13 FEBRUARY 2001

7:00 P.M.



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


  4. Members Present: Donald Darby, Councilman Steve Galster,

    Richard Huddleston, David Okum, Councilman

    Tom Vanover, David Whitaker and Chairman

    William Syfert

    Others Present: Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Darby moved for adoption and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council Ė no report
    2. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes Ė December 19, 2000
    3. Request for Nominations to the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission

Mr. Huddleston said I was invited to attend a meeting of this new Joint Regional Partnership they are trying to form through the H Hamilton County Regional Planning. The intent is meaningful, and they have 60-70% of the communities and 80-90% of the landmass with the City of Cincinnati being involved. It seems worthwhile from a regional planning perspective. As we all know, the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission has historically never done regional planning; they just have done plan review on request. If the Commission or Council would so choose, I would be willing to serve on such an initiative, if it makes sense for the City. There is a basis for all of us to look regionally rather than parochially. If the Commission wishes, I can get more information about it and maybe we can talk about it next month.

Ms. McBride said the request for nominations before the commission is for the Regional Planning Commission seat that is held by a city or village representative from other than the City of Cincinnati.

On the regional partnership that Mr. Huddleston was discussing, we have some information at our offices and I would be happy to bring that in. It is a great opportunity in terms of pulling all the cities and townships together. The cost is between $2,000 and $4,000, and I can find out what it would be for us if you are interested.




13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Galster said we had this before Council, and Planning Commission has not been a member of the Regional Planning Commission for the last three or four years. We were solicited to join, and Council, based on Planningís decision not to be a contributor to the committee, set that aside. So if there is a rethinking that there would be some benefit, we would have to readdress that. Mr. Okum said the present representative has been shoved down our throats since 1988 without our having an opportunity to nominate anyone.

In regards to what Mr. Huddleston is referring to, I think it is important that we are part of that. I was hoping Mr. Huddleston was talking about the Regional Planning Commission. It requires a lot of time, but we should get some new ideas. Mr. Syfert suggested Mr. Okum as our nominee, adding that at one time he had expressed an interest. Mr. Okum indicated that he had, but with the current family situation, Iím not sure I would have the time, and I would want to serve well or not at all. I would hate to see it go by acclamation as it has for so many years to the same representative. If no one is going to come forward from our Commission, I couldnít let the City not put our name in and therefore I probably would accept it. How often do they meet?
Ms. McBride answered they meet once a month; meetings start at noon and they are usually done by 3 p.m. Mr. Okum said then I probably should put my name in because that wonít interfere with what I have to do with my life and my kids.

Ms. McBride said past discussions have concerned the possibility of the City actually joining the commission itself. The Commission has discussed the dues and what we would get for our money without representation. That is a separate issue from the partnership situation which Mr. Huddleston was describing. I donítí know that you have to be a member of the Regional Planning Compassion to be a member of the partnership. The planning partnership is something that I think the City should consider participating in. I certainly would encourage any member of the Commission who might want to run for a seat on the Regional Planning Commission. Typically they limit their agenda to a maximum of five cases so; they are pretty short meetings.

Mr. Vanover said if Dave is willing I would nominate him for this. I was in the planning seminar that Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission was running, and I vocalized our feelings about the lack of representation. It has been a dedicated clique, and they were taken back that somebody would feel that way.

Mr. Galster said if we are going to nominate, we had better reopen the issue of whether or not we are a member. If we are not a member because of the previous lack of representation, if we feel that has changed then we should be looking at reinstating our membership before we nominate for positions on the board.





13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Huddleston said I do think our membership should be revisited and I would nominate David Okum for the Regional Planning Commission and that the City join that body. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Motion was granted unanimously.



    1. Approval of proposed room addition 23 Silver Maple Way (Maple Knoll Village)
    2. Mike Pachen, Architect and Lena Mares, Associate Executive Director of Maple Knoll Village approached the Commission. Mr. Pachen said we designed this to look like part of the original development. It was designed with the same materials and roof pitches and window styles of the original project.

      Mr. McErlane reported that this will require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals for the 50-foot side yard setback to the north. Their materials are compatible with the existing materials.

      Ms. McBride stated that they submitted a landscape plan that we though complementary to what is out there.

      Mr. Shvegzda said we do have detention basins that serve each of these areas and depending on future additional expansions, may have to come into play. These are very small projects and donít come into play now.

      Mr. Galster wondered if in the past we didnít have a Maple Knoll letter of approval for these projects? Ms. Mares responded we have reviewed this and have approved it.

      Mr. Okum moved to approve the room addition pending the Board of Zoning Appeals granting of the setback variance of 6í-8" of encroachment, and inclusion of staff recommendations. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

      Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.

      B. Approval of proposed room addition, 502 Curly Maple Way (Maple Knoll Village)

      Mr. Pachen reported that this is an even smaller addition than the previous one, and is designed to be compatible with the rooflines of the existing building. The French doors with transom glass will be compatible, and the siding will be a white painted smooth surface to match the existing trim.


      13 FEBRUARY 2001



      Ms. McBride said the building materials will match the existing structure and it is within the envelope pattern of the house, and staff had no objections.

      Mr. Galster asked if the addition was year round, with heating and air conditioning and is it viewed from the street? Has it received approval from Maple Knoll? Ms. Mares answered it is viewed from the main road as you come in; it is across the street from the Manor House Restaurant. Maple Knoll has approved it.

      Addressing Mr. Shvegzda, Mr. Huddleston said I donít see any of these type things coming forward as being material, but do we need to put some caveat on this for future retention requirements? These are so small. Mr. Shvegzda responded that is why I wanted to point it out. These donít come into play because of their size. The one basin on the west side has some amount of additional capacity beyond what was required. The one on the east is at its maximum. That is why I say if we get sizeable increases in the impervious area, then we would have to get into those issues.

      Mr. Huddleston commented that the east is also fully developed. Ms. Mares added at this point, it is envisioned that the master plan for Maple Knoll Village is complete, so we are not looking at any significant expansion other than some small additions for individual resident spaces. There is nothing planned that I am aware of that would change the Master Plan.

      Mr. Huddleston moved to approve the addition and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster, Mr. Darby, Mr. Okum, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.

      Addressing Ms. Mares, Mr. McErlane said for future additions, if they are small enough, are reviewed by the City Engineer and barring any zoning issues, would it be advantageous to bring some kind of design standards before Planning Commission and get that approved and not have to bring each individual one before the board?

      Mr. Syfert wondered if it were anticipated that there would be a lot more of these. Ms. Mares answered generally there are not that many areas of the facility that allow for additional spaces. Probably the cottages on the west side have more ability to add an extra room. Our criteria would be that it would have to match the existing building and look like it is part of it. I donít see it happening on a regular basis; maybe once a year or two years. They are very expensive and the resident is paying for these additions.

      Mr. Okum said if you donít mind coming before the board and scheduling a meeting, we can certainly accommodate you on the schedule. This is an opportunity to give you the ability to submit a basic concept design, allow staff to do the review and as long as it met the basic design, it would not need to be brought before the commission. It could go directly to the chairman to sign off on it and it would be done. This would help in not waiting for the commission to meet to consider it.


      13 FEBRUARY 2001



      Ms. Mares said I think our desire is to have any additions look like they have always been part of the building. With the additions we have, that has been pretty well successful and we have worked very hard at that.

      Mr. Okum said I have no problem with allowing the staff to review an addition and have the chairman sign off on it. Ms. Mares responded we would appreciate that. Mr. Vanover said I think that would streamline their time and our time.

      Mr. Syfert said I think we should draft something up and bring it in next month. Mr. Huddleston moved that staff prepare a brief outline of the requirements for routine additions at Maple Knoll and submit it to the commission next month for review and approval, with the concurrence of Maple Knoll. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye. Motion was adopted unanimously.

      Mr. Syfert said once this is drafted, Maple Knoll should see it .

    3. Approval of Building Elevations Ė Skyline Chili Ė 85 East Kemper Road

Wes Noble, Vice President H.A.V. Tech, the contractor, Pete Perdikakis, Owner of Skyline, and Steve Hayes, Designer were present.

Mr. Noble stated what we want to update develop and make it a building more attractive to the community. We want to get rid of the old blue awning draped around the outside of it and change the appearance so it becomes more of a Cape Cod appearing structure. We have a sample board of the materials.

With most of the new and renovated Skyline units, they are asking us to put their "standard signage" on the buildings, either as an internally or externally lit sign with the current logo. The signage on that building is from the early 80ís. The signage does create an overage of square footage.

Mr. Okum said on the sample board it indicates that the aluminum trim will be the bronze and I donít have a problem with that, but for clarity, it calls for the two doors to the left and right on the front entrance to be red aluminum door with tempered glass. Mr. Noble said that has been revised to the bronze.

Mr. Okum said on the cornice work in the upper area, do you anticipate any lighting? Mr. Noble answered there will be gooseneck lights that come over and light the tilework on the front of the building. There will not be any lights shining on the area. Mr. Okum asked if there were neon on the building, and Mr. Noble answered that there is neon at the top right now, and it will be removed.

Mr. Perdikakis added there are lights on the lot that will remain there to illuminate the building. Mr. Okum wondered if any of that lighting would be changed. Mr. Noble answered the fixtures on the lot are adjustable type units and we were going to paint the poles to go from blue to bronze.


13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Noble said that the poles need to be gone through and re-aimed. Mr. Okum responded currently a lot of developments are changing lenses as well as the bulbs themselves, and they are creating a lot of glare issues when they bring the lens below the box fixture. We are trying to prevent that from occurring because it causes a lot of glare and disturbs the motoring traffic as well as your adjacent property Owners.

Mr. Perdikakis said that box light is not mine. Mr. Okum said if we were to make a motion in favor of this change, our motion would include replacement lighting shall be downlit and not exposed lens that would not cause a glare.

Ms. McBride reported that overall we feel the proposal is an improvement to the site. There were some things that we specifically wanted addressed. The wood shingles that are missing or broken need to be replaced. We didnít get any dimensions on the front elevation sign. It does scale 40 s.f., so we will need to determine how that sign is supposed to be and whether or not they are proposing to keep their freestanding sign. If it is 40 s.f. and they want their free-standing sign, they will need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals because they will be over their allotted 82 s.f. permitted.

We talked about the dimensional shingles on the roof, and the applicant has agreed to those. They brought the color selections to Planning, and the applicant has indicated that they would be recoloring the light poles as awe had suggested.

The two handicap spaces at the rear of the building have lost their identification signs and those need to be replaced. The existing trash dumpster is enclosed on three sides with solid masonry walls and needs to have gates and to be painted with a color consistent with the wood shakes.

There are specific requirements in the Zoning Code for the parking areas where they are adjacent to public right of ways with regards to shrubs and tree plantings, and we will want it to be in compliance with our code.

Mr. Shvegzda stated on the site plan, the direction of the north arrow needs to be changed and we need to label the major streets. There was a question as to what will remain in terms of area to landscape in front after the Kemper Road project is completed. The proposed back of curb will be at the location of the existing back of walk. There will not be a new walk placed back in that area, because it dead-ends to the east of this location. There will be about an eight-foot grass area that will be available behind the back of curb. Part of that is within the public right of way, but there is a possibility to work out an agreement for landscaping there. There is also a corner area where the parking lot does a diagonal at the northeastern portion, and that would be available for landscaping.



13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. McErlane reported that the current zoning is General Business. Although it is sometimes confused with Cassinelli Square, it is part of a separate piece of property, which includes the Ponderosa Steak House and Tiffany Art Glass building and the BP Station. The county auditorís records show the controller of the current property is 5th 3rd Bank as a trustee. At the time the application was made, the Ownerís Affidavit was not complete. We received a completed Ownerís Affidavit yesterday. The color pallet was received yesterday as well and it has been distributed tonight.

On the signage, the current pole sign is 66 Ĺ square feet, and my understanding is that will remain. The current wall sign is 18 square feet., They are proposing 40 s.f., bringing them to 106.5 s.f., which is over what is permitted. The current pole sign has a variance on it that was granted in the late 80ís.

There is a wall sign on the back of the building; is that intended to disappear? Mr. Perdikakis answered we havenít talked about it, but it probably would disappear.

Mr. Okum said if the wall sign is added into the calculations, how many square feet of signage would they have on the building now, including the rear? Mr. McErlane said about 102 square feet. Mr. Okum said if we were to take the gross amount of sign on the building, we are talking 102 and they are requesting 106.5 s.f. Is there any way that you could lower that field with signage on the front of the building?

Mr. Perdikakis showed the script that Skyline usually uses. Mr. McErlane said it will require a variance anyway. Previously we didnít count the sign on the back of the building if it wasnít visible from the right of way, and the current code does include those. Realistically if you look at the building elevations, it doesnít look out of proportion with the rest of the building.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Galster wondered if it would be possible to bring the pole sign down to a monument sign. I donít know how close the pole sign gets once the right of way is changed and if it would need to be adjusted anyway. Mr. Okum added you would get more benefit from a ground sign. Mr. Galster continued I am curious how close it would be with the new right of way, and if it came down, you would have that corner with a little landscaping around it.

Mr. Perdikakis said there is a manhole cover there, and to move that would be out of the question. I donít know how much space that would give us; we would have to look at it to make sure. Mr. Shvegzda added we are not acquiring any new right of way in that area. The only thing we have there is temporary right of entry to do some of the work on the driveway area. If the sign is okay with the existing right of way, that will not change.

Mr. Galster said there is no left turn out of that driveway anyway so there would not be a visibility problem. Are you open to creating a monument sign there? Mr. Perdikakis said I would have to say I can look at it; it is open to discussion.


13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Galster commented I would have no problem if we would take the same square footage on your sign and bring it down to a monument sign. I hate to see these old pole signs there that donít give it that clean crisp look any more.

Mr. Perdikakis responded we would have to look at the topography and see what we could pull off. Mr. Okum said it has to go to the BZA. They could research it by the time they come to that meeting.

Mr. Okum said it appears the applicant is willing to work with the City. Mr. Shvegzda has indicated that there is some landscaped area that you could utilize in the front as a result of the Kemper Road project. You could work with the City Planner to do something across the front that would set that off.

Most people see the sign across the front of the building and they donít notice the pole sign, and if you are turning the corner going eastbound, your eyes are at level rather than up and you would get a lot more benefit from a ground mounted sign. Board of Zoning Appeals would be a lot more adaptive to a plan brought to them with this amount of signage with a ground mounted sign if you can make it work. As a member of that board, I would be supporting it 100% if you would bring in a ground-mounted sign.

Mr. Vanover said I would echo that, and with the topography of that area, you set up higher anyway and the pole sign becomes invisible until you make that turn going from Princeton Pike onto Kemper. You would gain a whole lot with a ground-mounted sign.

Mr. Huddleston said with the wood shingles on that building, is there a question of hazard? Mr. McErlane responded that is a small enough building that it could be a wood building.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the modifications and renovations to the Skyline Chili, including Exhibits P 1, P 2 and P3 as submitted by the applicant with the following changes on those submissions:

    1. That all lighting shall be downlilt and if modified, the lenses cannot extend below the fixture;
    2. All lighting shall be nonglare, including any light packs that are mounted to the building
    3. This motion is conditional upon approval of a signage package by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
    4. This motion includes the recommendations of our City Planner with the changes to Line 5 to state "aluminum bronze trim" instead of building colors;
    5. Inclusion of our City Engineer and Building Officialís recommendations.
    6. All aluminum trim on the building as indicated on P1 P2 and P3 shall be bronze in color (red to be deleted).
    7. Color Pallet as submitted shall be incorporated into this motion.

Ms. McBride suggested that the motion be amended to say P1 P2 and P3 dated "Revised February 13, 2001".


13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Okum so revised the motion, adding that the final landscaping plan as submitted tonight should be reviewed by the City Planner and if approved should be incorporated into the motion.

Mr. Whitaker seconded the motion.

Voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Vanover and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted unanimously.

    1. Springdale Plaza Right of Way

Mr. McErlane stated after discussions with the developer of Springdale Plaza and some of the conditions made with the approval last month, specifically with respect to the right of way issue, we found there is some difficulty with complying with actually physically complying with the conditions. If you recall, the condition was to grant 12 feet of right of way, but not to impact parking, and we have found that is not possible. We would like to revisit that and find a resolution.

Mr. Shvegzda said we had looked at areas where we could define what needed to be done in terms of the additional lane. After you get away from the intersection, it becomes relatively easy to do because you are adding another lane. You donít have to worry about the constraints of providing enough width in the lanes for the double left. We had looked at that based on providing an additional 11-foot lane southbound and that combined with the right of way already in place with a typical 2 Ĺ foot curb and gutter, six foot walk and right of way one foot behind the walk, what we need in that vicinity is 5 Ĺ feet of additional right of way. Based on that scenario, the proposed right of way would be at the back of the parking lot back of curb. (We are talking about the area between the two proposed drives). That works out fine; we can define it and say that we can work without permanently taking any parking in that vicinity. That is a reasonable statement in that area.

When we get to the north of that northern driveway, the area of the bank out towards Kemper Road, the parking lot area is a little closer to the road in that vicinity. We are not at the point of defining what we need in that vicinity, but it is going to be more than the 5 Ĺ feet that we need further to the south. Based on that, we most likely will be having to take parking in that area when we get to the point of doing those improvements.

We had received some language defining the whole issue as far as what needed to be done, not taking parking in any area that would be a problem with lease agreements and mortgage agreements, those types of issues. We really canít make the statement that we will maintain parking at that furthest northern location.





13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Shvegzda added what we would like to do is have the applicant donate the 5 Ĺ feet of additional easement between the two drives, and make a statement, probably as part of the covenants, indicating that the applicant will cooperate with the City and make a good faith effort to negotiate for additional easements in the far northern area. When we have the detailed plans, we can define exactly where the right of way is going to be and the effect on the site. We are trying to meet what was made in the motion and to be fair to the applicant.

Paul Gugino said we have some language, and with some tweaking it could be added to the Covenants and it would work.

Mr. Okum said I am still concerned about the right turn into that site. Iím telling you now that the cars will be stopping there and people will have difficulty turning into that site. Mr. Gugino said I thought we jumped that hurdle. Now we are trying to accomplish what the motion was. Mr. Okum said the difficulty is that if the City needed to put a lane all the way across there southbound, they would have trouble without taking parking spaces along that roadway. Mr. Shvegzda said in the area of the bank, just south of Kemper Road, that probability is very likely. Mr. Gugino said we run into problems with the leases when we lose parking. We donít know what you will need; the city engineer doesnít know, and I say we will cooperate, but if he comes in and says we need to get rid of all these parking spaces, I have a problem with some of our tenants. We have to deal with these people and their letters and attorneys and everything else.

Mr. Okum said it appears tome that the real issue is not the whole distance between the corner and that entrance, but mostly where the bank is. Mr. Gugino said we are all speculating now, but what we do know is he knows what he needs here and we are already widening this. Mr. Shvegzda added the consideration was to provide enough width to have three lanes throughout that entire roadway.

Mr. Huddleston said what Mr. Shvegzda indicated was that there was a possibility that the 12-foot easement or granting we were going to get for an additional lane can be accommodated, and I also understood that with a temporary construction easement, we could accommodate. We might disturb their parking at some point in the future, but that is undetermined at this point.

Mr. Shvegzda stated basically that would apply primarily for the area between the drives where we have enough room to construct it in compliance with that typical section. And yes, we might have to disturb some of the parking if we need a wall in there, but it looks like we would be able to reestablish it.

Mr. Huddleston said we had agreed to the dedication of the right of way last month, and now you are saying that is not physically possible. It appears that is a problem for only a couple of hundred feet.



13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Shvegzda answered at that time we did not know what the actual width would be, but the motion indicated that we would maintain parking. Because of the widening, we can more than likely save the parking and deal with that for the majority of the location, but probably not for that northernmost location (the bank area), even with the wall or whatever else, simply because of the width.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said do I understand that the reason the issue is here is because you canít speak for the bank and the rights the bank has?

Mr. .Gugino answered no. The reason is because we had a motion that said that the developer is going to dedicate 12 feet. That is what we decided, and as part of that motion, the caveat was that it cannot affect the mortgage and it canít affect the parking. That is impossible. I would give you the 12 feet, but you canít do your end of your own motion. I saw that this would affect the parking and the mortgage, so it cannot happen. So the motion became undoable and we discussed how we could accomplish what the Commission wants, because what they proposed in their motion cannot be done. You know there are big mortgages and leases, and that is why you added that language into the motion. So we started with Mr. Osborn; everybody has been working on this. Our engineers met with Mr. Shvegzda more than once to accomplish this. Mr. McErlane talked about a highway easement and we said we could propose a 5 Ĺ foot highway easement and kept the caveat in there that it cannot affect the parking or the mortgage in the future, but we would work with you in the area that is undetermined right now. Maybe it means your six-foot sidewalk has to be a five footer. Maybe it has to be a four footer. Do you need a six-foot sidewalk; who walks there anyhow?

Mr. Okum commented my question is do we need a sidewalk there at all. Mr. Shvegzda reported that there is only sidewalk on the north or west side of Tri-County Parkway. Mr. Gugino said there are different ways to get there; the 12 feet canít happen.

Mr. Huddleston said if we go ahead and dedicate the strip, since there is nothing laid out or engineered there anyway, could this whole right of way be shifted? If we have the 12-foot we need, could we shift back to the east, to the Loweís side, if we need additional right of way?

Mr. Shvegzda answered potentially. The whole critical area is at Kemper Road. We can say we can shift it from one side to the other, but remember it has to line up with the other side of the road, and we havenít gotten the whole alignment for that intersection determined. Right now it is skewed to the west.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if it might be shifted back to the east. Mr. Shvegzda stated if you go southbound from Sears, you have to jog over to the left.





13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Galster wondered if they have acceptable language to meet the objectives of the engineer, the city planner and the applicant to allow more flexibility? It seemed like you had some drafts.

Mr. Gugino said I provided a draft yesterday, and we havenít had a full discussion yet. Mr. Shvegzda added we did receive a draft that dealt with the entire project, but it almost made dedication or providing an easement in that north area a moot point. It indicated that you have an easement but you canít take any parking away. The draft went down to Mr. Schneider for review yesterday. We had some preliminary discussion, and it kind of hinges on what we can do now in terms of defining the area we are comfortable with and putting more of a general statement on the one that we are not.

Mr. Galster said I donít have any problem with allowing the applicant and the city to work out a statement and possibly changing the wording of our motion or the words in the covenant that allows it to be worked out if it means we have 17 feet stalls instead of 19 feet or if we have a four foot sidewalk instead of a six foot. Whatever is necessary to make it flexible enough to accomplish what everybody wanted. I think the applicant has presented some language and we donít know if it will work yet and we probably wonít know until it gets engineered out.

Mr. McErlane reported that one of the things that was discussed in the last couple of days was the applicant donating the right of way that we know we can accommodate without affecting the parking, and handle the balance of it (the area to the north) through restrictive covenants to say that they will work cooperatively with the City in good faith to accommodate the right of way in the future, or some wording to that effect.

Mr. Galster commented I am extremely comfortable with that in trying to make it work. Mr. Gugino added that is exactly what we are proposing, saying that we need to get the right language.

Mr. Galster said I think we have done what we can do in trying to get the right of way that we want now. Not only for now but in the future, I think the applicant has shown good faith in trying to accommodate that as well, so I think the City should show the good faith and enter into an agreement with wording such as Mr. McErlane has suggested.

Mr. Vanover said I would second that. I think the good will and intent is there. We still have some questions that need to be worked out on our side in terms of what we will need. I am comfortable if we do the easement from 100 feet within the radius out and work out the additional language to deal with that. Unless we are going to do a sidewalk all the way up on the south side of Kemper, the sidewalk is a moot point. We definitely need a sidewalk somewhere along Kemper, and I think the north side is going to be more negotiable in terms of pedestrian foot traffic.



13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Darby said I hear a number of seemingly good suggestions, but I am wondering at what point the administration and the applicant will have something agreed upon that they can report to the Commission as their recommendation.

Mr. Gugino said it is a huge concern of mine, because I canít get a permit until my covenants are accepted, and I am already slipping. My original date was the 15th. I can do grading right now, but with the things I have in line, that is scary.

Mr. Syfert suggested that they get the wording together and the City could drop a copy off to each of us. We could review it and either do a telephone poll or a special meeting. I believe it is of enough significance that we should be able to do that.

Mr. McErlane added that if we know what direction we are going to, to relax the requirement made last meeting and leave it up to the staff and law director and applicant to work something amenable out.

Mr. Okum said the intent was to eventually be able to get a lane in there, whether it was 12 foot or 6 foot, it didnít matter. We just need a lane that would work. The intent of the motion wasnít to cripple the project.

Mr. Galster said so should we move to amend our previous approval? Mr. Vanover commented just to allow for future negotiations. Mr. Okum added it should be amended to and/or, to allow staff to work with the applicant to provide adequate space for future land along Tri-County Parkway, period. Then the staff can work it out.

Mr. Vanover moved to reconsider the previous motion dealing with the final plan approval of Springdale plaza and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye.

Mr. Okum moved to amend the original motion. Item 6 previously stated that the applicant has agreed to dedicate 12 feet of right of way from Kemper Road to the south entrance of the development shall be amended to add "and/or necessary right of way for the expansion of one additional lane on the west side."

Mr. Gugino said that doesnít work; youíre actually making it worse..

Mr. Okum said so "and/or necessary right of way that staff and the developer can reach the necessary space to place a lane on the west side." Iím not sure we have it.

Mr. Galster suggested changing that line in Item 6, to say "Where the space is available and add Item 6A that says that where there is a conflict that the City staff and the applicant will work out an agreement to work in harmony to make whatever accommodations can best be arranged.



13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Galster said I think if we are trying to say that we have to be able to run a full street down there, we will have to tell him he will have to give up some parking, and he is saying he canít do that because he has the lease with Provident. We will have to either work out some arrangements to allow it to happen, or he has a problem with the Provident Bank lease.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if there were anything to prevent going ahead with the dedication of the 12-foot right of way and working in good faith at such time as the design would be accommodated?

Mr. Gugino answered yes, because the caveat in the motion was that it would not have an effect on the mortgage or an effect on parking. What we had proposed was "The Owner shall grant the City an easement for highway purposes 5 Ĺ feet in the width across the eastern portion of the project adjacent to Tri-County Parkway from East Kemper Road to the southern edge of the southernmost entrance to the project from the Tri-County Parkway for the use by the City in connection with the future widening of Tri-County Parkway at such time as the City determines it is appropriate to widen Tri-County Parkway." Then we gave the caveats, who is paying for it. I can read the whole thing if you like. The Commission asked him to read it.

"The easement shall include the following:

    1. All current improvements upon the easement area and all improvements to be constructed thereon as reflected on the site landscaping plan, Springdale Plaza dated 12/11/00, Revisions 1/25/01 Sheet 15, prepared by Savage Walker & Associates, including blacktop parking areas, entrance drives and parking spaces, entrance features, landscaping and signage, the improvements shall be entitled to be constructed and remain on the easement area and shall be maintained and may be repaired and replaced by Owner until the City notifies Owner in writing that, as a result of the widening of Tri-County Parkway, the improvements must be removed.
    2. That the City may not require the removal or relocation of any parking space, any portion of which is in the easement area if such removal or relocation would violate the terms of any lease applicable to the project, any mortgage upon the project or cause the parking on the project not to comply with any zoning or parking requirements of the City without regard to any nonconforming use provisions.
    3. In connection with the widening of Tri-County Parkway, the City shall use reasonable efforts to minimize use of and impact upon the easement area, and shall coordinate and cooperate with the Owner with respect thereto.
    4. The City shall pay all costs of the Owner associated with the removal or relocation of any improvements upon the easement area which are required by the City as a result of the widening of Tri-County Parkway.

      13 FEBRUARY 2001



    6. Upon the widening of Tri-County Parkway over any portion of the easement area, the City shall be responsible for maintaining those portions of the easement area used in connection with the operation of Tri-County Parkway, and the Owner shall maintain the balance of the easement area.
    7. Any changes within the easement area required by the City in connection with the widening of Tri-County Parkway shall automatically be deemed to be in compliance with the plans submitted and approved as part of this PUD zoning approval.

Mr. Huddleston said you are using the term easement area; is that as opposed to dedication? Why do we do that as an easement rather than a dedication? Mr. Gugino said Mr. McErlane brought up the idea of the highway easement as an easier way to accomplish this goal. I donít have a full understanding of that; it is not my area.

Mr. Shvegzda added that the easement gives us all the rights. If we get a dedicated right of way, it physically takes property away and if they ever want to sell the property it requires them to have another survey done of the residue. It is much more cumbersome. The right of way we took on Kemper Road was done by highway easement for that reason.

Mr. Darby asked if the statement Mr. Gugino read worked for the city administration. We continue to try to come up with ways to make this work, but we need your guidance in terms of what is legal and what works for you. For us to continue to just propose all these motions and try to deal with the document that the applicant has brought in doesnít work until you say it fits for the Cityís needs. I assume you have read this.

Mr. Shvegzda answered I have read it, but I certainly am not the person to discuss the legal aspects. Mr. Darby commented we certainly are not either. Mr. Shvegzda added insofar as what this is saying, it is giving us the easement. However, we can certainly say because of the statement "The City may not require the removal or relocation of any parking space and any portion of which is in the easement area", it negates the easement.

Mr. Gugino responded and I said we could tweak this to the reasonable standard, because the only place we know that there is a problem is the first 100 and some feet. Mr. Shvegzda answered that is correct, and that is why I said before if we could separate it into two areas where we could definitely define the easement in the area between the two drives and have a general statement indicating that when we define what is really needed there, the property owner will work with the City to come up with a fair donation or whatever for the property.








13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Darby commented this gets right back to my original statement that we as a Commission need to have before us something upon which there is agreement. That is the normal pattern we follow. For us to have this detailed statement, with questions as to whether it is correct and weíre going to play attorney, that doesnít work for me. It really doesnít.

Mr. Okum said it appears that the covenants are an issue, that you canít get your permit without the covenants. Mr. Gugino responded that is part of the issue; we are just adding more time to the process. Mr. Okum said we donít want to delay the project in any way, and I think this wording needs to be worked out legally,.

and weíre not the legal people to work it out. What I am going to do is recommend that we move to suspend the rules that the covenant must be issued prior to the issuance of your permits for a period of 60 days. This would give you an opportunity to get the proper wording before this Commission so we can act on it. How does that sound? Mr. Gugino responded either that, or I had suggested that I wouldnít get a Certificate of Occupancy until the covenants were complete. Mr. Okum said either/or, but I think 60 days of suspending the rules that would delay your project would give you an opportunity to get the wording worked out and it could be brought before us at the next meeting or the meeting after. Iíll say 62 days or whatever is necessary for two meetings. That way you can get your project underway and the City can get the legal people to look at it and everybody can be taken care of.

Mr. Gugino responded I think it is a great idea and I appreciate it. The main reason for coming here is to say that we have a problem collectively and this is what we think we need to do to solve it. Mr. Okum added we want to work with you, so if staff doesnít have a problem with that, I will make a motion. Mr. Syfert asked Mr. Parham if there was a problem with that. Mr. Parham asked how long the lease is with the bank, and Mr. Gugino answered there are 10 more years, plus they have options. And this developer doesnít buy to sell, they buy to own. They will stay here, and their leases with the majors in the back are all 15 years with options.

Mr. Parham said as I look at this, and I havenít had a chance to be a part of the discussions, but the fact of the matter is that at some point of time we will look at adding an additional lane on Tri-County Parkway. Right now we know that the property south of the most northern drive is not a problem. They can donate that or do that to an easement at this point of time. The question is the property north of the most northern drive. Whether we start our portion of the project in four years or five years, that lease with Provident Bank will still be in existence. The problem that Paul and his group face would still exist at that point of time, and we will need that lane and that property. If you canít donate the property to us today, you wonít be able to in five years, because of the lease. We will have to have some give and take or some process by which we can get that property. I canít tell you how that will occur.




13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Parham added that we can meet and talk about how we will do it, but the fact remains, we are going to need that land.. Provident wants that land, and Provident is privy to that land through an agreement and a contract with you, and weíre going to have to figure out how we are going to get that done.

Mr. Gugino said I understand where you are going, Part of the lease has exhibits, and those exhibits show parking, even to the point where the widening is shown on all the exhibits. This is called a common area, and you canít modify a common area in a lease without their approval. All of this has reasonableness standards. On the other side of that coin, letís say this tenant is not doing well; he canít get out of the lease, but if we come in and take all that parking, and he would get out of the lease. There are 100 reasons why we want to work this out and we can work it out by dedicating this five-foot easement now and working together on the language. We have to come up with a brain session to determine the language that works for everybody, and I think we can do that. I think the motion needs to be amended and staff can work it out.

Mr. Okum said we need to get time to do that right, and by suspending those rules, it gives 60 or 66 days for you to work out the issues. The contract that is standing on Provident Bank doesnít change, now or 10 years from now. That is going to be an issue, and we cannot commit by motion you to breach an existing contract. Possibly it will involve some take for that portion of the rights that Provident has on that section, but it doesnít involve the other area of common land, because they are not part of that common land. By suspending the requirements to give you the number of days it takes to get to two meetings, it gives your legal counsel, our legal counsel, city planner staff and administration to come up with some wording that will work somewhat well to accomplish everything except I donít envision a resolve to the Provident property. I think that will be a matter of take. By your making a commitment on the property to the south of the Provident property, at least we wonít have to deal with a take issue there. My recommendation would be we suspend the rules and requirements to not delay the issuance of your permit, allow you 66 days or whatever is necessary to allow two Planning Commission meetings to occur and to work out the details. I will make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Huddleston seconded the motion.

Mr. Huddleston asked if Planning can legally do that. Mr. McErlane responded certainly we would like to have executed covenants in hand before we issue permits, but personally I think if we get them before we allow occupancy we are still safe. Mr. Huddleston asked if that would satisfy their construction and banker and everyone else, and Mr. Gugino answered that everything would be satisfied, especially if we do the easement. Mr. Huddleston commented I donít think we are that far away with the wording. Mr. Gugino said I donít think this would ever become an issue of take. I think the City will work with this developer to make it work for everybody without doing a take.




13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Shvegzda said the study has happened, but the engineering probably wonít start for four years or so.

On the motion, voting aye were Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Darby, Mr. Galster, Mr. Vanover, Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Syfert. Motion was granted unanimously.

    1. Amendment of Tree Preservation Ordinance to Include Proposed Redevelopment Requirements
    2. Ms. McBride reported that this is the first draft providing definitions for new development site and redevelopment sites. We have removed some of the verbiage from Acceptable Tree Removal Areas and have created more of a hereís what is acceptable and here is what you have to do to show us in terms of what is coming down and what you are planning on replanting. Those are additions to the Tree Survey Plan section.

      In terms of the tree replanting itself, we broken that down into two categories, the new development sites and we have maintained the rule of one caliper inch for each two caliper inches coming down. We have created a section for redevelopment sites, and that requires replanting one for one, with basically the same standards that we have in place at this point of time. In talking with Bill, he brought up a very good point. When we did this for redevelopment, we werenít thinking that somebody might take trees down on purpose, so perhaps there should be a third category. Another definition would be added in another tree replanting section dealing specifically with removal of trees without permits. We will add some verbiage to address that, and I would ask for your comments so we can bring a revision back next month.

      Mr. Galster commented that he had no problem with the additional section for somebody who removes a tree. As a matter of fact, they are getting off cheap; I think there should be some kind of a penalty as well.

      Ms. McBride responded that is something Bill and I were talking about before the meeting. I would like some guidance from the commission and staff as to how you would like to treat that. We were trying to decide whether it should be one per one with some kind of penalty. We do need to discuss that with the law director to make sure that we in fact can do that or can we do something else, like make them plant two for one

      Mr. Galster said it could be based on the size of the tree, and on top of planting the same caliper inches, there still should be a penalty. If they are cutting down 16 inch trees, that is a major blunder.






      13 FEBRUARY 2001



      Ms. McBride agreed, adding that the loss of a 16 inch caliper tree versus the impact of eight two inch caliper trees is not the same. I would like to work with the law director to see within what scope we can impose some kind of penalty and present that to the Commission.

      Mr. Galster said what will happen is we will say you have to replace all. If we try to tie it to a percentage all of a sudden they will not have the space to replant the trees and pay it off at $45 per caliper inch, which is not a substantial penalty for cutting down one of those trees.

      Mr. Vanover said I would agree wholeheartedly with that. I have no problem with adding a penalty. In the definition on new developed sites, the last line "or has been previously utilized as agricultural land", new development would be GE Park, and that is not agricultural land. Also, what about if and when the Glenmary property becomes available? I would hate to see us leave a potential loophole on definition of items.

      Ms. McBride asked if the concern is that it wouldnít be caught at one per one, or that one per one would be too harsh for those specific sites. Mr. Vanover responded I donít have a problem with the application of this onto those sites. I am wondering about them coming in and saying this wasnít agricultural land so I donít have to be held to that standard, their using our definition against us. We donít have any land right now that is agricultural.

      Ms. McBride responded we can delete that portion of the definition, but I would say, specifically with regards to the GE property that it has been developed. It has been developed as a park. What would happen, unless there is a waiver granted by the Planning Commission, is that it would come in at one per one because it has been developed.

      Mr. Vanover wondered about the Glenmary property, and Ms. McBride answered if there is nothing there and it has not been developed, then it would come in at one per two. Mr. Vanover commented my concern is that I donít want to see a loophole.

      Mr. Okum said I think if they are taking a 24 inch tree or larger, the one for two doesnít cover that replacement. I think it is way too liberal on specimen trees. The encouragement should be to force the developer to work around the specimen trees and not have to do the one for two. We need to make our standards tighter, even with new development. Additionally I think we are way too loose in having the same requirements on redevelopment on the two inch caliper. I think the caliper needs to go up to three or four inch replacements. They need to be forced to replace those specimen trees that they have removed with something somewhat comparable.

      Mr. McErlane reported that the Tree Preservation Ordinance requires 10 foot minimum trees. If they are part of their planting plan, there is no minimum height required


      13 FEBRUARY 2001



      Mr. Okum asked if the members agreed that on redevelopment, the replacement sizes should be increased. Commission members indicated that they did.

      Mr. Galster commented we use two inch caliper trees in our replantings in the City. With these development sites, I donít have a problem with making it three to four inches on anything. Mr. Okum said you donít want to cripple the developer either. Mr. Galster answered you still are replacing the same number of inches. Mr. Okum responded there is a major difference in the cost of a tree when you buy a four or five inch versus a two inch tree.

      Mr. Darby said I would like to revisit what was initially discussed about the individual homeowner who cuts down a tree. I would assume when that happens it was probably out of ignorance. I donít know how knowledgeable the residents are about the penalties, and if that happens, I think it is totally appropriate that they be required to replace, but I have a problem with escalating it to the point where there is an additional penalty. Then we are talking about going from an administrative action to a court action. I would like a little more discussion on that, because to me that is a major escalation.

      Mr. Galster commented I donít believe the residential are included in this. What we discussed earlier referred to Wendyís and a gas station. Mr. Darby continued even in a commercial area, do we really want to escalate it to that point when we have the power in the code to require to replace it with whatever caliber we deem appropriate?

      Mr. Galster answered they specifically did it at Wendyís to increase their visibility, and they didnít care if they had to put 40 trees out there instead of ten. Mr. Darby said that is a different matter; I thought you were talking about residential properties.

      Mr. McErlane commented if you look at our most recent developments that have occurred on virgin land, they are not able to plant what we require them to plant right now. To look at a one for one replacement on virgin land probably doesnít make any sense. I guess weíd end up with more money in the city coffers, but I donít know that is the intent of the ordinance. I would like us to get enough input up front and try to use this ordinance as a preservation ordinance and not a replacement ordinance,

      I took a look at Mikeís Car Wash because we didnít get the tree replanting plan initially in the preliminary plan, to see if some of the trees on that site could be saved based on where their landscaped islands were. At this point of time it is hard to do without reconfiguring their site. If we can look at those things in a preliminary plan stage and try to determine the trees that are worth saving and see if we can reconfigure the site slightly to accommodate those things, I think we should look at it. As far as the one for one on raw land, I really donít know that we will get more trees out of it.


      13 FEBRUARY 2001



      Mr. McErlane added that in terms of the size of plantings, if you get too large, you limit what you can plant, because a lot of species are not available in that size. Three inch is not out of line; four inch is getting kind of big for a lot of trees, except for evergreens.

      Mr. Vanover said in terms of specimens, I wonder if we have any caveats where they do have a specimen set aside to work around, but in the construction process they damage it and it wonít make it. If that is the case, I would like to see some penalty applied.

      Ms. McBride reported that there is a specific provision in the existing ordinance that says "any minimum protected size tree..damaged during construction or damaged as a result of such construction shall be repaired according to accepted National Arborists Association standards. If the tree is damaged beyond repair during construction, replanting will be required pursuant to Section 156.08 (B)(2). The provision is in there. The question is do you want to assess a penalty in addition to that.

      Mr. Vanover responded I probably would favor a penalty. Ms. McBride said we will find out what kind of penalties we can assess and try to apply those.

      Mr. Whitaker wondered if they are treating the tree replacement the same for evergreen and deciduous. Ms. McBride answered yes, with the exception of the minimum size of replanting. Mr. Whitaker continued with the deciduous, there are caliper inches, and the evergreens are sold in heights, so how do you treat that? Mr. McErlane answered the replacement is considered by caliper inches. I realize they donít sell them in caliper inches. Mr. Whitaker said if you had a 12 inch caliper, they would have to go back with a minimum of 10 foot and meet the caliper inches as well? Mr. McErlane confirmed this.

      Mr. Vanover said it amazed me how many municipalities did not have any of this in place, so our hats are off to the staff and prior Planning Commissions. Mr. Darby said this goes back many years when we were on Planning Commission, and Bill was the man who initiated this, did the original drafts and worked this thing left and right. He came back to us so many times so he deserves the credit for having put it in place the first time.

    3. Amendment of Pennant and Banner Section of Zoning Code (exemption of corporate flags)

Ms. McBride reported that there was a concern expressed at the last meeting about needing to amend the Zoning Code to make a provisoin for the flying of corporate identity logo type flags. This is our first draft. We need to provide a definition for that, and then language in terms of when and how they can be flown. Bill and I have talked about this since this first draft, and the one provision I would suggest adding to the final draft would be that we include it as on premise logo, entities, businesses, etc. which would prohibit businesses from flying the Coke or Pepsi flag or whatever it is.



13 FEBRUARY 2001



Mr. Galster commented the way I read it now is that as long as they claim that their logo needs to be as big as it needs to be they can hang an awfully big flag up there. Ms. McBride responded that is how the language is with relation to flags right now. There are no limitations on flag.

Mr. Okum said I think what Steve is saying has to do with flag etiquette. Mr. Darby said it starts with the United States flag. For instance, no flag flown with the U.S. Flag can be flown at a higher level. It also covers the order to fly flags and the corporate logo flag would be below the United States and state flag. It also determines things like half mast, but you can look on the Net and get flag etiquette.

Mr. McErlane commented I thought you couldnít have a flag larger than the U.S. flag, and the next one couldnít be larger than the state flag so if you had a corporate flag it would have to be smaller than both if you were flying both of them.

Ms. McBride wondered what happened if you didnít fly the U. S. flag. Mr. Galster commented I think any flagpole that flies the corporate logo should fly the U.S. flag. Mr. Okum said I like it but I donít think we could enforce it.

Mr. Darby commented I think it would be reasonable to have some kind of limitation on the size of the corporate flag. Mr. Huddleston agreed, adding our own banners would be in violation. Mr. McErlane reported that we are exempt, but there are others that are in violation. Maple Knoll has banners all the way down the driveway. Suddenly we have a rash of banners. Mr. Darby commented those arenít corporate logos. I do think we need to address the condition of the flag.

Ms. McBride asked if they wanted to limit the corporate logo flags to one, and Commission members indicated that they did.

Mr. Okum asked about the university flags. Mr. McErlane responded we didnít address them. Mr. Okum said if we were challenged, we would have to enforce fairly and evenly. Mr. McErlane responded we were considering calling them seasonal decorations.

Ms. McBride said here are the exempted signs right now: "Flags of reasonable customary size and color, emblems and insignia of any governmental agency or political subdivision and temporary displays of patriotic religious charitable or civic character".

Mr. Syfert said do we want to revisit the Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission at this time? Mr. Huddleston said Iíll bring some information back next month, and maybe with Anneís help get more information. As long as it is a legitimate effort and not just another rubber stamp committee I think it might be worth our involvement.





13 FEBRUARY 2001


Mr. Vanover said if the Commission wishes to support that, I would suggest we take this back to Council for financial involvement. I donít have any problem with this; maybe we do it for one year and see how it goes. It is bigger money.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be present on March 13th. Ms. McBride said she would be out of town at the American Planning Association Conference.

Mr. Whitaker stated that the renovated Donatoís HVAC units are not screened. The new one is screened, and the back one is not screened. Also the Don Pabloís neon is not entirely lit.

Mr. Whitaker asked about fixing the retention pond at Bahama Breeze. Mr. Shvegzda reported that they have a letter going out tomorrow notifying of the situation and that the City might require a geotechnical to look at the problem.


    1. Subway Ė 284 Northland Boulevard Ė Wall Sign
    2. Apartment Connection Ė 18j06B Springfield Pike Ė Wall Sign



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. .Whitaker seconded the motion. By voice vote all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



________________________2001 __________________________

William Syfert, Chairman



________________________,2001 __________________________

David Whitaker, Secretary