SPRINGDALE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

7:00 P.M.

 

 

  1. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

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

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present: Donald Darby, Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman Tom Vanover, Dave Whitaker and Chairman Syfert

Members Absent: Marjorie Pollitt (Excused)

Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

William McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, City Planner

Mr. Syfert said Mrs. Pollitt was appointed to our Planning Commission, but

there is some problem with the Charter as to whether she can serve. That is

being ironed out by Council, so tonight we will be one person short. However,

for the benefit of the audience, to pass any final decision, it takes five

affirmative votes, so a simple majority would not rule on a final matter.

III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Chairman Ė Mr. Okum nominated Mr. Syfert and Mr. Vanover seconded the

nomination. There were no other nominations and Mr. Syfert was elected

by acclamation.

Vice Chairman Ė Mr. Vanover nominated Mr. Okum and Mr. Darby seconded

the nomination. There were no other nominations and Mr. Okum was

elected by acclamation.

Secretary Ė Mr. Vanover nominated Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert seconded the

nomination. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Whitaker was elected

by acclamation.

Board of Zoning Appeals Liaison Ė Mr. Whitaker nominated Mr. Okum and Mr.

Syfert seconded the motion. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Okum

was elected by acclamation.

IV. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETILNG OF 9 NOVEMBER 1999

Mr. Okum moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice

vote, all present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative

votes.

V. CORRESPONDENCE

    1. Report on Council - no report
    2. Mr. Okum asked about the status of the Zoning Code, and Mr. Vanover reported that will be on the January agenda.

    3. 11/10/99 Letter to Jeff Snyder re Off Premise Sign @ E. Kemper and Century Boulevard
    4. 11/22/99 Letter to Rick Shteiwi re Gold Star Chili repainting discussion
    5. 11/11/99 Letter to Home Place re Trailer Storage
    6. Presentation and Materials from Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission
    7. Memo re Planning & Zoning Workshop
    8. Zoning Bulletin Ė November 10, 1999
    9. Zoning Bulletin Ė November 25, 1999

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE TWO

VI. OLD BUSINESS

    1. Discussion of Repainting of Gold Star Chili Building

Since Mr. Shteiwi was not present, Chairman Syfert moved the item to the end of the agenda.

Mr. Syfert said before we go any further, I would like to acknowledge that we have a number of students from the Princeton High School government class.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

    1. Concept Discussion of Proposed Expansion of Offices Resources, Inc. 171 Container Place

Mr. Stan Cohen said I am a registered civil engineer in 10 states, and I built this building in 1972 as well as nine or 10 others in the area. At that time the building was in compliance with the code. We have a very fine tenant who has a high employment to area ratio. This is a high tech company with a clean operation; it is very quiet. They provide graphic arts and other forms of business all over the United States. You have a letter from Mr. Miller who is with me here tonight, my tenant from Office Resources. It is a very viable organization. We have maintained this building in a clean and pleasant atmosphere since 1972, in contrast to some of our neighbors.

I would like to take a moment to address some of the comments from the staff report. You need documentation to verify that there are 27 employees on the two largest consecutive shifts. Mr. Miller provided that information to me and Iím sure they can give you that in writilng if necessary. They donít have the need for that many spaces now, but since we are putting this addition on, we felt it would be satisfactory to continue the parking down into the new area.

A variance will be needed to provide a reduction to the 25-foot side yard from the building. The requirement at the time these buildings were built conformed to the 11-foot minimum required. A variance also will be needed for the 50-foot rear yard, and had there been such a requirement in the code at the time of construction, we would have made arrangements to secure more property. Another variance will be needed for the 10-foot side yard parking setback. We could move the parking in a little bit if necessary, but I donít see the need for it. We have never encroached on or bothered our neighbors. A variance would be required for the 10 foot rear yard parking. That would not be a problem. We could eliminate one parking space if you thought that necessary.

The height of the proposed expansion would not exceed 16 feet. We would like to make it such a height that it would be useful to Office Resources or any future tenant. Office Resources would like to continue this lease for another five years if I can put this expansion on for them.

Documentation needs to be provided that the expansion use is permitted under the GI District. We certainly meet the requirements for a light industrial building. They do lithograph type work, and provide office resource services all over the country.

