14 JULY 1998

7:00 P.M.




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



Members Present: Councilman Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, Robert

Seaman, Councilman Tom Vanover, James Young and

Chairman Syfert.

Members Absent: David Okum (arrived at 7:03 p.m.)

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William McErlane, Building Official

Wayne Shuler, City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner



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


Report on Council

Mr. Galster stated that Council voted on the community center expansion project, and Choice 3 was approved by a 4-3 vote. It was vetoed by Mayor Webster, and Council revoted and overrode the veto 6 to 1. I would anticipate that it will be a number of months before there is a plan before us. Groundbreaking is scheduled for the Year 2000.


A. Approval of Landscape Plan, Building Finishes and Dumpster Enclosure for MRI of Tri-County Ė 12037 Sheraton Lane

Denny Dellinger Architect said we brought color samples and submitted revised drawings. We added stone on the front part of the building as was requested. This is a sample of the shingles and landscaping plan with proposed plant materials.

Ms. McBride said the applicant has resubmitted the information asked for. They have revised the elevations to include stone veneer. They also have changed some of the colors at the request of the commission, and have provided us with a landscaping plan that indicates both existing and proposed plant material. The only thing is we didnít get a plant size for the proposed plant material, but I m sure they could supply that to us and we could sign off on it.

Vince Eysoldt said at the last meeting it was recommended that we change the colors, so we have blended the building into the landscaping with earthtones from the rock we have chosen and the shades of gray so it is more consistent with what you are tying to accomplish there.

Mr. Galster said originally I was the one asking about the stone on the building and the more I look at it, it seems the way it is laid out I donít know if stone half way up wouldnít look better than all the way up.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Two


Addressing the commission members, Mr. Syfert wondered if anyone else shared that feeling or are you like I am, whatever works out best?

Mr. Eysoldt commented it doesnít matter to us; it certainly is a lot more economical to run it half way. If you have heavy landscaping around the base of it and you are looking back form the street, sometimes that landscaping may cover that stone. What you might want to do is have the stuff up top lean down towards there to say this I a stone entryway, as opposed to covering it with landscaping material. It might flow better. Weíll do it either way.

Mr. Galster added Iím not opposed to it. Mr. Eysoldt said it is more expensive to do it that way but personally I would rather do it that way. It gives us a better more professional look. We want to be outstanding.

Mr. Okum asked about the masonry on the existing building; will it be painted out? Mr. Eysoldt answered I think the rock in the front and gray as it wraps around will make it coordinated. We plan to leave it as it is. Mr. Okum said that was what I was going to ask you to do. What color will the extrusions be around the window? Mr. Dellinger answered a dark anodized bronze, and the gutters will be painted to match the pearl gray. Mr. Eysoldt added there will be a break in the gray a shade darker than the roof and the trim so it gives us a border around there. Mr. Okum asked if the facie cover be painted in that darker tone? Mr. Dellinger answered it will be the same color as the gutter. Mr. Okum said landscaping needs to be finalized by Ms. McBrideís firm. The trees have overgrown your parking lot quite a bit. I would think you will do something with them. Mr. Dellinger stated we will be trimming them back. Mr. Okum said I am pleased with the proposal as you have resubmitted it, and I am very much in favor of this.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the plan adding that the landscaping needs to be worked out with Ms. McBride, and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Okum, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.


  1. Approval of Proposed Garage, Enterprise Rent A Car, 169 Northland Boulevard
  2. Van Johnson of Standard Structures said with me is Debbie Reardon of Enterprise Rent a Car, and we are asking permission to install a 609 square foot garage. Per your letter, we have made some changes that would take care of two of the items and keep us from needing a variance.

    Mr. Johnson passed out drawings. Also I have a letter of permission from Mr. Boerger to install the garage on his property.

    Mr. Syfert read the letter:

    "To Whom It May Concern:

    Enterprise Rent a Car has my permission to build a garage on the property located at 169 Northland Boulevard. If you have any questions, please contact me at 772-2244.

    Allan N. Boerger"



    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    14 July 1998

    Page Three


    Mr. Johnson continued we have relocated the building approximately 120 feet off the rear property line. We moved it up closer to the existing building to take care of the south elevation. When we moved it, we added three parking spaces rather than deleting from the original parking.

    Mr. Johnson stated outside storage for cleaning will not happen; that is the reason that the garage is being constructed.

    Mr. Galster said nobody has had an opportunity to look at the drawing, so I think it is unfair to try to come up with the proper comments. Is the new garage going to be located next to the existing fence, or will it be removed? Mr. Johnson answered it will be replaced. Mr. Galster wondered if the whole fenced in area ran the whole length of the building right now? Mr. Johnson responded it is larger than the building. Mr. Galster wondered what is inside that area, and Mr. Johnson answered washers and dryers. When they deliver new they pick up the old, and people come in and pick them up. Mr. Galster wondered what would happen with the existing fence, and Mr. Johnson answered it will be made smaller.

    Mr. Galster said if we are going to do this expansion, why not expand it enough to make all the stuff that happens inside the fenced in area inside? It is not very attractive. There is a chain link fence with white slat and all kinds of outside storage and outside storage is pretty much not permitted in the city. Mr. Galster continued we have not had the ability to go over these drawings right now; we need review time, and I would move to table based on the late submittal and also with the recommendation that some contact be made with the owner about enclosing all that fenced in area.

    Mr. Johnson stated the new garage will go behind the fenced in area, and behind that fenced in area on the south elevation there is another enclosed fenced area that they put the refrigerators. They close that on a daily basis to keep people out of there. Mr. Galster commented if that were enclosed they could do the same thing, and if we are looking at modifications to that building, I would like to address that fenced in area.

    Mr. Okum said prior to seconding your motion, I would like to have some discussion about the type of building so the applicant can have a better sense of direction from the commission. Whether that building is against it or behind it, I have some problems with the type of building that is being constructed and how it ties with the building that is there.

    Mr. Galster answered I believe that is appropriate, so Iíll withdraw my motion to table.

    Mr. Okum said this is no different than a small garage behind the property. I know it is concealed behind your building, but it also is next to a business district and it certainly is not being built in the same fashion that your offices are constructed. Iím sure when the building official reviews it there will be fire safety protection issues to be addressed. Being involved in the fire restoration industrial, I have seen a number of garage fires that occur in buildings with cars and gasoline like this. I would be very concerned about this, especially with the proximity to your building or to an adjacent one.

    I also think a vinyl sided structure is not the same type approach that you have on the rest of the property. I commented on the fenced in area at the last meeting, so you know my feelings about that.


    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    14 July 1998

    Page Four


    I would encourage you to reconsider this prior to bringing it back, meet with staff and get their considerations.

    Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Syfert, Mr. Young, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Seaman and Mr. Huddleston. Item was tabled to August 11th.

  3. Approval of setback from the north property line at 12174 Peak Drive to allow the construction of a patio enclosure (PUD)
  4. Mark Bennett of Champion Enclosures stated that this is actually a screen room as opposed to a full enclosure. It does have some glass involved,; there is a deck and there will be a glass knee wall. This is a custom project, but I have pictures that are similar to what will go up there. He passed around the pictures.

    Mr. Bennett continued we have obtained approval from the condo association. On the setback, the letter we received states that there was a 4 foot discrepancy, but that was assuming a 12 foot deck and screen room and we are building a 10 foot, so there is a 2 foot discrepancy. If we brought it back to eight feet, it would be quite a small room. We feel we would be adding substantially to the value and overall look of The Gables. Everything will be constructed to coincide with the looks of the existing property.

    Mr. Syfert said for the record, I was handed a letter to the Springdale Planing Commission:

    "With regard to the patio enclosure at 12174 Peak Drive, the home of Morgan Pierce, this improvement was approved by The Gables Homeowners Board at our May 1998 meeting by a 4-0 vote with Board Member Pierce abstaining. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

    Lavonne Webster, Gable Homeowners President"

    Mr. Vanover said due to the fact that I interact in a business sense with Champion, I will be abstaining from the discussion and vote.

    Mr. Galster wondered if this were going on an existing deck or patio. Ms. Pierce answered no, at the back of my home there is a big window which will be turned into a door and Champion will build a deck and screen it in. The home next to mine has a deck, and this will extend just as far as that deck does. That is why I went with 10 feet.

    Mr. Galster said I surveyed the condominiums up there, and most have some type of sunroom, solarium or that type structure. There probably are three or four ranch style that do not have a solarium, but most of them do. To me the two feet is not a great concern. The thing that does concern me is if this were before BZA, the surrounding neighbors would have been made aware of it and I am concerned that we donít have that notification process. Ms. Pierce said the neighbor do know; they have not been informed in writing, but I have told them. Mr. Galster added I walked the property, and there are plenty of decks that come out as far as she is proposing.

    Mr. Syfert commented when The Gables went in, we granted relief from

    the requirements to allow them to encroach on the Missioners property

    there. We have done t his a couple of other times in PUD and have

    ended up making the other guy protect the people that we allowed the

    variance for. I am referring to Maple Knoll, and I am afraid of the same

    thing here, so I have a lot of reservations about this.

    Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

    14 July 1998

    Page Five


    Ms. Pierce commented in my building there are five homes. I have a ranch, there is a ranch at the other end, and they have a deck that is 19 feet from the Missioners property line and it is a tiered deck. That one extends further than almost any of the others in the complex. Mr. Syfert commented that wasnít put on after it was built.

    Mr. Galster said when we talk about property line setbacks, we donít count patio and deck because it is not an enclosure. When we were talking with Pine Garden there was a lot of concern about whether it was screened in year round glassed or whatever before it was a "structure". I wonder if it is even something that is a "structure" governed by those same setbacks.

    Mr. McErlane reported the Zoning Code allows encroachment on setbacks depending on what it is. You are allowed to encroach into a rear yard setback with a deck up to half the required setback distance. When you get into an enclosure it has to meet the setbacks for the building.

    Mr. Galster wondered about our concern in the Pine Garden project. Ms. McBride stated originally they had the ability to completely glass that in and they werenít committing to whether or not it was going to be heated and air conditioned. Our concern was it would become another room. I donít have that concern in this situation because they have stipulated that there is not going to be air conditioned or heated and it is not 100% enclosed in glass. Ms. Pierce commented the only reason for the glass is I have a little cat who could look out the glass, but Iíll take the glass out and put in screen if it will make a difference.

    Mr. Okum commented my personal preference is for the gable roof. Ms. Pierce said I would love to have a gable roof but it is much more expensive and it interferes with the roof line. This is another reason for the shed roof, but it will be shingled. It will be well done.

    Mr. Syfert stated this is a variation to the PUD, and I assume that council members on Planning do not feel it important enough to go back to Council.

    Mr. Huddleston moved for approval subject to the enclosure remaining open as a screened enclosure only and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Okum, Mr. Young and Mr. Seaman. Mr. Syfert voted no and Mr. Vanover abstained. The approval was granted with five affirmative and one negative votes.

  5. Development Plan Approval of Century Office Building, Phase Two 11570 Century Boulevard

Don Haupt of Kiesland, owner and developer of the project said we hope to break ground in September. We have one tenant in Phase I who has outgrown their space and wants to be in Phase II.

