VILLAGE OF EVENDALE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
January 18, 2011
EVENDALE MUNICIPAL BUILDING
The regular January meeting of the Evendale Planning Commission (EPC) was called to order by Doug Lohmeier at 6:00 PM on January 18, 2011. Attending were EPC members Doug Lohmeier (Council Representative), Susan van Amerongen, Rob Adams, Dan Frank, and Chris Patterson. Supporting the EPC were Jack Cameron, James Jeffers (Village Engineer), Pam Morin, James Dobrozsi (Architectural Review Board Member), Ralph Terbrueggen (Architectural Review Board Member) and Kathy Farro (Planner, Manley Burke).
New Business:
1. Rest Haven Memorial Park, 10209 Plainfield Road - Lot split of two residential lots that front Glendale-Milford Road, Consolidation of the lots and Site review of proposed mausoleum
Mr. Jose Castrejon; Vice President of Landscape Architecture with McGill Smith Punshon, Inc. representing Rest Haven presented plans for a new mausoleum. Mr. Castrejon stated that the location was chosen for access and location. The access to the new mausoleum would be from internal roads and located near the funeral home and the cemetery service area. This was the best fit for the site and still allows for some views of the mausoleum from the roads. The lot split still allows the properties along Glendale Milford Road to be within the current zoning code for size of a residential lot. Mr. Castrejon does not know what may become of the existing houses which Rest Haven owns.
Parking at the site contains 2 marked parking stalls as per the current zoning code. Concern was brought up that there may need to be more parking at the site. Mr. Castrejon stated that people are able to park on the edge of the pavement as is done in other areas of the cemetery.
Evendale Planning Commission member Chris Patterson brought up the concern from neighbors based on Rest Havens last request and thought that it was in the best interest of Rest Haven to reach out to those neighbors and let them know what is going on with this request. Evendale resident Kay Bostrom thought that Chris’ request and concerns for the neighbors were on target.
McGill Smith Punshon Inc. submitted the required list of owners within 200’ of the property. At this time, neighbors have not been informed as per the zoning code. Mr. Castrejon stated that he would pass on the information to Rest Haven that it would be in their best interest to contact the neighbors within Evendale.
A variance will be needed which will result in a letter being written by the Village of Evendale to some homeowners as per the current zoning code. The Village of Evendale will also provide to McGill Smith Punshon Inc. a list of those people that were contacted for the last Rest Haven request. Evendale reserves that right to send out more information than the minimum required.
The current mausoleums are full or near capacity and this will give the cemetery an option to expand. The intent is for the construction to start as soon as possible. Upon architectural review it was noted that the mechanical equipment on the roof must be screened per the current zoning code. Upon landscape architectural review, it was stated that four (4) Norway Spruce be added to the plan, two (2) on each side of the White Pine.
A variance will be needed for an additional accessory building and the lot split. McGill Smith Punshon Inc. is aware of this and will proceed with supplying the BZA with the appropriate documents.
A motion was made by Rob Adams and seconded by Chris Patterson to approve the requested submittal with the following conditions:
- The mechanical equipment be screened
- Four (4) Norway Spruce be added to the buffer
- That the BZA approve the mausoleum since it is considered additional accessory structure and;
- That council approve the lot split/consolidation.
The motion passed by a 4 yes 0 no vote as Dan Frank had to recuse himself.
2. Carpenter’s Creek Civic Association - Site review of subdivision sign on Carpenters Creek Drive
Mr. Chris Toney, board member on the Carpenters Creek Civic Association presented information with regards to the proposed subdivision sign. One (1) sign would be located within the right-of-way to the west side of Carpenters Creek south of Pheasantwalk Drive. The Association is requesting an easement to erect a stone subdivision marker. The marker would be approximately 15’-18’ long and 3’-5’ high depending on the grades and would be similar to the one installed on Giverny Blvd. The lettering would match the existing sign as well with letters that are 12” high. It would be placed approximately 24’ from Carpenter’s Creek Drive.
Planning Commission would like to make sure that the village would not be required to maintain the sign and should have similar verbiage as we currently have with Blue Ash. Mr. Toney is okay with a maintenance agreement.
It was stated that all residents should be notified that are directly affected by the sign. An email response from Dr. Salvatore Giolando has been included with this request and Mr. Hank Roy has also seen the plans. No written statement from Mr. Roy has been issued.
It was determined that additional information is being requested at this time. Evendale Planning Commission would like to see a site utility plan with appropriate easements and grades, a landscape plan and a maintenance agreement. It was recommended that the marker be placed no closer than 10’ from the back of pavement line and that the foundation be deeper than 2’ deep.
In addition with a motion to approve, as per the staff report; there needs to be a ten-foot setback requirement from the back of pavement, a statement of unique circumstances specific to this site that makes the location of a sign in the ROW acceptable and a limit on sign face length/width/area if desired.
3. Evendale Commons Business Park - Concept plan proposed revision and PBD document proposed amendment
Mr. Mike Ricke with Anchor Properties presented a revised concept plan which showed the existing built areas and a revised layout for the remaining lots. The new concept plan showed area A-1 as the existing Walmart; area A-2 lot for such uses as proposed retail; area A-3 lot for proposed uses such as offices and laboratories; area B lot for such uses as in A-1 and A-2; area C as the existing carwash, office building and bank on the south side of Evendale Commons Drive and to the north such uses as proposed offices, daycare centers and veterinary clinics to name a few. Anchor was open to the idea to make the retention area underground if the economy allows. This could potentially add another buildable lot.
Anne McBride with McBride Dale Clarion presented the proposed changes to the Heavy Commercial PBD Overlay District for Evendale Commons Business Park. In Part Two Design Concept the words ‘occupies the prominent frontage along Glendale Milford Road and’ was removed.
Under Part Tree Uses the words ‘Permitted Uses:’ was added to section 1. Under A. Permitted Uses the words ‘Areas A-1, A-2 and B’ were added as well as ‘-1, A-2’. Permitted uses in Areas A-1, A-2 and B did not change except for some minor rearrangements and the word ‘Six’ was changed to ‘Seven’ on line 13. Permitted uses in Area A-3 have been created as a sort of trade off, not acre for acre but for a potential office or laboratory use. It was suggested to remove the words “and services”. Permitted uses in Area C did not really change except the word ‘Six’ was changed to ‘Seven’ on line items 3 and 10. Permitted uses in Area D-1 were added to include the same uses as in Area C as well as traditional sit
down restaurants. EPC recognizes that the big office is out of question but still we are not 100% receptive to a bank. Permitted uses in Area D-1 also allows for traditional sit down restaurants. It was recommended to add the word ‘Professional’ before offices and remove the words ‘and services’. It was also recommended to place financial as a separate line item which should include banks, credit unions, savings and loans and similar institutions. Permitted uses in Area D-2 included those listed in Area D-1 as well as Hotels and Meeting Facilities. Permitted uses in Area D-3 included those listed in Area D-1 as well as offices and distribution warehouses where a minimum of 20% of the gross building area would be used for administrative purposes. Permitted uses in Area D-4 included those listed in D-1 as well as offices and distribution warehouses.
Conditional uses for Areas A-1, A-2 and B revised line item 4 regarding outdoor dining and line item 9 changed from ‘Six’ to ‘Seven’. Conditional uses in Area A-3 were added which includes fast casual and traditional sit down restaurants as well as outdoor dining in conjunction with a restaurant. Conditional uses in Area C revised line item 2 regarding outdoor dining and removed the entire line item 7 on fast food restaurants. Conditional uses in Area D-1 included drive through windows in conjunction with a financial institution; fast casual restaurants and outdoor dining. Conditional uses in Area D-2 included those listed in Area D-1.
Under Part Four Area and Height Requirements, A(2) Minimum Lot Area and Dimensions, it was requested to break out the acreage for Areas A-1 and A-2. Item (7)a. now includes Areas A, B, C, D-1 and D-2: 40% of the gross area and Item (7)b. was added to include Areas D-3 and D-4: 60% of the gross area. Under section B. Maximum Height the word ‘Retail” was removed from line item (1). The words ‘Support Retail and Services” were removed from line item (2). The words ‘Perimeter Retail’ were removed from line item (3). The word ‘office” was removed from line item (4) and Area D was broken into D-1; D-2 where no building shall exceed 60’ in height. Line item (5) now includes Area “D-3” and “D-4” where no building shall exceed 30 feet in
height. Under section C. Development Areas the following changes are requested. The words ‘Retail’ and ‘Anchor’ were removed from line item (1) and now includes Areas A-1 and A-2 with a maximum building area of 500,000 s.f. and Area A-3 Office with a maximum building area of 20,000 s.f. The words ‘Retail and Services’ were removed from line item (2). The words ‘Retail’ and ‘Perimeter’ were removed from line item (3). The words ‘Office’, ‘Office/Research’, and ‘Minimum Development Area: approximately 21 acres’ were removed from line item (4) and now includes Area D-1 Support Services – Maximum Development Area: Approximately 4 Acres; Areas D-2, D-3, and D-4 Office Research Distribution – Minimum Development Area: Approximately 17 Acres.
Under Part Six Supplemental Use and Design Regulations D. Building Design (2) the following words were removed in a. ‘Retail’; in b. ‘Supply Retail and Service’; in c. Perimeter Retail; and in d. ‘Office’ and ‘or’. It was then requested by EPC to break out Line item d. into Areas D-1 and D-2: Split Face Block (tinted or painted), Exterior Insulated Finish System (EFIS), brick, or stone veneer. Line item e. was added to include D-3 and D-4; Split Face Block (tinted or painted), Exterior Insulated Finish System (EFIS, brick, stone veneer, or formed concrete system (decorative finish such as painted, tinted, simulated masonry, textured pattern, mechanical tooling, exposed aggregate or formed three dimensional pattern). Under E. Parking Requirements line item (1) has been removed.
It was requested by the applicant to have a special meeting were these changes can be address for final review and a motion be made. A special meeting is planned for January 24th at 6:00pm.
4. Mr. Clean Car Wash, 10199 Reading Road - Preliminary discussion of PBD amendment to allow oil change use on the site.
Mr. Jay Stewart, Esq., AICP, Director, Planning & Urban Design at Kleingers & Associates addressed the EPC regarding an accessory use; that being an oil change station within the current site. Mr. Stewart mentioned that his client is aware of EPC’s concerns and when asked what EPC concerns were he stated “We did not want an oil change”.
Mr. Stewart asked if there could be a separate text amendment to allow this use and to see if there is a way to move this through in a legal way. He stated that it could be a conditional use since the area in question is a P.B.D. He proposed that there be verbiage in the amendment so that additional oil changing business would not be allowed and to error on the side of specific use. Mr. Stewart stated that the footprint of the proposed oil changing station is smaller than ‘national’ businesses and that they would propose to use architectural standards that are currently used in the development. EPC mentioned to Mr. Stewart that we have had issues with his client and that their standards are not high. EPC mentioned that material that was placed on the building during construction was not what was
submitted and that sample boards had to be brought down to the site.
Mr. Stewart said that they are willing to negotiate and it was brought up by EPC on what they were willing to negotiate. Mr. Stewart’s reply was that Evendale would be helping an existing business and that Evendale would get tax revenue due to the creation of jobs. An oil change is a way to help this site be more successful.
EPC comments to Mr. Stewart – ‘No oil change business on Reading Road’ and it was suggested that Mr. Stewart’s client can try an go to Evendale Council as this is a ‘use’ issue.
Internal Business:
1. Discussion of Zoning Code revision process & proposed schedule
Kathy Farro with other Manley Burke staff will get with Evendale staff and start revising the current zoning code to make it more logical. They should have changes completed by the beginning of April for Planning Commission to review. Planning Commission must approve changes and then recommend it to Council. The overall process will most likely take about 1 year to work through it completely. Included in this will also be a revised map/master plan, a flex building section and design guidelines for Reading Road. It was mentioned to let 1 or 2 Planning Commission members work through the changes and update the Commission on the progress or use a special meeting as needed for discussion. The Planning Commission will not approve individual sections but the document as a whole.
2. Report from Village Engineer
No Comments
3. Other Items
There were concerns that A to Z landscape was not installed per approved documentation. EPC found out that A to Z did not get the approved funding for the solar panels. It is noted that this is another time that this applicant has stated he would do something and it never happened.
4. Approval of Minutes - November 16, 2010
A motion was made by Susan van Amerongen and seconded by Chris Patterson to approve the EPC minutes from November 16, 2010.
The motion passed by a 5 yes 0 no vote.
Adjournment:
On a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Susan van Amerongen and seconded by Rob Adams, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 PM by a 5 yes 0 no vote.
The next regular meeting is scheduled for February 15, 2011 at 6:00 PM.
Douglas A. Lohmeier
Chairperson, Evendale Planning Commission
Attest: Dan Frank
Secretary, Evendale Planning Commission
| 
