9 APRIL 2002

7:00 P.M.

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

  4. Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston

    David Okum, Robert Sherry, Councilman Tom

    Vanover, David Whitaker and Chairman Syfert.

    Others Present: Doyle H. Webster, Mayor

    Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Galster moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council – none
    2. Zoning Bulletin – March 10, 2002
    3. Zoning Bulletin – March 25, 2002
    4. Minutes – Board of Zoning Appeals – February 19, 2002
    1. Building Elevation Change – Globe Furniture – 11745 Commons Drive (tabled 3/12/02)

Mr. Syfert reported that the applicant is requesting that this be tabled to the May meeting. Mr. Galster so moved and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to May 14th, 2002.

B. Landscaping/Tree Removal Plan – Springdale Church of the Nazarene, 11177 Springfield Pike

David Ralph, Building Chairman for the project, and I would like to make an overall comment to the commission. Our desire as a church is to provide the best facility that we can to the community and for our members. We would like to get past the landscaping. The documents that have been submitted we believe are sufficient for us to gain approval, and we would like to be able to work through that tonight.

Plan A is our proposal, and Plan B is the proposal that is our interpretation of the feedback that we got from the city engineers. Both plans exceed the ordinance and the needs as we understand it. What I want to do is ask for consideration for Plan A from the standpoint that we are very aware of the need for good landscaping for public facilities to be able to maintain. However, we have no means of recouping that added cost.


9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Ralph added that since we are 600 feet from Route 4 and 250 feet from any of our neighbors, there is no added benefit to that additional landscaping. We would like Planning’s consideration on Plan A from a pure financial cost for the church. However, we are prepared to do whatever this city and this Planning Commission wants us to do to make that happen. We don’t want to linger on any further. We are on a budget and we don’t have the means of recouping any additional costs that exceed the minimum of what we think is needed for our congregation, and we ask your consideration.

Todd Yoby of Environ Group said I don’t have a lot of comments so if you want to get staff comments, we can look at the plans and details.

Ms. McBride reported on the property belonging to Springdale, we had asked that there be a bigger mix of evergreens in that planting. They were initially proposing four evergreens, and we asked that they supplement that. Plan A had an additional one evergreen and Plan B added five additional for a total of nine trees. Given the size of the area, we felt the five additional were appropriate, and we are going with Plan B.

We did however suggest that they only include the shrubs in that area in mulched beds. We don’t want the mulch extended over into the treed areas because long term that would be a maintenance issue for the city.

The second item had to do with the parking islands in the parking lot. We had asked them to increase three shrubs per island, which is pretty sparse. Plan B shows six shrubs, so we are recommending that.

The vibernum on the north property line is what separates the existing parking and proposed expansion from Maple Knoll. Originally they had suggested the vibernum to be 10 feet on center and we had suggested eight feet on center, and that is what they are showing on Plan A. That is fine with staff. Plan B showed the vibernum at eight feet, but it also included a secondary row of shrubs, and we are suggesting that is not necessary, so we are going with Plan A.

Staff had some concerns about that southern edge of the parking field. There were a row of 43 parking spaces that were not broken up by anything and there is residential adjoining. So we are going with Plan B on that which includes some landscaped islands within that 43-space row.

We have asked that a note be added to this that the asphalt underneath the parking islands be removed so that there is a clean field for the plant material.

Item six is the slope coming down off the ball fields that would be visible from Springfield Pike. Staff had concerns about how that would be maintained and how it would look from Springfield Pike.


9 APRIL 2002



Their Plan B and Plan A both include the planting of pine trees in that area. Plan B also includes some ground cover further on up the slope, and we would go with Plan B on that. Again we would suggest that the mulch areas would be reduced, hopefully reducing their costs and their long-term maintenance requirements.

We have asked that the plant material around the building foundation be identified, and that the mulch be installed at three inches, not two inches as they had specked.

Lastly, we suggested a minimum of two trees that could be deleted from the approved plan. One was Tree A near the ballfield backstop and the other was Tree C that is located at the south area, the parking area. We don’t think either of those two trees do anything to enhance the development. We are trying to be sensitive to the fact that the church has a budget to work with and are looking for areas that we could help them offset some of the costs.

Mr. Sherry said on their original submission, there were no mulch beds on the city property but they were added. Who will maintain them? Ms. McBride responded the city will have to maintain them and that is why we suggested that only the shrubs be maintained within the mulch beds, that they not be extended to include the tree cover.

Mr.Yoby said in regards to the addition of the five evergreens on the park property, I would request that the Planning Commission consider allowing us to substitute some of those evergreens for our total tree replacement. In response to their request to increase the number of evergreens, we have not decreased the number of deciduous trees that we are replacing. We would ask to be allowed to reduce the number of deciduous trees we are replacing on the park property and let some of those evergreens stand as replacement material.

On the church property, originally south along the backstop of the ballfield, we had three evergreens proposed to replace a Category II tree that we were removing from the site. With the addition of the evergreens along the ballfield to buffer the slope from Route 4, I would request that those three evergreens be deleted. They are no longer needed for tree replacement value; that is why they were there in the first place. My personal opinion is that their location is not necessarily providing a great deal of buffer from anything. If we could do that, it would reduce the church’s cost somewhat.

With the landscaped islands inside the parking lot, in my opinion because of the distance from Route 4 and from the residences, the only people who would benefit from those landscaped islands is the church congregation themselves. The parking lot receives pretty limited use. Its capacity use is on Sundays. It gets occasional use over the weekends, so while three shrubs isn’t packing those islands, it is enough to add some aesthetic appeal to the islands.




9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Yoby said the church currently does quite a bit of annual planting in the springtime. That was not something that we were comfortable committing them to in the islands, but I would anticipate that they would continue the planting of annuals within those island areas.

On the mulch beds and her other comments, I don’t have any objection to those, and we can certainly clarify that. I did add revised plan note #1; it was a little hard to see in an effort to get your wording for the asphalt pavement in the parking islands, and that was intended to be a typical note for all the parking islands.

Mr. Galster said on the city property, because of the fact that it is right up against the property line and the area is used by the residents all the time and it is visible, I would hate to see us deviate from Plan B on that location. I think the evergreens are needed to break up that wall. I agree with you on the three evergreens on the ballfield; maybe instead of going from three to six we mix up the shrubs. On the south property line of the parking line, we have three trees planted there, and I would have no problem with going down to two and leaving the corner one out. The ground cover on Plan B for the ballfield needs to stay; maybe one tree could come out of there, but generally I agree with Anne, although I am wailing to compromise. I have no problem with taking the three by the ballfield, Tree C and the individual trees by the ballfield, but I don’t want to lose anything along that massive back wall.

Did you propose the six shrubs in the island, or was that staff’s recommendation from last time? Mr. Yoby said I think the recommendation was just to increase the number of shrubs. Ms. McBride added that the original plans had three, and we suggested that they increase that because there is a 20-foot spread on that island.

Mr. Galster said even if we cut it down to five, we are saving another 15 shrubs there. In the area leading up to the ballfield, we went from five to seven, and I’d like to see those seven stay.

Mr. Syfert commented that maybe we can give general guidance, but I don’t think we should sit here and revise this whole plan.

Mr. Okum said I can echo Mr. Galster’s comments in regards to Plan B in the park area. That has been a key area, and the Board of Zoning Appeals put a lot of confidence to refer that issue to Planning Commission and allowing us and the city planner to be involved in that process.

I don’t know where our numbers are in tree replacement with the changes that have come out, so a tally will be needed. We will have to know if there will be a reduction in the number of deciduous as a result of Ms. McBride’s recommendations.





9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Yoby reported that on the tree removal tally, on our plans, the tree removal and replacement that we are showing is a base number. When I added trees for Plans A and B, we didn’t revise the numbers. Our original submission met the Tree Preservation Ordinance replacement value of 1 to 2 on both the church and park property. The trees added don’t affect our compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance one way or another. That is why I am proposing that since we have added these trees and not deleted anything, can we work out some delete and get back to ground zero.

Mr. Okum said I don’t see how you can delete or go to Plan A on the city property. Mr. Yoby said for example on the city property, on Plan A I can’t, because the only trees added on Plan A on city property were one evergreen. ON church property on Plan A, the five evergreens near the ballfield were added. On Plan B, we added trees along the south property line in the new islands, we increased the number of evergreens at the ballfield and increased the number of evergreens from five to nine on the park property. My base replacement values were already met on park and church property.

Mr. Okum said I thought that on the park property, you were going to lose more trees than you had originally anticipated. Mr. Yoby responded the tree survey that you have in front of you is a revised survey plan based on a field visit that Mr. McErlane and I did. Those calculations should be accurate.

Mr. McErlane said I met with Mr. Yoby on the park property, and we determined which trees looked as though they were going to be removed to accommodate the construction. We seem to be in agreement with which ones need to be removed. The only one in question was a12 inch diameter tree on the church property on the south line, and it is questionable as to whether the grading will impact it or not. Based on what they are proposing to plant, they have more than enough to cover that one if it does need to be replaced.

There is one tree on park property that is over 24 caliper inches and require 3 ½ inch caliper trees to be replaced. If you pull the pages apart of my report and look at Paragraph B on the first page as it compares to Plan A or Plan B, you can see what is required under the Tree Preservation Ordinance compared to what they are replacing.

Under Plan A, they are planting in excess of 10 ½ caliper inches of Category I trees (deciduous) and a surplus of 15 ½ caliper inches of evergreen trees on church property. On the park property, they are planting seven additional caliper inches of deciduous trees over and above what is required, and 15 caliper inches of evergreen trees.







9 APRIL 2002



Mr. McErlane added that under Plan B on the church property they are showing deciduous in excess of 25-½ caliper inches and 21 ½ caliper inches of evergreen trees over what is required. On the park property it is 7 caliper inches of deciduous and 30 caliper inches in excess on evergreens.

One of the things that Mr. Yoby was expressing is that initially we received a plan that met the tree replacement requirements. As Ms. McBride gave comments back to him in terms of adding additional evergreen trees from a buffering standpoint, the applicant added those trees without offsetting the number of deciduous trees that are on the site. Typically we would allow a tradeoff of evergreens to deciduous because we don’t see that many evergreens naturally being removed off the site.

In this case they didn’t reduce the number of deciduous based on the number of evergreen trees that were added to the site, so that is why we show such an overabundance of number of caliper inches beyond what is required for replacement.

Mr. Okum said there is nothing that says we had to maintain our 50% replacement ratio on the park property. That is city property, and the reason that the buffer needed to be in that location was to buffer that building at the 0 setback. The relief of 50% doesn’t necessarily have to apply. In this case if they can satisfy staff and give us a buffer there that is acceptable, fine, but we are looking at dots on a page on a horizontal plane instead of a vertical elevation, so it will be very difficult for us to have any conceptual view of how that will turn out.

Mr. Sherry commented that it looked to me like virtually everything in there would come out. Mr. Yoby answered that it is the trees mostly along the fence line. Along the front towards the park, the further west you go, we are not touching anything.

Mr. Huddleston said I want to thank the church for their candor in stating their position and being very honest and straightforward about it. I really appreciate that. Having said that, my only opinion on this is I recognize that the City gave a significant concession to the church for the 0 lot line setback and we want to do what is right on the park property. Beyond that, I have no comment and I would defer to what staff thinks is appropriate.

Mr. Sherry said it seems to me at our last meeting that we talked about having landscaping around the dumpster. Mr. Yoby said we have a wooden fence around the dumpster and a four-foot fence on the north side right at the parking lot edge running to an existing brick fence pier. That’s how I understood the motion.

Mr. Sherry said your additional parking field at the north property line, there is a distinct difference between the original submission and Plans A and B. I looked at the vibernums along the property line, and that didn’t do a whole lot for me. I wondered why we are doing that and not doing more along the easterly edge, the edge that you can see from Route 4.


9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Sherry added I didn’t think that the existing field looked bad the way it abuts against Maple Knoll. It didn’t look unattractive, and to me would be an area that you could cut.

Mr. Yoby responded the reason we revised to extend it further north was Mr. McErlane, Ms. McBride and I had a meeting before the Planning Commission submission and it was Ms. McBride’s request to buffer further against the church and Maple Knoll. I wouldn’t object to deleting some of that.

Mr. Sherry said at our last meeting, I was concerned about the grading of the ballfield that it was too contrived and not as natural as it could be. I would prefer to see it graded a little better and throw a few trees in. I personally would be happy with that; I don’t want to se a manufactured slope through there.

I think six shrubs in the islands are too many. When you set the trees 3-3 ½ feet from the edge of the island, you are only left with 10-12 feet to work with, and putting six shrubs in there is a little much. Three or four would be a little more appropriate and what you typically would see.

On the buffer area where you are building the new building, I like either of the options. What is out there now needs to be maintained. It is unsightly, and I think it will be a big improvement to take it all out of there and put in either of the two options, particularly the way you have extended it further down the parking field where we have nothing now. I think both plans are nice and I am fine with either one.

Mr. Okum said I understand what Mr. Sherry is saying regarding the parking islands; it is a 20-foot island and three would be fairly sparse; I think five would be fine. There are 12 islands so we are not talking about a lot.

I do recall that there was going to be some screening around the dumpster enclosure. Unless the clumping of trees is pretty dense in the dumpster area, I would like to see a couple of the vibernum around it.

I have to agree with Mr. Sherry that along that north line all the vibernum like a row of soldiers can be a little bit artificial looking. Mr. Yoby responded we are very limited with space there. Mr. Okum answered they are eight feet apart, so there will be some spacing and I don’t have a major problem with it.

The situation of a 0-setback site is very unusual, and the Board of Zoning Appeals is relying on this commission to hold to a very high standard for that buffer zone by the park. Those are our residents that utilize that park and it certainly is a big wall element that will be there, and the separation in Plan B is an acceptable alternative. I agree with Mr. Sherry in that carrying it further south helps.






9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Okum stated that in essence what I am saying is that I have no problem with deleting Tree C or Tree A or with removing the three evergreens by the ballfield that the applicant has suggested. I think a more easily graded slope would be a more appropriate solution to the ballfield, but provided it is there at 3 to 1, I can’t do anything else but deal with it and suggest that the Plan B recommendations are appropriate.

Mr. Galster moved to approve Plan B, with the landscaping on the park property to remain as shown on Plan B and with the following conditions:

    1. That the landscaping shown on the north property line at the parking lot with the shrubs at the bottom can be removed as shown on Plan A.
    2. That the landscaping used to buffer the ballfield shall stay as shown on Plan B.
    3. That the four trees located behind the baseball diamond can be removed from Plan B.
    4. That Tree C as identified on the south of the parking lot can be removed.
    5. That the three islands shown on the south edge of the parking lot can be reduced to two with the corner tree being removed and with a note that the blacktop needs to be removed from those areas;
    6. That the shrubs in all the islands can be reduced to five;
    7. That all of the mulching shall be reduced and provided per staff comments.

Mr. Okum seconded the motion.

Mr. Yoby commented I am not sure I understood the islands of the south. Mr. Galster responded that right now you have three trees on the south edge of the parking lot, the corner island and two in the middle. I think you can lose one of the two added islands and the five shrubs.

All voted aye, and the landscaping was approved with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Vineyard Resource Center Chapel Addition, 11340 Century Circle East

Mark Davis, Architect introduced Blake Helms our senior designer, Jim Cochran Senior Pastor in charge of administration for the church and Kevin Payton of the church.

Jim and I were here 5 ½ years ago asking your permission to build the resource center and later on the church building itself. At that time we anticipated this addition. It is actually a little smaller than what we originally proposed. It is a small chapel addition that will seat about 400 people. The building will be constructed with materials that are a logical extension of what already exists.


9 APRIL 2002



Mr. McErlane reported that they propose an 8,871 s.f. addition of the existing resource center to be used as a chapel with seating for 400 occupants. The future addition was indicated on the original drawings that Planning approved January 14, 1997. The property is currently zoned General Industrial which allows for office. Our previous zoning code allowed churches to be located in any district. We do have a section in our Zoning Code, 153.497 which is written such that it leads you to believe that churches are permitted in any district. However if you look in any of the other individual districts other than residential districts, there is nothing that refers you back to that section for commercial districts. If you’ll note in our proposed zoning code changes that we will review later this evening, there is language to refer you back to that section, so we believe that it was an oversight.

There was no color pallet submitted. There are colored renderings and the only concern we would have is that sometimes colored copies aren’t true colors. Fortunately there is as building there that we are familiar with the colors on. The only material that isn’t on that building is the EIFS. Mr. Davis said the EIFS is on the main building and the colors will be precisely the same.

Mr. McErlane said parking within the code for church uses is based on the most intense use within the building. This is a little bit different from the standpoint that it is a resource center that is not totally dependent on the chapel use like it would be in a church. In this case they are somewhat independent of each other. If you looked at it as a typical church use, the chapel would require 100 spaces and the office would require 64 spaces. The applicant has provided a copy of an agreement to provide overflow parking on the main church property to accommodate it. The plan itself shows 140 spaces.

With respect to tree removal, there are seven existing two-inch caliper crabapples located in the area of the expansion. The applicant is proposing to relocate those on other locations on the site.

Ms. McBride said since our original approval of The Vineyard, our GI District has been modified, so I think the cleanest thing to do would be for the Planning Commission to make a determination that the proposed use is similar to other uses in adjacent districts to clear that up and given that this request precedes any text amendment.

It has come to the City’s attention that the church performs some services in an outreach program that are not permitted within the GI District. Specifically it is our understanding that they do automobile repair within the building. If the Commission is going to include that as some type of outreach of the church which is a similar use of adjacent properties, you might want to think about under what conditions those uses would be allowed to continue.

The proposed expansion meets all the setback requirements of the GI District. It meets the height requirements, and impervious surface area ratio.


9 APRIL 2002



Ms. McBride stated that they revised their landscaping plan to address all but two of our comments. One had to do with the landscaping of the beds, that they needed to be landscaped with mulch. They did delineate where the beds were going to be but that they would also contain 3 inches of hardwood mulch.

The other item has to do with the beds proposed on the north and east side of the building. They are really tight; I know they are working with a small site, but if there is a way to increase those at all, it will give that plant material an opportunity to survive.

No new lighting is proposed as a part of the expansion. There is minimal on building lighting, but no free standing lighting. There is no new signage proposed as part of the expansion. They will include the chapel and arrows on existing signage.

They have indicated that the mechanical equipment will be located on the rooftop; I want to make sure that is appropriately screened.

Mr. Shvegzda said the actual expansion had been shown on the original approval, and because of that the detention basin had been designed to account for the future expansion. Therefore no subsequent expansion to the detention basin will be required.

There are minimal site modifications due to the building expansion, and none of these will alter the storm water drainage on the site. In the existing parking area at the northeast corner of the site there is an area to be restriped to accommodate three bus parking spaces. There is the issue of delineating which area in that parking field will be restriped to accommodate the bus parking through there.

It appears that the buses will be able to enter and exit, but there is nothing at this point to verify that they will be able to safely enter and exit the parking spaces. It is a matter of providing some turning templates to verify that.

We have updated the original 1995 traffic review to account for the expansion, the 2001 traffic numbers on Kemper and Century and account for the proposed expansion and improvements of the intersection that will begin to occur this summer. With the 400 seat chapel and assuming two people per car, there would be 200 exiting vehicles and traffic was divided 80% heading to Century and Kemper and 20% heading to the Lippelman access point.

In order to analyze the intersection, we utilized the phasing that will be implemented when the improvements are made to the intersection. We realize that as of this date there are off duty police officers that regulate the signal there to accommodate the traffic. What it comes down to is that the critical time period is a Saturday peak, and the critical movement is the northbound left turn. The level of service is lowered from E to F. It is emphasized that these results are a worst case scenario. They are based on functions occurring in the chapel with the main facility and these also occurring at the Saturday peak hour.



9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Shvegzda stated that at some point the applicant indicated that these functions don’t normally occur at the same time. However there is nothing that would be in the city’s advantage to prohibit that from occurring. At this point of time, the Vineyard Church does not own the other property. As a recommendation we would say covenants should be prepared and executed that would prohibit the use of the chapel facility concurrently with the main facility, in particular during the peak traffic period on Saturday, 1 to 3 p.m.

Mr. Syfert said you used two people per vehicle for the chapel use, and we use four for our purposes. You said with the trip generation there would be 200 cars for the chapel, and Bill said we only need 100 parking spaces.

Ms. McBride reported that the Zoning Code requires one parking space for every four seats. Mr. Syfert said I understand that; why is there so much difference between you two engineers?

Mr. Shvegzda reported that we were trying t o be more conservative with the fact that there are other uses to that facility that take place, and we have utilized that. There are other issues in the analysis that we didn’t go through because we thought this was conservative. We didn’t take that into account the exiting traffic that occurs in a very short duration (15 minutes). We tried to stay on the conservative side.

Mr. Galster asked if the applicant had a problem with limiting the use? Mr. Cochran responded that would be restrictive, because we do have Saturday evening uses of our main facility and late in the day or potentially evening weddings in the chapel that could be at the same time.

I would also comment on the traffic. When we first did the church building project back there, it was conceived in the original discussions that the facility would be in the future expanded, and there is space allotted for future parking, etc. additions for a much bigger church facility. I also would argue that what we have seen is more of a 60% split to Kemper and 40% to Lippelman. There are a number of factors that to me would say that the additional traffic flow factor doesn’t seem significant in the overall scope of the project.

Mr. Davis added that if you look at the proposal there is an existing space inside the Resource Center that is 2,500 s.f. which will go to an office use group and significantly lessen the people load on the existing structure. Some of it will be transferred, but there is a bit of an overlap there so it is not just adding 400 seats.

When we approached this body five years ago, we were showing

An expansion to the church that will actually add 1200 seats. If this

400 seats is an issue right now, what will that be like when we add 1200 or so. We anticipated this addition and we thought we pretty much had this covered. All of this addition was anticipated and fairly well planned out in the initial process.



9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Okum said I know there was an outline for the Resource Center on the site plan we looked at. I don’t recall it being a chapel. It was an office space, not a chapel.

Mr. Cochran said I don’t think that the specific use of that expansion space was necessarily determined. I think you are right; it was not specified as a chapel. I think we knew we would want to expand there, but the specific use wasn’t determined.

Mr. Okum commented we looked at that as an office use within a GI District. Mr. Davis said I did design the building, and the addition is an addition onto the assembly use group space, which it has always been. In assembly use groups, you look at a much higher density. In offices, it is usually one person per 100 square feet in terms of occupant loading. An assembly use group is typically in the one person per 15 square feet range.

Mr. Okum said I think the traffic survey is very accurate. It is very difficult to get out of the parking lot when the church is exiting. We need to be concerned about how we impact these intersections and the other properties around it. Getting more statistical information on the usage of the Lippelman exit might help the situation. Mr. Vanover added I don’t think that Lippelman gets the use that we would like.

Mr. Cochran said I think it is valid to look at the traffic situation and plan for it. There is a portion of the existing resource center that is used for assembly of people, and that space is converting to office space, so to some extent we are replacing one assembly area with a larger assembly area but it is not a full addition. That Lippelman exit is used extensively, and we have off duty police helping us with that. Mr. Syfert said you said earlier that it was used 40% of the time. Mr. Cochran confirmed that. Mr. Davis added that the procedure for staff is to use the Lippelman exit.

Mr. Sherry wondered how large the congregation is and how much parking there is currently. Mr. Cochran reported that there are 2400 in the congregation and 1300 parking spaces in the main church lot.

Mr. Whitaker asked the average attendance of the 6:30 service and Mr. Cochran answered that it was 1300 adults and 200 children.

Mr. Okum commented that although the applicant has indicated that they want to convert that extra space to office spaces, there is nothing that says it would not revert back to assembly area.

I think these things need to be put together. Based on what I am seeing on traffic counts and a moratorium on uses at the same period, I would have to be voting in opposition; I do not think that is fair. I am suggesting that the applicant request this be tabled to get more information to Mr. Shvegzda.






9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Cochran said given that we had planned for the addition initially, and by trying to be responsive to staff comments, we were hoping to get approval tonight. We are facing bids on the construction based on winter pricing.

We are facing a rising interest rate market, and we are in the final stages of getting loan approval. I understand the concerns that you have and had, and hope that there would be a way to work that through. It would be very helpful to us.

Mr. Davis added it seems to me that there might be a creative solution to impose an occupant load on the entire building. We are talking about traffic times. Can we talk about time restrictions?

Could we stipulate exit times for the new addition?

Mr. Shvegzda answered that theoretically that would work, either that or the specific occupancy limits depending on how they overlap.

Mr. Davis said we would like the final vote tonight, but we would want to talk and find a realistic solution and still be able to move forward.

Mr. McErlane reported that we are looking at traffic exiting the site at different peak times, during the week between 5 and 6 p.m. and on Saturdays between 1:30 and 2:30 p.m.

Mr. Cochran stated that the main auditorium group at the 6:30 Saturday evening service leaves the site between 7:40 and 8:15 p.m. Mr. McErlane asked if there were events during the day on Saturday and Mr. Cochran said not generally, it would be extremely unusual.

Mr. Syfert commented I find it hard to understand why we are having so much trouble with adding 190 people. When we first talked bout this, we knew we would have the same number of people coming out and in on Saturday and Sunday. We always talked about this peak time and I am not having a problem with it.

Mr. Sherry asked the applicant his plans for the auto repair service. Mr. Cochran reported that a couple of Saturdays a month we provide a services ford single parents where volunteers do minor car repairs, free oil changes and tune up analyses. Mr. Syfert wondered how they handled EPA problems and Mr. Cochran answered that in terms of the EPA those items are taken off site to an appropriate location.

Mr. Huddleston asked what would happen if Planning Commission prohibited the use of that garage space. Mr. Cochran answered that they would have some low-income families that would not have that service.






9 APRIL 2002



Mr. Huddleston commented I very much respect your outreach program, but I would have a concern about that use. I think when this use was originally approved, we all recognized the potential impact of traffic on this acreage. I am not as concerned as others are about the impact of this particular expansion. At this time I do not feel there is a significant use or any conflict on times of release of the traffic, so I do not share the same concerns, and I could move favorably on this.

Mr. Syfert said the applicant might want to table this, but I do not believe that is the case, so the chair will entertain a motion.,

Mr. Galster moved to approve the addition with the following conditions:

    1. That the auto service be discontinued;
    2. That the chapel not release at the peak time of 1:30-2:30 p.m. on Saturday and they exit via Lippelman Road.

Mr. Syfert seconded the motion.

Mr. Cochran asked if it would be possible to have a 60-day period in which to discontinue the auto service, and Mr. Galster agreed.

Mr. Cochran added that 1 to 3 would be a fairly typical wedding time on a Saturday afternoon in the chapel. Would it be okay if the chapel would release the congregation at this time as long as the church auditorium is not being used?. Mr. Davis suggested that it might be easier to stipulate number of cars during the peak hours.

Mr. Galster said I would say the peak time is between 1:30 and 2:30 on Saturday afternoons and a concentrated effort should be made to get the people in the chapel to leave via Lippelman.

Mr. Syfert seconded the amended motion.

Mr. Okum suggested making it a ½ hour separation between the chapel and the church. No matter the day and time, if the church staggered the releases ½ hour apart, you would totally eliminate the issue and we would not have a problem.

Mr. Okum moved to amend the motion to allow for staggered release times with ½ hour between and that the building be utilized as an offices use and that the garage space shall not be used for automobile repair. This shall be eliminated in 90 days.

Mr. Huddleston seconded the amended motion. On the amended motion, all voted aye, and it was adopted with seven affirmative votes. Mr. Galster moved to withdraw the 1:30 – 2:30 release stipulation from the motion and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye.

On the motion for approval, all voted aye, and approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.



9 APRIL 2002


Planning Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Galster had to leave during the break.

  2. A. Discussion of Section 153.496(A) of the Springdale Zoning Code, which allows "No more than 2 dogs, 2 cats or 1 dog and 1 cat" in a single-family residence.

    Ms. McBride reported that at last month’s meeting, we had a little bit of discussion about two issues. One had to do with domestic animals. Right now the City allows you to have a dog and a cat, or two cats or two dogs. We would modify that section and provide better definitions on kennel and cattery and those kinds of things.

    The other discussion was on non domestic type animals, the sheep, goats, etc. and linking their permitted usage and how many back to acreage and other requirements which are similar to what we had in the old Zoning Code. We also would provide additional definitions associated with these items.

    What we are recommending is that you would be allowed to have a total of three domestic animals in whatever combination you would like within your home. That does not pertain to puppies and kittens where you have until they are four months old to dispose of them.

    Mr. Okum commented that 120 days is a long time; is that normal? Ms. McBride responded when we purchased out cats, she would not let them go until they were four months old. Many times people cannot get rid of the puppies right of way. Mr. Syfert commented that when they are bred, they probably are presold.

    Mr. Huddleston asked if there had been any challenge to any of this in recent history, particularly the current enforcement issue?

    Mr. McErlane responded that typically we are not aware of situations like that unless we get a complaint and we have to investigate the number of animals.

    Regardless of what you write in here you will not hit situations where somebody has 20 cats or dogs, because they probably don’t care what the ordinance says anyway. At least it opens it up for situations where you can have more than two. I think it is reasonable to look at three. From an enforcement standpoint, it will continue to be on a complaint type basis.

    On the suggested language in 153.052, in particular with the domesticated farm animals and the husbandry of fowl, should be incorporated in Section 153.496 and applied to all zoning districts. Just because it is silent in the other zoning districts that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is prohibited. There needs to be a general statement. Even though RSH-E districts are the largest properties that we have, there may be other higher density zoning districts that have larger pieces of land that may be able to fit into the domesticated farm animals. If it is dependent on the size of the lot, it doesn’t matter what zoning district it is in.



    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. Sherry said I seem to recall we had a discussion about language for pit bulls and those types of dogs, precluding them like the City of Cincinnati does. Ms. McBride reported that they do, but it is a separate ordinance and has to do with health and safety. If the City wishes to do something like that, I would suggest that it go through the law director rather than zoning. Mr. McErlane reported that Springdale does have an ordinance. It is not in the Zoning Code and is regulated by the Police Department. Pit bulls are specifically regulated and there also are provisions that if the dog is considered to be a vicious animal by nature of complaints or attacks, they also can be labeled as vicious animals and regulated.

    Mr. Syfert asked if the law director had reviewed this, and Mr. McErlane indicated that it had not been, adding that if there was questionable language in it, we probably would have already. I think the initial wording was set down to them, but typically after this body acts on this it goes to them for whatever tweaking needs to be done and then to Council.

    Mr. Vanover asked if a pot-bellied pig would be non-domestic household? Ms. McBride answered I would tend to think of it as a domesticated farm animal, even though a pot bellied pig is not necessarily a farm animal. We can certainly include pigs in the definition of the domesticated farm animals. We can just say pigs. Mr. Vanover commented that would be a good addendum.

    Mr. Syfert said so you are saying that we would add pigs into 153.052. Ms. McBride responded we would add pigs into what is now 153.496. Then in the next section below that, still within G, "that no goat sheep pig cow, horse etc." Mr. Sherry said so to have a pot bellied pig you would need to have five acres. Ms. McBride responded that would be correct under the new provisions and in addition to that, it would have to meet all the other requirements.

    Mr. Huddleston moved to recommend to Council and Mr. Sherry seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and it was approved and recommended to Council by six affirmative votes.

    B. Discussion of miscellaneous Zoning Code changes

    Mr. McErlane reported that we included a definition for teen night club, and if you look a little further into the code sections, specifically on Page 2 at the top of the page, there is an allowable use in the General Business District of dancing and live entertainment and we have added text that says "except teen night clubs". On Page 3 at the top of the page there is an Item F for conditionally permitted uses and teen nightclubs are included as a conditionally permitted use.

    One of the concerns with respect to teen nightclubs is control of the patrons. One of the concerns that we may have in terms of reviewing a conditional use permit might be hours of operation, noise, and making sure that they have adequate security on site.




    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. McErlane added that in the process of implementing the change for teen nightclubs, we needed to define teen nightclubs. We asked Ms. McBride to comes up with a definition. She indicated that she was unable to find one in her research, so this is a home grown one.

    Ms. McBride reported that even though several local communities have "teen nightclubs" (Fairfield), a lot of communities regulate these by a separate permit. They will define dance club, and then they will define separately teen establishment or something like that. What we have done is combine, add the element of the age and then the purpose of both dancing and assembly. We are not suggesting that the City require a permit for those, but that it would be a permitted use within specific districts.

    Mr. McErlane reported that the next change in 153.201 adds the term "medical clinic", only because there was some question as to whether or not a clinic was an office use. We are now including it as an allowable use in an office district.

    Paragraph G within our Zoning Code in Section 153.497, there is a Paragraph B that talks about religious places of worship in districts other than residential districts and gives specific regulations for that. It leads you to believe that you are permitted to have religious institutions in other zoning districts, but there is nowhere to get from those other zoning districts to Section 153.497(B).

    In Sections 153.201 and 153.216 (General Business), 153.231 (Motor Service), 153.246 (Support Service), 153.261 (General Industrial), we are adding "as a principally permitted use religious places of worship pursuant to Article 48." Article 48 includes a lot of different things, but it also includes 153.497.

    Under Section 153.497, this is the paragraph that I was referring to that regulates churches in other districts, and it needs to have the wording added that says "and Public Facilities Districts." . It says "Religious places of worship located in districts other than residential districts, because Paragraph A of this section regulates residential districts. Public Facilities Districts should be included because they are regulated within their zoning district. This paragraph would pertain to all commercial districts and general industrial districts.

    In 153.431, under the PUD Section that spells out permitted uses in a PUD, we have the language that would prohibit Sexually Oriented Businesses in PUD districts.

    When we drew the boundaries to determine the 5% of the land area that by case law we have to permit sexually oriented businesses in, we did not include PUDs initially, but the language doesn’t say that. So this includes it in the language.






    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. McErlane added that in our former Zoning Code, we had a requirement that the perimeter of all parking lots must be curbed or have some other barriers to keep people from driving off into the grass. In the redraft of the Zoning Code that was taken out, and the only verbiage we now have in there pertains to when parking areas are against property lines. So we are adding the language back in that there need to be a curb or some other barrier around the perimeter of parking lots and driveways.

    In 153.422 this is an attempt to try to preclude what happened in the Exxon case, where there was an automatic appeal, even though the applicant had asked to be tabled. It says, "Planning Commission shall make recommendations on a fully completed application within two regularly scheduled meetings unless tabled at the applicant’s request." If the applicant tables it, they can’t use that to appeal as they did previously.

    Paragraph B really didn’t served much of a purpose, so we are recommending deleting that from the section.

    Mr. McErlane said I’ll let Ms. McBride report on Section 153.491. Ms. McBride reported that the remainder of the proposed text amendments that I accumulate in various meetings. When something would come up I would note them and put them together for this review.

    On the inclusion of accessory uses that were not permitted, we had specified all of the districts with the exception of Public Facilities, so we included Public Facilities.

    On Section 153.491(B) "Parking inoperative or unlicensed vehicles on commercial vehicles", the only thing I could think of was junk cars or disabled cars that are on tow trucks. I think that is what this inclusion refers to.

    On Section 153.482, we recommend we add information on the materials section. There was discussion about whether the good side of a fence should be out or the good side of a fence should be in. This would require the good side of the fence to be out, unless you get a sign off from your neighbor indicating that he doesn’t care. That was something brought up by at least one resident, and a lot of the communities are starting to include that. If both sides are the good side, you are fine.

    Mr. Vanover said a tip of the hat to Ms. McBride and Mr. McErlane on this teen nightclub. I have been following the City of Fairfield because I am aware of the headache of enforcement they are facing.

    Mr. Okum said in the teen nightclub section, what about churches, and their outreach centers? Ms. McBride responded if they were to have a dance, that would be considered a teen nightclub. That is why we thought about this pretty carefully. A lot of churches and schools sponsor dances. Mr. Okum asked if it wouldn’t be better to say something like recurring evenings or on an ongoing basis.


    9 APRIL 2002



    Ms McBride responded my question would be what would be acceptable? Is it three times in a calendar year or a school year? We did a national search. Illinois had some information on it but very few places had definitions and criteria for it. I don’t recall seeing any limits to frequency or length of the event.

    Mr. Okum said you are referencing night, and it could be day. Ms. McBride said so maybe we want to take out night and make it teen club. Mr. Okum responded I agree that something should be there, but I am concerned about the mixture of churches and events that go on regularly. Even our recreation center has a teen night. Mr. Sherry suggested that the distinction be for profit.

    Mr. McErlane stated I was looking at it from the standpoint that we are listing it as a conditional use or conditional to a principally permitted use in a business. I don’t know how you would regulate it if it were a non-profit place that runs on a regular basis. We are not talking about an occasional use, because that is not the principal use of the structure. If we did se a situation where it would become a regular recurring thing, we could bring it up.

    Mr. Vanover stated that Tri-County Assembly of God has a coffee shop every Saturday night or every other Saturday night. It’s not the picture of the teen club I would be concerned about, but you could get in the legalities of being discriminatory.

    Mr. Okum said I think Bob had it, business for profit.

    Mr. Huddleston said I would go along with the wording business for profit. I am not sure that it will be as all encompassing as we want it to be or it may be more exclusive than we want it to be, but it should be called teen club rather than teen nightclub, since it could be in the afternoon.

    Mr. Okum said in Section 153.497 it calls for religious places or just located in districts other than residential districts. We are adding public facilities districts "shall conform to the least restrictive regulations" in the district in which they are located. Why the least?

    Mr. McErlane reported that this is the wording in both the new and old Zoning Code. If you look at the Vineyard, they are in a General Industrial district which requires 100 foot front yard setback, which is far in excess of what is required in Public Facilities District, just because they are in a General Industrial District, not because they are a church use. There are additional setback requirements in an office district if they are adjacent to residential.

    Mr. Sherry said on page 6 dealing with the barriers, what is an other approved barrier? Do we have standards for the poured concrete curb; do we allow the extruded curb that goes on top of the asphalt? Mr. Shvegda said yes. Mr. Sherry said where you have paved up to the property line, shouldn’t we put a distance in there that wheelstops should be provided say three feet back from the property line so they won’t go over the property line? I have seen that in a lot of ordinances; it is fairly common.


    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. Sherry commented I am troubled with the wording a fully completed application. I don’t know what that means. That is the problem I thought we had with Exxon. Their application wasn’t fully complete. They didn’t fully comply with the requirements of the overlay district, but we heard them anyway. I am wondering if we can do something with that wording.

    Mr. McErlane responded I don’t know if the distinction you are making is a complete application or compliance with the code. It sounded like you said they weren’t complying with the Route 4 Corridor District. Mr. Sherry said their application wasn’t complete; it didn’t fully provide us everything that the Corridor District said we needed to consider as part of the approval. They were to provide us with renderings and color samples for the entire project. We got none of that. Mr. McErlane commented that could have been something that the Board of Zoning Appeals could have overturned it from.

    Mr. Huddleston said I feel that we probably should have utilized that wording and denied the request because it was not complete. We tabled it as a favor to the applicant. In that case had we known, we probably should have said that this is not a complete application and we cannot act on it, and that would have been a refusal based on the legal requirements of the ordinance.

    Mr. Sherry commented I would have been a little firmer than that. I would have said that we can’t even hear it. Mr. Syfert said that is one of the things we face all the time. At probably every staff meeting, I ask if we have enough information to hear it. We come to the line where we don’t want to harass the applicant and delay him but at the same time, we know it isn’t complete.

    Mr. Sherry responded it seems to me that we end up harassing the applicant and delaying him here.

    Mr. Okum said they are given a checklist of items they have to provide and if they don’t provide them, the Building Department could easily not let it be heard or staff will see something in the review that they need, and we end up reviewing a blend of what was originally submitted which was complete and some of the additional information that staff needed. A traffic impact study is not always required, but if staff evaluates the project and finds it is required, that doesn’t make that application incomplete.

    Mr. Syfert added that after the staff meeting, we normally communicate something back to the applicant, and hopefully he will have that information and bring it in. We are trying to keep things rolling, rather than put a wall in front of them.

    Mr. Huddleston commented that it isn’t like a business negotiation where you say this isn’t right and you need to come back the next day or week. There are 30 days in between, and there has to be some level of good faith between the parties. It doesn’t always work.




    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. Sherry asked if there were a reason that it is two meetings for an item. Mr. Okum responded that is to prevent a board using its authority to prevent an applicant from his due rights and process. He has to be given the opportunity. Failure to approve on the zoning issue goes to Council. Mr. Sherry said this is only with the Corridor District. That is the only place where we have to act in two meetings. I don’t recall seeing it anywhere else; I could be wrong.

    Mr. Okum asked if it were anywhere else but the Corridor Review District. Mr. McErlane reported that it is not specifically worded this way. Mr. Syfert commented that he thought at one time that it was. Mr. Okum added I think that tabled by the applicant’s request is pretty straightforward.

    Mr. Huddleston said if it is not in there, maybe it should be. Mr. Vanover added that it is a tool. If we don’t have information, like landscape plans, if they table it, we stop the clock. Otherwise we act upon it and then further hinder them because there is a time window that they cannot reapply. It is as give and take. You are trying to be fair and reasonable to the applicant and there are timetables that have to be dealt with.

    Mr. McErlane reported that he had found some items that need to be revised; there are some bad references in the section that talks about typical formal administrative procedures. It says "Planning Commission shall determine at one of the next two regularly scheduled meetings following 10 days after receipt of the development plan that (1) the additional information or plans are reasonably necessary to make a determination" In other words, you can table it based on the fact that there is not enough information. "(2) That the uses and buildings and structures to be constructed reconstructed erected located or altered are in conformance with this code (3) That the uses and buildings and structures to be constructed reconstructed erected located or altered are not in conformance with the code or in the sound discretion of the commission an additional determination that certain variance or variances are required in order to obtain conformity to the code."

    The next paragraph said, "If the determination of (D)(1) above is made" (which is additional information or plans are necessary) "the time limitation or review by the Planning Commission is told until the next meeting, following 10 days after the receipt of additional information." However (D) (1) is the wrong paragraph; it should be ( C ) (1). I am looking at Section 153.707.

    All the references are to the wrong paragraph in Paragraphs (D) and (E), so we need to revise those as well. It allows Planning Commission two meetings to make a determination. However, if Planning Commission determines that the information is insufficient, then it is told until the next meeting after 10 days of told beyond the resubmitted of the information.






    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. Sherry said maybe we should just change that language. In there it said two meetings or else. If at the end of the second meeting you had not acted on it, it was a denial and it automatically went to BZA. Mr. McErlane said it doesn’t automatically go to BZA. It could be appealed to BZA.

    Mr. McErlane reported that we need to rework Section 153.707. and determine whether or not you want to change this language to better reflect what is in 707.

    There is no specific reason why the wording is different in the Corridor District, other than the fact that we had a different consultant recommending what the language should be in 1990.

    Mr. Huddleston said that goes back to the parking of vehicles and trucks and signage. Is that covered someplace else? Mr. McErlane responded that it doesn’t specifically call it signage. There is one section that says if a vehicle is larger than 9’ x 19’, (the standard parking space size) it has to be parked in a loading area.

    Mr. Huddleston asked if this had to go back to the drawing board, and Mr. Syfert responded with the change in teen club we wouldn’t need to. Mr. Okum added that Mr. McErlane has new wording for clarification of 153.707 and there shouldn’t be a problem with incorporating that into it. There are items that should be resolved.

    The issue on Planning Commission’s decision making on the Corridor Review District may need to be moved into one area of procedure. I don’t think we should have procedures in two different areas, but maybe the law director will say that it needs to be in two places.

    Mr. McErlane stated I know there are some specific references as to when the Corridor District comes into play. Maybe Planning Commission’s action doesn’t need to be in there, but we can take a look at it. Mr. Okum said if it doesn’t need to be in there, my recommendation would be to put it in one place.

    Mr. Okum said Mr. Shvegzda had mentioned at one of the meetings when we were discussing the curb and gutter issue, and there was a gutter that was part of the parking space. Does that need to be in this barrier issue?

    Mr. Syfert said should we act on this or do it all at once? Mr. Okum responded that most of these things are very basic. . Conceptually this is a recommendation to Council and it still has to go to the law director’s office for wording.

    Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane his opinion, and he answered that their only concern was that the cats and dogs issue might hold up the other one. If Mr. Vanover feels that it won’t create a problem, we could put them all together.



    9 APRIL 2002



    Mr. Vanover indicated that he felt that they could be combined and sent through. If it becomes a sticking point, they could separate them, but I don’t foresee that.

    Mr. McErlane said I’m not sure if the issue was with the changes in 153.707 or what the concern was in sending them up. Mr. Okum said that is just clean up.

    Addressing Mr. Vanover, Mr. Okum said people typically don’t make decisions until they have heard the whole story, but I have heard some comments that may impact Council’s decision making. My recommendation would be to separate them. Mr. Vanover indicated that would be fine with him.

    Mr. Okum moved that these recommended changes with some changes be approved, including the addition of Section 153.707 and referred to Council. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and it was approved with six affirmative votes.

    Mr. Syfert asked if anyone except himself would not be present at the May 14th meeting? No one

    1. Thoma & Sutton Eye Care – 11400 Princeton Pike – Wall Sign

Mr. Huddleston moved to adjourn and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


____________________,2002 __________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



____________________,2002 __________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary