President of Council Kathy McNear called Council to order on July 18, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.

The governmental body and those in attendance recited the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Knox gave the invocation.

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

The minutes of June 20, 2001 were approved with five affirmative votes. Mr. Wilson abstained.


Civil Service Commission - no report

Rules and Laws - no report

Public Relations Ė Mr. Danbury stated the newsletter went to press today and should be mailed out August 1.

Public Health, Safety and Welfare - no report

Public Works Ė Mr. Wilson said the work on the 2001 street program is substantially completed with the exception of the Chesterdale guard rail and some of the city-wide spot curb and full depth pavement repair. The project will be reviewed the week of July 30.

Public Utilities - no reports

Capital Improvements - Mr. Danbury reported the CSX SR747 grade separation schedule is the same as we have talked about. The project will be bid in September 2002 and construction will be from 2002 to 2004. The East Kemper Road improvements at SR 747 are basically complete with the exception of construction of the guard rail and hand rail near Princeton Plaza, several spot locations of sidewalk and the final top soil seeding and mulching. The Walnut and Pear Street improvements water main and storm sewer work is completed. Curb and sidewalk is 95% complete. Substantial completion of Walnut Street is scheduled for early August. The Springfield Pike streetscape Phase I plans will be sent to ODOT in September for review. Construction is next spring. Kemper Road Phase II old Commons Drive to Chesterdale Road detail plans will be completed this month. Right-of-way negotiations are scheduled to be completed in January 2002 with construction next spring. The West Sharon Road bike path Stage II approval will be in August; Stage III plan approval in September and final tracings submitted in November with construction next year. The Ross Park bridge replacement and parking lot resurfacing partially completed plans have been submitted to the City for review. We are looking at construction in October of this year. The park will be closed for vehicular traffic and construction will be completed by mid December. The Glensprings Drive culvert extension design has been completed. The area required for the project will most likely be acquired by warranty deed. The current project schedule is to have ODOT permit application in December, start construction in April, 2002 with completion in July 2002. We had another 100 year rain last night. I hope the design will be able to accommodate it.

Finance Report Ė Ms. Pollitt said we have a public hearing for the annual tax budget this evening.

Planning Commission Ė Mr. Vanover reported that they met July 10. There was a public hearing to reconsider the conditional use permit to allow a day care center at 11285 Springfield Pike. There was a lot of discussion and the required Planning material was finally put into place July 5, but did not allow our City Planner to get out and take sound readings. The tenant did have an individual go out and take readings and the readings were at or in excess of the maximum we had set. This was with a reduced number of children. A vote was taken to continue it and it passed 4-1. The public hearing will be continued in the August meeting. Shipps Yamaha requested approval of a back lit awning. It was approved 5-0. Tires Plus requested approval to change the roof cover. That was tabled due to no representation. Alexander Patterson Group, 12075 Northwest Boulevard, requested approval to place a trailer on the property from August 15 to September 30. That was tabled 4-0-1. There was a concept discussion of the proposed Pappadeaux Restaurant at Pictoria Island. It got several favorable comments and we expect to see them back shortly with final plans. Circuit City requested approval for revised building elevations. They are changing the facade. They have gone to a circular sign and itís a big improvement. That was passed 5-0. You should have in your packets the modifications to the tree preservation ordinance and the proposed zoning changes.

Mayor Webster said I would like to elaborate on the day care center. We have residents in the audience who are probably eagerly awaiting news of that. I think out of a sense of vanity that Mr. Vanover failed to mention the fact that he made a motion to revoke the conditional use permit. It was defeated by a vote of 2-3. After that the motion was passed to extend the public hearing for another thirty days, not only to allow Anne McBride to get sound readings, but also to allow the tenant and primarily the owner to completely comply with the other recommendations from Ms. McBride. It seems like an on-going saga but we ask the residents to please be patient. We havenít forgotten about you. Some members of the commission seem to be very sympathetic to your cause and are bound and determined that the day care center is going to comply with the conditions of the use permit that was granted to them a year and a half ago.

Mr. Wilson asked what is the theme of Pappadeaux?

Mr. Parham replied itís primarily a Cajun and seafood restaurant.

Board of Zoning Appeals Ė Mr. Squires stated Michael Kock, 11560 Walnut Street requested a variance to allow construction of an addition to his existing 10í x 12í barn. That passed with 6 affirmative votes. Jacqueline Rowe, 11775 Neuss Avenue requested a variance to allow a utility shed two feet from the property line. A concrete slab was already there. The variance was granted. Jerome Sharkey, 736 West Kemper Road requested a variance to allow the construction of 32- x 28í three-car garage. Thatís 896 square feet and the maximum is 700 square feet. After considerable discussion and realizing that he had torn down a previous garage that was 816 square feet because of its deteriorated conditions, a motion was made to deny this request. It was a 3-3 vote and tie would not give enough votes to pass it.

Board of Health - no report

O-K-I - no report

Mayorís Report Ė Mayor Webster read a letter from Kenneth D. Hughes, Chief of Police of Forest Park. It reads "Dear Mayor Webster and City Manager Osborn, I am writing to acknowledge Police Chief Michael Laage, the officers and staff of the Springdale Police Department for their assistance during the funeral visitation and services of Officer Charles McDonald June 13th and 14th. Their assistance was greatly appreciated, not only by our department, but also by our community and most importantly, the members of Officer McDonaldís family. The Springdale Police Department, under the guidance of Chief Laage, came to our aid at a time of great need. The inordinate amount of work necessary to conduct a police funeral overwhelmed our department at a time when we were grieving the loss of a very special officer. Your officers stepped in at the most opportune moment and served in our stead. Their poise and professional demeanor speaks well of the character of the Springdale Police Department. I must convey to you not only our sincere appreciation in behalf of our department, but of our community. Charles Jr., Ms. Laura Taylor, Officer McDonaldís fiancée, and Mr. and Mrs. Bunnie and Patricia McDonald, his parents, were in awe of the wonderful tribute given to their son and honored by the overwhelming support for their family. Where our profession is assailed in so many places across our country, I wanted to assure you that the public trust given to your officers by the citizens of Springdale is in good hands. The Springdale Police Department is a competent organization that embodies the tenets of the police profession. The men and women of your department exhibited an exemplary commitment to serving not just your community but ours as well. They are a valued and trusted friend of what we do. Please accept this as an affirmation of our admiration and gratitude for what your department has done. Respectfully, Kenneth D. Hughes"

Mayor Webster read a proclamation stating that September 17, 2001 marks the 214th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States of America and proclaiming September 17-23, 2001 as Constitution Week in the City of Springdale.

Mayor Webster announced the winners of the 2001 landscape awards. We are giving the Ketring family a special award called Outstanding Achievement and Community Beautification Award and allowing others to win the Fay Howard Memorial Award. We have also designated Cloverdale Avenue as the best landscaped street in the City. All the people who live there should be very proud to be living on that street. The winners are:


Area #1 Ė Beacon and Oxford Hills

Kenn Rd. (north of I-275)

1st Place 677 Coxbury Circle The White Family

2nd Place 12085 Greencastle Drive The Sherry Family

3rd Place 12030 Chardon Lane The Belcher Family

HM 850 Summerfield Lane The Roberts Family

HM 886 Clearfield Lane The Johnson Family

HM 12039 Cantrell Drive The Rausch Family

Area #2 Ė Springdale Lake Dr.

Ray Norris Dr.

Glensprings Area (including the five cul-de-sacs)

1st Place 737 Glensprings Drive The Sinks Family

2nd Place 12065 Springdale Lake Drive The Turner Family

3rd Place 675 Glensprings Drive The Hall Family

HM 667 Glensprings Drive Annie Greene

HM 689 Glensprings Drive The Stahlgren Family

HM 11809 Ashmore Court The Bassett Family

Area #3 Ė Cloverdale Area, Smiley, Park, and Allen

West Kemper (west of Route 4) (north side)

Kenn Rd. (south of I-275)

S.R. 4 (north of Kemper)

1st Place 616 Cloverdale Avenue The Laage Family

2nd Place 495 Cloverdale Avenue The Piening Family

3rd Place 467 Cloverdale Avenue The Reckner Family

HM 672 Cloverdale Avenue The Skirvin Family

HM 695 Cloverdale Avenue The Blankenship Family

HM 687 Cloverdale Avenue The Whitaker Family

HM 483 Dimmick Avenue Edna Poynter

HM 11677 Greenlawn Avenue The Hucke Family

HM 496 Cloverdale Avenue Harold Burkholder

Area #4 Ė Observatory Area, Grandin Area

Baldwin Subdivision

West Kemper (south side)

1st Place 563 Lafayette Avenue Otis Poindexter

2nd Place 562 Lafayette Avenue The Clark Family

3rd Place 518 Lafayette Avenue The Harper/Mastrullo Family

HM 367 Plum Street The Lutts Family

HM 519 Lafayette Avenue Kathryn Crockett

HM 595 West Kemper Road The Miller Family HM 560 Observatory Drive The Cain Family

Area #5 Ė Glenview Subdivision

Cameron Road Area

West Sharon Rd.

Olde Gate

1st Place and winner of the Fay Marion Howard Award Ė

486 Vista Glen The Swope Family

2nd Place 489 Vista Glen The Wolff Family

3rd Place 457 Rockcrest Drive The Hammel Family

HM 10901 Fallstone Drive The Davis Family

HM 263 Centerbury Court The Tholt Family

HM 10960 Fallstone Drive The Moore Family

Area #6 Ė Springdale Terrace Subdivision

Royal Oaks Subdivision

West Kemper (east of Rout 4)

1st Place 202 Diston Lane The Sayegh Family

2nd Place 11700 Lawnview Avenue The Butrum Family

3rd Place 11823 Van CleveAvenue The Buehler Family

HM 203 Harter Avenue The Shteiwi Family

HM 11825 Lawnview Avenue Rachel Bourne

HM 115 Silverwood Circle The Carroll Family

HM 11718 Lawnview Avenue The Connor Family

HM 150 Balsam Court The Gowans Family

Area #7 Ė Heritage Hill Subdivision

McClellans Lane

East Crescentville Rd.

1st Place 979 Pilgrim Place The Stover Family

2nd Place 877 Tivoli Lane The Farmer Family

3rd Place 815 Ledro Street The Dixon Family

HM 903 Ledro Street Flora McMannis

HM 922 Castro Lane The Janzen Family

HM 707 Ledro Street Robert Starkey

HM 11989 Tavel Court The Klemas Family


403 Vista Glenn Ė The Kettering Family




First Places

Maple Knoll Village 11100 Springfield Pike

Bahama Breeze 325 North Commerce Way

Executive Plaza III 135 Merchant Street (Managed by Duke Realty)

Honorable Mentions

Dave & Busterís 11775 Commons Drive

Arhaus 35 Tri County Parkway

Princeton Hill 30 Merchant Street

Mayor Webster said weíd like to have the winners come in August 15.

Clerk of Council/Finance Director Ė Mr. Knox stated we have received the Auditorís Report for last year. However, the State has not given final approval on it yet so we have not released it. It is quite good and you will be seeing it next month. As part of the submission to the State of Ohio, we now must submit a CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report) and Mr. Williams, our Finance Officer, would like to come to the next meeting and make a short presentation on the CAFR to explain what it contains and what it will tell you about the City of Springdale.

Administratorís Report Ė Mr. Osborn said we had a fairly significant rain event last evening. Between 11:00 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. we had a total of 3.59 inches. The first half hour we had 1.7 inches, the second, .99 and the third 1.43 inches in a half hour. Overall we had 4.3 inches for the entire storm. Thatís a very intense rainfall. Storm sewer systems are not designed for that intensity of rainfall, and as a result we had streets blocked by high water in numerous places throughout the City. Itís unavoidable because of the costs associated with designing larger storm sewers. Storm sewers are designed on a ten year storm curve, and events that are more frequent than a ten-year storm curve or have more than a ten percent chance of happening would exceed the capacity of the storm sewer system. We had a number of locations in the City where the streets were blocked because of high water. It tore up some of the parking lot at Princeton Bowl that had been damaged in an earlier rain event. . There was water in Princeton Bowl. Heritage Hill Elementary School had about six inches of water on it and it got in the building as well. At Hunterís Glen those lower line apartments were damaged. They had about three feet of water in them. The water was up to the top of the fence around the pool. Surprisingly, we had no calls to pump basements.

Mr. Osborn said we need to recognize the effort Forest Park has made in water retention. They have built a detention facility west of Walgreenís just across our boundary with Forest Park. Dave Butsch and I were both commenting today that, given the level of rainfall in the last two rain events, we were surprised that we have not seen a greater amount of high water on that tributary that comes down through Forest Park and along Northland Boulevard that eventually forms Beaver Run. We believe that is the result of the major detention basin that Forest Park has put in place. We appreciate their investment in that and it has certainly paid off for the property owners in Springdale.

Mr. Osborn continued I would like to introduce Linda Kohler. Linda and her husband own MLK Publishing and they just recently acquired the Suburban Press and Linda will be covering Springdale.




Mr. Knox said we have a letter from Cinergy. I will read the first paragraph and then do a summary of the rest of it. "This letter is to inform you that the Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company has an intent to file with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio an application relating to gas service. The application will propose an increase in the current rates and charges for natural gas service. The application will also propose an alternative rate plan for natural gas distribution." The basic charge for gas to residential customers is $5.24 at the present. They are proposing to increase it to $10 for each residence. Part of this money will go to pay for the replacement of 192 miles of gas mains which are bare steel gas mains that they have already done. They are also asking for an addition of $1 per month per household to replace more pipe. That will be for the year 2002. Thereafter, they will file on an annual basis because they intend to replace 10,000 miles of cast iron mains and some bare steel gas mains. Some of these mains date back to 1873. From experience, having worked in that field, these things are dangerous. You will find out that in older cities they have had problems with explosions so they really do need to be replaced. The basic increase, the first they have asked for in five years, is that they want to increase the price of natural gas by 5.7%. If the public has any comments please comment to the Public Utilities Commission because this will be filed with them before the end of the year.


Larry Jenkins, 362 Naylor Court, said I just want to reinforce some of the neighbors concerns relative to the day care center on Route 4. I know there has been some work done. My personal view is that the changes that have been made are in no way going to change the noise levels that we experience in our back yards on a daily basis. My overriding concern is one that I have expressed to the Planning Commission and that is the safety of the children. The outside hours for that day care end somewhere around 6:30 p.m. Last Thursday evening my wife and I drove past the day care center at 8:45 p.m. and there were 25 children in the parking lot on Rt. 4, no fences, and two supervisors. They knew they couldnít be out back because they knew the residents were going to call the police. Periodically, they are taking these children to Cameron Park. They walk them down Rt. 4 which has no sidewalk, then down Cameron Road, most of which has no sidewalk, the same road where the residents continue to complain about speeding cars to the point that the police have put up a sign periodically on that street that monitors your speed. I want everyone here to be aware that we are looking at a potential tragedy down there. If they are going to comply with the codes, fine. If they are going to be good neighbors, fine. But I question whether they are complying with the restrictions placed on them as a day care center.

Mr. Danbury said again, I hope you understand there is nothing Council can do right now. Itís in Planning Commissionsí hands. Just to make Council aware, there are no sidewalks to get to Cameron Park on Rt. 4. There are limited sidewalks as you go around on Cameron. There are a lot of cars that park there. Thereís a little hill there and cars cut through.

Mr. Jenkins said thatís a good point because cars coming over the hill canít see the people walking. People walking canít see the cars. Itís a dangerous situation.

Mr. Danbury said I can empathize with what youíre saying. Hopefully you can empathize with where we are. If there are no sidewalks there people will be walking in peopleís yards or they will brush against cars. Hopefully the owners will come to some kind of solution.

Mr. Jenkins said what I share with you tonight is not an every day thing. The kids are not at the park every day, but itís not going to take an every day situation for something to happen under the existing circumstances.

Mr. Vanover stated itís no secret how I feel about the situation down there. Mayor Webster brought forth that I did make a request that the conditional use permit be denied. Iím very tired of the situation down there. Itís been a game of last minute antics. Iím one of seven on that board. We are growing very weary of the situation. We finally did have representation at Planning Commission from the owner. It was his lawyer and he had no idea what was happening. Against my better wishes the Commission voted to continue the public hearing. I canít speak for the whole commission but I think it is coming rapidly to a conclusion. I would be very disappointed if it went any further because I think everyone is growing tired of the situation. You try to give everybody a chance and itís my personal opinion, I donít think itís going to happen. There has been resistance on the part of the landlord to do this. There has been in-fighting between them and the tenant. I for one am very tired and thatís why I took the action that I did. Weíre watching it closely. Itís going to be brought to a head real soon.

Mayor Webster stated the Administration and Building Department are somewhat limited to what they can do. We can try to enforce the restrictions that were placed on the owner as far as the operation of that day care center and try to make them comply. As far as the use of it, thereís not a whole lot we can do. I would like to ask the City Solicitor to do some research for us to see if they are operating within their authority. Are they operating properly to have kids outside? Are there any restrictions placed on them when they got their certification from the state? Are they allowed to have them outside with two people supervising 25 children? Are they allowed to take them off-site, transversing from the center to a park without sidewalks? I donít know and donít think there is any department in the City that would have a reason to know that. Itís not within our bailiwick to try to enforce that, but is there something we should be doing to help the state? Maybe they are not in violation but I think we owe it to these children to find out if things are being done the way they should be done.

Ms. Pollitt said Mr. Jenkins, I believe there is a ratio of six children to one adult in the toddler age group. There is also a licensing agency in Hamilton County that I think a lot of Mayor Websterís concerns could be addressed to. If there is not a sufficient number of workers out there for the children Iím sure the licensing agency would want to know that.

Mike Sharkey, 355 Naylor Court, said the original application was submitted to Planning Commission on February 29, 1999. Thatís 28 months. In 28 months time they canít seem to put a fence up. They canít seem to put the shrubbery up. How much longer do they need? You have given them all this time to do these things. I was under the impression that if you submitted a plan, these would be carried out before occupancy was to be permitted. Is this true? If so, why are all these children back in here?

Mr. Schneider responded this is really a matter before the Planning Commission and should be taken up with that body. These official here have no say in that. The code is as it existed at the time of application. A permit was issued pursuant to the code at that time. That is the obligation that property owner has to meet. I really think you have to raise those issues with the Planning Commission. I know that Council and the Mayor would like to see that issue resolved. We have no authority that Iím aware of to enforce the day care regulations of the state. Iíll be glad at the Mayorís request to respond to him and come up with what the enforcing agencies are, what the licensing requirements are, etc. But really thatís a matter to be taken up with the Planning Commission. They will make the decision based on what the law is.

Mr. Sharkey replied I understand that but you see my face at both places. Iíve been at Planning and Iíve been at Council meetings and I donít seem to get anywhere, no matter where I go.

Mr. Schneider answered I was present, as you know. Iíve been to site with you. I think the officials have taken the proper course here in considering all the facts before they make a decision and give a reasonable opportunity for compliance with the permit as issued. Thatís my opinion on it.

Mr. Sharkey said 28 months.

Mr. Schneider replied they had a right to operate there all that time.

Mr. Sharkey said but the things they were required in the very beginning, the original blueprints were not complied with.

Mr. Schneider asked what was not complied with.

Mr. Sharkey replied the shrubbery, the wall. There was supposed to be a four foot high wall.

Mr. Schneider responded I saw no four-foot high wall in the issue of the permit I saw.

Mr. Sharkey stated check the blueprints. Theyíre not on there.

Mr. Schneider replied that might be. That was not in the permit as issued.

Mr. Sharkey said the original print stated a four foot high interlocking wall. Then they were going to have a fence behind that and shrubbery behind that. Behind that would be more shrubbery.

Mr. Schneider said I would have to review that with the Building Department. I saw no requirement in the permit as issued that would require that.

Mr. Sharkey asked why?

Mr. Schneider replied because that was the permit that was issued to the property owner. I donít know why.

Mr. Sharkey asked why was it changed?

Mr. Schneider replied to my knowledge it wasnít changed. Itís what the permit is and what the authority was. There was a meeting in December as I understand and there was an effort to make a lot of changes then. That is something that will have to be reviewed from a legal point of view.

Mr. Vanover said I donít have the whole folder here. I think the wall Mr. Sharkey is talking about was originally supposed to be built for water detention and water direction. Somewhere the plan was deemed not necessary. Iím not sure the building officials are quite sure themselves. What brought us to where we are right now didnít really start happening until your notification. Then December 12, 2000 it was before Planning Commission. Thatís when the current requirements to replace dead evergreens, construct a six foot shadowbox, add additional plant material along the fence line and play area, and a site inspection was to be made once that was in place. We put the restriction of hours of operation to be Monday through Friday 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Outside play hours shall be limited to 9:30 a.m. to noon and 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Sunday hours shall be limited to 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. with inside use of the facility only. Saturday hours are not permitted. The sound attenuation shall be installed as recommended by the City Planner. It shall keep everything below a 65 decibel limit and follow up readings shall be done on two occasions within 90 days after installation and 95% compliance shall be reached at the 65 decibel level. A certified letter was sent out March 30, 2001 which stated the plantings and fencing must be installed no later than April 30. And here we are. Iím extremely aggravated and frustrated that itís this flurry of eleventh hour. They didnít get the material planted until July 5. Our City Planner couldnít get people out there for sound readings. The tenant had somebody take a series of readings. Tests were run on July 5 at 10:00 a.m. with the temperature at 78oF. They monitored the levels at the same nine locations at what the City Planner had done while group 1 and group 2 were in the play area. The only time that the noise level at the property line went over an ambient of 50 decibels was when a child screamed and it was for a duration of 1 to 2 seconds. Screams ranged from 62 at station 1 to 68 at stations 2, 3, and 4. For group 2 the range for station 2 was from an ambient of 55 to 68 and then only when there was a scream from a child; from station 3 from 55 to 65 at a scream; and station 4 was from 58 to 68, again only when a child screamed. The other stations were well within the ownersí property range from 50 decibels to a high of 75 at station 8 which is right against the fence at the play area, again when a child screamed. During this time frame we queried them about their numbers and their number of students was down during that week approximately 15-20%. The City Planner did not have a physical chance to get out there and get readings because of the lateness of them getting in. This is the frustration factor that you are aware of that is where I am, and other members of Planning Commission are there. I donít think they are going to be able to comply. They have dragged their feet and played a game for quite a while. Iím tired of it but in all honesty they are trying to be fair with the business. You hate to see any business fail but my feeling is, if they canít be a good neighbor, thatís not our problem. Weíve given them the guidelines that they have to live to and we have been more than fair.

Mr. Sharkey said they were specifically told how these shrubs were supposed to be planted. They planted them totally wrong. Now we get another extension. How many extensions are they going to get?

Mr. Vanover replied I canít speak for all of Planning Commission but my vote and my actions of last month were that my grace period is up. I know there is growing frustration on the board but they are trying to be fair to all parties. Iím very certain that things are coming to a rapid conclusion, one way or the other. We told them, even with these conditions, if that does not solve the problem, that does not mean thatís the end of it. We have to have a solution. If this money spent solves it, fine. If it doesnít, then something else has to be done. Weíre at the point now that we have to allow the City Planner to get in and make the sound readings and report back to us. The material was not of the height that we had stated. It was not of the spacing we had stated. I canít speak for the tenant or the owner. In my mind, it is not too hard. If you say something is supposed to be on four foot centers, itís four-foot centers. It reads "plant material, minimum ten foot high shall be planted along the west fence line of the play area. Most of that came in between five and six feet. I feel the aggravation and frustration. I can only hope that Planning Commission sees the situation as it is and goes on.

Mr. Danbury said for those of you who came tonight and those watching, this isnít just a bunch of angry people who want to hoot and holler about things. Itís about citizens who want to enjoy a quality of life in their homes. When they bought their homes there was no day care there. It was an office building. The problem arose when a tenant came in and wanted to have a business. Everybody has a right to have a business but that business has to adhere to certain rules. The stance I would encourage you to convey to Planning Commission is eliminating noise from the residential area is not unprecedented. If you recall, about six years ago we had a number of citizens come out complaining about some of the problems we have with the car dealerships and paging. They had outdoor speaker systems. The City took a stance and we relayed the message through a letter that we request them to eliminate the noise. One car dealership did that within seven days and the other dealership took care of the matter. Mr. Schneider, is this a site license that we had, the conditional permit for a designated area, or is it for any area on the property they are leasing?

Mr. Schneider replied I donít have the plans here so I donít really know that. Mr. McErlane is the one who is knowledgeable in that area. I donít know if they are beyond the limits that they have. They have the right to be in the area in the rear. Iím sure there must be some access through the front. They must have the right to be in the front of the building at some time. Whether they can gather there or not, I donít know. Again, thatís regulation of a day care facility. The building permit was allowed for a day care facility there. When it was first issued there were certain requirements. To my knowledge there was no wall requirement. There were requirements to provide for proper drainage of the site. That was accommodated without a wall. To my knowledge there was no requirement that the operator of that business had to put a four-foot wall there. Iíve heard that several times from several sources. I have found nothing to support that.

Mr. Danbury said the reason I ask is that Mr. Jenkins told me last Sunday that they didnít have children in the back. They had them in the front. My understanding is that there are some issues that we outlined for them to eliminate noise. In essence, they eliminated the noise but they moved them out there. Iím not saying we should pick on them but I believe whatís happening is that to accommodate their own goals of profit, I think they are putting the children in danger. If they have two people out there monitoring how many kids itís an issue that could be dangerous. If they are walking down Route 4 going to Cameron Park, there is nothing wrong with that, but they are still in violation if they are on the property.

Mr. Schneider stated that would have to be a possible violation of their day care license. The best source for those who witness that would be to contact the licensing agency and the enforcing agencies to make them aware of the issue. There is nothing that Iím aware of that we can do to regulate or license a day care center. We have a zoning permit that has been granted that allows the operator to operate within the requirements as set out at the time the permit was issued.

Mayor Webster said, Mr. Sharkey, I think you have some very good questions and I would encourage you to ask those same questions to Planning Commission on August 14. I think they need to hear first hand from the residents. You guys have been more than tolerant. Twenty-eight months is too long for a situation to go unresolved. Different issues have surfaced along the way so we havenít been dealing with the same issues for twenty-eight months. Still in all, the series of issues we are dealing with now have dragged on far, far too long. I think Planning Commission needs to hear that the residents of the community want some action, want something done about it. They are the only ones that can make that happen.

Mr. Vanover said Mr. Jenkins, I would encourage you to bring up the point about the children being outside. Planning Commission put the limitation of outside play areas to 9:30 a.m. to noon and 2-4:30 p.m. Thereís nowhere where it says in the back play area. I think that should be brought forward to them.

Mrs. McNear said I think we have all grown very weary of this topic and I appreciate your patience and professionalism that you have brought these topics to the Council week after week. I hope we have a conclusion at the next meeting. Thank you for coming in again.

Jerome Sharkey, 746 West Kemper Road, said I was here last night and I was denied my variance for my garage. I just want Council and the Mayor to know that I donít think Iíve been treated fairly. Number 1, all Iím trying to do is improve my situation with all my vehicles, lawn equipment. I donít want to go into what I went into last night because it would take too long. I want to build a garage to keep my cars, lawn equipment, bicycles, everything else separate. At this point I have six vehicles. Soon it will be five. I want three of them kept in a garage, not with bicycles, lawn equipment, etc. The vote was 3-3 and Iím automatically denied. Is that fair? Iím trying to improve the value of my property. My property only has one bathroom. But a good selling point on a house would be a three-car garage. The storm sewers did work well last night, but unfortunately, two years ago when they put them through in front of my house, my seventy plus year old trees were killed. Now I have ten-foot trees in my yard, one of which is dead now. The other two that remain are crooked and one is not healthy. As these trees died, that depreciated the value of my house. I bought my house for two reasons. It had a nice big garage and it had nice big full trees. I donít have my trees now. The City has worked with me a little bit on getting my trees replaced, but again, I have another deadline. When I get my new trees it will be two years since this happened. I just donít think I have been treated fairly by the zoning board. Obviously, somebody wasnít against it.

Mr. Squires said as I explained to you last night, Mr. Sharkey, that was an extremely difficult decision. I tried to convey to you that the board in no way is a vindictive board. It never has been and never will be. A 3-3 tie by the rules that we operate just denies it. There was one member absent and with that member there it couldnít possibly have been 3-3. There was a motion made to reconsider. By that time it was too late because you were out of Council Chambers.

Mr. Sharkey stated I was denied.

Mr. Squires replied that doesnít mean we couldnít have reconsidered the variance.

Mr. Sharkey said I was told it would be six months before I could resubmit plans.

Mr. Squires stated but the motion to reconsider the whole thing could have been brought up again. Maybe with some more arguments you would have prevailed. I donít know. Iím sorry that you felt you were being treated unfairly. I think I can speak for the whole board in saying that as members we donít feel that way, but we can certainly understand why you are upset. I think it was Mr. Wilson who tried to explain to you if you would possibly withdraw or table your variance request and give us a chance to really look at this; perhaps, go out and come on your property. I didnít go on the property. I drove by it.

Mr. Sharkey asked why didnít you?

Mr. Squires replied I donít know, I donít have an excuse. Had I done so maybe I would have felt differently. As Mr. Wilson tried to point out if you had tabled this you would have avoided the six months to resubmit. Nobody on the board really wanted you to do that.

Mr. Sharkey said there is a house four houses down from mine on the same side of the street that has a garage twice as big as the one I want to build. They just built it. There have been other garages built in this City in the last two years as big as what I want. I understand the ordinance has been changed but they still had to get a variance.

Mr. Squires responded that is true. You mentioned that and it is all part of the record. A lot of the board members, including me, felt like they would like to talk to that individual. We certainly want to work with you on this item and see if we couldnít come to some conclusion. You said all along that you could not live with anything less than 896 square feet.

Mr. Sharkey replied I have already planned out exactly how I want to use it. I want to put up shelves. I have a tool box that is valued at over $800. Itís a giant tool box. To open the drawers on it would take up five feet. I explained all this last night.

Mr. Squires answered we understand your needs. But the point is I really feel terrible that you feel you were treated unfairly. Nobody on the board wants you to feel this way. Nobody on Council wants you to feel that way. We respect all of our citizens. We really want to see if we canít come to some compromise, something they can live with. I would like to talk to that homeowner that you mentioned last night. You said his garage is bigger than what you wanted. You want 896 square feet. In the history of my being on the Board of Zoning Appeals, I donít recall granting a variance for that.

Mr. Sharkey stated next time I am here I will have pictures of all the garages that were built in the last two years in the City.

Mr. Squires said we want to work with you. We will do that. We want to do that. I can speak for the board to the fact that you do feel like you were being treated unfairly.

Mr. Wilson said I am going to bring a couple of things to light that Mr. Sharkey did not mention. I did visit his site and we had conversations last night about this. When he bought the property it was not in the best repair so he fixed it up. The garage, as he indicated last night, was in total disrepair. He showed us pictures of it. He tore it down and initially I thought he said he was building something smaller. The prior building was 816 square feet and he was building one 896 square feet. We looked at the garage that was next door to him which was maybe smaller but had an apartment on it. All of this was built prior to the zoning change. He alluded to a friend of his that several years ago had built a garage 896 square feet and he was using the same blueprint. I was the bad guy last night because we were at a stalemate and someone had to do something so I said I vote to deny. If the vote goes that way itís denied. If itís a tie itís denied. If itís overruled he gets his wishes. The zoning change is quite clear. Eight hundred ninety-six feet will not get it. Mr. Sharkey mentioned all the things he wanted to put into the garage and try to justify the need for that size garage. I offered him three opportunities to sit down with the Building Department and try to work out a smaller plan that would be more agreeable with the City. He chose not to do that. I did mention to him that if it was denied it would be six months before he could reapply. I asked him three times would you table it and talk with the Building Department and see if something can be worked out. He opted not to do that and said go ahead and vote. So we did. I mentioned to him that I had a problem about approving a building of that size and setting a precedent that would allow anyone in the City of Springdale to build a garage and try to justify it at that size. I have a problem with setting precedents of that type. When he tore down the garage he was now subject to the new zoning laws. He was over 196 square feet. As a board member I felt that was too much of an exception and made a motion to deny to try to get things going so that everyone would vote. If they vote 4-2 in his favor then that was going to be the way it was. But it turned out to be 3-3 last night because one of our board members was absent. It could have gone 4-3 in his favor or 4-3 the other way. To say just because this person got away with a larger garage we should accept the same thing again defeats the purpose of having zoning laws. That rationale I found unacceptable. I can understand the need for that type of garage based on the items he wanted to put in it. He mentioned family items coming from out of state storage. The bottom line was it was just too big and we had to say enough is enough. I can understand how Mr. Sharkey feels but I can also look at whatís going to happen in the City if we allow this to happen and thatís why I voted the way I did. I was hoping that Mr. Sharkey would look at some other alternatives before he decided to move out of our city as he has indicated he would do. I still hope you will take advantage of the opportunity to talk with our Building Department and see what kind of revision you can do that will be acceptable to both you and the City. As I mentioned to you earlier and last night, the tree situation gave you some bad feelings about the City and the City wanted to work with you. I personally feel in this situation, with two Council members and three board members, a total of four board members encouraging you to go to the Building Department if that was your choice, and Mr. Lohbeck there, there would be a better working arrangement between you and the City. Mr. Lobheck was talking about less than 700 square feet. You are close to 900. Somewhere in the middle maybe we can reach an accord. Thatís what I wanted to do for you and the board wanted to do for you, to work with you and hope between the City and you, you could reach an accord. Thatís why I went at you three times to say, in my own way I was saying donít make us vote because it didnít look good. Give yourself and the City an opportunity to work together. Your response was to vote and thatís what we did.

Ms. Pollitt asked Mr. Sharkey, when were you planning to do the construction on your garage? Mr. Sharkey replied August. Ms. Pollitt asked is there any way that can be reviewed? Apparently it was an emotional meeting last night and he left before it could be reconsidered.

Mr. Schneider replied Iíd have to check the specific regulations but Iím sure if he was told itís six months, itís six months whether it was one vote or five votes against.

Ms. Pollitt asked is that for any type of decision?

Mr. Schneider replied thatís for any decision by the board.


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

Mr. Osborn said we would encourage Council to favorably consider this ordinance. The need results from the workload presently levied on the Assistant City Administrator. When we first recruited an Assistant Administrator the two areas of concentration for that job were human resources and risk management. When Derrick Parham came on board and Mayor Websterís tenure began there was a real desire to see us become more aggressive in the area of economic development. We set that out as a goal but because of the time demands on Mr. Parham, particularly from human resources, that has not matured to the point that we want to see it go. Presently more than 50% of his time is taken up by human resources responsibilities. By shifting that area to another party, that will allow us to have Mr. Parham devote a big percentage of his time to economic development. I have mentioned in the past that years ago Springdale used to be able to stand pat and let people come to us and weíd be able to say okay, you, you and you, not you, etc. We could be very selective. We arenít in that situation any longer. We are in a very competitive market. There are green fields further out at less cost in terms of property. As a result it is harder and harder for us to compete. We have vacancies in key locations throughout the City. We have some economic development plans that are presently unfolding, such as Pictoria Island. We feel someone has to have ownership for this area and that will be the Assistant City Administrator. For human resources, presently we have authorization for 122 full-time people, 46 part-time people and 40 seasonal people. If you convert that to full-time equivalents, thatís approximately 148 full-time equivalents. In addition to that, we have two labor unions that are organized and recognized by the City and with which we negotiate on a regular basis. Given the workload we believe that there is justification for a Human Resources Director, but in order to take on other duties such as risk management and other specific tasks as they become matter of need, we also want to have the position carry the title of Assistant to the City Administrator. The individual in many cases would be representing the City on issues not related to human resources directly in forums involving other public agencies. We feel that the title of Assistant to the City Administrator would be more representative of the position that the person brings to the table. With that, we would encourage Councilís favorable consideration of this ordinance. Iím sure Mr. Parham has a great deal of thought on the matter too but I donít want to put him on the spot. If youíve been in his office I think you can appreciate that the guy has a lot on his plate right now and frankly, itís one of those situations where you have a good competent worker the tendency is to go back to the person more and more. I really know that we have reached the point of total saturation for Mr. Parham. In fact, we overloaded him some time ago and this is the most appropriate way to resolve that situation.

Ordinance 39-2001 passed with six affirmative votes.

Public Hearing


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

Mr. Osborn said this is an exercise we are required to do by both state code and our local charter. The exercise is to do an evaluation of the revenue stream that we can expect for the forthcoming fiscal year 2002. We have to file a projection of revenues with the County Budget Commission by a specific date in July. They then approve those projections if they feel they are accurate and then issue what is called a budget certificate setting out the approval for the projections. We then take that and the actual budget process that will begin in September. We will work through a five-year budget and a very detailed annual budget that will come before Council in December. The process is fairly routine. The expenses for this exercise were taken directly from either the current annual budget or from the existing five-year budget; the same for revenues.

Mr. Knox said I would like to commend Mr. Osborn, Mr. Parham and Mr. Williams on the work they did on this. A lot of people will turn out things like this and itís a piece of blue sky. They worked very hard at it and made it as precise as you can at this stage of the game. There were some changes made in order to meet some of the new requirements that the state has. This is a good document and I certainly recommend the approval of it by Council.

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

Resolution R6-2001 passed with six affirmative votes.



Mr. Danbury asked Mr. Parham, do you want to visit with Council what you and I discussed?

Mr. Parham said what Mr. Danbury is making reference to is we have been trying to present images on the projection screen here in Council Chambers. If you were here for the Planning Commission meeting there was a lot of feedback and a lot of noise. The system we have is the system that was installed when the building was constructed. I hope to provide Council with a report on the system for the first of August and then discuss it in more detail once you have had a chance to review the information. If there are any questions we can discuss them before or at the August 15 meeting.

Mr. Knox said I believe we have a liquor license. Itís a name change from Bistros of Ohio to Bistros of Ohio and Kentucky. There were no objections.

Mayor Webster said I received a correspondence from the City of Forest Park dated June 22. They are urging us to pass a resolution to recommend, encourage and support the Hamilton County Park District in taking immediate action to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to cull the deer population in the Winton Woods area and bring about a safer balance with the environment. I donít know Councilís feelings on this but I would certainly encourage Council to consider a resolution such as this.

Ms. Pollitt said we have deer in our back yard now.

Mr. Knox said for those people who love deer I should mention that I have been seeing quite a few more deer, but the ones I am seeing are so much smaller. The population is getting to the point that Iím afraid disease will break out. I would support this.

Mrs. McNear said I donít think anybody likes to think about what we have to do to reduce that population but what becomes really frightening is that these deer are not just sneaking into our yards and eating our roses and tomato plants in the middle of the night. They are outside at 3:00 in the afternoon. They are not afraid of people any more and they are so hungry that they are coming in regardless of the fact that there are people around. The population should be culled.


Swim Team Championships - July 23 & 24

800 swimmers, timers & parents. Pool will be closed to public.

Cameron Park Concert Ė Impact - July 25, 7 p.m.

Bike Safety Program at 5 p.m.

Mr. Osborn said you might want to check out the electric vehicle that the Police Department has acquired. When Chief Laage approached us about acquiring the vehicle, we told him if he could get the funding, then take a shot at it. He did and the vehicle was paid for through various grants.

Amphitheater - Ooh la la & the Greasers August 8

Teen Pool & Dance Party August 17

Pizza and DJ

Annual Community Yard Sale August 18, 10 a.m. -2 p.m.

Recycle days Ė bring in old paint cans, tires, batteries, etc.

Booths available for residents

Ladies Day at the Pool August 29, 12-3 p.m.

Fall/Winter Sports Sign-Ups September 8, 9:30 a. m. -3:30 p.m.

September 11, 7 Ė9 p.m.

Mrs. McNear said I have a couple of letters from the Planning Commission. One is a recommendation for revisions to the Springdale Zoning Code. There is also a recommendation for the Tree Preservation Ordinance. A public hearing will be held September 19, 2001.

Ms. Pollitt asked if the junior Olympics is still held.

Mr. Osborn said that will be in September.


Mr. Danbury made a motion that Council go into executive session as a committee of the whole to discuss possible real estate acquisition and personnel matters. Mr. Vanover seconded.

Council went into executive session at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m.


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

Ordinance 40-2001 passed with six affirmative votes.




Public hearing for Tree Preservation Ordinance

Public hearing for Zoning Code Revisions

Resolution for support of Forest Park requesting action by Hamilton County Park District on deer population

Council adjourned at 10:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,




Edward F. Knox

Clerk of Council/Finance Director

Minutes Approved:

Kathy McNear, President of Council



__________________________, 2001