The location and screening of waste containers have never been a concern before, but I am sure we can come up with some means of taking care of that for you. There is a dumpster there; it is not unsightly. Our neighbors have so much stuff stored outside, our dumpster is miniscule compared to that. I have photographs with me. We have made every effort in the last 27 years to keep this as presentable and nice as can be.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE THREE

  1. EXPANSION OF OFFICE RESOURCES INC. 171 CONTAINER PLACE
  2. Mr. Cohen added one loading facility is to be provided; there is a loading facility, which will not be removed. We are going to enclose the concrete truck dock and put a new door out there.

    A lighting plan to be provided with a .5 foot candle. We have that already; I will have my illuminations engineer check the light in the parking lot and if it Is necessary to increase that, you can be sure I will.

    On the elevations and building materials, I am sorry we didnít furnish this now. I thought this was merely a presentation for the Planning Commission to see if we could get the variances we required on the rear yard. The building will be constructed in a smilar manner to the present building. We will have painted concrete block walls, and we could give them some architectural treatment if necessary.

    Mr. Syfert wondered if he had any response to the city engineerís comments, and Mr. Cohen answered on the roof drains, we definitely will collect our roof water, either on the south side of the building with a gutter, or we will collect it with a roof drain and conduct it to the existing storm sewer (there is an 8 inch and 10 inch storm sewer). I would not recommend making it any bigger as means of restricting the flow into the system. We will definitely not run any water on the ground, under any circumstances.

    Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Okum asked if it were true that the site is not under any restrictions for water retention for the addition or the entire site, and Mr. Shvegzda answered that the lot size is ĺ of an acre so it does not.

    Ms. McBride indicated that for the expansion to go forth he would need four additional variances, including side yard setback for the building, rear yard setback for the building, rear yard setback for parking and side yard setback for parking.

    Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if there were any variances on the property. Mr. McErlane reported that although the 1970ís records are bad, he did not find one for 171 Container Place.

    Mr. Syfert wondered if Mr. Warm owned this, and Mr. Cohen indicated that he owned the building, is the engineer of record and made the drawings and supervised the construction and paid for it. He indicated that he was the chief engineer general manager of the Warm Company; the permits were taken out by Warm.

    Mr. Ron Miller indicated we want to expand in this area because we are a privately held company owned by the family and I live within four miles and like the location. We would like to keep our headquarters here.

    Mr. Syfert wondered how long this would satisfy their needs if they continue to grow as they have been, and Mr. Miller answered we already lease additional space in the area for bulk warehousing. We would like to keep this as the main headquarters area because of the location.

    Mr. Huddleston asked to see Mr. Cohenís pictures and he passed them around to the members, commenting on the problems with his neighbors. He added that he did not feel the addition would be in any way detrimental to the site and certainly not decrease the value of it.

    Mr. Okum said I can understand your frustration with your neighbor, but we have to look at your site and your development.

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    14 DECEMBER 1999

    PAGE FOUR

  3. EXPANSION OF OFFICE RESOURCES INC. 171 CONTAINER PLACE
  4. Mr. Syfert commented we have this listed for concept discussion and I believe the applicant is aware that he will have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to get the necessary variances. Anything we can give to the Board of Zoning Appeals to assist, we should at this point before the applicant goes any further. That is what we should accomplish tonight.

    Mr. Huddleston said I agree with many of Mr. Cohenís comments regarding the care or lack of same and his adjacent neighbors. On the other hand, I have a real problem with the kind of density we are proposing here on a lot, and to that extent while Mr. Cohen and the current tenant seem to enjoy and maintain the property in an exemplary manner, we donít have much of an ongoing guarantee of that beyond five years. I do have a bit of difficulty in recommending this variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals relative to the high density. Having said that, I do feel strongly that we have a good landlord and a good tenant here, and perhaps we should consider it. Mr. Syfert added it does meet the code density wise and Mr. McErlane added almost to the button.

    Mr. Okum commented I have the same concerns Mr. Huddleston expressed in terms of density . You have indicated that you will do something about dumpster enclosures. Mr. Cohen commented we havenít done anything any different than anybody else has, and compared to them we look pretty good. Mr. Okum responded I donít disagree but we have to look at your site and how it impacts traffic and traffic flow and how it functions internally.

    It appears we will have a higher number of employees office use versus warehouse industrial, is that correct? Ms. McBride confirmed this. Mr. Okum wondered if as a result of that there would be a higher number of windows. Will the building façade be changed? Mr. Cohen answered not with the type operation they have. Their operation is based on climate controls for their lithographic operations. Mr. Miller added the addition of the 5,000 square feet will be primarily used for basic warehousing, supplies and storage. We donít foresee an influx of employees, maybe two or three in the next two years.

    Mr. Okum asked the number of trucks per day at the facility and Mr. Miller indicated half a dozen, most city trucks. We get three tractor-trailers a week.

    Mr. Huddleston said the density refers to the building land ratio but it also refers to the impervious surface area. The site is about fully developed if we decide to recommend this variance. One of the things I am not clear on is the question about outside storage that may or may not be permitted. Mr. McErlane reported that outside storage is prohibited under the zoning code.

    Mr. Huddleston asked how many employees are currently in the facility and Mr. Miller answered there are 19. Speaking about outside storage, aesthetically we would not want to do it; I donít think it makes for a good business climate.

    Mr. Huddleston said the expansion parking area shows 16 parking spaces when there are actually six, which would total 27 spaces. Mr. Miller said the 19 employees are not all on the premises at once.

    Mr. Huddleston moved to recommend the variances to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Darby seconded the motion. The variances that are needed are: side yard setback for building, rear yards setback for the building, side yard setback for parking and rear yard setback for parking.

     

    PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

    14 DECEMBER 1999

    PAGE FIVE

  5. EXPANSION OF OFFICE RESOURCES INC. 171 CONTAINER PLACE

Mr. Vanover said they mentioned they will change out the HVAC on the building. Would they be required to screen that? Mr. McErlane answered I would have to defer to Mr. Cohen. Most industrial buildings have rooftop equipment or if itís primarily warehouse, may not even have air conditioning to any degree, may have unit heaters installed inside of it. Mr. Cohen stated we are replacing the air conditioning because it is 27 years old. We definitely will ventilate the warehouse building in a positive manner.

Mr. Huddleston said if we grant the concept approval, and they come back for the site plan approval, we would expect that the mechanicals be appropriately screened and that they must comply with the handicap access regulations. Mr. Cohen said we do have a handicap space.

Mr. Okum said based on the 12,500 feet, would 27 spaces be enough for another development in the future? Ms. McBride responded if the building were to be used for an office use, 27 would not be sufficient. The way the code reads currently you have to have one space for every two employees on the largest successive shift. Mr. Miller stated we will not have 27 employees on any shift. We plan to buy that building this year. We have an option to buy and we plan on staying there longer than five years.

On the motion, voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert.

Mr. Syfert said Board of Zoning Appeals meets next Tuesday at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Cohen wondered if they needed to bring working drawings to the meeting. Mr. Okum said you need to bring as much evidence as you can to support your request for the variances. Mr. Cohen asked if they could come to the January BZA meeting instead, I donít see how we can make it by next week. Mr. Okum indicated that there would be no problem with that. Mr. Huddleston added if the applicant wishes, he could come back to us in January as well. Mr. Cohen said we probably would not start this job until it dries up so we will be back in January.

B. Preliminary Plan Approval of Sears Ė The Great Indoors to be located at 11925 Commons Drive

Scott Dever Assistant Director of Specialty Store Construction for Sears said the Great Indoors project is a new concept, a more specialty type store offering design solutions to the homeowner and to a limited extent home builders. There are two stores presently one south of Denver, Colorado and the other in Scottsdale Arizona.

The design internally is set up around the four great rooms of the home. It offers ľ sales floor for design for the bathroom, ľ for the kitchen, ľ for the living /lighting and ľ for the bedroom. Each of these quadrants make use of trained interior designers and trained sales people, so you are in a much more specialized customer contact atmosphere in the store.

In the front end of the store there are a lease tenants who offer everything from a custom frame shop to a café with small sandwiches and coffee. There is a library-resource center in the front and other tenants, which change from market to market.

Our goal is to open five locations in the year 2,000. One is in North Dallas, one in Shelby Township (Detroit), and this would be the third one, and two others are in the planning stage for the Cincinnati area. The longer-term goals are to open 15 facilities within 18 months and continue it at about a 20 store per year rate.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE SIX

VI B Ė SEARS THE GREAT INDOORS - 11925 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Dever said they are a destination specialized type store, so they are not visited regularly. The average time a customer shops is two hours. Our target customer is a woman, and we make an effort to make sure what we talk about is understood and we offer an installation service as well.

This building is not prototypical for us; most of them are new construction, but this site, although smaller than what we generally look for, has a marketplace in which we feel we will be successful and the visibility of I-275.

He passed out building elevations, adding that they try to have the building as much as possible resemble the home. The front center portion of the building is designed to simulate a home. What we have tried to do with the design of the building architecturally is to maintain pretty much what is there. The only method of trash disposal is compactors, which are hooded and shrouded and attached to one of the overhead doors. We try to keep the flow of the building so that the customers walk in, go around the four quadrants and are separately removed from that area of the parking. Most stores have a customer pickup area, which we do, but we also have a contractor pickup area.

Mr. Syfert asked what percentage of the employees would be design consultants, and Mr. Dever answered the total number of employees is between 250 and 300, scattered over shifts, and 10-15% will be interior design people.

Lanie Wess of Woolpert said we did a color rendering of the site plan, and it is preliminary. We got all the comments from staff, and I appreciate the detail, and we plan to address them as much as possible in the final submittal.

The final plan will look a little bit different because of the café and its outdoor seating. We do show 530 additional parking spaces, 576 for Sears and 556 is required by your code. We would like to try to get as much of that separate from the existing stores parking as possible.

One comment suggested a curb cut back here for the employee parking by the use of a painted island or painted space for a turn around there. We could have a turn around there or get an agreement with North American Properties to have another drive through.

Detention is provided in the existing retention pond and we will provide storm calculations to show that overland routes are safe. We also will provide a landscaping plan and lighting plan.

If there are other concerns we are open to hearing them and dealing with them in the final submittals.

Mr. Syfert said one thing we have to be concerned about is we have only one council person present, and we need his opinion as to whether this is a substantial change to the original PUD plan and therefore has to go back to Council. It is a little different from what was originally conceived.

Ms. McBride reported they have proposed revisions to the covenants that would permit the proposed use. We guesstimated that 40% of the floor area would be for large-scale type appliances and cabinets, etc. and 60% would be for towels and bedding and knick-knacks, etc.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE SEVEN

VI B Ė SEARS THE GREAT INDOORS - 11925 COMMONS DRIVE

Ms. McBride stated that the applicant indicates that 733 parking spaces exist on the site, and they are proposing a total of 1252 spaces. They failed to give us any breakdown as to how many spaces were required for Golf Galaxy or Dave & Busterís by use, and we would want to see that to make sure that Sears will meet the 556 spaces that our code requires.

We have suggested that a secondary means of ingress and egress be provided for the 91 parking spaces to the rear. Our concern is even if it is employee parking, if you drive down to the end and all those spaces are taken, you will be backing up a very long way. That is something we would like to avoid.

We did not get the location or details of the waste receptacles and we would want to see those. On the west side of the building they have indicated a customer and contractor pickup point. We would like more information on how those function. Our concern is maintaining circulation in that area. There are parking spaces in the northwest portion of the site that need to be redesigned. They currently back out into the perimeter roadway.

They did not submit a landscape plan. What they did submit indicates they will be removing some of the landscape features that exist on the site. They are proposing to remove one of the long linear landscape features as well as some of the perimeter landscaping. The Commission knows how the staff feels about landscaping and we are waiting to see how the landscape plan comes in. They also indicated landscaping on the side of the building, and we look forward to seeing the details of that.

We did not obtain any detailed signage information. The prototypical information we received on the building elevations indicated that they would have The Great Indoors on three sides of the building. What we received this evening indicates two sides of the building. We still donítí have square footages. We also didnít receive any information that they would be included on any freestanding signs for this property.

We reviewed the prototypical building elevations and will want to see specific elevations for this site. We also reviewed a prototypical floor plan that doesnít match the square footage for the site, so we will need to see the floor plan for this location. The prototypical front elevation indicated a wrought iron area that could be used for outdoor storage or display, and that is not recommended for this site. We also need to see building materials and color samples on any future submittals.

Mr. Dever said you are accurate on the 60-40%. On the signage, we only have two elevations. We usually use 5-6 or 7-foot letters for the sign. I believe it would meet your code requirements. On the center type identification sign, we would like to propose a separate pylon.

There is no outdoors-sales area on this plan with two exceptions. We would like to offer the cafe outdoor seating, and we would like to have the opportunity on a limited basis for an outdoor sale on occasion. We have called them tent sales in the past but it is primarily furniture.

We also are going to try to obtain some signage on the shared portion of the permanent center sign. That is key for this type of store. Because it is not shopped regularly, and because it is difficult to be successful as a destination type, identification is very important to us and with that store in particular because it is tucked behind everything. If you donít see it going down 275, you wonít know it is there.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE EIGHT

VI B Ė SEARS THE GREAT INDOORS - 11925 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Dever added that is the main reason for wanting to have a pylon sign fronting 275, and at the same time catch part of the recognition and name size of the other tenants in the other direction. We are confident with that type of visibility off 275, it will be a successful operation.

Mr. McErlane reported the property is zoned PUD and is part or the original Tri-County Commons Preliminary Plan. Under that plan, the properties fronting along 275 were to be general industrial or office warehouse type uses. Over the years, they have grown towards a limited type of retail, but a retail type use.

As it stands right now the covenants still read that the balance of this building is to be used for any use that is permitted in a G I District. The developer has submitted a modification to the covenants that would allow this use.

There are several items that are necessary for preliminary plan approval under a PUD, schedule of construction, estimated cost, preliminary landscape plan, and building elevations specific to the site, and color pallet and floor plan specific to the site. Those are the specific requirements for the preliminary plan.

The covenant revision that they proposed is kind of general in its nature as far as statement of use goes, and probably will need to be more clearly defined so we donít have some general retailer go in that generates more traffic should The Great Indoors move out. With the City Engineerís input, I think we can refine it a little bit.

There are 22 handicap-parking spaces shown, and 23 are required, 3 of which must be van accessible. The majority are van accessible so there may be a way to adjust those to pick up the additional handicap parking space.

As the chairman pointed out, the councilmembers on this Commission will need to determine whether or not this is a major departure from the original preliminary plan approved by Council and whether this modification needs to be approved by Council.

Mr. Shvegzda said design for the current detention basin took into account the additional impervious area that would encompass the enlarged parking lot. We just need information to verify that the proposed parking lot expansion does correspond with what previously had been planned. The existing detention basin does have another 80,000 cubic feet of volume above what is required based on the original assumptions for the expansion of the parking lot.

On the storm sewer calculations, the key issue is to make sure that the major storm is able to reach the detention basin, both solely through storm sewers or a combination of over land and through storm sewers. On this development the design year for the detention basin is based on the July 1, 1985 storm (300-year intensity).

Concerning the traffic, the original PUD weekday maximum peak was 2,680. The current modified PUD total was 2,687, a slight increase over the original. Based on the 40-60% uses, we looked at two classifications, one a discount superstore for smaller retail items and a home improvement superstore for the larger appliances etc. Based on that, the weekday p.m. peak was 423 vehicles and the weekend p.m. peak was 628 vehicles.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE NINE

VI B Ė SEARS THE GREAT INDOORS - 11925 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Shvegzda said that means we have a total weekday peak for the development (including the Wal-Mart Samís area and the property bordering 275) of 2,903 and for the weekend it is 3,748. We counted all entrances out to Kemper Road and got counts on Target driveways and subtracted those counts out from the general counts to get 3,748 total. Based on that, the total counts we had received for actual weekend counts at peak hours were 2,260. I donít know what that means if in fact that particular day it was not representative, or if existing businesses in the development are not operating to their maximum capacity, but those were the actual numbers.

In regard to the site layout, we looked at, there were approximately 12 parking spaces which donít look usable because the way the loop road comes around, you would essentially back directly out into the loop road. There is one drive aisle through the parking area that as it intersects the loop road has a curb cut or opening with a width of about 60 feet which we think is excessive and may cause confusion.

There is an existing railroad spur that does access the warehouse area. We assume that will be abandoned but we need clarification on that.

There is an existing stockpile of dirt. If in fact that needs to be relocated, we need to know where it will go next and how it will be graded. The covenants need to be broken down more between the major issues of the development. This is more or less consistent with what was utilized for the Roberds development.

Mr. Vanover commented I couldnít help but feel that part of that berm will have an impact on the detention basin, depending on how much of it is removed. That concerns me; I know we have a surplus there and I wi0uld like to see as much of it maintained as possible.

Mr. Okum wondered if the truck docks could be screened. There is a landscaped island that runs to the south side of it. That street is very narrow on the corner, and very dark, and I have a hard time navigating that area at night without crossing the centerline. I think we should look at the curb width and get that widened for safety purposes. I would like to keep as much green as we can. I have some concerns on the traffic generation. I see an enormous amount of traffic backing up on that leg where it goes straight out on Kemper Road on a regular basis. There is no stacking capacity at the slope next to the oil change place. I think there will be a real problem with increasing the volume into that area.

Additionally, we will be looking at screening the mechanical units on the building. Even though we are increasing this, I would like to see the counts from your Denver site and your Scottsdale site, and when they opened. Mr. Dever said Scottsdale opened October of 1999 and Denver October of 1998. Mr. Okum asked the square footage of the Denver operation, Mr. Dever answered significantly larger than this. Mr. Okum wondered if there were fewer items in the store and Mr. Dever answered it is probably the same number of items, just less display area.

Mr. Okum continued if we could say that we have the same selection of merchandise and a similar type of display, the counts of the Denver facility could give us a more accurate figure. Mr. Okum asked for aerial photographs of the site showing circulation areas. Mr. Dever answered we donít have any aerials, but I can get the site plan and information like that if it would help.

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE TEN

VI B Ė SEARS THE GREAT INDOORS - 11925 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Syfert stated with the number of things that are missing, we cannot give preliminary plan approval, but we can give concept approval. Mr. McErlane agreed adding if Mr. Vanover feels comfortable giving a decision as to whether or not this is a major departure from the preliminary plan. The other big issue is traffic and it sounds like Mr. Shvegzda does not have any major concerns on that.

Mr. Shvegzda said we know that the weekday p.m. peak is being raised. Are we going to accept that as the new requirement on t his or are we going to require additional analysis of the internal roadway intersections with Kemper Road and what effect this addition will have on it.

Ms. Wess said Woolpert was requested to do actual traffic counts in 1997, and at that time we showed that the actual traffic was lower than what was projected. I think it is partly because of the uses out there. There is not a specific way to know that Dave & Busterís is this type of use and will have t his much traffic. This is true of all the other specialty type stores, so the only way to get an accurate count of the traffic is to do the traffic counts. Your count and our count in 1997 showed it lower. Mr. Okum said there were some problems at the Commons intersection; Iím not sure if they did intersection counts. Mr. Shvegzda responded we counted at each accessway or exit from the overall site, new Commons, old Commons, Kemper Commons Circle and the exit only driveway. I realize the 1997 counts indicated approximately 1600 vehicles at the p.m. weekday peak.

Mr. Okum said since we are finalizing this site, our numbers need to be as accurate as possible. What is the original weekend peak p.m. Mr. Shvegzda answered we looked for that and couldnít find it, but when we extrapolated out the original, it was actually 2650. Mr. Okum said so we are at 2800, 200 more. I asked for numbers on the Denver facility because I want to know how close we are with the assumed numbers. I donít want to overbuild the site. I wonder what the current industrial use that is approved for the site under the PUD is actually generating and what it is doing to the traffic load at those intersections. I understand it is leased out as industrial/warehouse. What load generation is that generating now?

Mr. Shvegzda answered currently we do not have any split as to what actual truck traffic is a part of that in the October counts. Also, there is one other lot that is left to be developed on this, south of the Champion facility.

Mr. Vanover said I would echo Mr. Okumís concerns; this will be our last chance to get a good feel for what the traffic is out there. Iíve received several comments about confusion in the traffic flow on the new Commons. Truck traffic concerns me too; they affect stacking capacity.

Mr. Syfert commented I agree, but from a practical standpoint, the tractor trailer aspect, you probably will have less with this use than you have right now.

Mr. Huddleston said I would echo what these gentlemen have said, and if when you are analyzing the Denver and Scottsdale stores, if they could be certified by a traffic engineer, that would be more meaningful to us. That would be more substantive data. You can correlate that anyway you choose, relative to store size or merchandise mix.

 

 

 

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE ELEVEN

VI B Ė SEARS THE GREAT INDOORS - 11925 COMMONS DRIVE

Mr. Huddleston wondered how many employees would be there, and Mr. Dever answered up to 300 on various shifts, some part time and some full time. The store generally is open during bankerís hours and closes no later than 9 p.m. Mr. Huddleston asked the maximum shift employment, and Mr. Dever answered it changes; I would like to find out for sure for you, but I would think it would be no more than 30-35 people at any one time.

Mr. Huddleston asked the applicant if he felt that the parking lot is in excess of his requirements, and Mr. Dever answered that they look at a 5 to 1,000 s.f. ratio with associate parking in the rear. This is very close to that.

Mr. Syfert said I would like to see a landscaped island back there if we can get it in. It would add a lot of class to the overall site.

Mr. Vanover said I do feel a bit uncomfortable being the lone voice from Council, but I do see this as a significant change and I think Council would benefit from reviewing it. Mr. Syfert asked if he wanted that to be the official statement or wait until you get another council person to discuss it. Mr. Vanover said itís a matter of record right now, but I donít have a problem with allowing the new council person to have input, but that would be my feeling.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said you can go with this and we will see you next month.

VIII. DISCUSSION

    1. City of Springdale Pro Rata Share of Dues to Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission

Ms. McBride stated this has come up at least two of the years that I have been working with the City and in both instances the City chose not to participate. This is because the information available was available to the City and staff regardless of whether we contributed or not. Also, there is one seat dedicated to city representation on the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, and that has been occupied for the last 10 or 12 years by the same representative from Mariemont. We havenít been able to get any notices when that seat is becoming vacant if someone else might be interested in participating. I appreciate their sending out the information, but I donít know that anything has changed from the Cityís standpoint in terms of services that I am aware of that I can get for you through my work with the Commission. I also note that the County is getting ready to do a countywide comprehensive plan for the unincorporated areas and the City has been asked to participate in the process. We are going to participate, but you donít need to be a member to do t hat.

Mr. Darby asked the level of participation generated by the municipalities in Hamilton County. Ms. McBride answered it is hard to tell because on the letterhead they continue to list Springdale as a member. I went to a kickoff meeting, and there were representatives from Wyoming and Montgomery; those were the only two.

Mr. Okum asked if there is anything in all this that is not available to you as a planner. Ms. McBride answered that she could get any of that information. Mr. Okum said we have been notified that nominations for the representative were closed after the fact. If this organization does any good, and maybe they do, I might want to serve on it, but no one has had that opportunity.

 

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

14 DECEMBER 1999

PAGE TWELVE

DISCUSSION - continued

Mr. Okum moved not to pay the $250 dues and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and the motion was granted unanimously.

Ms. McBride said I do think though that it is important that the City participate in the comprehensive planning efforts and that we be represented. Sharonville and Blue Ash and several others are, and I want to be sure that we are equally represented. Mr. Okum responded if it means a representative from this commission be involved, we should consider that as well. Ms. McBride said I would keep you advised.

Mr. Huddleston said when I served on the Blue Ash Planning Commission, we did occasionally refer things to the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission and they reported back to us. We had the same problem that this board has in terms of representation. Having said that, was this created because of a lack of zoning control previously or because of Federal legislation? Ms. McBride responded they have to refer new townships to a regional planning commission, so that is how it was created.

Mr. Syfert said we will return to the item under Old Business, the discussion of repainting of Gold Star Chili building. Mr. McErlane reported that Mr. Shteiwi was in the office yesterday, and he indicated he would be with us tonight. Mr. Huddleston moved to table this and Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion. Item was tabled to the January 11th meeting.

  1. CHAIRMANíS REPORT
    1. Creative Kids World, 11285 Springfield Pike Ė Wall Sign
    2. We Sew Alterations, 1627 Springfield Pike Ė Wall Sign
  1. ADJOUIRNMENT

Everyone indicated they would be present at the January meeting. Mr.

Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By

Voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:05

p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

_____________________,2000 _____________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman

 

 

_____________________,2000 _____________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary