PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

8 AUGUST 1995

7:00 P.M.

 

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Vice Chairman Barry Tiffany.

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Wilton Blake, Tim Sullivan, Councilman Robert Wilson

Councilwoman Peggy Manis and Vice Chairman Barry

Tiffany

Members Absent: Chairman William Syfert and Secretary Steve Galster

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Ken Schneider, Law Director

Don Shvegzda, City Engineer

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Anne McBride, Consultant

Mr. Tiffany stated both Mr. Syfert and Mr. Galster are vacationing.

III. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 11 JULY 1995

Mr. Tiffany stated I would ask that this be tabled until the next meeting; we do

need five votes, and I will have to abstain because I was not here for that

meeting. Members of the Commission concurred, and the Minutes were tabled

until the next meeting.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. 1 August 1995 Letter from Bill McErlane to Anne McBride Concerning

Tree Removal Plan at the Kroger Copaz Property

Mr. Tiffany stated that was to have been on the agenda, but the people Anne is dealing with have not had a chance to look at Billís letter, and we will put that on the agenda next time.

B. Planning Commissioners Journal No. 19 - Summer 1995

V. OLD BUSINESS

A. Payless Shoes Requests a 20" x 21í9" Wall Sign at 80 West Kemper

Road. Total Signage Allowed is 160 Square Feet; 184.0 Square Feet is Requested (Section 153.092(D)(1)(b) "..Maximum gross area of signs..") tabled 11 July 1995

Melody Wilson of Lackner Signs stated we are the company installing the sign for Payless. At the last meeting the board asked if we would go back and try and reduce the signs from what we proposed. I did that, and they agreed to reduce the sign eight square feet. They felt they needed at least that much for the visibility traveling east on Kemper Road.

Ms. Wilson continued basically Payless is asking for the additional signage on the side wall to attract traffic coming off Northland Boulevard and traveling east on Kemper. It is funny getting into their property, and they want the motorist to know they are there before they pass, because there are other stores down the road and more than likely they would not turn around and come back.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Two

 

V A PAYLESS SHOES 80 WEST KEMPER SIGNAGE - continued

Mr. Tiffany said in reading the Minutes from last time, you donít feel that the pole sign is adequate? Ms. Wilson answered the pole sign is blocked traveling in that direction because of the trees and landscaping (she showed him some photographs). You do not see the pole sign until you are right up on the property. Mr. Tiffany commented the arrow is showing where you are proposing the sign to be. Ms. Wilson added the pole sign is right behind that tree. Mr. Tiffany stated it is actually blocked more by the Princeton Bowl sign.

Mr. Tiffany reported there was some discussion yesterday at staff review with Mr. Osborn and Mr. McErlane. Has there been any thought of doing away with the pole sign in consideration for this sign on the side of the building?

Ms. Wilson answered they really donít want to have to do that because you can see it really well traveling west on Kemper. They feel it is their best sign for motorists traveling in that direction, so they would rather not have to do that. They feel the area has grown up so much, and they are one of the few free-standing buildings left that is not in the shopping center or mall. There is so much retail in that area and it is continually growing that the additional signage is needed now for the additional people coming into the area who donít realize that Payless is there.

Mr. Blake said last month you were asking for 44 square feet, and now you are down to 36 square feet. Is that within the code? Mr. McErlane answered that would put them approximately 24 square feet over what they are permitted to have.

Mr. Tiffany stated they have a 12 foot window of signage they are still allowed to use; over 12 feet is in excess. Typically we do not have businesses that put signs up smaller than what they are allowed; with this sign they go 24 feet over.

Mr. Tiffany added reading the Minutes from last month, I share a concern with Ms. Manis who raised the issue of having a sign on the back of the building, and maybe Borders would come in also asking that their sign be put back there also. I didnít see a lot of additional discussion on that; I didnít know- how the Commission felt about that issue.

Mr. Sullivan stated I think to speculate that Borders or any other stores in the plaza might come forth and ask for additional space is not necessarily warranted. From the standpoint of Payless, one of the reasons they are asking for this in the first place is because one of the signs they have right now is partially blocked. With Borders having large sign or the plaza itself having a fairly large sign on Kemper Road, I donít think it would be a problem for them. I would say letís consider Payless and not worry about the other ones. If they come forward, we would deal with them on a one to one basis.

Mr. Tiffany responded my concern is what has happened in the past; the track record is there. Generally we hear so and so has it; that would be a concern I would have. Mr. Sullivan answered if they were to have a similar concern about blockage of their sign, a good reason for it, then I would think we would have a good reason to consider it anyway.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Three

V A PAYLESS SHOES 80 WEST KEMPER ROAD SIGNAGE - continued

Mr. Blake said being on this Commission, one of the things I have always heard is that we take each individual request based on its merits. It is my feeling that Payless needs that sign. I have driven up there and looked from various vantage points and while I did not originally agree with the 44 square feet requested last month, they have tried to work with us, and I feel what they are requesting is within reason. I donít think we can make a decision about Payless based on what another merchant might do. I think we have to deal with the merits of this request, and I am in favor of it.

Mr. Wilson stated I have mixed feelings. While I tend to agree with Ms. Manis because in the past we have always had the problem where they have come in and said y you did this for this person; why canít you do it for us? We have to remind them that these requests are considered on an individual basis. On the other hand, I see the need for a sign. Is the sign in the front of the building the same dimensions as the sign you are putting on the side? Can we do something with this sign space-wise to allow us to put the 35 foot here and be in compliance? Obviously that doesnít have to be as big as the pole sign or the sign on the side. Could this be made smaller?

Ms. Wilson answered of course it could be, but it would be a whole new sign. The sign that is there is probably 30 inch letters in the upper case letters, and we are proposing a 20 inch letter for the side wall. It can always be done; it would be a matter of removing everything that is there and starting over, and the cost involved with that. I couldnít answer whether or not Payless would be agreeable to that because at that point they would be purchasing two totally new signs.

Mr. Wilson commented you are putting a smaller sign on the side wall for greater distance, and with this one, you are almost up on the building before you see it. Ms. Wilson responded correct, and I think they havenít addressed that because it has been there. That was the sign that was put up when they moved in.

Mr. Tiffany said when Payless came into that space, the pole sign was there, grandfathered in, correct? Mr. McErlane responded as far as their being permitted to have a pole sign, yes. Mr. Tiffany continued but according to the code now if they were to go in and build there, they would not be permitted that sign; Mr. McErlane confirmed this. Mr. Tiffany stated so they have a little more signage now than the current code allows, but they are grandfathered into it with the pole sign, correct? Mr. McErlane reported total areawise, they are okay. Mr. Tiffany said but as far as the pole sign is concerned, they have more signage than they are permitted if you include the ground sign. Mr. McErlane responded if you are still talking total area of signs. If they didnít have a pole sign, they would have more wall signs. They still could possibly have the same area; it just wouldnít be the same type of sign. Ms. Wilson added I think the pole sign was there when Payless moved in. It was already on the property and grandfathered as to that type of sign.

Mr. Sullivan commented Mr. Wilson made a good point about possibly utilizing smaller letters on the front because you are on top of the sign before you see it, and you mentioned it basically would require them buying two complete new signs. Is there a possibility that the sign could be moved, that the larger one could be put on the side of the building and that would give you what you want.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Four

V A PAYLESS SHOES 80 WEST KEMPER ROAD - SIGNAGE - continued

Mr. Sullivan continued also, just a suggestion on my part; you have Payless Shoe Source and a smaller Payless Kids; I donít know how important it is to them for it to say Payless Kids. If they can do without Payless Kids, that would also put them in pretty good shape. If these are 30 inch letters and you move them around on to the side, theoretically you could put the 20 inch up in front because it wouldnít make a whole lot of difference; you canít see it until youíre right up there anyway. Mr. Tiffany commented it would have to go down to about an eight inch letter to be in the range. Mr. Sullivan asked if Ms. Wilson knew how they felt about the Payless Kids; is that major to them?

Ms. Wilson answered I asked them about that because that was my suggestion from the beginning, and they really do not want to do that because they do carry a pretty good selection of childrenís shoes and they want people to realize that. As far as moving the 30 inch letters over to the side, they probably would be agreeable to that, but by the time you get down to an eight inch letter to bring it into your 12 square feet that you are allowed, that would be smaller than the Payless Kids. I donít think it would benefit them, and I donít think it would be very attractive on that building, to have those little bitty letters on the front of the whole building. I donít have a problem asking them about it, but I think you would want to look at it, because I donít know that it will look very good.

Mr. Tiffany stated Planning does need five affirmative votes to act on anything, and we only have five members here tonight. I will give y you the option of having the vote this evening, or you can ask that it be tabled again until next month when all the members are present. That also would give you more time to discuss things with them; it is entirely up to you. I have some very strong mixed feelings about this. I see where they want it because of the exposure, but there are a lot of businesses in town that do not have the exposure that they have.

Ms. Wilson responded I understand what you are saying. I have to agree with Payless; I feel like they are kind of an underdog in this situation. They donít get the mall advertising; the shopping center pole signs. They are on their own in that building. I hate to postpone it another month, because they really do need some identification there, but then again they really need it and I hate to take the chance of their not getting it, so I guess Iíll just wait.

Mr. Tiffany said if she received a no vote this evening, could she come back in next month with a different plan? There is nothing to prohibit that, is there? Mr. McErlane responded I donít believe there is anything in Planning Commissionís rules that would prohibit her from doing that. Mr. Tiffany continued so nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Ms. Wilson repeated weíll just wait, and in the meantime Iíll talk to Payless and see if we can come up with something. Mr. Tiffany added you can ask for a vote this evening; if you receive a no vote, you can still come back next month with a new proposal or the same one. Ms. Manis asked if she can bring back the same plan too and Mr. McErlane answered I donít know of any rule in Planning Commission that says she canít. Mr. Tiffany said I would defer to our Law Director on Robertís Rules. Mr. Schneider stated there is no requirement in Robertís Rules; any matter can be brought back; any matter can be brought back any time unless there is a rule of the body.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Five

V A PAYLESS SHOES 80 WEST KEMPER ROAD - SIGNAGE - continued

Ms. Wilson stated Iím just going to wait, and Iíll talk to them; they are willing to work with the city; they really are. Maybe we can come up with something that will satisfy everybody a little bit more.

Mr. Wilson stated my point is they chose that location, so we canít say they are an underdog because of the mall. My suggestion would be on the Payless Kids that perhaps we do something to the sign, eliminate it to give us the allowable. Yes it is a name brand, but Payless Shoe Source has more of an identification than the Payless Kids. I would think if we go with a 20 inch illuminated sign, that would help them more to attract their customers. Their main goal is to get the customers from a distance to see the location. Once they are in, the kids sign may not have the same relevance, so I would ask that you have them consider that.

Ms. Wilson responded I will definitely go back to them and try to work out a couple of different things and see if we canít come a little closer together.

Mr. Wilson moved to table to September 12th, and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice vote, all except Mr. Blake voted aye and the matter was tabled with a vote of four to one.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Exel Logistics, Tri-County Commons Requests Preliminary Plan Approval of Proposed 100,000 Square Foot Storage and Distribution Facility

Steven Kelly of Woolpert, representing Exel Logistics, stated with me tonight is Doug Crim of Exel Logistics. We are bringing before you a portion of the Tri-County Commons development, approximately 9.6 acres at the northeast corner of the project, which fronts on the north side of I-275 and has a CSX rail system to the western portion. Before you is the site plan, the preliminary PUD plan that we submitted to staff and are bringing before you tonight as a preliminary PUD.

Mr. Kelly continued this proposal is for a 100,000 square foot refrigeration and dry storage warehouse. It is a distribution type facility, which is rail dependent with the CSX rail line to the west, and also dependent upon an access which we are proposing as being the extension of Kemper Commons Drive, approximately 450 feet.

Mr. Kelly continued we are proposing that the building be located parallel with the Kroger building which is to the south, and the face of the building actually aligning with the Kroger facility. The warehouse would be serviced by an office and a maintenance building, which would be located on the west side of the building. We have shown 49 employee parking spaces on the west side that would serve the actual building and facility. Along the south side of the building, is our rail access. We have been working with CSX to bring rail along the south side of this project; we would be constructing the rail. We would like to accommodate approximately 40 rail cars on this site, somewhere between 30 and 40 cars, so we show about four individual spurs coming along the south side of the building.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Six

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS-PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Kelly stated on the north side there is a truck dock area with truck docks oriented on the north side. That is the area that would be fronting on I-275, and we feel with that orientation we put the rail sandwiched between the Kroger building and the warehouse building itself.

Mr. Kelly reported the storm water detention for this site has been discussed with Champion Windows submission on the east side of the property. We have a north retention pond which will service approximately 75% of this project and be allowed to drain into the north facility, which has been adequately sized for the project. With the facility, we would be routing that portion of the Kroger building in between the Exel building and also the Kroger building into that north detention basin. An approximately 48" storm sewer would be installed to route the water in that direction. For the remainder of the water there has been some discussion about this PUD submission being required to tie in the Kroger Building. On a different graphic chart, Mr. Kelly indicated with the overall 100+ acres of the Tri-County Commons development, we have inputted the Exel project. What remains out of this overall PUD is what we are now calling Lot 10. The development on that is unknown; we are finding out that various users are interested in that. We would propose some type of temporary detention basin; there are many pipes that go underneath the Kroger building out towards a very large storm sewer that parallels and eventually goes under I-275, to cut those off and provide some temporary detention. We think that is the best thing to do at this point of time; it satisfies your concerns as providing for detention. Whatever goes in there will want to change and manipulate that and, if they want a lake or some other type of facility in some other manner, they can accommodate it in a more permanent fashion at that point in time. AS far as routing the water into the detention basin, providing temporary detention on what we are showing as Lot 10, is how we propose to adequately address the storm water detention requirement for the site.

Mr. Kelly reported the Exel project is a warehouse type facility. The overall PUD submitted originally with this project showed an office building and some office warehouses along I-275, which were very high traffic generators. This particular building is proposing to use Kemper Commons Drive. We would have approximately 80 trips per day, 80 in and 80 out as far as truck traffic. There would be approximately 25 employees per shift; there is proposed three shifts, so we would have a minimal traffic impact with this development.

Mr. Kelly stated the office building was 143,000 square feet and on about half of Lot 10 there is approximately 34,000 square feet of office warehouse. So, as the PUD was prepared and our traffic reports were prepared, quite a bit of traffic was considered to come out of this particular corner of the development. Our traffic is different in nature; it is less intense. We do have some trucks, but we feel the overall numbers, six trucks per hour in a 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. spread out time period, would be of less impact than the number of cars with the office development. Mr. Kelly added we are oriented towards the rail; it is important for us to have the orientation for the rail, and we are a CSX customer basically.

Mr. Kelly reported we brought together a landscape plan; this is a preliminary PUD; we have submitted a number of drawings, existing features, layout plan, grading, utility on a preliminary basis.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Seven

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Kelly stated there are some trees on the site that concerned us a little bit at first because of the tree replacement criteria. We have shown those in light green and the orientation of ornamentals and deciduous trees. We have some evergreens shown on this plan. We have approximately 45 caliper inches of trees, plus some conifers; we think that will bring us up to about 70 inches of trees in caliper, and our requirement is 49. We are comfortable that we have a landscape plan that will be adequate for the site improve the real concept here. You really donít see or appreciate this site until you are over halfway through, so weíve put some trees along the interstate, but there already are some trees inside the right of way within the interstate, so we have left those. We have concentrated across the front of the building and Iíll show you why it is a nice looking building, so that is where we have put our attention and we do meet or exceed the criteria of tree replacement.

Mr. Kelly showed elevations of the proposed facility. It is a combination of architectural block, split face block material. There actually are three types of block materials on this building. He showed the west elevation, which would be the office and maintenance facility for the building; above that in most of the upper elevation is a painted panel material. These are the proposed colors, and Doug in his review with the architect bringing these together looked at how the Kroger facility looked to make sure this blended with that particular color and scheme. The block adds an architectural appeal to it, and it pretty much goes all the way around the elevations. We colored up the west and north elevations; the south and east would be of similar materials, and weíve submitted some samples for staff to review also

Mr. Kelly continued we started this project a month and a half ago; we sat down with staff around the first of last month, resubmitted plans and we have received comments from Bill McErlane on those. I am pretty much able to address those comments if PlanningCommission would wish. Mr. Tiffany responded I would like to have Mr. McErlane cover these and have you comment on each as we go if possible. Mr. Kelly continued we received Don Shvegzdaís comments at the meeting this evening, and I think we could comment on those also.

Mr. Kelly stated what Exel is looking to do is fit inside the City of Springdale. We are looking for a preliminary PUD approval this evening to be allowed to bring back to Planing a final PUD and address the detailed comments that we have from staff and also bring before you what we feel would be a very good user at this portion of Tri-County Commons.

Mr. McErlane reported of the items required for a PUD, one item we had not received was the schedule of construction. PUD asks for subdivisions to be shown; I realize at this point it is a little premature to provide a subdivision plat, but we have a little bit of a concern about how the way this property is divided off and this right of way is extended and how these properties here would be handled. We are concerned that if that ends up to be a stand alone lot and is transferred to someone, it is an unbuildable lot and could become a liability instead of an asset. So, there needs to be some means by which this can be tied to another piece of property. We had a similar situation on the shopping center site where we had a piece of property that was primarily landscaping. In its access drive they were labeled Lots 3A and 3B and they could be only sold with Lot 3, so we would suggest that this be handled in a similar way so that it is sold with another piece of property.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Eight

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Kelly if there had been any discussion of this issue, and Mr. Kelly responded yes, we create a straight line going along with the Exel west line from Kemper Commons Drive; it is a very unusable piece of property, a detention basin and some other things; that would be considered as being part of and contiguous with Lot 7, which is the Kroger building, and more amenable to handling it. Mr. Tiffany asked if it were seven or 13? Mr. Kelly answered I believe the plat represents the Kroger building as being Lot 7, so we keep replatting Lot 7 and from here on the Kroger building will remain as some part of Lot 7, so it would be Lot 7B and the Kroger building may be in Lot 7A.

Mr. McErlane continued the plan shows the total number of parking spaces as 49. I think the applicant indicated earlier to us that the total number of employees would be in the number of 38, so it looks as though 49 parking spaces would be adequate. In industrial properties, the code calls for enough parking spaces to accommodate the two largest successive shifts; if there are only 38 employees, obviously 49 will work for that.

Mr. McErlane reported on the original PUD plan, this property was split up into two office warehouse flex buildings and a multi-story office building in this corner. All I need to point out to you is that this is somewhat of a deviation from their preliminary plan and it is up to the Council members of Planning to determine whether or not this is a major deviation and the plan has to go back through the Public Hearing process in Council.

Mr. McErlane stated at this point we donít really have a tree plan. There is a drainage swale that runs from the existing building down to the interstate, and it appears that a number of cottonwoods have grown u pin that swale. None of the trees that are being removed are larger than 12 inches in diameter. /they are showing 27 1/2 inches of replacement for hardwoods toward the 49 caliper inches that are required. However, they also are showing 17 1/2 inches of ornamentals and 17 conifers, which really arenít designated by caliper inches, they are designated by height. Mr. Tiffany commented all they have going out are hardwoods, correct? Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

Don Shvegzda reported regarding the storm water issues, the original calculations for the detention basin shown in the upper right corner is designed for a total of approximately 19 acres which would encompass about 75% of this site. The remainder would have to be directed to the new detention basin in conjunction with the remainder of the existing Kroger facility.

Mr. Shvegzda continued regarding items submitted, there wasnít anything to indicate how the major storm would get to the detention basin.

Mr. Shvegzda added on the public improvements, it currently indicates that Kemper Commons Circle would be extended approximately 440 linear feet from its current terminus. There is also shown a 30 foot access easement that would go beyond the public road through the parking lot area. As a clarification, would the intent of that particular easement would be for emergency vehicles?

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Nine

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Kelly stated that it would. Mr. Shvegzda said not necessarily to continue around the north side of the development? Mr. Kelly stated our understanding of staffís concerns regarding the termination of Kemper Commons Drive was to provide for emergency access to get from one side of the development to the other, so we are providing a clear 30 foot access easement that would allow for fire and emergency vehicles to flow through this particular development and as development occurs to the east, a similar access easement would be requested for that parcel.

Mr. Shvegzda continued on the extension of Kemper Commons, there wasnít anything addressing the extension of the public street lights; that would be required there. The public right of way will have a railroad crossing on the two tracks of the current spur that comes in. The new spur will be just beyond the limits of the public right of way.

Mr. Shvegzda stated one issue that came up in staff was regarding the original intent of the PUD, which was to funnel truck traffic to Commons Circle, from the standpoint that Kemper Commons was to be considered the main access to the retail. You have the curvature coming off Kemper and two lanes heading down into the development, and at least four lanes coming out. There was a concern to minimize the amount of truck traffic on there. In this particular scenario truck traffic access will be Kemper Commons. There was a question of a possible rearrangement of the site so that the truck traffic would be able to access Commons Circle.

Mr. Shvegzda continued one of the items we will be discussing later on is the bikeway master plan. A particular leg of that would run from the underpass of the railroad under I-275 down to the public right of way on Kemper Commons. There was consideration for requesting some type of permanent easement to be provided to access that.

Mr. Shvegzda reported one of the things that has been discussed here in some manor is the number of employees and what times of day and how they will access the site. In regards to the truck traffic, there are 80 trucks in and out in a 12-hour period, which computes out to 6.7 trucks in and our per hour.

Mr. Shvegzda continued other items would be the lighting on site, in terms of the minimum illumination requirements. At this point we have not received anything from MSD and Water Works regarding the sanitary and water availability.

Mr. Tiffany asked if this building was flip flopped end to end, and we put the access to the east, does that change the percentage in terms of detention? Mr. Shvegzda answered it would not change the percentage any; the overall area would be the same.

Mr. Sullivan said the railroad cars that will be on this site; will those be visible from Kemper Road or any other road going by? It doesnít seem like a lot of cars, but when you say 40 cars in that area at a time, itís like a railyard. Going from Tri-County Mall to Tri-County Commons, Iím not sure we want a railroad yard visible. Do you know if it is visible?

Mr. Kelly answered with the two buildings having their fronts aligned, the majority of the cars will be between the two buildings. We see 36 of the 40 cars would be behind that point and four would be on the other side of the access easement.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Ten

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Kelly continued as far as being visible between the Mall property and the Wal-Mart store with its garden store, it is a very acute angle that you need to look at. There already is a railyard so to speak with CSX. You will have to see over the mall area from Kemper Road, which I donít believe can be done, and as you are looking from Kemper Road at this location, you would have to look down to see it; it would be very difficult. I have looked at this, and have never considered that as being an eyesore problem. We did look at I-275 to see what you could see from there, and you are past the site before you see what is going on.

Mr. Sullivan continued my other concern was the truck traffic on Commons Drive; the access to that is Kemper Road, and because I travel Kemper Road between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. and see the amount of traffic that goes on Kemper Road, 80 trucks seems like a potential traffic tie-up. Traffic is tied up in that area pretty well already. In my own job as warehouse and receiving manager, and looking at my schedule and saying I only have 12 trucks coming in today, but six hit at one time. Itís very difficult for anyone to determine the exact time a truck will be coming in and out, and you put four or five trucks out on Kemper Road at lunchtime, and you have a major tie-up.

Mr. Blake commented on your tree plan, I have some concerns. I too will express my concerns on the number of trucks coming in and out, but on this loading dock on the northwest corner? Mr. Kelly stated the loading dock would go on the north side of the building, with doors on the north side and two doors on the west elevation. Mr. Blake said you keep saying thatís not visible from I-275? Mr. Kelly answered as you cross over 275 you are at a higher elevation; you would need to look down and almost over by the time you get to a point in there.

Doug Crim, Director of Property Development added if you are traveling westbound on 275, we donít believe there is a direct line of sight to this building. We havenít done a formal study, but the number of times we have driven by there, you wonít have line of sight traveling westbound. If you travel eastbound, I would say 275 in line with this building is probably 30 to 40 feet higher than the building, and you will have line of sight when you are on top of the building, when you are directly across from the building.

Mr. Kelly continued that is correct, and I think that was the whole point with the original PUD to get a six story office building in there. The site is literally in a whole back in the corner of the Tri-County Commons development, and this type of use seemed to match the site location.

Mr. Wilson said in your five-year plan, have you projected your growth in terms of employees? Mr. Crim answered we project the ultimate employment will be between 34 and 38 people over the five-year period. That would include people who work in the office as well as those who work in the warehouse and is in a 24-hour period. The number of employees in the second and third shifts drop dramatically.

Mr. Wilson continued on signage, will that be facing I-275 and also at an entrance from the road coming in? Mr. Crim responded we havenít addressed signage yet..

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Eleven

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Osborn reported at the staff meeting we looked at the elevation difference in terms of actual finished grade elevation versus the expressway elevation, and there is probably on average a 25 foot difference, and probably you will see the east end of the building as you are traveling west and part of the roof and then the building will disappear, so I donít think it will be a major factor in terms of visibility from the expressway.

Mr. Osborn continued regarding traffic, the PUD that was developed was burdened with a certain volume of trips generated from projected development. The projected development did include a major office building that would have occupied this location, as well as other types of uses on the site. Those trips are not going to occur if this project develops. However, we are going to see a tremendous increase in truck volume. I canít tell you what the difference is going to be in terms of the overall impact on the public infrastructure, but I have to point out that it is not 100%. There is some residual benefit to the infrastructure from the absence of the other trips that would have occurred had it developed the way it is presently proposed. If that is an issue, Iím sure the original traffic study can be further analyzed to incorporate in the truck trips that are being discussed here.

Mr. Osborn stated as mentioned earlier and brought out at the staff meeting, and I thought convincingly so, there is a need to examine how the trucks access the site. Thirteen plus trips an hour, no matter what direction they are going, over the retail entrance to the site would have a significant impact. The project is at a preliminary level, and perhaps we can go back and work with the developer to see if there is some way to access it off the eastern public right of way where we had originally designed the truck entrance to be for the project, because the engineer did bring out some real concerns about that volume of truck traffic occurring and commingling with the retail traffic we see over there.

Mr. Osborn added I would point out that in terms of the total impact on public right of way, we expected high volume traffic to come off this site based upon the development that was proposed. We are seeing growth in traffic from all sources, and I think it would be inappropriate to penalize this site for traffic growth throughout the area when we have approved a certain density of development already off this site.

Mr. Tiffany commented I share the concern and the direction the trucks come in. To me it is a big deviation to take the truck traffic across in front of the plaza. Mr. Osborn brings up a good point; it is unfair to penalize these folks because of other traffic in the area. In the same regard, it is unfair to penalize the folks in the plaza for this site. Personally if I have to drive through a trucking facility to get to Walmart, I may not go to Walmart, and I know a lot of people may feel the same way. I think the logical way to bring this in is off Commons Circle. If the building was flip flopped end to end it would work very very easily. My only concern then is we have an L-shaped street called a circle. Thatís the biggest deviation with this, is where we are taking this truck traffic. There was a lot of thought that went into this on both sides, as to bringing the truck traffic in that way.

 

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twelve

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Wilson said on signage, what kind of formula will we use? We are talking about a 100,000 square foot building, and depending on the formula we use, we might have a tremendous amount of signs or one big sign. Will we address that when we get to the issue of signs, and will there be some flexibility that we donít have a sign that is 10% the size of that building?

Mr. Tiffany asked their frontage? Mr. McErlane reported the typical allowances within an industrial district is a maximum of one 125 square foot sign. Although it is based on frontage, that is the maximum. Mr. Wilson commented so that really wonít be an issue. Mr. McErlane stated there were no signs presented with this application.

Mr. Crim reported typically Exelís requirements are not onerous, but sometimes our clients like to advertise the fact that they are there. I am embarrassed; we just havenít discussed that to the level of detail that we should have. On the other issue, we will be talking to the folks at SKA about selling us the ground because there are some issues there we need to work out with them as well.

Mr. Sullivan said I agree with Mr. Osborn in that the usage on this site as far as the number of actual trips has been reduced and I was glad to see that. I would have had concerns had a busy office complex come in there with a lot of traffic. For those of us who have sat at a light that generally five to seven cars could go through and seen one truck go through and not any cars be able to go through, realize that sometimes the impact of just one truck in the stream of traffic can equate to a much larger number of cars. I would strongly encourage you to take a look at the traffic impact and see what that might be. Also, if there is a possibility that you could look at another access, I think that would be a good idea. From my standpoint, the whole development sounds like a good idea to me, If any of this has to go to Council for approval, there are people on Council that I have seen vote negatively on very positive issues strictly based on traffic.

Ms. Manis asked Mr. Kelly to show where the road will actually go on the overall site plan? Mr. Kelly stated the road terminates at the back side of the Walmart, and right now there is a large truck dock area. We would be extending Kemper Commons Circle and stop it at this point and continuing an access drive into the facility . Ms. Manis said that is what I was interested in from the Lot 10 perspective, how you propose for that road to continue on through there and tie up. Mr. Kelly responded we showed an access easement on the property. As this Lot 10 would develop, it has been talked about several different ways how this could be developed, and one way or the other with a 30 foot access drive that would come through with an easement that would connect out to the drive to allow for the means of ingress and egress with emergency vehicles. Ms. Manis continued I am just worrying that when your road comes out up there, youíre not going to cut across Lot 10. Mr. Kelly responded it is in a good fashion as far as being on the north side. We never would have seen the Kroger building as being a good way to do things, to wrap around the upper side. Ms. Manis commented we obviously thought it was good at one point because that was what we had planned. Mr. Kelly added as we are getting into each one of these sites, the use of each site kind of dictates how we massage the plan in the overall PUD.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Thirteen

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Ms. Manis continued I also had a question about landscaping on the east side of the building for anybody that may build on Lot 10. There is none shown at all, and I would consider some there possibly. Mr. Kelly responded with the wall we have, we see this as being a blank area, possibly turning that into a great space area. Ms. Manis added I do think it is a great use for the site as far as traffic and using the facilities that are there, the rail line. Like everyone else, I do share a concern about the amount of truck traffic, but I have to believe that when Kroger was being used at its fullest, there had to be as much or more. Like Tim said, I know there will be concerns from Council just based on the fact that there will be more semis on Kemper Road, regardless of where they come in or out, there will be concerns. I have a little concern with your saying that you are going to use Lot 10 as temporary detention until something is built, but obviously it is a blank space if SK says you can use it as a water detention space. Mr. Tiffany added it is proposed to be built there anyhow on the east end of Lot 10, and you are proposing to build it in a temporary fashion. Can you expound on that and tell us what your finished work will look like on a temporary basis?

Mr. Kelly stated there is a series of three pipes that go underneath the Kroger Building and extend up north. We probably would propose a rectangular ditch paralleling to I-275 as big as it needs to be to satisfy the detention requirement with some type of new outlet structure proposed. The shape of the detention bond, the installation of storm sewers we really feel would get in the way of whatever would be planned there and would restrict development, so a very large open ditch but I think it will look broader because of the stringent detention requirements.

Mr. Wilson said relative to the elevation from I-275, because it is a refrigerated storage area, will you have refrigeration units on your roof? Mr. Kelly reported we dealt with that with Samís, and there would not be any large units on top of the roof here. An area between the docks would be the location of our refrigeration units, so it would be enclosed and on the ground. Mr. Wilson continued on TV antenna or satellite dishes? Mr. Kelly answered it would be general roof louvers on top. Mr. Tiffany said when you say roof louvers, can you describe them? Mr. Crim answered they call them mushrooms to vent the air out of the warehouse. They typically arenít very large and pretty low to the roof elevations. As far as satellite disks, I do not believe we use any of those now, and at this point I do not anticipate those being used.

Mr. Wilson I didnít see anything on your roof, and I was curious as to how you would ventilate such a facility. Mr. Crim reported 70% of the warehouse would be cooled, and at this. point the east end, about 30,000 feet would be dry, not cooled and you would have some type of roof ventilation units there. They would not protrude; they are not big boxes that are sticking up as eyesores; they are typically round, donut shaped or mushroom shaped. Mr. Wilson responded what I donít want to happen to you is when you come back for approvals and you have to change or add something to make it operative. Then we have the choice of accepting it as it is at that time or rejecting it and your having to redo the whole building because it doesnít conform.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Fourteen

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Tiffany added we would ask that whatever is on the roof be painted out a similar color to the roof so they match and donít jump out at people as they drive by. I think about all youíre going to see from I-275 is the top of this building and the tops of the trucks.

Mr. Crim reported we are a contract warehousing company, which means that we handle products for manufacturers. We have 120 of these types of locations in North America, encompassing about 23 million square feet. While we donít get involved directly with transportation, it is obviously a very big issue to us and we share concerns about truck traffic just as you do, the issue of access, ingress egress from Kemper and getting from I-275 are all big issues to us. Iím not sure we are totally aligned on the concerns, but they are concerns to us and they are issues that we deal with everywhere we operate. This is a unique location in that in combines reasonable access to the interstate system with the rail line we need to be on, so it presents a good opportunity for us with that combination of factors.

Mr. Crim continued it was mentioned that there was not a construction schedule given, and I can give you generalities. Mr. Tiffany stated we did receive one; I think you were planning to break ground September 15th. Mr. Crim added that is a little aggressive; what we really need to do is make sure we get enough site work done this fall so that we can continue construction through the winter, and it is likely that paving will occur early spring.

Mr. Tiffany said you (Mr. Crim) were not here for the original PUD, and one of the things we talked about and considered was the truck traffic entering this site, not just for the proposed businesses to the rear, but Walmart and Samís and other retail shops coming in at that time. One of the things we really pushed was to move that truck traffic to Commons Circle, to the east of the project, because eventually Century Boulevard is proposed to go in there and also to alleviate traffic on the Tri-County Mall and that area. We asked that they push them towards Mosteller Road exit and bring them across Kemper that way; it seemed like a more logical way for them to get in, especially during peak seasons of shopping. I would ask you really give a lot of consideration to that when you look at this site, and see if you canít work something out across the back to the east

Mr. Kelly stated I donít have any traffic numbers to present to you because it wasnít really seen as a concern. It seemed to us that this is a decrease in traffic volume; if itís a truck or eight or nine cars, it is a decrease in traffic volume that would be accessing out to the light using Kemper Commons Drive. That is why we have submitted what we have. This is rail dependent, and we need to be on the other side of the site as opposed to the east side of the site. I think it would be difficult to do anything but what we have shown. Mr. Tiffany said even for the truck traffic? Mr. Kelly responded it is a long road to get from Point A to Point B. Mr. Tiffany responded I understand, but personally I am not willing to sacrifice the rest of the site to make it a short drive. I donít have a concern with traffic numbers as far as trips, but I have a concern with the type of traffic coming through Kemper Commons. By the numbers of proposed buildings versus this, there will be a decrease, it is the type of traffic. Mr. Kelly said we felt there would be a decrease and we still feel the traffic will operate as well or better with our proposed type of traffic as opposed to office traffic, with the larger peaks more spread out, and thatís why we brought it before you in this format.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Fifteen

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Tiffany commented I guess the difference would be if we went with the office buildings which was originally proposed and a circle drive, the people have two options to get out. This way, we are limited to one side unless they drive through the plaza which we definitely do not want to come out there by Samís.

Mr. Kelly responded we do have emergency access vehicles that we are proposing to shift to the east. That is another means of ingress and egress. Tonight is the first time I have heard that east direction. We do have a schedule submitted. This is a preliminary PUD that we are bringing before you. We feel this use is very well suited to the site, as far as traffic betterment for the overall Tri-County Commons area regionally, and we would like to bring this directly back to Planning as a final PUD.

Ms. Manis commented I would like to see a commitment that as tenants develop there is an effort to route the truck traffic that way out. You said there are people looking at Lot 10 now. Can your parking lot handle the traffic you are proposing? Your access for emergency vehicles - thatís how the trucks will get to the docks. Mr. Kelly said right, and that is a single point of access we would like to allow for two means of ingress and egress. I think traffic can come out on Kemper Commons access with this volume adequately.

Ms. Manis stated the ingress to the whole development is not optimal in terms of the curve and turn and double lanes. With two cars going down there it is kind of close, but the majority of the traffic does turn at Walmart, where the trucks will be continuing on around the outside. Mr. Kelly commented we created some very wide lanes out there. Ms. Manis added I would much rather see this use than office buildings.

Mr. Kelly reported as far as discussions of what we have before you, trying to address the traffic, it is important, at least what I am hearing from Exel, to understand that they would like to begin this fall and as far as PUD, this is one that would need to go back to Council. I think we could look at the access to the site understanding what would be the review process, if that is something we can adjust and bring back to you in a final format. That is what I would like to propose to Planning Commission.

Mr. Tiffany responded that depends on whether or not it is a major deviation to the PUD, if the Planning councilmembers think it is.

Mr. Osborn stated I agree this use is very good for this location in terms of real access. I think the fundamental question I have heard this evening is access to the site for the truck traffic. Ms. Manis raised the point about the traffic coming in off Kemper, and we have two lanes that come in, we drop a lane at the entrance towards Wal-Mart but you have two lanes parallel going through a curve in that part of Commons Drive. Again based on the conversation we had at the staff meeting, I am concerned also. If this is such a good location, I think there should be further consideration by the applicant about coming in from the east. The site has quite a few amenities to it and as you pointed out properly when we went through this process on the front end with the developer, we even planned the site so the vehicles servicing the mall locations would come in through that eastern roadway.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Sixteen

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Osborn continued unfortunately we didnít take a hard enough position on that, or look at it in that regard when we were having conversation with the applicant, but given the input from the other staff members and from you during our staff meeting yesterday, I would suggest that this is fundamental to the site. Rather than a preliminary approval this evening, we should resolve this issue and if necessary have a special meeting, but resolve it before we give a preliminary plan approval.

Mr. Tiffany stated I would tend to agree. Another advantage to flip flopping the building would be the exposure of the office, the nice part of the building from I-275 as you are heading west.

Ms. Manis commented I donít understand what you are saying when you talk about flip flopping the building. Mr. Tiffany said if you took the left end of the building and flipped it end to end so that the office was on the right end of the building, your access point would be on the east side of the building. Ms. Manis responded but you still will have to make a road all the way across. Mr. Tiffany stated the difference is we are accessing from Commons Circle, which is what was intended for the truck traffic to come in. Right now the way it stands is they will come in Kemper Commons and right across the front of the plazas. I donít know how many accidents we have had at that intersection.

Mr. Kelly stated there are some forms of access along the front of the Kroger building; maybe that is a means to solve a better infrastructure that might be in there presently to get out to Commons Drive. Mr. Tiffany responded I donít know that was made to take that kind of traffic.

Mr. Osborn commented that is another alternative to look at. If they route their traffic across the front of the Kroger building and intersect the eastern roadway, that may be the better alternative. Mr. Tiffany asked if they would need an easement, and Mr. Kelly stated that is something weíd need to investigate. Ms. Manis said I think regardless of where the building is situated, you are still talking an access road in there. Mr. Tiffany responded the difference is the way the trucks are going to get to the building. If it is from the right side, they will come down Commons Circle; if it is from the left, they come through the plaza. Ms. Manis continued but the building doesnít make a difference. Mr. Tiffany said I donít believe he is proposing a road all the way across Lot 10 at this point. Ms. Manis said they are not, but there is not a road in there, so they will have to make a road. Mr. Tiffany added the difference for him is the length of the road; thatís why they donít want to go that direction; itís twice as long and twice as expensive. Mr. Crim added the length of the rail is another big issue.

Mr. Osborn commented I think her point is we donít even have to flip flop the building. The building can stay exactly as it stands here and you bring the road in from the east and not change one element of the layout. Mr. Tiffany responded I understand what you are saying. My thought was if you flip flopped the building, you moved closer to the rail.

Mr. Blake said so we donít get stalled, do we need to table this and let them look to the east and come back next month with something, or we could have a special meeting.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Seventeen

VI A EXEL LOGISTICS TRI-COUNTY COMMONS PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Tiffany asked the applicant how soon they need to move on this, and Eric Bergman, representative of SKA the owners of the property, reported I donít particularly find out property attractive. With them going in front, even though it doesnít have a tremendous amount of exposure, it will cut off a little bit of the Kroger building that is getting older and adds value. I do know that Exel is out there looking at other sites because of timing. I believe they have a customer that has a tight time frame and I think they are hearing the concerns of the traffic, and I know they also have that same concern. It will have to be addressed if they are going to get on the site. What they are looking for is to listen tonight what needs to be done, to address the traffic, to address the appearance of the building, and conform to what the city needs, but I think if we table it, we have a good chance of losing them in Springdale. There is very limited CSX rail siding in the area; there is rail siding in Fairfield; they are a first class company for a first class community, and I would hate to see you lose them.

Mr. Tiffany asked how soon they could get something together for the Commission to review? Mr. Crim answered we would appreciate a special meeting; I think if we are forced to wait a month it would put severe pressure on the timing of the development. We would be glad to address your concerns and do whatever we need to do to see about the feasibility of rerouting the traffic and come back to you. Mr. Tiffany said two weeks would be the 22nd at 7:00 p.m.; I donít believe there is anything in these chambers that night. Members concurred. Mr. Tiffany commented I think it is in your best interest as well as ours to put things on the back burner until then and get some things worked out. I would encourage you to work on the rest of the list prior to that also, and get any submissions in prior to that so we can have some review ahead of time we need to.

Mr. Sullivan said it seems the representatives of the city have quite a bit of interest in this as we all do. We want to work together, but I would think a two week time period will not cause this to go to Fairfield or Mason or wherever, but if it does, it does, and that is not a concern of ours either; somebody will go in there eventually. We will work as hard as we can with you.

Mr. Blake asked if there will be a staff review before the 22nd? Mr. Osborn responded absolutely; we will be working with the applicant at whatever schedule we can put together to make ourselves available, and Iím certain we will have several meetings before the next special meeting. Mr. Blake moved that the request be considered on August 22nd at a special meeting and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the matter will be considered August 22nd at 7:00 p.m.

B. Judith Muehlenhard, B. Anderson and Chris Smith Request Preliminary Plan Approval of Proposed PUD Zoning for Pine Garden (Landominium) at 309 Princewood Court

Ms. Muehlenhard reported we are here to request preliminary approval of a Planned Unit Development of 17 single family homes at 309 Princewood. The purchasers of the property are Chris Smith, who is here this evening, and myself. Chris is a homebuilder (Christopher Homes), and he has been working with me on developing my motherís property in Sharonville for about a year.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Eighteen

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Ms. Muehlenhard continued we were given concept approval in June and have submitted plans and required engineering. I also have with me Stan Messerly of Mesco Engineering, who will be doing our engineering. He is here to address any concerns you might have so we can hopefully bring this to a closure this evening. The timing is very important to us, and the property zoned for multi-family use. However, we would prefer to use the property for a Planned Unit Development of single family homes.

Mr. Messerly added the site is zoned residential multi-family 2; to the north and west of the property is a MS (Motor Service) zoning, and to the south we have a residential multi family and to the east is a residential 1 zoning, which is your most dense residential zoning.

Mr. Messerly continued we have proposed 17 units for a PUD single family, which would be catered towards an empty nester type community, very similar to their Sharonville project. This is a density of 5.7 units per acre. The current residential multi-family zone will permit up to 10 apartment units, or eight townhouse units per acre. We have requested a PUD on a three-acre tract, realizing the typical PUD minimum for the city is five acres, feeling that due to the adjacent zoning and the density of the commercial type development in the area as well as the size of the land available, a PUD would be ideal with its flexibility to apply to this tract.

Mr. Messerly reported there have been numerous concerns raised by the staff, particularly relative to the proposed 25 foot setback and eight foot separation between the buildings. We have gone over numerous layouts of the site, a series of which included a 35 foot setback and 16 foot separation between the buildings, but the layout was not something that netted enough units to make the site feasible to develop in this manner. That is why we have chosen to present it with a 25 foot setback and eight feet separation, again trying to present to the community a site that emphasizes the single family type environment versus an apartment type environment. I personally feel it would be preferable to live next to this type of development.

Mr. Messerly continued some of the other concerns were the parking in front of Units 7 8 and 9, as well as the parking and turning around ability in Units 11 and 12. For 11 and 12, it doesnít appear to be a problem to increase the asphalt to allow for a greater turning radius so 11 and 12 can get out. I feel these units here are not in a position where they see a great deal of traffic; they are at the end of the street, where there would be only one other building which would access that section of the road on a regular basis. For the concerns relative to 7 8 and 9 where the parking for 9 is in front of 8, I feel it is reasonable to do a number of things. One would be to move buildings 7 and 8 to the north slightly and rotate building 10 and move down buildings 7 and 9 to alleviate things.

Mr. Messerly continued another concern that the staff has brought up would be the requirement of 20% common land for the development. As you will notice, we have provided a common area which would account for approximately 1/4 of an acre. Twenty percent would be 6/10 of an acre so we have 1/3 of the requirement. The entire land in essence is common land due to the landominium proposal. The individual would only own the land that is contained underneath his house. The rest of the land would be owned by the Association, so I feel that the 20% requirement has been met in that manner.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Nineteen

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD CT. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Messerly reported as far as the overall view of the engineering or utilities proposed for this site, the site generally drains from the south to the north into the existing creek. The storm water management would be such that the streets would collect stormwater runoff into a series of catch basins and storm culverts and exit into the existing creek. As far as the sanitary sewers are concerned, there are existing sanitary main in the northwest corner of the property, and water service would come off Princewood Court and run east and north, while the sanitary would run on the west and south side.

Mr. Messerly stated a great majority of the existing trees are on the perimeter of the site. With the setback requirements, it would not be an area that would be disturbed. The eastern side which abuts the residential zoning is an area that does not have a great density of trees, and we propose to provide a mounding of trees or brush or what have you throughout the length of that to provide a good barrier between the existing residential and our proposed site here.

Mr. Blake asked if the green dots represented trees, and Mr. Messerly answered yes, those are proposed trees. The existing trees are on the south and west sides. The east side does not contain a number of trees and we propose to add them there for a buffer. We propose to add the landscaping as submitted on our plan to the front building as well as periodically throughout the site to create a green type environment. The majority of the trees would be evergreen, to be consistent with the name Pine Garden.

Mr. Wilson commented on your initial comment about the number of units per acres, since this was shown for multi-family, you are going to use single family. These are two separate issues. If you had a two family or five family unit there, you would have more space and itís a whole different thing. Mr. Messerly answered I agree, but at the same time you create more traffic flow with those additional units; granted they would create additional potential setbacks, but you create an environment where there is an additional traffic flow due to the greater density. You also create an environment where your people arenít living there; they are transients who might be there six months or a year, and I believe your care and your property is reflected by what you call home. If you donít call a place home, you typically donít care for that type of an area as much as the area that is your home. I know where you are coming from, but at the same time you do create a lesser traffic pattern because we do have fewer people living here. As you say you would in essence create a more spread out area, which we prefer and feel is a better presentable site to the community as opposed to one or two buildings which would accommodate 20 or 30 apartment units.

Mr. Wilson said you are talking about transients; perhaps one or two apartment complexes in Springdale are transient; most of our residents tend to stay more than a year or two, so I donít think we can look at transient apartments in that complex. If you are looking at the same quality of tenant, whether it is a homeowner in the $100,000 range or an apartment that you are going to charge $600 or $700 for, you will maintain the same quality whether it is apartment or single family, because you want to make money and you want to keep the tenant there as long as possible.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD CT. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Wilson continued you talk about the 20% requirement; that appears to me to be not usable space anyhow, so it is fortunate for you that the space is there to use. I donít buy that; you werenít going to use it anyhow because you couldnít build anything over there. Mr. Messerly responded what we had proposed is a footbridge which would cross this creek and create a garden and walking area. Mr. Wilson said but you werenít going to build anything there anyhow, you couldnít; right? Mr. Messerly answered you are right.

Mr. Wilson said on the vehicle parking, you are saying you need 17 units. I am in business too; if I had to use 15 units I would just raise the price of the property. You want to make a certain profit; you can go with fewer homes at a higher price and still make your profit and conform to the requirements. Unit 9 has no real usable outdoor space. If I were a home purchaser, I wouldnít buy Unit 9, if everybody else had more space than me, unless you dropped the price. So you have a unit that you may have to charge lesser dollars because of this.

Mr. Wilson commented I have a concern about the traffic. Yes you will have fewer people in there, but they will be fighting to get in and out of the spots; they will be tight. That might not be a desirable place for someone to move. They would look at that and see that they donít have as much maneuverability to get my car in and when my friends come, theyíll have it tight, so theyíre not going to want to live in that area. Maybe eliminating one or two of those and giving yourself more space and raising the price of the house, youíll make a profit. I have no problem with making money, thatís what I do. If you eliminate one or two units, you can accommodate everybody and still make your profit.

Mr. Messerly responded as far as the sale and marketing of the buildings, that is not my function. Mr. Wilson answered you can understand the concern that Ms. McBride has, that we all have I think, that if that is going to pose a problem, maybe we need to correct it on the front end and not have to make more concessions down the pike. Mr. Tiffany commented weíre still preliminary. Mr. Wilson said Iím just trying to air my concerns so we can address those up front; I may be the only one who feels this way.

Mr. Messerly stated in Sharonville the majority of the buildings, all but two of the 17, were attached units or duplex units. As they got into that project, both the demand of the potential buyer as well as the aesthetics of the situation led us on this project to attempt to separate those buildings and keep them separate. By doing that you are requiring more space to do so. I wanted to point that out because I know the comment has been made by staff that the buildings could be connected and they can be, but we have learned with our other project that it is much preferable to go with the separate units.

Ms. Muehlenhard added as a realtor want to make everyone aware that if we eliminate a unit, it will raise the cost of each unit by about $10,000. We are sincerely trying to keep our costs down. We are talking a base price of $120,000 to $130,000 now. The people who have purchased the units in Garden Place, and they are all presold, are people who found that price range comfortable. They donít want the higher end; a lot of these people have a place in Florida or the Carolinas, so we are trying very hard to keep it in that price range and build a very nice structure.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-One

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Ms. Muehlenhard stated these units are all brick; I have brought samples (showed the samples) and we will use three different complementary shades. The only vinyl would be the soffitt area; they all have two car garages. They are extremely desirable and very very nice units for the price. We know there is a need for this type of housing; we think your location on Princewood is ideal for it. It is tucked away and private and yet it is extremely convenient. For those reasons we are asking for the variances. We are willing to adjust the engineering to move it a little bit each way, and we can address all of those issues. But the timing is important to us as developers and to the Hitchcocks who are selling the property.

Mr. Wilson responded I can appreciate your comments. Given a choice, I would much rather live there than Sharonville, nothing against Sharonville, and I would be willing to pay an extra $10 to $12,000 to have more space in a more desirable area. While I can appreciate the $10,000 increase, I think our property is a lot more desirable than Sharonville because of its location and with all the amenities . If you were talking a lower figure from $50,000 to $70,000, yes, but when you get into the $100,000 range..Mr.Muehlenhard stated it does start making a difference in the minds of these people. These are conservative people. And also we are talking a base price without amenities. If you want to do the higher end, cabinets, flooring it is easy to throw in $10,000 in amenities, so it is getting up there. I know the people are very comfortable with a certain point, and when you get beyond that point, they are not as comfortable. It is certainly a needed type of housing; there has not been very much of this in the Tri-County area at all, and certainly nothing to compare to what we are offering.

Mr. Wilson asked if these were exactly like those in Sharonville, and Ms. Muehlenhard answered yes, the floor plan has been so well accepted we are using the exact same floor plan.

Mr. Tiffany called on Ms. McBride for her report. Ms. McBride stated I realize the property is not in the corridor area, but I think we have to l look a little bit at the Corridor Study since it is on the fringe of that area I think the proposed development complies and mixes in with the recommendations of the study nicely. The study makes specific recommendations to increase the amount of residential area in the corridor area, specifically providing for housing for the more senior members of the community, and this project addressees all of those areas very nicely. From a land use standpoint, I think it is a wonderful project.

Ms. McBride continued I did have some concerns regarding the density of the project, and I think those are illustrated by some of the comments that have been expressed already this evening. The twenty-five foot setback particularly to the east to those existing single-family residences I think is most unacceptable. The eight foot separation between the buildings, I personally wouldnít want that and voice that as a concern. Also, some of the circulation and parking considerations that we will talk about in a minute, and our concern that Unit 9 doesnít really have any area to call its own. I realize itís all under common ownership, but most of the units have something where they can put a patio or deck.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Two

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD CT. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Ms. McBride stated the 25 foot perimeter setback should be increased to at least 35 feet, particularly on that eastern border, and I think that eastern border needs to be treated differently than the other boundaries of the site. There was some talk about a drainage swale in that location, but drainage permitting, I think there needs to be some type of earthen berming in there and a mixture of landscaping materials that I realize we donít get until the final plan, but I think there needs to be a commitment to that up front. Again, because one of the requirements of your PUD is that you protect both the new residents who will be moving into the development and your existing residents and that means screening them properly.

Ms. McBride continued I donít doubt that they meet the 20% open space requirement, and we would just like to see that calculation on the plan.

Ms. McBride said regarding the landscaping, there was mention of pine trees around the perimeter, we would like to see some type of designation for that up front. The construction schedule and cost estimates were missing from the application.

Ms. McBride stated traffic survey information was also omitted from the submission. We looked at the ITE Manual trip generation and you have before you the total daily trips that would come out of the development, and the AM and PM peak hours, which is pretty much what you are concerned with. The traffic it will generate in terms of AM and PM peak is not going to be that significant. Mr. Tiffany commented 648 trips is based on what? Ms. McBride answered per day for the entire development. Mr. Tiffany responded each day there will be 648 trips in and out? Thatís hard to believe. That doesnít make any sense; ;you have 11 at peak AM and 17 at peak PM; thereís 28. Ms. McBride responded I had the traffic engineers at the office do that; Iíll go back and recheck their calculations.

Mr. Messerly said in a meeting with the zoning staff they indicated a traffic study was not necessary due to the proximity of the location at the terminus of a dead end street.

Ms. McBride reported there is a condition in your code which requires five acres for a PUD and I think the PUD is certainly applicable for this property, but there is also a clause that states the documentation needs to be submitted to back that up, and I would ask that the applicant do that in paragraph form.

Ms. McBride stated we did have a concern about emergency vehicle access and the possibility of a secondary access. Everybody always uses the Xenia experience; the subdivision had one way in and one way out and the trees came down and there was no way to get the emergency vehicles in or the people out. That is something you might want to consider.

Mr. Tiffany called on Mr. McErlane for his report. Mr. McErlane stated Ms. McBride covered a few of these things. The color pallet has been submitted tonight, and we did have a concern about a plan that would show an overall landscaping and buffering. There is a requirement within the PUD that they designate the overall land use, including common public and private land. In this case, there probably is no public land, but the distinction between the private and common land needs to be spelled out.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

VI A PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. McErlane continued the plan shows existing trees, but there are no sizes or disposition shown on them. It looks as though, based on the development that everything with the exception of the perimeter trees will disappear. At final plan stage we will require a tree plan to be submitted that will show replacement.

Mr. McErlane reported deviations of the Zoning Code that will be required to be approved by Planning Commission are that the land area is less than five acres. There was some discussion about development of this property under RMF-2 zoning with variances, and I think the advantage from the cityís standpoint is that we can control the development better as a PUD. If we left it as a RMF-2 and this is developer walked away, someone in the future could develop it as apartments, and if we already had approved variances, they could develop apartments with those reduced setbacks. So I think it is an advantage to go PUD and if at a future date someone would come and develop the property they would have to develop it under the approved PUD or ask for a modification of the PUD.

Mr. McErlane continued I am recommending we go with the 35 foot perimeter setback. We definitely would like the 35 foot setback along the eastern property line. We may want to consider allowing them to reduce in some instances to less than 35 feet if it makes up a side yard for a unit such as Unit 13. The concern about the 35 foot setback around the other perimeters is to allow for these units to have a usable rear yard. The ones at the corners, you may be able to reduce one of the side yards to have a lesser side yard and still have a 35 foot setback. There probably are only one or two that would apply. Some of these side yard setbacks really donít impact the user as much; the side yard setback between 14 and 15 are garages, but it makes a little more sense to give them a bigger side yard setback where they have windows on the side of the residence. They also indicated they had 20 feet from the internal roadway. There are some areas where it is actually less than that.

Mr. McErlane continued Mr. Shvegzdaís comments might relate a little more to Buildings 1 and 2. They are shown within the 100-year flood hazard boundary. Mr. Shvegzda has recommended some things to be done to remove those from the 100-year flood plain. We already have talked about the maneuverability of cars in these parking pads in front of their garages.

Mr. McErlane reported from the cityís standpoint the covenants should have some aspects relative to maintenance of detention basin and landscaping. There is a reference to an Exhibit C which is a chart of maintenance responsibilities, but it is not attached to the covenants.

Ms. Manis asked if he had any idea of why the covenants were going to be recorded in Warren County? Ms. Muehlenhard answered it was probably an error. This was also the first draft of these documents for our review. Many of these items on the Homeowners Association are standard and he probably took a section from another development.

Mr. Tiffany called on Mr. Shvegzda for his report. Mr. Shvegzda stated regarding storm water management, Stan provided calculations in regards to the detention pond. The only thing we saw was that he utilized some of the existing surfaces that were there and made a slight difference in the amount of volume that would need to be provided. However, when we actually look at the volume that he had provided in he basin, it was about the same as it would have been based on a reduced runoff and not too much of a problem.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Four

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Shvegzda continued one of the things we will have to take a look at is if all the runoff from the site would truly be getting to the basin. There was some discussion on amounts going off site that would affect the release rate on the detention basin. The major storm routing would have to be indicated on the plan.

Mr. Shvegzda reported in regards to the 100-year flood elevation, as Bill indicated, right now two of the units are within the limits of the 100-year flood as indicated on the FEMA map. The property to the north of this has had modifications to the stream channel which has caused the 100 year flood elevation to be lowered in that vicinity. We are recommending in some form that this channel through the subject site be modified in order to reduce the flood elevation through this area. Of course that would have to be reviewed by our office and also submitted to the FEMA organization so they could change that on the maps. I had indicated the approximate width it was revised to on the property to the north. We would have to have calculations to indicate the actual reduction on the flood elevation based on what the modifications to the channel would be. If in fact the structures would remain in the flood elevation, any inhabitable elevation of the unit would have to be one foot above the flood elevation. If a basement were constructed not in that area and below the 100-year flood elevation, that would have to be flood proofed in accordance with the FEMA standards.

Mr. Shvegzda stated in regards to the bridge, we are going to have to watch what is done with that in terms of either being able to withstand the pressure of the water on it if it were flooded, or perhaps be a breakaway structure

Mr. Shvegzda continued there was the issue of the units with the driveways which was mentioned before, the turn around tís near Units 17 and 18, and I donít believe we have anything from Cincinnati Water Works or Metropolitan Sewer District on water and sewer availability.

Mr. Wilson said on Units 1 and 2 in the flood plain, if we have a couple of severe rain storms, that water will come awfully close to the backs of these units. Mr. Shvegzda added we do not have any final grading plan, but based on what is shown here now, that is true. Mr. Messerly added keep in mind that the majority of the hotel over here is already constructed in the flood plain. On the drawings that were submitted, we propose some grading in this area to increase the height of the ground and raise the finished floor elevation of these buildings. Mr. Tiffany added these are not final grades though.

Mr. Tiffany called on Mr. Schneider, and he stated I have no report at this point; I have not had a chance to review this.

Ms. Manis commented I was extremely disappointed when I looked at the plans, based on your first presentation to us. I do think it is a good concept and I was kind of shocked at the lack of landscaping shown on the plans. I donít recall seeing even those trees on the plans that we had. Looking from one of the residentís units into a guard rail is all I saw that stood out to me. I understand you have money concerns, but I think it looks terrible the way those houses are bunched over in the other corner.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Five

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Ms. Manis asked if any permanent signage were planned for the project, and Ms Muehlenhard answered absolutely not. This is a landominium development which is different from a condo development, in that the people have more ownership. Ms. Manis continued how are you going to get the people back in here to market? Ms. Muehlenhard answered we plan a temporary sign. Ms. Manis asked where it would be and where would you be able to see it from? Ms. Muehlenhard answered at the entrance to the site on the property. Ms. Manis responded at Princewood, and Ms. Muehlenhard confirmed this, adding I wouldnít even put it on the edge; it would be back on the property as you come in the drive. Ms. Manis asked how large the sign would be, and Ms. Muehlenhard answered 4í x 8í.

Ms. Manis commented I know what a landominium is, but I am having a hard time reconciling it with our regulations. In reading covenants, you are obviously stricter than we are in a lot of things. However, with signs, since they donít own the land, they would have no right to put a sign in their front yard, is that correct? Ms. Muehlenhard answered absolutely not. If the development goes the way I expect it will, for the most part these homes are occupied by one person and in some cases two people, and they are 55 and over. The last thing in the world these people would want is a sign. They are security conscious, they want a nice environment and nice landscaping. They donít want intruders; they want security and convenience. They donít want gaudy. It would be managed by Towne Properties who does the Olde Gate community and is going to do Garden Place. We seem to be working well together so I anticipate them also doing all the yard work and maintenance for this project. Ms. Manis added we are having sign meetings on your constitutional right to have a sign in your yard if you wish to, but obviously they donít own the yard.

Ms. Muehlenhard added they will own their yards; they will have individual deeds to their yards. Ms. Manis said so they could put a sign in their yard if they wanted to. You said they just owned the land under their unit. Ms. Muehlenhard responded there are two ways of drawing up the landominium development. One way you go so far out and deed back to the end of the perimeter line; they own the land under their home and under that designated yard area. It is covered in a home ownership agreement whereby the exterior is maintained by a management system. Another way to do it is the condo way, which is 1/17th of the whole. We donít want any part of that. Then, you also can do it whereby you just own the land under your building.

Ms. Muehlenhard continued the people interested in buying these units are coming from larger homes, downsizing. While attached housing is acceptable, the idea of being totally detached is more acceptable, and they really donít care if it is six feet away from the other building. Ms. Manis commented but we do. Ms. Muehlenhard continued I know; I am just saying it is a much more desirable thing than being in a condo complex where there are people over and underneath. By putting the setbacks that we asked for, we can maximize the use of the land and still have a very attractive community. Ms. Manis said I doubt that, based on what you are showing here. The buildings look wonderful as far as the colors and the brick, but why you would even design it with the one overlapping, it looks unusable. Is there parking on the street? Mr. Tiffany commented itís not wide enough. Ms. Muehlenhard answered no, each house has a two-car garage plus a two-car parking spot 20 feet deep by 19 feet wide.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Six

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD CT. PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Messerly added I understand your comment about Building 9, and that is something we can certainly address. Ms. Manis continued you have the pads there, but how do Buildings 7 and 8 get to the street? Mr. Tiffany commented thatís one solid concrete pad all the way out. Ms. Manis said so that would be like one whole curb cut all the way across there. Mr. Messerly responded it is an asphalt pavement that slopes in toward the center without any curves on it. This is one of the finer details we have not worked out. I believe the parking .area is a concrete parking area that transitions from the asphalt to the concrete. Ms. Manis asked if the street would be built to our subdivision specifications? Mr. Messerly responded it is a private street which would be 21 feet wide; I believe thirty feet is required in the City of Springdale, but it would be up to standards necessary to accommodate traffic. Ms. Manis added so there are no curbs or sidewalks, and Mr. Messerly confirmed this.

Mr. Blake stated I think I am feeling similar to Ms. Manis. When we talked about it at the last meeting, I envisioned what I saw on the blueprint and Iím happy to see it, but I am concerned about the congestiveness. To me, you are trying to put a size 13 in a nine and one-half.

Mr. Messerly reported the preliminary plan you saw earlier on Sharonville did include 25 foot setbacks with an eight foot separation between the buildings. It is virtually the same type layout you see here. Mr. Blake responded I didnít see it. I think it is a nice development; I think we have a lot to offer and I think we should start off on the right foot and put all the cards on the table. This seems to be a little overcommitted. You said you are willing to make some adjustments, and Iím sure you will do that. AS I looked at these plans, I was a little disappointed. I thought it was too much for the area you have. Those are my feelings, and I think if there are some adjustments made, Iím sure we can work something out, but to me this is a little much, and I could not support it at this stage.

Mr. Wilson said Iím trying to remember the difference between a condominium and a landominium. I think with the condominium, you own from the inside walls; a landominium you own the exterior walls and are required to maintain that; is that right? Ms. Muehlenhard said that is correct. Mr. Messerly added with a condominium dealing with three levels, so the second floor only owns that air space. Mr. Wilson continued I agree with Ms. Manis and Reverend Blake that it looks like we have a high priced projects here. When you look at the congestion, it is a high priced projects. When I look at these 17 units, the only one I would buy is Unit 10 because it has land all around it, and I would be willing to spend $150,000 for that one. I have concerns about the other ones, the eight foot separation between them, being near the water line here and the 100-year flood plain. As Reverend Blake said, I think you are putting a size 13 foot in a size nine and one-half shoe. I have a concern about the fire and police being able to maneuver in and around here. If there is a fire in Unit 12, will you be able to get the fire truck around here in a timely manner? We should address those issues. I understand this is private property so you can deal with a smaller area, but the city has to be able to get their police and fire department there to protect their residents.

Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Osborn if it werenít a lot more difficult to maintain an eight foot strip adequately Is it basically a weed eater?

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Seven

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Osborn responded you are using hand equipment, as opposed to larger pieces of equipment, but this whole site lends itself to that. I donít think there is any area big enough to use a heavier piece of equipment, so I think they are going to have to maintain with smaller equipment. I donít know that is necessarily a critical issue here. It can be maintained; I think it is in their best interests to make sure it is maintained. Mr. Sullivan responded if you are able to use a piece of equipment, large or small, and you mow an area and it is smooth. If you are using hand equipment, it may be smooth or it may not; you do the best job you can. Iím thinking from an aesthetic standpoint.

Mr. Osborn asked the applicant if they had an idea on how they would handle waste collection. Is it single unit, dumpster, will you have the cans in a corral? Then we would have to make sure that the load packer can get up the driveway and service all the units. Just as we would be looking at a fire truck turning radius, we would be looking at a load packer and the weekly weight of a load packer coming on the property. That would be another factor. In our other condominium townhouse type developments, we do single unit collection. If your resident puts it at the curb the day of collection, we pick it up at the curb.

Mr. Tiffany asked if there were a fence line on the east side of this property behind those homes? Mr. Messerly answered there are a few of them; they are sparse. Mr. Tiffany said it is not continuous, and Mr. Messerly answered I donít believe so; I would have to double check. Mr. Tiffany continued the reason I ask is a lot of times with the older lots there are fences, like a farming fence. You do not propose any fencing? Mr. Messerly answered no, it would be landscaping only, whether it be a landscaped mound, trees or brush.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane if they opened the creek bed, is that a creek bed considered in the 20% common land? Mr. McErlane answered yes. The only thing that is not common land would be the parcels that are cut out for the individual landominiums.

Mr. Tiffany continued Mr. Shvegzda talked about flood proofing the homes with basements. What do you feel will be the percentage? Mr. Messerly answered we will not have any in the flood plain. Mr. Tiffany asked about basements in the Sharonville project, and Ms. Muehlenhard reported I only have three units that will have basements out of the 17. Mr. .Tiffany continued as far as Sharonville goes, and we donít have the plan before us tonight, it seemed like the land was a little more square, and everything was laid out a little more symmetrical. Mr. Messerly answered actually it is virtually the same site. This contains about 23/100th more of an acre than the Sharonville site contained. The difference in this site is the creek running through. Mr. Tiffany commented I guess the difference is we have three acres of land here and 2.75 usable, and the way the creek cuts across there affects the way things are laid out. Ms. Muehlenhard commented it is hard to visualize the reality.

Mr. Tiffany commented right; we had something come in for Car-X next to Kerry Ford and an oil exchange facility next to it, and on paper it looked spread out. If you drive over there now, it is tight. However it looks on paper, itís twice as small in reality when you get on the site. Eight feet is really not a lot. I understand that is what youíve got going in Sharonville, but itís not much. If thatís what the people will buy, thatís what they will buy, but personally I wonít buy it.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Eight

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Tiffany continued I think 35 feet on the east side next to those homes is absolutely mandatory. That is what those people have got and are giving to you, and to me it is mandatory that you give that to them also. I agree with Mr. McErlane; on the west side of the property, that is Motor Service, so I donít see as big a concern on that side, but definitely with the residents who are there now; I think it has to stay 35 feet. Iím interested to see how Units 9 10 11 and 12 come out in the restructuring of that. I didnít have a chance to go back through the Minutes, but I thought we were talking about 13 buildings on this site. Ms. Muehlenhard reported I did not specify how many; 17 was what we did in Sharonville, and that was always what we wanted to do here.

Mr. Tiffany stated I share Mr. Osbornís concern with trash in terms of the street holding up under these trucks. You also will have to have snow removal equipment coming in. These are heavier vehicles; I donít know what you are building this road based on in terms of thickness and pour, but that is definitely something to consider. I know the Rumpke trucks weigh a whole lot.

Chris Smith added I know you think eight feet isnít a lot of space, but believe me in Sharonville, those units went first. We sold the 17 in less than two months. The concept is targeted toward empty nesters, and they like the idea of being close to somebody. They donít want their neighbors to be spread out. Some of them liked the idea of the duplex but most of them wanted the single units, even though those were only eight feet apart. Here we were trying to get more single units because we had more people interested in those single units.

Mr. Smith continued I can understand your concern against a residential property; I donít think that will be a problem for us to get that 35 feet over there. I think weíll lose one of the units there and I guess weíll have to raise the price, but I would like to keep as many single units, or maybe half single and half duplex. From what we can see as far as the market out there, they like the concept, and we planned on doing a lot of landscaping to make it look good all year round, not just in the summertime. Thatís why we want to use evergreens and pines. Ms. Muehlenhard added we cannot sell it if we do not landscape it. This is critical. Mr. Smith added even my mother is buying one of these. Ms. Muehlenhard said we have people already on the list, and they donít want shabby; I can guarantee that.

Mr. Tiffany stated the landominium is new to Springdale, and the problem is this type development doesnít fit in code. Thatís why it is to all our benefits to go PUD with this. If you can work with us, weíll work with you as best we can, but we have to work with what we have in our code. I know time is of the essence for you. We have a meeting in two weeks on the 22nd; how soon can you get materials together? Mr. Messerly responded the most critical issues are the separation between the buildings and setback. Can we know what the Commission would feel comfortable with, so we can design in that manner?

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. McErlane the required distance between buildings? Mr. McErlane reported the least distance in any residential district we have is 16 feet. I was recommending that if we had situations of garage against garage, that could be reduced to whatever Planning Commission feels is satisfactory. Mr. Tiffany added some of these are pie shaped, and where there is no window or living space side by side, it would not be real detrimental so that we could live with more so than the others.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Twenty-Nine

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Messerly said in general am I looking for 16 feet? Mr. Tiffany responded do what you can. Mr. Messerly stated I just want some type of guideline. Mr. Tiffany commented I donít know if any of us feel comfortable with giving you a set number; we would like to see 16 feet. Mr. McErlane added one other suggestion, where they are angled to each other, 16 feet might be an average.

Mr. Messerly continued what does the Commission want in terms of setbacks? Mr. Tiffany answered it has to be 35 feet, in my opinion. Mr. Messerly said can it be 35 on the east and 25 feet on the other three sides? Ms. Manis and Mr. Tiffany said they didnít have a problem with that.

Ms. Muehlenhard stated I know what we have done in Sharonville, and based on that knowledge, I donít see us being able to get 16 feet at all. Mr. Tiffany stated youíve got it in some instances, average. The problem is on the bottom row, on the south, 13 to 17. If you switched the floor plan on one and two, and put garage to garage like you have on three and four, it makes a world of difference. Now we have non living space against nonliving space. Maybe you can spread them out at the back side. I donít see an easy solution for Units 13 through 17. Mr. Wilson added maybe you could restructure 11 and 12 if you eliminate 9. Bring it closer to the main street. That is something to look at because emergency vehicles coming all the way around the corner and trying to get into Unit 11 by way of Unit 12, I donít know how you can do this. Mr. Tiffany said I donít see an easement type thing for emergency access for an emergency gate. Mr. Smith commented we probably would lose Unit 9.

Mr. McErlane said on Buildings 13 through 17, would Planning Commission be amenable to a lesser western setback for 13 since it is really a side yard for that unit? Mr. Tiffany responded yes. There may be a consideration to do a little heavier landscaping on that side because weíre not sure what would develop on that side.

Mr. Wilson said if you took Unit 13 and put it at an angle, maybe you could bring Units 14 through 17 further towards that. Mr. Tiffany added if you took the left L of the street and put Unit 13 where that left L is, Units 14 through 17 could all move down. Get rid of that lane; you really donít need it. Mr. Wilson said make that like a circle. Ms. Muehlenhard said so weíre looking at possibly taking one out? Mr. Tiffany answered if you can make it work with 17, make it work. Mr. Wilson said if you changed that street to a circle and eliminate that last L and shift Unit 13 around to give yourself more space and allow the 35 foot setback there. Mr. Tiffany added that is the critical side; to the north it is not an issue because of the creek, to the west it is not an issue yet with Motor Service, but you probably will want to consider more screening as Mr. McErlane said because you donít know what will go there and the land is up for sale now.

Mr. Blake asked Mr. McErlane if 10 feet is enough for emergency vehicles to get into the development, say get back to Unit 11? Mr. McErlane answered I think they have a concern about even getting cars into Units 11 and 12; I donít think you can maneuver into those parking spaces if there is anybody parked in front of the garage, so they will have to rework that.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Thirty

VI B PINE GARDEN 309 PRINCEWOOD COURT PRELIMINARY PLAN APPROVAL

Mr. Messerly commented the hoses would be long enough to accommodate parking on the street and extending them to the building. Mr. McErlane said they wouldnít necessarily pull into a driveway. Mr. Wilson commented thatís good for the fire department, but what about the EMTís parking at the corner and hoofing it up there with their equipment? Mr. Messerly reported we do have 30 feet, the typical driveway on the house, so they would be doing the same thing.

Mr. McErlane reported with respect to removing that little T part of the road, that will make it difficult for any sizable truck, including a fire truck to get back out again. Mr. Messerly added we need it to back into.

Ms. Manis asked about the street lights; there are none shown. Ms. Muehlenhard answered it is typical yard lighting. Mr. Smith added we are looking at the light posts in the yard for lighting; no street lights. Ms. Manis asked about the wiring and what about Warner-Cable getting back there? Mr. Smith answered it would be underground wiring, and on the cable, we havenít gotten that far yet. Ms. Manis stated I did not see anything about satellite dishes in the covenants, and Iím wondering if it will be a while before Warner gets it wired, maybe youíre going to want satellite dishes. Ms. Muehlenhard stated cable goes in with the utilities usually. Mr. Tiffany stated I would ask that you look at our code in terms of satellite dishes.

Mr. Tiffany asked Mr. Osborn if they had received a list of covenants and concerns, and Mr. Osborn reported we have a list that consists of many of the items brought up by you and members of staff. I was going to give it to Mr. Schneider, and he can communicate it to them. It is essentially maintenance of landscaping, maintenance of the channel if they increase it for capacity, the things you have heard this evening.

Mr. Blake moved to table this to the special meeting on August 22nd. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and this was tabled by a vote of 5-0.

C. Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator Requests Final Approval of Proposed Bikeway

Mr. Osborn reported since we discussed the bikeway plan with you six months ago, it has gone to OKI for their review. We have taken their comments and incorporated them into the bikeway plan.

Mr. Osborn stated we will be submitting an application to the Ohio Department of Transportation and through OKI for funding for a bike lane project from Kenn Road to Route 4 along Kemper Road. We have to have that submitted by September 1st, and we would prefer to have a bikeway plan approved by the Planning Commission prior to making that application. The project would be a joint project with Forest Park. It was agreed to last night by the Forest Park City Council as a joint project. We are encouraging them to pick up at our perimeter and carry them on to Winton Road.

Mr. Osborn reported what you see in red is the bike lane; that is a five foot pavement section attached to the roadway. A bike lane would go in each direction traveling with the traffic. For example on Kemper Road where we now have a two-foot paved berm, we would have a five-foot paved bike lane, and that bike lane would travel with traffic east bound and the other one would travel with traffic west bound.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Thirty-One

VI C FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED BIKEWAY

Mr. Osborn continued the areas you see in a dashed blue line are bike paths, and they are independent of a roadway. Those would be 10 feet wide, and they would have two-way traffic on the bike path. As you can see, we can use the bike path to connect over land in most cases, but in some cases they parallel roadways.

Mr. Osborn reported the third element is the connector roads. These are subdivision streets that we will use as bikeways by changing out the surface grades, the storm sewer grades to make them less prone to eat bicycles, and we also will use signs to designate the bike lanes within the city. That doesnít mean you canít ride a bicycle on the subdivision streets, but if someone wants to ride from Heritage Hill to the Rec Center or to Beacon Hill, they know if they follow the bike lane signs they will get there.

Mr. Osborn stated the areas you see circled are areas of transition. Those will vary from intersections to points where we are changing from one type of travel to another, from a bike path to a bike lane for example. Each one of those require individual detail plans as to how weíll do that at the time.

Mr. Osborn continued in terms of dealing with traffic, we would anticipate presence actuated bicycle loops or button actuated request for signal by the bicycle rider. As an example, conceivably the bicycle rider coming up to Route 4 eastbound on Kemper would approach the intersection, and there would be a boxed area designated as a bicycle presence loop. That rider would know to get the attention of the traffic signal she would position herself in that box. Thatís the kind of technology we see incorporated into the system.

Mr. Osborn added this system is probably not for kids; it is probably for teenagers and adults. Some of it will be for kids. If we are successful and build this from Heritage Hill over to the Rec Center, it would mostly be bike path; I think that is probably something an adult would allow their children to use. Certainly as a parent I would have reservations about letting my kids mix with traffic on 747 or Kemper Road.

Mr. Osborn said this is a concept plan, much like our thoroughfare plan. It already has come in handy as you saw this evening in talking with these people. We have burdened this with a bike path; we need to slay to the developer that we need a bike path across the development, and we need to work out an easement; now is the best time we can extract that from these people because they want something from us. This allows us to plan ahead, work with individual developments as issues develop and it also allows us to approach funding sources like the enhancement program to get funds for these bikeway projects. This plan is important because projects are favored if they demonstrate intermodal transportation, more than one type of transportation. Bicycles count as a form of transportation. Another example would be Sharon Road. If we applied for funding for Sharon Road, and we showed them that in addition to a major resurfacing, we are going to add a bike path, we will score better with the funding agency than if we did not have that bike path. It is important to us to have an overall bikeway plan. This may change from time to time, but it is a starting point and something to give us leverage both in a funding mode and in working with individual developers.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Thirty-Two

VI C - FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED BIKEWAY - continued

Mr. Sullivan said when we get further along on this, will it be publicized, and are the adults in the city going to be educated? You said you donít think an adult would want his child traveling on this, but if they donít know, they might let the child use it.

Mr. Osborn responded I think there will be. A lot of this plan can be instituted with very little cost, like the connector streets here. We do have some existing bike paths, and we want to connect those as quickly as we can. If we do a paving project on one of the streets, and we know it is on our bikeway, weíll make the necessary modifications and weíll put up signs saying this is a designated bike path. This would alert drivers that this is a bikeway and will let parents know that this has been bikeproofed as best we can. We certainly will publicize the bike path program, and I think it is a good idea if we can incorporate it into a training program at the rec center. The Police Department has a program in the elementary schools, and maybe we can expand on that and have bicycle training for adults. There are bicycle clubs out there that are available to come in and put on programs like that. I think there is a lot of opportunity for education.

Mr. Tiffany said for the section from Route 4 to Kenn Road, is this 80-20 funding? Mr. Osborn confirmed this, adding they estimate the project to be a $500,000 project, $100,000 local and $400,000 federal. The application will go in September 1st and we should know early in 1996. We have budgeted the money as part of our 1996 capital budget, and we have Forest Park in tow to make it a joint application because this part of the eastbound side is in Forest Park. They have agreed to a joint project, with the caveat that if their residents object to it, they wonít do it. Weíve had a chance to preview this with our residents in various district meetings, but this will be a new topic to all their residents.

Mr. Tiffany commented I know you had mentioned that this was an opportunity to enclose those ditches along Kemper Road. Those ditches take a lot of overflow off the residences there. How does the water get into the piping? Mr. Osborn responded there would have to be a deeper storm sewer to carry the bulk of the water, and there would be a less severe swale behind the new edge of pavement, with inlets that would put water into the bigger storm sewer system that will now be underground.

Ms. Manis said it was basically storm sewer first, and bike path second? Mr. Osborn responded we originally had looked at this project as a storm sewer project, and then the idea came if we can get 80-20 funding for a bikeway, why not put a bikeway over top of the storm sewer? Thatís how we got into this. We were essentially picking up on a project that has been discussed for two or three years now and using ingenuity to come up with some funding. Mr. Tiffany commented the people who put this together are to be commended; this is great.

Ms. Manis asked how they decided where red and blue would be? Mr. Osborn answered the work of the engineerís office in terms of right of way width, recommendations from OKI on the same issue and when it gets down to it, these may change. We show a bike path across Tri-County; we might not be able to talk Tri-County into a bike path, and we might have to do something else.. There are people doing it.

 

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Thirty-Three

VI C FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED BIKEWAY - continued

Mr. Wilson moved to approve the bikeway plan and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. By voice vote, a all present voted aye, and the approval was granted with five affirmative votes.

VII. DISCUSSION

Mr. Tiffany said to Ms. McBride that if Anchor Associates wants to come in about the trees on August 22nd, we will put them on the agenda.

Ms. McBride reported the Cincinnati section of the Ohio Planning Conference holds a zoning workshop specifically designed for Planning Commission members and BZA members. There were members on the committee that wanted to hold this workshop in the Eastgate area; however I am pleased to say itís going to be held right up the road at the Sheraton. It will be on December 1st, and I am in charge of the planning program. Part of that is in the afternoon we are going to have a panel session that will deal with hot topics in planning. I wondered if there was any topic in particular that this Commission might like to see discussed or presented by experts in that field. If you think of any, call me. Mr. Tiffany commented a couple of hot topics for the last couple of years have been signage and tree preservation.

Mr. Tiffany commented at last monthís meeting you were talking about the sidewalk sales at Tri-County Commons. The way the code reads is that you can have two sidewalk sales a year for two weeks with a four week period in between, and that is limited per zoning lot. What the guy actually presented to you that they could have a sidewalk sale every week throughout the year because we have enough businesses here, wasnít factual. He couldnít do it because they were all on one zoned lot, so they would be limited to two events for two weeks with four weeks in between.

Mr. Tiffany continued the other issue was we started his dates from July 1 to July 1. If this man banks his weeks this summer and doesnít use them until next spring, he could run a sidewalk sale for eight weeks continuously, because according to the motion and the discussion, there was no mention made of a time period in between those four one-week cycles. Bill will send out a letter to him to let him know that there is a month between. Mr. McErlane added I am basically saying that all the other parameters that apply to sidewalk sales apply. Mr. Tiffany I wanted to make you people aware of this.

Ms. Manis commented I think we should either change our majority vote to four, or if we are only going to have five members present, not even meet. it is actually worthless. In two weeks theyíll come back in and weíll have to do the same thing. It also means you tend to vote with the group instead of voting against. Mr. Tiffany added tonight we had two preliminary plans, and thatís why we went ahead. If it would have been just the Payless project, I would have said put it off to the next time. But with the two preliminary plans, we did have some good discussion and got some things out for them to work on so that next time they come in we will have seven sitting here. I agree it is aggravating. Ms. Manis added it is not just aggravating; itís not fair to either of us. I will bring it up to Rules and Laws that we change that part of the Charter. We have discussed it in the past, and there wasnít an answer then either.

 

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 August 1995

Page Thirty-Four

VII - DISCUSSION

Mr. Tiffany said so the procedure would be to go to Rules and Laws and then recommend it to the Charter Commission? Ms. Manis responded actually we could take it right to Charter. Mr. Tiffany said letís do that, and asked Mr. Sullivan to have the Charter Commission look at this.

Mr. Blake commented I couldnít understand the dilemma everybody seems to have with Payless sign and the number of votes.. I can remember specifically when the BP final approval came up, and there were not enough votes to pass it. All they did was at the next Council they waited 30 days until they had seven members and they passed it. I donít understand all the confusion with regards to this issue when if she hadnít gotten five votes tonight she could have brought it back to the next meeting. Mr. Tiffany said thatís what I tried to tell her. Ms. Manis added my concern is councilwise; if something doesnít have a majority then you have to come back after 90 days. Thatís where I was coming from. Someone who voted it down would have to move to bring it back to the floor. Mr. Tiffany said on BZA they have to wait six months.

Mr. Blake moved to adjourn and Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion, and Planning Commission adjourned at 10:30 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________,1995 _______________________

Barry Tiffany Acting Chairman

 

 

_______________________,1995 ________________________

Peggy Manis, Acting Secretary