Steve Kelley of Woolpert said August of last year we looked at the concept plan for the Century Office Building Phase II. We are showing our primary access by a rebuilt drive coming off Century Boulevard and into the center of an angular building, and rebuilding that access road which is currently concrete. We are matching up the grades to 2/3 of the way up the hill and we will tilt that pavement back down by the use of a retaining wall. That will be a better view with a flat grade which is important to Kiesland.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Six


Mr. Kelley said the rest of the area is parking surrounding the building. Access to the building is with a main entry feature here. Parking for visitors will be in the front. Our largest parking field is on the south side of the building, and we have provided a large sidewalk and a secondary employee entrance into this location. Below the office building we have an entrance for underground parking. In addition to that, we realigned the parking and drive aisles on the north side of the building. We think we have a nice circulation pattern now with access across the front of Phase I which will tie the two buildings together a lot nicer.

The square footage of this building is 91,000 square feet, or 341 spaces required. We are showing 455 spaces, which would include handicap spaces around the building in several areas. A lot of the higher end users want a higher ratio of parking.

We are showing a reinforced slope on the east side of the area. That is put in to preserve some of the existing trees and to flatten out an area that we would like to see a walking path around the building.

Storm water detention is shown in this area, and much of the landscaping is 2 and 3 inch canopy trees. There are existing tees on site. When we first looked at the project, we didnít think we would have a significant replacement program, but there are a lot of little scrub trees so we will bring in over 329 caliper inches of trees.

With the submission in early June and getting some comments back, we do not have any objections or problems with incorporating staff comments into the final plans.

Mr. Shuler reported we have been working with them through June on a number of issues. We still have some remaining issues that need to be verified and details that need to be worked out before we can give final approval. In concept all of the issues are achievable; it is just a matter of getting the details in place to verify that everything is going to work and be acceptable.

Detention and storm water is somewhat difficult. Because of the contouring on the site, we have some special concerns. The applicant has provided a detention basin that will exceed the detention requirement for the site. However, to achieve that required amount of detention, the flow rate is exceeding the allowable discharge rate, so additional restriction needs to be provided in the outlet structure detail to control that. We also are concerned and want to pay special attention to the discharge from the detention basin because we have a situation on this project where the detention basin discharge and the overflow is not to a public right of way, a public storm sewer system or an existing channel. It is over land, over the property to the east, and then travels north to Kemper Road. Where it is now a sheet flow, since we are concentrating it, we need to not only be sure that we are controlling the water on site, and that we are not creating a problem off site. We want to look at that in more detail. We have some detailed comments on the detention basin in terms of potential erosion control from the basin.

The applicant was asked and has provided additional right of way on both Kemper Road and Century Boulevard to provide for the Corridor Study traffic improvements that the City is anticipating in the near future. However, in the panhandle piece of the Phase II lot, the existing right of way does not line up with the right of way to the east or to this proposed right of way on the west. We are requesting that there be some additional right of way dedication across this panhandle piece, simply to get a transition to the east of this property.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Seven



Mr. Shuler continued a dedication plat will be required for the right of way. It is also noted that the plans call for a 1 to 1 reinforced slope on the east side below the parking lot, which is much steeper than we normally approved. Because of this we would like to see the geotechnical repot and the recommendations and verification that this hillside will support that slope. Because of the steepness of that slope, the ground cover is very important. It appeared to us that some of the proposed tree locations were on that 1 to 1 slope, and we also would need verification from the geotechnical engineer that the slope could support that type of landscape placement on the slope itself.

Before we could give final site plan approval, we would need the sewer and water availability confirmation from the respective utilities.

Mr. Syfert said you mentioned detention and retention, and I would like to call on Mr. Osborn for his comments.

Mr. Osborn said the reason I wanted to address Planning Commission during this presentation is because we recently found out that the Metropolitan Sewer District has imposed a moratorium on new taps in north central Hamilton County. Unfortunately this project happen to be right at the top of the queue of projects caught in that cutoff. It needs 20 credits, which is equivalent to about 8,000 gallons a day, and we need 20 credits to make this project go. I have been in meetings with MSD, with the County Commissioners and we are going to find 20 credits to make this project work somehow.

I want to alert you to the fact that unless we can find some short term solutions to the issues facing MSD and EPA, we may be experiencing a moratorium of undetermined length on new development. The focus of the issue is a sanitary sewer discharge on the Millcreek in the 915 trunk just below the new 915 project that is discharging during periods of high storm water infiltration.

The immediate solution would be the construction of a giant detention chamber for sanitary sewer effluence that would be retained much like a surge tank and metered out under dry weather flow conditions. That is a $25 million dollar solution that if MSD and the County fast tracked would not be done until 2,002.

We are hoping to put this plan together and approach EPA and get their agreement that they will release the potential moratorium and we will not suffer as a result. I say potential because it has not officially been declared by EPA, but unfortunately already has been implemented by MSD. It is the anticipation of the moratorium that has caused this problem with MSD.

Other short term solutions that we are hoping to do in house is go back and audit existing facilities that have changed uses, and sites that have been demolished and no longer have a discharge. All of these would have credits, and we could go back and argue with MSD and EPA that we have additional credits that we can put into this sanitary sewer overflow tributary area.

We are alerting all businesses that come before the Building Department that there is a moratorium in place. How long that will affect us and how deeply that will affect us we donít know yet. I can tell you that as far as this project is concerned, although the moratorium is in place and although they have a rejection letter, we will find 20 credits to make this project work.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Eight



Mr. Osborn said short of that, we may see a cutoff of development in Springdale and in other communities in north central Hamilton County until we get this matter worked out. As we obtain additional information, I will keep you all informed.

Mr. Okum said I have had the opportunity to drive the southern part of Butler County recently. Maybe we are doing something right and there is nothing right being done north. There is no detention, retention whatever on all that massive Schumacher development north of Crescentville Road.

Mr. Osborn responded I raised that issue, and I canít get it through to the powers that be that they are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. We have dry weather flow capacity in the sewer system. It is only when we get infiltration that we have a problem. Yet they are putting a moratorium on taps, which will take up dry weather capacity. While they are going to use the taps to cure this problem, they are saying at the same time that although this is an infiltration problem detention is not an issue. They also say that the natural discharge of water off impervious surface and speeding it up isnít a factor, so the moratorium doesnít apply to Butler County which is a tributary to this area in terms of storm water.

The fact that we have over 124 acre feet of detention in over 75 detention facilities, the fact that we were the first city to start causing detention basins to be created, the fact that we received the first award from the Hamilton County Soil Conservation Service, none of that carries any weight. The fact is that we entered into an agreement in 1990 with MSD when they first initiated the idea of a moratorium that we would go in and they would go in and we would do a study. We had BBS come in and do an analysis of the whole community, we smoked and dye tested every sewer in the city, eliminated indirect cross connections between storm sewer and sanitary, caused 23 illegal taps to be removed, slip lined many sections of sewer, grouted others and MSD replaced a part of 915 A. We eliminated every source of storm water infiltration in this community that we could identify. That is why I am so outraged by this. As I told the County Commissioners and MSD Friday night, there is culpability here but it is not Springdaleís. We should not suffer for this, and we are taking a very aggressive position on it.

Ms. McBride reported that the OB District has a minimum building coverage of 25% and the percentage of building coverage was not indicated on the submittal. Also, I couldnít find the total proposed building square footage so I could not do the parking calculations. They meet all the setback requirement for both the building and parking areas. Access to the development is through the exiting office building to the west, which eliminates potential for another curb cut on Kemper Road, so we are very pleased with that. They have submitted detailed information on the waste receptacle screening, but did not note the three sides and what material it will be. I assuming it is masonry because the caps are.

We had a number of comments on the landscaping plan, many dealing with that one to one slope. We were suggesting that some material that exists at the front of the building be identified. They also didnít specify what was to be included in the shaded area in the court yard. We are suggesting a handicapped ramp be provided from the north parking lot access to the sidewalk system. We suggest that the trees proposed for the one to one slopes on the east side of the parking lot are going to be very difficult to plant and maintain on those steep slopes. We also are suggesting that the slopes be planted with a maintenance free ground cover.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Nine



Ms. McBride added we feel that the hiking trails should not begin or terminate at the head of a parking space, and there needs to be some kind of walkway for whomever would be using those to access them. The location of the hiking tails might be reconsidered, given their proximity with the one to one slope.

The one to one slope is very close to trees that are identified as trees to be remaining. Grading might have to be modified; tree wells might have to be installed or the tree might end up being removed. They have indicated beech trees that are to remain on the property, and they are very sensitive to root compaction so we want to make sure they have proper construction fencing around their drip lines prior to the start of any construction.

We would like to see some shrub massing added to the entrance drive from Century Boulevard as well as to the parking lot islands within the development itself. We also are suggesting they consider adding trees and shrubs to the perimeter of the development, which could go against some of the tree credits that they will end up owing.

No signage is being proposed. They are proposing 400 watt box type fixtures that will be mounted on 32 and one-half foot poles. They also have a series of three foot high ballards across the front of the building. We have a requirement that there be a minimum.5 foot candles across

a parking area, and there are a number of places where they are significantly under that. We would like to see lighting increased to come up to close to that.

The maximum height of building in the OB District is 48 feet. The original submission had a triangular peak to the front of the building that went a little over 55 feet. I personally liked that feature but in the sketch passed out this evening that is missing.

Mr. McErlane said to summarize the status on the trees, there are 652 total caliper inches being removed which requires 326 caliper inches of replanting. They are proposing, including ornamentals, 329 caliper inches.

A variance would be required for building height because of the treatment over the entrance and that has been deleted but personally I would rather see you get a variance for the height requirement, because I think it was a better looking treatment.

Mr. Kelley said we have met and reviewed the plans, we did show on the plans the number of parking spaces, but we left off the actual square footage of the building, 91,000 square feet. We will be complying and exceeding the parking requirements for the site.

The lighting plan which shows less than Ĺ foot candle in quite a few areas will be intensified and has been and will be coordinated with the landscaping done on the site.

We have discussed the height of the building with Kiesland. Obviously they have put together an elevation that could comply with the 48 foot requirement and that was an attempt to respond to some of the staff comments.

Mr. Haupt added we have another elevation that would be approximately 55 feet. I think it would be prudent to ask for the variance tonight. Depending on how we finalize it, we may need that height. It basically gives it a little bit of a different architectural look.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Ten


Mr. Kelley added we have about 30,000 square feet of footprint for the building which is less than the 25% building coverage.

On the one to one slope, we have a detail on the plan that shows a geotech style reinforced slope.

In terms of ground cover, we can crown vetch that area. It is a steep slope and what we have heard is we can penetrate some of those areas with vegetation. We have done that with two to one; I donít know that we have tested a one to one, but we would like the opportunity to work out a landscape plan that probably would bring those off that slope. What we would like to do on the bottom area, and the reason for the reinforced slope, is to keep some of that low area for existing vegetation and supplement it with new. We can incorporate some of the proposed trees where there is not a mature existing tree.

Generally we will incorporate all the staff comments into our final plans.

On the MSD moratorium, Cecil was 100% correct. EPA has not officially rendered a moratorium, but we have filed for an availability letter and received back from them that we canít tie into the system at this time. There are other ways of supplying our site with sanitary sewer which are costly. If Springdale can find the credits and it sounds like the direction we are going, that is very encouraging. We have worked with MSD for the past nine months on this project, and it just recently has come up.

Mr. Haupt commented I was unbelievably shocked by this. Mr. Kelley added MSDís approach is the result of a letter that talked about a sanitary sewer overflow. When they received that letter for a project off Fields-Ertel, they took the position of a moratorium. We tested that by filing and asking for the permit. We are encouraged to hear that Springdale wants to get this resolved as soon as possible. A surge tank could be put into our site, but those are expensive. EPA has approved those in two areas that have sewer overflows but it is an expensive alternative, and not every project will want to do that. I donít know if Don would want to do that, but we have talked about it as being an alternate.

Mr. Syfert said if you are thinking Phase II will be approximately the same color as Phase I, that is incorrect. This is the color scheme they are recommending for Phase II if you wish to look at it. It looks like fine Italian marble. Mr. Haupt stated there will be insets of that, kind of diamond patterns. In the whole building, there might be 50 Ė it will be more of an accent. The gold I have is the main building material to make it look like cut stone from a quarry but it will be architectural precast. It will be similar to the building downtown, 312 Walnut St. The idea is to think it is a quarry stone building. We tried to go with a timeless classical look; the barrel vault in the entry mimics the barrel vault we have in Phase I and the general floor plate of the building is similarly shaped. Frankly, while I really liked the Phase I building, it was too dark for my taste so we wanted to lighten things up with Phase II.

Mr. Syfert said normally developers donít like to live within our requirements for parking, but you stated that you had someone who demanded more parking. What kind of occupancy is that?

Mr. Haupt responded as the owner we are demanding considerably in excess of Springdaleís requirements. We will be a little over 5 spaces per thousand, and anything less than that we think is antiquated and obsolete. The trend in office buildings is to add more and more people per square foot and most people drive to work so a lot of buildings do not have adequate parking today.





Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Eleven


Mr. Syfert wondered what the new code would say, and Ms. McBride answered I believe for professional office it is 1 per 300. Mr. Haupt added this is something you should probably look into because over time, I think you will find that is not adequate.

Mr. Okum asked about the one to one slope. Mr. Haupt one reason it is so steep is because we wanted to maintain as much of the existing vegetation and trees as are there now. If we flattened it out, we might have to disturb more.

Mr. Okum asked the slope on the front hill of the site. Mr. Haupt said it is

About a 4% grade. Mr. Kelley added I think it is 2 Ĺ to 1. Mr. Okum wondered if there w9uld be a sprinkler system and Mr. Haupt confirmed this. Mr. Okum continued I did not observe any light packs on your building except for emergency areas. Does this mean you will be uplighting your building and not lighting the areas off lour building? Mr. Haupt stated we havenít finalized that but I expect we will use a blend of the two. Mr. Okum said I would discourage light packs on the building because of how it affects the adjacent areas. Part of the new code does address glare off sites.

Mr. Okum asked about the HVAC system. Mr. Haupt answered we will use the most expensive system, a VAV System. Mr. McErlane said this building has a VAV System. Mr. Haupt added it will be on the roof. Mr. Okum said I donít think anything but a helicopter will be able to see that roof. Mr. Syfert commented Phase I will see it, and Mr. Haupt said they will be slightly below it. It will be the same first floor elevation, but we are going with three stories.

Mr. Okum asked about the roadway coming in; will it be dedicated or private? Mr. Kelley answered it is a private road, 24 feet wide. Mr. Okum wandered if it could be wider since there are two office complexes exiting. Right now I believe it is about 24 and it seems a little tight for cars to be turning out.

Mr. Haupt answered it is a concern with us, and we are significantly modifying the existing throughway and taking out certain parking spaces and relandscaping it. We have two curb cuts onto Century Boulevard. If we widened it further, we probably would lose more parking spaces which may be a problem.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Shuler about this. The driveway seems a little narrow for an office complex with two businesses feeding it. Mr. Shuler reported that there are two driveways and the one to the north will probably be the main driveway for Phase I. The reconstructed driveway along the boulevard will be the main for Phase II. You also have the cross connection which would allow for movement back and forth if necessary if something is blocked. With the 24 foot width, there is no parking along this drive, and I think that is more than adequate for two way traffic as far as the driveway at Century Boulevard. Since I would guess that 95-98% of that traffic will turn right to go to Kemper, I donít see the necessity to widen it out to have a left and right turn there.

Mr. Okum said on the one to one slope issue, it is woods now but there may be a development at a later date. I donít know if they would have any access.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Twelve


Mr. Haupt answered as of now, no. We have talked to Duke about potentially teaming up on the site, but so far they have an empty building around the corner that they are trying to fill, and at this point it will not be connected. Mr. Okum wondered if they had any access to their site, and Mr. Haupt indicated that their access is to their existing site to the east.

Mr. Huddleston asked about the access as it relates to public safety, fire trucks, etc. Is there any problem there? Mr. Shuler responded I believe the turning radius and driveway width are sufficient to get emergency vehicles onto the site. We also do submit the final site plan to the fire department for their review to make sure they can get their emergency vehicles around the building as needed to accommodate safety before we sign off on the final plan.

Mr. McErlane said I want to discuss the possible variance for the building height since the applicant indicated they are looking at a different scenario than what we have seen tonight. Mr. Haupt reported it probably would be prudent to ask for the variance, since we may want to go with the other modification rather than have to come back later. Mr. McErlane stated it is a different board that would deal with that issue, and since we donít know what your scenario is, that issue can be handled by the Board of Zoning Appeals when you decide what it is..

Mr. Kelley said I heard a little bit from staff that 55 Ĺ feet might be agreeable with the right treatment. Is it the feeling of the Commission that the 55 Ĺ would be approved with the right type of treatment?

Mr. Okum said being the representative to the Board of Zoning Appeals, our variance review is from a different perspective than Planningís, and it carries weight when something is brought before the BZA if the item is part of a favorable recommendation from Planning. I would encourage that we deliberate on it here in Planning before it goes to BZA. It would be to your benefit; from what I am hearing it probably would be favorable, but it is certainly something we should see.

Mr. Kelley said I think if we were requesting more than 48 feet and would be requesting a variance, we would want to come back before Planning and get a recommendation. Mr. Haupt said Iím not sure about that. If I had it the ideal way, it would be with as few meetings and hearings as possible. The only reason we are going to change this is to make it more beautiful, and as you heard from the staff, in their opinion it is more impressive. Iíll leave it in your hands and be at your mercy with what you recommend. Needless to say I would prefer not to have more meetings.

Mr. Okum said since I am the BZA member, I would like to see it brought before this Commission. You are looking at breaking ground in September, and I donít think this issue change your footprint or foundation plan. It may not be necessary for you to come; just send a representative. I donít think Board of Zoning Appeals would be in a position to react as well. I think it is a wonderful idea because it is a feature point of the community. I really think two meetings would be the prudent way to go. My recommendation would be for them to come back before Planning with the elevation when they are ready with the building elevation. Mr. Haupt commented that is only if we want to exceed the height. If we donít exceed it, we donít have to come back.

Mr. Syfert stated right now we are looking at this concept, this design which is within code.




Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

14 July 1998

Page Thirteen



Mr. Okum moved to grant approval of Phase II with the following recommendations:

    1. Al items specified in the City Engineerís report regarding detention utilities etc. be incorporated;
    2. The recommendations of our City Planner be included, including the maximum building height of 48 feet as submitted;
    3. Building square footage must be provided on the final plans;
    4. Mr. McErlaneí recommendations be incorporated;
    5. Mechanical units be concealed from sight on the public right of way.

Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Young and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.


Mr. Shuler said at the last meeting there was a question about the status of the revisions to the Thoroughfare Plan, and I have copies of the plan for each of you this evening.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be at the August 11th meeting. Mr. Vanover indicated that he would not be in attendance.

Mr. Okum said Famous Recipe is closed, but the sign indicates their chicken on sale. I donít know if they need to be put on notice, but I think it is 30 days they have.

Mr. Galster said at the Pictoria Island sign, the weeds seem to be up to the top of the canopy. The way I read the sign ordinance, if it isnít properly maintained, doesnít it have to come down? Mr. McErlane responded it obviously doesnít serve any purpose any more; the phone number isnít even connected to Mr. King


Mr. Young moved for adjournment and Mr. Seaman seconded the

motion. Planning Commission adjourned at 8:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________,1998 _________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



________________________,1998 __________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary