11 FEBRUARY 2003

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Councilmember Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston, David Okum,

    Robert Sherry, Councilman Tom Vanover

    And Chairman Syfert

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Chairman

    Mr. Galster nominated Bill Syfert and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Syfert was elected by acclamation.

    Vice Chairman

    Mr. Galster nominated Dave Okum and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Okum was elected by acclamation.


    Mr. Coleman nominated Bob Sherry and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Sherry was elected by acclamation.

  8. Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes and one abstention (Mr. Sherry).

    1. Report on Council – Steve Galster
    2. Mr. Galster stated that there haven’t been a lot of Planning related items. To give you an update on the CSX grade separation at 747 and the 275 ramp project, it has been ongoing for the last 15 years and was due to continue for another five years. The bids were opened, contracts awarded, and the contractor was mobilizing to the site, when CSX decided that they wanted to do more of the construction than what they had originally agreed to do and what they originally had asked to be in their scope. Basically they went from an $800,000 contract to $1.8 million.




      11 FEBRUARY 2003

      PAGE TWO

      V A REPORT ON COUNCIL – continued

      Mr. Galster added that there needed to be some ability to find out the cost consequences to the change. Instead of letting the contractor mobilize to the site and be set up for back charges, the state decided to cancel the contract. This has delayed the project for at least another year. We also have talked with the state and other people who have come up with the funding on this project to make sure that those funds remain available and looking for additional funds to offset the rising costs. We would hope next year to start construction.

    3. Zoning Bulletin – November 10, 2002
    4. Zoning Bulletin – November 25, 2002
    5. Zoning Bulletin – December 10, 2002
    6. Zoning Bulletin – December 24, 2002
    7. Zoning Bulletin Index 2002
    8. Zoning Bulletin – January 10, 2003
    9. Zoning Bulletin - January 25, 2003
    10. Planning Partnership Annual Report – 2001
    11. Planning Partnership Brochure – "Friends"
    12. Planning Partnership Update – December 2002
    13. Planning Partnership – Vision for Hamilton County
    14. Planning Partnership Annual Meeting – 4/7/03
    15. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – November 19, 2002
    16. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – December 17, 2003
    17. 11/18/02 Letter from William Syfert to Kathy McNear, President of Council re Amendment to Regional Planning Commission Planning Partnership Bi-Laws
    18. Planning Commissioners Journal – Winter, 2003

Mr. Syfert said I wanted to compliment Mr. Huddleston and his committee on the annual report and the various publications. I think the communication to the members is quite good.

Mr. Huddleston said this is a good news/bad news situation. The communication is good, but it is laborious to read it all. I appreciate the fact that it is being read to some degree. They are genuinely trying to make a difference and get collaboration between jurisdictions. The Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission approved the Vision Statement. Steve has had some good input in this.

Mr. Okum reported that the Board of Zoning Appeals is in the process of reviewing the BZA Guidelines, which had not been done for some time. Mr. Galster commented the BZA Minutes reflected some pretty good discussion on the garage sizes, and I wanted to let you know that as a member of Planing, Council and as a resident of the City, we appreciate their holding steadfast to some of these issues. Some of these projected garages are larger than probably 50% of the homes of the city.








    11 FEBRUARY 2003


    1. CVS Pharmacy, 11601 Springfield Pike – Final PUD Development Plan
    2. Mr. Syfert commented it says Final PUD Development Plan, but I question whether this will be final or not.

      Steve Kelly of Bear Creek Capital said we are in for the Final PUD Development Plan approval. With me are Joe Dillon of Civil Environmental Consultants, Mike Floyd of North American Signs and Bob Blackert of Bear Creek Capital.

      We have three separate properties that we are dealing with. We have been having discussion with the owners of Bings. We have had a property owner pass away and have been working on our applications and getting affidavits signed.

      We have received the staff comments and as I understand it, we have two pieces of this puzzle. One is the final development plan application for the property, which consists of the Hunley parcel and the Zugg parcels; that is the CVS site. Then we have a third part of it which is the Bings property, where we are showing an access drive going through that property as well as an off premise sign.

      As I understand staff’s comments, we would need a Conditional Use Permit, which we will need to make application for and will be

      Part and parcel of this final development plan. Right now we have permission, but we don’t have an application on file.

      We have talked about a lot of these issues and have tried to develop a final plan for approval by Planning, addressing as many of these comments as possible. We have the elevations and I have an aerial photo on which we superimposed our site plan, which is of some value. We have been studying it as we have had our negotiations with the property owners. I don’t know if we are in a position to request final plan approval until we have that third part, the Conditional Use application. My feeling is that we would request to be tabled this evening. I would ask Planning if there is any valuable discussion that we should be having tonight regarding what we have submitted in anticipation of trying to finalize and formally get this application complete. One thing that might be of value would be the buffer to the west with CVS. We have talked about it and gone back to our drawing board and tried to address that. Also, if there are any comments on the access we have going out to the north of the site to State Route 4, we could do that this evening. Otherwise, I would ask that we table this application.

      Mr. Syfert responded as I see it, staff did not have adequate time to really address the issues that were presented to us. They came in a little on the late side. I don’t know what the rest of Planning Commission’s opinion is, but I for one would just as soon this be tabled.






      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      Mr. Galster added staff not only did not have time to review it properly, but at the same time we asked them to jump through hoops to present us with something here tonight. So let’s not do it this way next month. That is my concern. I want to make sure that they have the proper time to review it in detail and not have anything left out.

      As far as whether or not there needs to be discussion, I have a couple of general questions. In your view, is the project contingent upon getting that Bings access? Mr. Kelly answered that it is. Mr. Galster responded so there is no need to review the site without that. So there will be a need to table, but I would like some discussion before we table it.

      I have some concerns that I want you to be aware of before the next meeting. One is if we are going to have that north access, what happens to the southern access on Route 4? I am worried about sight distance issue on that driveway, and the buffer zone to the west. I also will be concerned about the three monument signs. If we were going to make that the main access drive, I would like to see the sign on the corner eliminated, if you are going to have the off-site sign. I would like to keep that corner as clean as we can, and get back down to two monument signs.

      I would like to compliment you on following through on the different bases that we talked about to improve the monument sign; it is appreciated.

      The issues will be the sight distance, the off-site signage, what happens to the other entrance on Route 4, and the west property line.

      Mr. Okum said I wouldn’t want to come here this evening and not give staff an opportunity to at least comment about the issues that need to be brought to our attention and to the applicant’s attention prior to the next meeting. If staff has ample time to do the review and you get your information in to them adequately, you should be able to answer all of the questions prior to the meeting.

      I did not think the fence detail was adequate. I don’t know what that drawing means. Architecturally I can read it, but visually I can’t, so I would like specific detail on the fencing.

      I agree with Mr. Galster concerning the buffer yards. If the north entrance is an issue, we do have a situation where we have to deal with the buffer yards as well.

      I would be very concerned about the grade issue we discussed because we had a wall on the backside that needed to go on the one section. Does this access road require walling to create the roadway? Those kinds of things will need to be resolved prior to the next meeting.




      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      Mr. Okum added that the other item I had concerns the existing retail center that would stay there. When that gas station on the corner comes down, right now there is a blank block white wall that you see. A very important aspect is how this business positions itself on the site. It is unfortunate that they have to deal with that, but they have decided to place the business there. Since that business becomes an exposure, it would need to be dealt with.

      Mr. Okum said there are detailed drawings here for the sprinkler system with no maintenance indicated. I would like that included in the covenants. I have seen the other CVS facilities, and I have some concerns about how their landscaping is taken care of.

      The other item is the right in right out on Kemper Road. The detail doesn’t show it, but it appears that there has been an adjustment to that curvature, (across from Van Arsdale) so that if you wanted to cheat and go left, you could. The one going in off State Route 4 is not like that.

      Mr. Shvegzda asked if he were talking about the severity of the radius. Mr. Okum answered yes, it appears like that on LS-1. We would certainly want to make sure that it is truly a right out. I don’t want it so narrow that a car can’t negotiate it, but I also don’t want it to enable someone to make a left turn there.

      Mr. Kelley said one of Don’s comments relative to that intersection was that there needs to be a true radius on Kemper Road in that area, rather than just two tangents. Maybe that will straighten out that exit.

      Mr. Shvegzda said there is always the possibility of somebody attempting the left turn in a right in and right out, and without the placement of a concrete barrier along the center line, it is impossible to totally prohibit it, but we’ll take a look at it to see if there are any other issues on geometrics that we need to encompass in that.

      The item that Steve was mentioning on the curve line along the north side of Kemper, it has an angle in it. It doesn’t have a radius, and they just need to add that 300-foot radius. That is what we were concerned about regarding how that would affect the apron detail and everything else. We’ll take a look to see if that helps or hurts the situation.

      Mr. Sherry said I agree with the comments, but I have another question of staff? He spoke of a Conditional Use Permit for this access road, which I don’t understand. Shouldn’t that be rolled into the overall approved plan and handled that way instead of a Conditional Use Permit?.

      Ms. McBride responded my staff comments indicated that the property to the north (Bing’s) is zoned for single family residential, and if we re going to access a less restrictive district through a more restrictive district, it requires a Conditional Use Permit and approval by this commission.


      11 FEBRUARY 2003

      PAGE SIX


      Ms. McBride added that in addition to that, the fact that there is an off premise sign that is also to be located within a residential district would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Those are the two exact same processes that the Church of Nazarene went through several months ago.

      With regards to the PUD, there is a final plan before the commission this evening. Whether or not the commission chooses to amend the plan to include the access to the north and the modification to the western boundary property line, you or the members of Council have to determine whether or not that is a significant change to the plan.

      Mr. Sherry wondered if the Conditional Use Permit was the recommended form as compared to rezoning the property? Ms. McBride answered that is the form that is most available to the applicant. We didn’t receive the application from the owner; we received a letter from them consenting to the access drive. The applicant will have to provide the forms before the next commission meeting. One of the things that staff has discussed is whether or not it makes more sense to rezone the Bing’s property to accommodate that. It is a non-conforming use as it is today and now we would be granting a conditional use with the non-conforming use.

      One of the things that staff will be looking at and asking the applicant for is how this proposed access drive would affect the existing non-conforming use in terms of square footage and seating and parking etc. That is information we will need as part of their resubmitted.

      Ms. McBride reported that there are minor issues on the landscaping plan. There still needs to be additional planting around the foundations of the signs, and they don’t want to switch out those leatherleaf vibernum, and that will have to be done.

      One of the conditions of approval that both Planning and Council made was that the western property boundary must meet both the dimensional requirements (20 feet) and the visual buffering, which is a combination of landscaping and fencing and so forth.

      Several months ago, the applicant discussed with you the fact that they had modified their plans so they could hit the 20 feet at some points but they couldn’t at others. They are still at 6.5 feet for a significant area of the north portion of the western property line.

      Staff has suggested going down to one drive through lane and maintaining the escape lane. That would add about 10 feet to that area, which would make it a lot closer to 20 feet. I think the Commission needs to decide whether or not that is a significant change, bearing in mind that both Planning and Council approved that specifically that the requirements of Section 153.608 be met.

      The photometric lighting plan was resubmitted. They hit the zero foot-candles both to the north and west, which was a concern because both of those properties are still zoned residential.


      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      Ms. McBride added that we also have a requirement that you have to have .5 foot candles in the parking area. They are not able to hit that throughout the parking area. However, the areas that they don’t hit it close to Springfield Pike are not counting in the streetlights, so staff doesn’t have a problem with the photometric lighting plan as submitted. They did indicate that the light fixtures would be bronze as required in our Corridor District, but they didn’t stipulate that the 18-foot poles would be bronze and we would need a clarification on that.

      On the access drive and off premise sign on the Bing’s property, there are a number of concerns. We would want to see how that would impact the Bing’s property in terms of affecting its parking

      On the impact on the residue of that property, you can see that there is property between the access drive and the strip center to the south. There is a chunk of ground and if that is going to be open space and landscaped, that is great but we need to be sure that is in fact how it would be used.

      My questions would be how that access drive is to be lighted and landscaped, and how the access from the access drive going down to the gravel parking lot is to be handled. One of the commission members asked if there would be a wall on the west side of that access drive, and what that would look like. Again, we are in a residential district.

      There is the issue of the Conditional Use Permit that would need to be applied for and a hearing held by Planning Commission before that could go in. The issue of the off-premise sign would have to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals.

      The only other item would be that the gates on the dumpster enclosure need to be noted that they will be black metal.

      We are looking forward to working with the applicant and getting information in on time so we can have a more thorough review for Planning Commission next month.

      Mr. Galster asked the applicant if they were purchasing the property for the access drive and Mr. Kelley answered it is through an easement. The discussion we have had with the Bing’s owner has been somewhat enlightening and may be pleasing to the commission. The purpose of the ownership is not necessarily to have a bar forever. They are looking to redevelop it. We have talked to them about that opportunity. Where we are at with them right now is that access, if it meets sight distance since it is centrally located away from State Route 4, could in fact serve both properties as the Corridor would like for it to. We are looking at that access as being both value for CVS for full access on State Route 4, and also for the Bing’s property and the possible redevelopment of that. We are proposing that be handled in a reciprocal access easement with Bing’s.




      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      Mr. Galster responded so if you are not buying the property and it probably would be done through easement, could I ask you to draw their property boundary lines on this drawing when you come back in? I would like to get a general feel for what may happen there in the future.

      Mr. Shvegzda reported that the detention has been pretty much dealt with; there are just several minor-detailing items. The first one involves maintenance issues that awe have seen in the past, with the orifice plate being removed by whoever owns the property further down the line because it gets clogged. We would like to have it more constructed as integral to the structure itself, so it has more of a permanent nature.

      We have the additional driveway that runs to the north through the Bing’s property. It didn’t appear that it was being compensated for in terms of detention. I realize it is not on the subject property per se, but it is a part of what is being done for the property, so we would like to see that accommodated on the detention basin.

      There is a 12-inch culvert that runs underneath the new drive on Bing’s property. The outlet end of it discharges onto the gravel parking area. If that is to be further used, it will be a difficult issue with the outlet of the culvert discharging on it, and if that is the case, it should be extended to the far side of the gravel parking area.

      Mr. Okum had mentioned the easternmost drive onto Kemper Road. There was some information given on the drawing, but additional geometric information is required, There is a picture of it, but the actual information for the geometrics is lacking somewhat.

      A five-foot gap was noted on the northwest corner of the parking area in the curb. My question is what that was for.

      On the west side of the north access drive, there is a 100-foot gap, an area where there is no curb, and on the east side, there is no curb at all. It may be difficult to control traffic from getting into areas where they shouldn’t without the curbing there.

      The existing aprons and associated depressed curbs on the site that will no longer be utilized upon the redevelopment need to be removed in total, including the concrete curb and gutter and replaced. This needs to be noted on the plans.

      Due to the inclusion of the proposed north access drive, which is a lot better situation, it is 300 feet away from the State Route 4–Kemper Road intersection. The right in right out drive is about 100 feet from the Kemper - State Route 4 intersection, and we really need to remove that right in-right out drive. It needs to be done.

      The sight distance issue has to be looked at. We are not saying that there is a problem, but there is the curvature of the road and the proximity of the Bing’s building to the roadway itself. That needs to be investigated by the applicant.


      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      Mr. Shvegzda stated that there probably will be some striping modifications to State Route 4 to accommodate a reversible left turn lane in the vicinity of the new drive. That needs to be detailed.

      We need additional information on the drive itself. I know there are proposed contours shown, but it would help us take a look at it without getting into a lot of time on our own part to provide a profile to see how that works. There are other geometric issues that need to be included on that.

      The radius on either side of that drive are fairly large. I didn’t know why the radius on the north side is. The curb actually overlaps part of what would be the depressed curb for that parking field in front of Bing’s. I would question how that would be accommodated.

      There is an overhead sign pole that is graphically shown to be relocated, and it needs to be a minimum of 5 feet away from the radius return to insure that it is protected. We also have the detail on the foundation that would have to be placed there to accommodate that relocation.

      At the other Planning meetings, we talked about a permanent easement for the landscape area that the City would develop at the corner. We didn’t get any response, and we made our suggestion as to how that could be accommodated, trying to take into account visibility from the sign. I don’t know if the sign will remain there, and if it is not it may ease that complication.

      As part of the future development of the streetscape, we would request that there be some streetlights along Kemper Road west of State Route 4. When we get the preliminary layout for that, we would like to have the conduits placed under the driveway and sidewalk to accommodate the cable for that future street light system.

      We need clarification on the covenants. The issue would be regarding cross access, particularly to the west. It would be the City’s prerogative to gain the rights of access for the CVS property on the adjoining property to the west through that rezoning or redevelopment. All CVS would have to do would be to insure that they would permit the cross access from the adjoining property.

      When that comes to pass, the easternmost driveway on Kemper Road should be eliminated because of its proximity to State Route 4 and Kemper Road.

      Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster said on the drawing, it shows four or five cars in the front of Bing’s parking lot. What actually happens is that those cars come down, make an L shape and go back out toward Route 4. Where the radius is, there probably is another car or two trying to squeeze in there. When that parking lot is full, they are all the way up to the sidewalk and sometimes on the sidewalk.

      Mr. Galster asked if we have made arrangements to make sure that their sidewalk layouts tie into the streetscape?



      11 FEBRUARY 2003

      PAGE TEN


      Mr. Shvegzda answered we are looking at getting that information to see the impact their development would have on the layout of the streetscape. Mr. Galster commented if they are putting in concrete sidewalks, there is no need to do them twice.

      Mr. McErlane reported if Planning feels the need to comment tonight, the important things would be the buffer issue because that was a condition of Planning and Council under the preliminary plan. Now we do see an access drive across the Bing’s property, which was specifically asked to be removed from the original preliminary plan. So it is important for Planning Commission to give some guidance to the applicant with regard to those two things.

      The access drive that goes across the Bing’s property comes fairly close to a 48-inch maple tree. About 40% of its drip line will be impacted by the pavement or grading. Perhaps the best way to accommodate that would be to provide a provision for replanting in the covenants if that tree is lost within a certain period of time, that they would be responsible for replacing the caliper inches. There are some additional clean up items in the covenants.

      Mr. Vanover said in terms of the buffer, I don’t feel that there has to be much more said. They have heard the Planning Commission and Council make statement after statement about those buffers. You can’t draw a much clearer picture.

      On the new northern entrance, I would like to hear comment from the Fire Department and EMS in terms of viable access and movement into and through that area. I see some problems with the design, because you are coming off a major thoroughfare and making a hard right hand turn and having another 90 degree left hand sweep relatively quickly, and that’s a pretty good grade differential down there.

      Mr. McErlane added that on the additional off premise monument sign, if the Bing’s property is potentially to be redeveloped, we should determine whether or not that sign should incorporate area for whatever redevelops on the Bing’s property, instead of having additional ground signs occur on that property.

      Mr. Sherry said what was represented to us in August was that the right in and right out on route 4 was going to be used for truck access. If that goes away, I wonder how your trucks will get in there. I don’t see an easy way with the way this site is configured. I would appreciate your addressing that next time.

      Mr. Okum said I understand going to a Conditional Use Permit, but it seems a lot more logical that it not remain single family residential zoning. It would be up to the two councilmembers to determine if that constituted a major change to the development. If it does, it probably would have to go back to Council after it goes through another preliminary review by us.




      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      Mr. Galster responded what Council acted on was a preliminary plan for the PUD zoning for that property. No matter how that access drive comes out, considering the fact that it is not on the PUD property, I don’t think it is a change to the PUD. It shows a possible future access.

      Mr., Okum said you are saying that as long as the driveway on the south of the plaza stays. Mr. Galster responded I wouldn’t consider it a major change on closing the driveway, because it is shown that way right now with the understanding that it would be closed if there was a driveway to the north. Mr. Okum commented I’m not sure that it does show that; it doesn’t show it here. Mr. Galster responded that is the way it was discussed at Council and here also,.

      My clarification is that I don’t consider the driveway, unless it becomes a purchased piece of property and added to the PUD, I don’t see how that driveway is a change to the PUD. It is a separate piece of land, whether it is rezoned as something else, whether it has a Conditional Use, whether it has access easements or whatever, it is still a separate piece of land, separate from the PUD.

      Mr. Okum said I see our law director here; maybe we should ask him.

      Mr. Schneider reported that we have been discussing that among us, and I think we should do some checking on that as to whether an easement can be included in the PUD. If so, it calls for the owner of that property to participate in any approval, because PUD is contract zoning as you know. I’ll be glad to check into that and see (1) if it needs to be done and (2) if we can do it.

      Mr. Okum said the end result is probably the same. They want to have that access into their site. If it is a conditional use it will carry restrictions that are every bit as enforceable as the PUD would be. Under a Conditional Use Permit, you don’t have the deed restrictions that you do with a PUD, nor do you have the covenants. Is that right? Mr. Schneider responded normally you would not have covenants but you would have conditions. Mr. Okum said you would have conditions, but they would not be attached to the deed. Mr. Schneider answered that you could.

      Mr. McErlane said we are trying to encourage across access easements between all adjacent properties. I don’t think that means that we have to fold all the adjacent properties into the PUD to accomplish the access easements. However, I think it is important to tie this particular access easement to the PUD in some way because it serves it and it is necessary to accomplish what they want to accomplish. I don’t know that folding it in as a part of a rezoning of either the access drive or Bing’s property PUD would benefit us that much. We really don’t know what will happen on that property.




      11 FEBRUARY 2003



      .Mr. McErlane said I don’t know if this access drive will remain in this configuration if Bing’s property gets developed in the future. It serves the function for the time being, but whether or not it fits into the overall development of the Bing’s property, we don’t know at this point.

      Mr. Huddleston said I have a problem with granting a conditional use overlay over an already existing nonconforming use and then tying it all to a PUD. It is really very complicated in my mind. I don’t know that the reciprocal obligation on the part of the obligation might be as strong as the rights granted by this Commission. I have a concern with the legal ramifications of that, the workability and enforceability of that long term. I think we are putting a band-aid on a wound in trying to do this.

      Mr. Kelley said on the Conditional Use Permit application, is that something that goes to BZA or comes here? Ms. McBride responded that is an application that is made to Planning Commission and is acted on following a public hearing.

      Mr. Kelley commented that early on as we dealt with this project, with the covenants that we are seeing encouraging cross access and having us give cross access, the access through the Bing’s property is really just to follow the favor of the Corridor Study and provide good and adequate access. That is what we are trying to do with this. That is our intent. Obviously there are other properties involved, and it has been a little bit hard to bring it all together. .

      Mr. Galster said it might be a good idea to get Bing’s people here at the next meeting, because I’m sure there will be questions about what is happening with that piece of property and how this affects that piece of property.

      Mr. Galster moved to table per the applicant’s request. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item was tabled to March 11th.

    3. Amendment to Zoning Code – Various Sections

Mr. McErlane reported that the majority of these changes are to correct bad reference numbers. If you look at the first page of Exhibit A, there is a lot of text that is being deleted relative to temporary signs. About a month ago we realized that the same wording exists in the sign section of our code, so we are deleting one of the duplicate sections. All the rest of the changes are correcting bad references.

Mr. Galster moved to forward this to Council and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Zoning Code amendment will be forwarded to Council.







11 FEBRUARY 2003


C. Pear Street Dedication Plat

Mr. Shvegzda reported that this involves the section of right of way that would be dedicated by the original UDF property for the improvements that have occurred on Pear Street. This adds an additional 8-˝ feet width of right of way to that section of the roadway. We already have enacted the dedication plat for what was the city owned property that provided right of way for that section of Pear and Walnut. This is just a continuation of that. Mr. Vanover moved to approve and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the plat was approved unanimously.

  2. Mr. Galster said on this Planning Partnership, we have been meeting once or twice a month to try to get these goals and objectives to unanimous consent. At one of our last meetings, some people from a township came in with the same objections that we had nine months ago. Apparently they hadn’t heard that everybody was coming to consensus. It was suggested by the Planning Partnership that we make sure that we address our councils and planning commissions to let them know what is going on. I can tell you that from what we originally saw, this won’t be anywhere near as objectionable from a City Council or Planning Commission standpoint. We will share the document with you once it becomes a full product. I think good progress is being made and the people who are there on a regular basis have worked hard to get it done.

    Mr. McErlane said for the OPC Workshop on the 21st, we have one available slot that we have already paid for. If you would like to go, let us know. Mr. Galster indicated that he was interested.

    1. O’Charley’s, 11315 Princeton Pike – 2 Wall Signs
    2. Curves, 11782 Springfield Pike – Wall Sign
    1. Mr. Vanover moved for adoption and Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



_____________________,2003 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



_____________________,2003 ________________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary