr. Huddleston said I would agree with the other comments that have been made. I think this plan is much better than the one that we have seen previously. My first reaction would be that if you would reduce that density by a couple of more units, you might be able to improve that setback on Kemper Road and come back with something that is a reasonably attractive single family type development at the same time which I would consider low density. Those are my thoughts. I wouldn’t want to jump into it with the problems we have on Kemper Road. I see that as a real problem. Any attempt to screen will be very limited because of the short distance you can do it in. . My recommendation would be to come back with two or three or four fewer units and see what you can do to make it work.
Mr. Galster said we have bermed up Kemper Road and the additional single family residences that we are going around. Now we are approaching the back of the adjoining property. There would need to be some screening there because of the intensity of the development. And, following along on the back sides of Lots 9, 8 and 7, the density is so high that the people who live on the single residential lots down there deserve the same screening as well.
I would be hard pressed to say it is okay to shave five feet off this setback and five feet off that one in an attempt to fit all this stuff in. When what we are trying to do is take a couple of residential lots and basically continue them as residential lots, I would like to see those sizes kept to. I don’t know what that does.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FORTY-ONE
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Mr. Galster added that Mr. Huddleston says that taking two three or four of them out may allow that setback to be better. I will be pretty tight on the front and side yards and rear yards and space between them and those kinds of things, because I don’t see an advantage to the City to shrink everything down to fit it in.
As a Councilmember, I can hear the issues that are raised from all the people who own single family property on Kemper Road and have for a long time. The general feeling has always been that we have tried to encourage Kemper Road to remain with a residential flavor, not only through the Comprehensive Plan, but I know that is the desire of most of the residents up and down Kemper Road.
We routed Northland Boulevard around to take some of the traffic off Kemper Road, and this seems to me to be putting it back out there again. Granted traffic on Kemper can be bad as it is, but if all of a sudden we are starting to reduce lot sizes to get more building on Kemper Road, we will create a bigger problem. My problem is the integrity of the whole area, and I would be hard pressed to say that I wouldn’t be a stickler for those setback type things in order to squeeze something in.
Mr. Vanover said one other point is that in the cover letter, you mentioned the proposed movement of the elementary school. The indication is almost as if it is fact. Ms. Todd commented it is one of the proposals. Mr. Vanover added that it is one of many, and none of that has been brought forward. It is a concept; there have been several ideas discussed. To make that statement to massage the acceptability of the project, I disagree with.
Ms. Todd answered I am trying to show that our concept to get away from spot zoning is no different than the other two condo complexes that I have quoted as far as having multi family against residential on two sides and business or retail or whatever on the other side. It is hard to say what is across the street. Springdale Elementary right now is across the street. Before you had residential, so how do you divide all those areas up in terms of what surrounds it? It’s not all residential around it. By going all the way to Hickory Street, we tried to get away from being surrounded by residential. Mr. Okum’s main concern was that it was surrounded by residential.
Mr. Coleman said I am encouraged by the changes that you have made since the last session. I would suggest that you have more discussions with staff to work with them and use the Comprehensive Plan particularly regarding the density issues. The majority of the comments that have been made this evening reflect density concerns. If you continue discussion with staff, you will have a full understanding of the Comprehensive Plan and if at all possible you can move in the direction you want to go.
Mr. Huddleston said based on the discussion, would the applicant like us to table this? Ms. Todd answered yes, you can table it. I probably will go forward, but I will have to redesign. We will look at getting some definite house plans to put on here so we know what size we can get on here
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FORTY- TWO
VI C CONCEPT REVIEW – CONDOMINIUM PROJECT – 309 WEST KEMPER
Ms. Todd added that we know that we still want to keep a minimum 1400 s.f. ranches and 1800 s.f. two stories if we can, and I need to see what we can do with them.
Mr. Huddleston moved to table and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the item was tabled to the July 8th meeting.
D.    Concept Review – Grand Convention Center (former Roberds Grand) 11775 Commons Drive
Larry Bergman of The Bergman Group said this is a project that will benefit the property owners and a tremendous benefit to the City of Springdale.
A few years ago a company named Exposition Management came to us. Melanie Atkinson who is here tonight and her husband Hig Atkinson produce consumer trade shows. They talked to us about using our parking lot for a trade show. At that time we weren’t interested, but they continued to ask to bring an RV show into the parking lot. Tom Raper of Raper RV indicated that they might like to lease 100,000 feet from us and run a dealership. After some market studies, they realized they can’t afford to run a year-long business in one location and they went away. It caught my interest.
The Greater Cincinnati area is lacking a location that can provide superior consumer shows. Many people don’t want to show within the City of Cincinnati. There is a production company that controls the Convention Center for a number of the key months, and it precludes other people from coming into our area.
Another Convention Center is the Roberds in Wilmington and, although they have a beautiful facility, they don’t have the amenities within it for people to shop and eat and stay at hotels.
Melanie and Hig met with the partners who weren’t very enthused, but said if Dave & Buster’s were on board they would be more interested. I set up a meeting with Dave & Buster’s and not only do they want them next door, they want to be a part of this convention service. So in future presentations, we have to discuss the plans and access within Dave & Buster’s and the flow of customer traffic between the two entities.
We don’t know what size the convention center should be, but we are looking for as large as possible, because it adds value and brings different uses to the site. Dave & Buster’s was willing to come in tonight, but I wanted to make sure that we are all on board and that we all are trying to achieve the same purpose.
Traffic is always a concern, but things are changing rapidly within our area. There are new developments north at Tylersville and Union Centre Boulevard, and Forest Park with the new Mills project. People are shopping not just in Tri-County any more. The tax dollars are going into other communities.
 
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
10 JUNE 2003
PAGE FORTY- THREE
D. GRAND CONVENTION CENTER 11775 COMMONS DRIVE
Mr. Bergman said there are tremendous vacancies happening in Tri-County within the office market, which is true of other areas in Cincinnati, but things are changing. Some of the retailers are not doing well here. The Costco store in Tri-County is not meeting their expectations. We have to keep our core area viable, and one way to do it is to have a convention center.
Parking was a major concern in the staff comments, and Melanie did a tremendous amount of research, contacting other cities with new convention centers and the amount of parking they have. The formula that was used would require an inability to exhibit anything; we would just have all people within the space, which doesn’t make sense. In the package she has provided you, she can prove that this is something that needs to be reviewed.
I don’t disagree that we need to do traffic studies in the future, but I would like to comment that the exhibition business actually drops during the holiday season when traffic is heaviest for retail. They don’t run expositions or trade shows at that time.
I think this is an absolutely perfect mix. We have Dave & Buster’s on board and we have owners that are willing to commit money to see that the facility is done in a first class manner. We also have a group that is willing to work together with the City to decide what size it should be. The question is how do we come together and accomplish this without being inundated with numbers and make it something exciting for everyone.
On signage, I think this is something that the City of Springdale should look at as a signature for themselves. They may have a good neighbor in Sharonville with a convention center, but it is more meeting halls than it is convention space, and we are not addressing the same people.
Number two, this should be identified as the Springdale Convention Center. You have Dave & Buster’s running food and beverage and doing what they know best. You have an exposition service that runs numerous shows.
On the signage, we have that one former Roberds sign with that big black board right in the middle. What I would like to do is if you go up I-71 and look at what Roberds has done to their signs, and go downtown and see the television monitor. You sell what is going on in the community. We would set up a certain amount of time that would promote what is happening in the Ci