President of Council Kathy McNear called Council to order on October 2, 2002, at 7:00 p.m.

The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance.

Mr. Knox took roll call. Present were Council members Danbury, Galster, Pollitt, Squires, Vanover, Wilson and McNear.

The minutes of September 18, 2002 were approved with seven affirmative votes.

COMMUNICATIONS - none

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none

RESOLUTION R25-2002 "CONFIRMING THE MAYORíS APPOINTMENT OF GEORGE KELLNER TO THE SPRINGDALE BOARD OF HEALTH"

Mayor Webster said I would like to introduce the person I am appointing this evening. Mr. Kellner is here this evening. He lives at 41 Silver Maple Way. He is the former director of the Cincinnati Health Department Laboratory.

Mr. Kellner stated I am a native of Alliance, Ohio and graduated from Mt. Union College. I served in the U. S. Navy for Twenty-one months. I was a clinical microbiologist in Baltimore for three years and then came to the Cincinnati Health Department in 1963. I retired in 1993.

Mayor Webster said I think we struck gold. Ms. Pollitt, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Danbury served with Mr. Haverland on the board. The thing Harry brought to the board was his knowledge of food handling, lab work, etc. When Harry resigned I told the board I would like to have someone with expertise in that area. George had applied to be the food sample collector. As soon as we got our hands on his resume we said youíre suited to a higher calling and George graciously accepted to serve on the board.

Ms. Pollitt said your credentials are wonderful. I know you will bring a lot of experience to the board. Mr. Haverland has been there for a long time but you have the credentials to fill that in no time at all.

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Ms. Pollitt seconded.

Resolution R25-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

Public Hearing

ORDINANCE NO. 59-2002 "AMENDING THE ZONING CODE AND ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SPRINGDALE, OHIO TO PROVIDE FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.70 ACRES ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRINGFIELD PIKE AND WEST KEMPER ROAD (CVS PROJECT)"

Mayor Webster said I respectfully request to be excused from the proceedings for this ordinance and the next one. I do own a piece of property that adjoins the subject project.

 

Steve Kelly of Bear Creek Capital said we are the preferred developer for CVS in Cincinnati and fourteen counties in Ohio. This is for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning at the northwest corner of Springfield Pike and Kemper Road. This project also includes two residential lots to the west. Mike Floyd, North American Signs and Joe Dillon, Civil Environmental Consultants are also with me. This site would be redeveloped to encompass a 10,880 square foot CVS pharmacy with access right in, right out onto SR 4, full access on West Kemper. The building would be somewhat removed from SR 4 with some frontage on Kemper Road. We have been before Planning Commission twice. We have a recommendation for approval with conditions. We think we can meet all those conditions except we have a request for one modification. You are seeing a building that meets the intent of the corridor district. We have done a lot of work with bringing a shingled roof style all the way around the building which will hide any mechanical units. The dumpster is fully enclosed. We think the landscape will fit very well on this corner. The areas on the frontage are irrigated. We have a buffer on the left side that we talked to and discussed with Planning Commission. We have modified that buffer from where we were at with Planning Commission. We think that is an effective buffer and meets the intent of the code, but not necessarily the strictest of standards. We would be asking Council to consider that with the modification so we can move forward and create a redevelopment on this corner and have that one modification.

Mr. Galster asked are these the same drawings that were the last drawings submitted to Planning Commission or have they been modified?

Mr. Kelly replied we have modified the plan. We do have the Planning Commission submitted plan.

Mr. Galster said the issue of asking Council to modify a stipulation of that Planning Commission has made a condition upon is not the right format to follow. Planning Commission has twenty-one different issues on this project, probably the biggest one being that buffer zone. I am not comfortable saying okay, Council, letís approve this for Planning Commission that this buffer will be okay. Usually what is supposed to happen is when an applicant comes before City Council with a plan that Planning Commission has forwarded to you, we ask that they keep it in the same format and same version that was last submitted to them. I donít know if the elevations they just passed out are the same elevations that were submitted to Planning Commission without going back into my files. Iíd like to go back to the last version that Planning Commission has seen as opposed to you guys seeing a new plan because that is the version that was recommended to Council with a 7-0 vote with conditions.

Mr. Kelly said I understand that. The elevations are the same. We do have the copy of the landscape plan that was submitted and reviewed by staff and Planning Commission and we have reviewed all twenty-one conditions. We are comfortable meeting twenty of those twenty-one conditions. The stipulation of the twenty-foot buffer is something that we have reviewed with staff. Itís our desire to have another plan that is modified.

Mr. Galster said that is something that you are welcome to bring to your next Planning Commission submittal. However, when you say you are comfortable meeting twenty of the twenty-one I think I can speak for Planning Commission members in saying that the one you are not comfortable with is the most critical one. We have to be careful looking at a different plan here tonight than what Planning Commission has approved for recommendation with conditions to this body. Mr. Schneider, is it proper for us to be looking at a plan that is different than what Planning Commission recommended?

 

Mr. Schneider replied the only thing Council is considering is what the recommendation of Planning Commission is with the conditions that they have approved. Council can approve that. They have the right to modify. They can change it, drop conditions, add conditions. They can make any modifications they wish and that is what will go back to Planning Commission for further consideration in the final plan. Council doesnít see it again.

Mr. Galster said so Council can make an additional condition to Planning Commission on its motion to approve the PUD.

Mr. Schneider stated they can make any change but it takes five votes to modify. Council can approve it as submitted by Planning Commission and the developer can go back to Planning Commission to seek modifications. If they are considered modifications at that point, and are considered by the members of Council on Planning Commission as more than a major change, they have to go through the process again.

Mr. Kelly said we are saying that plans have been submitted and there are a number of conditions on that plan of which we are very comfortable going back to Planning Commission and working out our final PUD which is very detail oriented. We think we have the right plan to do that.

Mr. Galster said my recommendation is that any recommendation for approval include all the conditions of Planning Commission and either addresses that buffer zone in great detail and/or makes it an additional stipulation to Planning Commission.

Mr. Danbury said because this was voted on 7-0 by the Planning Commission I think we should stick with that. If itís a negative vote from the Planning Commission then we need five affirmative votes from Council.

Mr. Kelly said I understand and I donít know if what we are talking about is a major modification but I did want to bring it up because it is important to what we feel is what our design intent and full plan presentation would be to City Council. We want to show you everything we have put together.

Mr. Danbury said we donít get into as much detail as Planning Commission or Ms. McBride and our staff. We just look at the overall concept and viability. I think thatís all we should consider.

Mr. Knox said Mr. Schneider is quite correct. Article 6.A.4 of the City Charter says any action of Council not in accordance with the recommendation of Planning Commission shall not be effective unless adopted by the Council upon an affirmative vote of at least five members of Council.

Mr. Wilson said I would like to see what was approved by Planning and secondly what you are proposing. Thatís not to say that Council will vote on it tonight but I want some information. I donít think itís fair to ask us to vote on something that Planning Commission has not thoroughly looked at.

Mr. Galster said the applicant has done a wonderful job of working with Planning Commission and staff in trying to address all the issues that have come up. I donít want to give it the spin that it hasnít been that type of arrangements. There has been a lot of give and take. I just want to make sure that if Council acts favorably on it tonight, that those conditions still stay intact until theyíve gone through a proper detail review.

Joe Dillon said probably the biggest challenge we face is the shape of the property. We have worked with staff and the City Engineer on access, storm water retention and drainage issues. Because of the L-shaped lot we were able to have a large landscape buffer in the corner which would work well with the Cityís plan for the SR 4 corridor district. It will also allow CVS to have parking close to the front door. It was a challenge to lay out this building with the limited space we had. That left us with approximately 6.5 feet of buffer between the existing residents and the proposed parking. There is a row of shrubbery along there. There would be a retaining wall in the back. We started with this arrangement because of truck access and leaving the lot. Working with staff and trying to meet this twenty foot buffer we had to make some modifications. In order to get twenty feet we had to move any plants on this side and have a double row of pine trees. This arrangement is dictated by truck access. There will be very little elevation difference between this property and our proposed. The buffer will screen this development from the house.

Mr. Danbury said with that modification that a truck should be able to make it.

Mr. Dillon responded it will be able to make it. It will be tricky and slow but it will work.

Mr. Galster said we have gotten the applicant to agree that any development that would happen down Kemper Road or Springfield Pike would have cross access and cross easements so that they flow of traffic would be able to go between the developments. They are also looking at a future access that brings traffic in behind the existing automotive and comes back out to SR 4. If that happens I believe the other entrance gets closed. The applicant right now has proposed a double drive-thru lane for their drive-thru pharmacy so when they say a truck should be able to make it in that buffer area, they are all intertwined. My feeling is that I want to know there is a buffer there and that the trucks can make it through over and above having two drive-thru lanes.

Mike Floyd, North American Signs, gave a presentation on signage.

Mr. Kelly said the signage has been worked over for a number of months and we think we have something that fits the needs and spirit with CVS and Springdale. We are looking for a recommendation to be able to go back to Planning Commission with a final PUD for approval of this preliminary PUD. We think itís a very good redevelopment of this corner and would be a good addition into Springdale.

Mr. Vanover asked what is the status of ownership of the properties?

Mr. Kelly said there are three properties, two are contracts to purchase and one is a pending contract to purchase. We are looking forward to a resolution this evening so we can move forward with the acquisition of all three properties.

Mr. Galster made a motion to approve Ordinance 59-2002 amending the Zoning Code and Zoning Map of the City of Springdale to allow for this development. Mr. Squires seconded.

Ordinance 59-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

Public Hearing

ORDINANCE NO. 60-2002 "APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD) OF APPROXIMATELY 1.70 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRINGFIELD PIKE AND WEST KEMPER ROAD (CVS PROJECT)"

Mr. Galster made a motion for approval of Ordinance No. 60-2002 based on the August 22, 2002 documents that were submitted to Planning Commission that Planning Commission reviewed and subsequently had miscellaneous twenty/twenty-one conditions of recommendations and conditions to that project and to make sure that those conditions and recommendations are included in this approval. Mr. Danbury seconded.

Mr. Danbury said I think this will be a very nice project and will fit in with everything the City is trying to accomplish. I think it will attract new business and help out our existing businesses. Iíd just like to remind Council that if Planning Commission cannot come to a resolution this may be a dead issue because what we are voting on right now was approved and submitted by Planning Commission. This is not 100% going to come in until all the different issues are cleared up.

Ordinance 60-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 66-2002 "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE

SPRINGDALE CODE OF ORDINANCES TITLE VII, CHAPTER 74, SECTION 74.23(D) PERMITTED OPERATION"

Mr. Galster made a motion to adopt with the corrected reading of the title to be Springdale not Springfield. Mr. Wilson seconded.

Ordinance 66-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 67-2002 "AUTHORIZING THE CITY LAW DIRECTOR TO FILE PETITIONS FOR APPROPRIATION OF PROPERTIES NECESSARY FOR THE ELM STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SHIPPS)"

Mr. Vanover made a motion to adopt and Mr. Squires seconded.

Mr. Schneider said we are working with Mr. Don Shipps and his attorney to work this matter out. I know they were discussing Mr. Shipps with us this evening and there have been discussions with Beth and Anne McBride on some potential future things and his need to have a storage area and fencing installed, but I think Mr. Coody is quite aware that we need this property and we cannot wait a significant length of time. It is subject to us taking it rather promptly and then if they do a redevelopment that would be up to Mr. Shipps. We are getting full cooperation and trying to pursue this short of filing suit.

Mr. Danbury said itís not pleasant doing this but if you look at the overall project we are trying to do, itís more viable for all the businesses that are located there. Itís going to be attractive and there are things like this that we have to stumble across every once in a while. We are doing all we can to help out every business that is here right now and any business that may come in the future.

Ordinance 67-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 69-2002 "AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE WITH RAKAN O. SHTEIWI AND LAILA SHTEIWI FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 369 PEACH STREET, SPRINGDALE, OHIO 45246, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"

Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.

Ordinance 67-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

ORDINANCE NO. 71-2002 "ACCEPTING A BID AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK OF COUNCIL/FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC., FOR THE SPRINGFIELD STATE ROUTE 4 AND SHARON ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY"

 

Mr. Squires made a motion to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded.

Ordinance 71-2002 passed with seven affirmative votes.

OLD BUSINESS

Mayor Webster read a proclamation proclaiming October 6 to October 12, 2002 Fire Prevention Week.

Mr. Galster said Cecil and I did go to the COMPASS Steering Committee Meeting that was held last week. We didnít get very far. By the time they did their presentation we got into the third on item on the first page. The next meeting is scheduled for October 23.

Mayor Webster said as Steve was giving his report I was trying to find Steveís summary of our meeting two weeks ago in which a lot of us expressed our concern with certain elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Steve did a marvelous job of putting all those thoughts together and preparing a multi-page document. He did such a great job that we really would like to see Steve continue to be involved in that process. Weíd like to see him and Mr. Osborn be the voting members. Up to this point it has been Mr. Osborn and Mr. Huddleston from Planning Commission, but we are asking Mr. Huddleston to relinquish his voting power to Mr. Galster. I think itís very important that we have an elected official casting a vote for the City of Springdale on this issue.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Schneider said Wood & Lamping is gathering new and slightly used books for the Books for Kids program to be used in homes where they donít have books for reading. The idea is to read to the child every day. I appreciate the City allowing me to put a box in the Community Center and Municipal Building. We collected quite a few books last year and would encourage you to bring childrenís books of any age.

Ms. Pollitt said Iím sure UC would support that greatly and Iíd been glad to have one of those in our building.

Mr. Knox said there is a request for a new liquor license for Ristorante Karlo, which will be located next to Bahama Breeze. There were no objections from Council.

Mr. Knox continued we have arranged to have a representative of the group known as Letís Get Moving, which espouses the light rail project. Following that we will have a gentlemen who is head of a group called ALERT who is opposed to the light rail project. They have promised to give short presentations, and then have a question and answer period.

Mayor Webster said Kathleen Raine, consultant for the Princeton School District would like to present a twelve-minute video.

MEETINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Board of Health - October 10

Board of Zoning Appeals - October 15

Planning Commission - October 8

COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE - none

UPDATE ON LEGISLATION STILL IN DEVELOPMENT - none

RECAP OF LEGISLATIVE ITEMS REQUESTED

Resolution accepting amounts & rates determined by - October 16

Budget Commission . . .

Council adjourned at 8:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Kathy McNear, President of Council

 

 

__________________________, 2002