12 NOVEMBER 1996

7:00 P.M.



The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman William G. .Syfert.


Members Present: Councilmember Steve Galster, Bob Seaman, Jim Young,

Councilmember Robert Wilson, David Okum, Chairman

William G. Syfert and Richard Huddleston

Others Present: Cecil W. Osborn, City Administrator

Derrick Parham, Asst. City Administrator

Bill McErlane, Building Official

Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Anne McBride, Consultant, Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Galster moved for approval and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All voted

aye, and the Minutes were approved with seven affirmative votes.


A. "Wireless Update" - September and October, 1996

B. Planning Commissioners Journal - Fall, 1996

C. Memo from Bill McErlane re Planning & Zoning Workshop


A. Approval of Home Quarters Proposed Fencing - 11360 Princeton Pike

Paul Dugan, Manager of Home Quarters stated after the last meeting, I went back and drew up these plans, hoping they will meet your approval. I believe it is exactly what we talked about.

Mr. Okum said I wanted to clarify the spacing between the masonry and chain link; what was it? Mr. Galster commented I thought in our discussion we stated it should be evenly spaced out. We originally talked about 10 feet of brick and 20 feet of fence but that wouldnít pan out over the length they needed. So, seven feet according to this plan is at least evenly spaced and symmetrical looking. Mr. Okum responded if your masonry was 10 foot you still would have adequate screening. Mr. Galster said but you would have to have one section that would not be 20 feet or 10 feet.

Mr. Wilson asked if the privacy slats would be treated and painted, and Mr. Dugan answered they are black vinyl so they will not need to be painted. Mr. Wilson wondered the life expectancy of the slats and Mr. Dugan did not know that. Mr. Okum commented Iím still a little confused on spacing. I know it would balance out the other way, but why not less chain link and more masonry? We managed to get our 20 feet of chain link in, but we cut down 12 feet of masonry. Mr. Dugan responded so you are saying you would rather see more brick than chain link. I guess we could enlarge the block area. Mr. Okum continued what concerns me is you put a seven foot section of block there; it is not a lot, but it doesnít have a lot of strength to it either. Will you be storing pallets and materials behind the fence? Mr. Dugan answered no, not on this side. On the other side against the building we will store pallets.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Two


Mr. Galster wondered if the applicant had a problem going 17 feet, 10 feet, 17 feet, 10 feet on the masonry to the fence? Mr. Dugan answered no. Mr. Galster continued it is my understanding that the pallet storage area will be sufficient storage for all the pallets. There will never be any more pallets outside. If it ever gets too high, you will bring a guy in and have him shred them up, so we wonít see any more pallets back here. Is it also then true that there will be no outside storage; there will be nothing back here; it will all be within this new section of fenced area? Mr. Dugan indicated that was true. Mr. Galster repeated absolutely nothing, this will be all clear. Mr. Dugan again confirmed this.

Mr. Syfert commented if the applicant is agreeable to 10 and 17, I donít have any problem with that. I think the important thing is that he came back with something that we asked him to do, and that is to provide some relief back there and some screening, so Iíll entertain a motion if no one has anything else to discuss.

Mr. Okum said I have two other questions. What is the size of the evergreens? Mr. Dugan answered I do not have the size of the trees. Mr. Okum suggested 10 foot evergreens and the block to be painted. Mr. Dugan reported the block will match the existing painted surface.

Mr. Young moved to accept the proposal with the 17 foot fence with 10 foot masonry and color to be the same as the existing block that is there now, and trees to be in line with Mr. Okumís suggestion. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. Voting aye were Mr. Young, Mr. Galster, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Okum, Mr. Huddleston and Mr. Syfert. Approval was granted with seven affirmative votes.


A. Community Management Corp. requests Approval of Additional Parking for Wimbledonís Plaza, (Springfield Pike & Glensprings Drive)

No one was present so Mr. Okum moved that the item be moved to the last item of the meeting. Mr. Syfert stated we will move it down after Roberds Grand.

B. Kerry Ford Requests Approval of Proposed Signage for Kerry Ford and Subaru, 155 West Kemper Road

Mark Caudill of Holthaus Signs stated Kerry Ford put a new frontage on the building and did not have approval from you as to a package for signage. The square footage is not a problem. We are proposing to remove the Subaru individual cabinet on the east elevation. Kerry Ford channel letters have been taken down and they would like to reinstall the Kerry centered on the front facia, add a Ford logo to either wing wall on the east elevation, and on the north elevation have a new set of smaller Kerry channel letters.

Mr. Galster commented the city recently passed a sign ordinance that will take into account square footage based on window painted signage. I know Kerry Ford in the past has used that type signage. Right now itís new glass and they havenít put anything on it yet, so I want to make sure that Kerry Ford is aware of that. My next question would be are you in a position to be able to make a decision for Kerry Ford as far as removing the pole sign at their service entrance and reduce that down to a monument directional sign?


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Three


Mr. Caudill answered no I would not; I can only talk about what is proposed here. Mr. Galster continued when we originally had our meeting in reference to this expansion, it was specifically brought out that we wanted to address this sign issue in detail with the owner. I am not comfortable with voting on it without somebody who has the ability to make concessions and actually make some changes for the owner. I canít vote until I can talk about the other signage that I think needs to come down.

Mr. Wilson stated I have to agree. We are looking at the total signage, and what you are proposing is your portion. We do not know what other signage they will put up, and that should be included in the total signage package. What that has done is put you at a disadvantage, because you are not authorized to make the necessary changes to comply.

Mr. Caudill responded my understanding was that this met the requirements for the code; that is what it said in the letter I received. Mr. Wilson responded we were talking about the total square footage of signage. Early on there was talk about how we were going to address the pole signs and make them monument signs; they wanted to enter that in the presentation. This was discussed at previous meetings and you were not in attendance so that puts you at a disadvantage, but if they are going to have their typical window signage there, they might very well exceed signage. What you are proposing here may be within the guidelines, but we are looking at total signage.

Mr. Syfert said to try to put it in perspective, in Mr. McErlaneís letter to you in the second paragraph it said "Also be advised that the applicant or a representative is required to attend the meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m. at this address." That was sent to you; now you say you canít be the representative, so I think we shouldnít go any further with this. Do you follow what I am saying? Mr. Caudill answered I understand exactly what you are saying. I wish I would have been informed that there was more to be discussed. Mr. Syfert responded it was in the letter. He told you that this signage did not require a variance, but the second paragraph put everything into perspective, that we had discussed it at length, and he advised you to have the applicant or a representative here. You say you canít represent them, so I see no reason to go any further. Iíll accept your request to table the item. Commission voted to table until December 10th.

Mr. Young commented maybe we should have given him a little more direction as far as totally how we felt about the signs so he could go back and give them that information. Even though I know they know that, and they sent the lamb to be slaughtered, I think from his viewpoint we could have helped him a little bit to guide him. He might have felt better when he left.

Mr. Syfert suggested that Mr. McErlane give him a call tomorrow. Mr. Galster responded I believe Mr. McErlaneís letter included copies of the minutes from every meeting we had on this topic. They were told that they needed to have a representative or the owner here. I donít know what else we expect staff to do. I think he was properly warned. He has all the documentation; he knows every word spoken in these chambers and every objection raised. Mr. McErlane added the intent of sending the minutes was so it wasnít a total surprise to him when he came in. Mr. Syfert commented your point is well taken too Jim.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Four

C. Final Plan Approval for Sterling House, 11320 Springfield Pike

There was no representative from Sterling House present. Mr. Syfert commented for the benefit of the Commission, at staff review last week it was discovered that they really hadnít done any material things from what we had seen last month, except at the last minute they sent in a new floor plan which instead of being a rectangular building now had a wing on it. This was referred to as a Confusion Management Wing which is a new name for Alzheimerís. It was a flip flop of the building, and their landscaping plan was nothing like we had talked about last month so staff recommended they get everything back in order as to what they really want and come back to us. So, that is probably why they are not here tonight. Mr. Galster moved to table to December and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the item will be considered on December 10th.

D. Lanco Development requests rezoning of property northeast corner of Kenn Road and I-275 from PF-1 to R-1-D

Preston Black of Lanco Development stated we are looking to purchase this property from the Church of God. It is our understanding that approximately 20 years ago this property was zoned residential, and they had it zoned to PF-1 in an attempt of building something there. The two best uses of the ground, since it backs up to the highway as well as could possibly be an off ramp property owned by the state abutting I-275 which creates a nice buffer for what we would attempt to put in there.

Mr. Black continued we would like the R-1-D Zoning, which would allow us to go down to a 7500 square foot home site with minimum of 60 foot width. In our conceptual layout, we hare arranged the lot widths from 60 feet to 100 feet. We feel this would fit in very well with the neighborhood that it abuts. The other use we were considering for this would be multi-family. After looking into the situation, we felt it would better suit the community that we would be adjoining to do the R-1-D. That would give us 67 home sites which would be a very nice complement to the neighborhood.

Mr. Syfert asked if they did any preliminary layout with this as R-1-B or R-1-A that it is adjacent to? Mr. Black responded that they did not.

Mr. Galster wondered if we know what the zoning was before it was PF-1, and Mr. Syfert answered it was R-1-B. Mr. Galster continued I think R-1-D lot size in that area, given the fact that the existing homes are in a R-1-B size lot, is not a very good mix. Considering the back undeveloped area is zoned for R-1-A, which is a lot larger size still. I personally donít see an unmarketability with PF-1. Just last month we had a preliminary plan brought forward by Vineyard Church and there are other new churches in the area (Northland and Southland and Kenn and Waycross, so I think there are still a lot of uses the land could be used for falling within that existing zoning. I would be opposed to the smaller residential sizes if thatís the way it went.

Mr. Black responded part of our logic in going slightly smaller in the home sites, since that neighborhood was built, the costs of the ground and construction has risen and if you look at what your board has done on the southern side of I-275, you have gone from R-1-B to R-1-C next to the highway. In every area you look, the home sites get smaller and the density gets greater as you back up to the highways. That was jour logic, that you would do a similar type thing on the northern side of I-275, since you have adjoining neighborhoods of R-1-B and R-1-C.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Five


Mr. Galster responded to give you a little history, as Springdale grew, we had some D and C size lots, but Glensprings Drive went to C. Beacon Hills went to a B and Oxford Hills stayed at a B, so as this community has grown, the need has been for larger home sizes. I understand your need to make money at your project, but at the same time I would hate to think of the property values in the B district with the smaller lot sizes next to it. I think that is a detriment to that community. Any time you make such a drastic change, it gives a whole new look to the community, especially those subdivisions.

Mr. Black said I can understand that point of view. I think it all depends on the product that goes in there. If you were going to come in with $79,000 slab houses, that would be a great concern for the people in that community. Mr. Galster commented I donít think you can put a $100,000 house on the smaller lot. Mr. Black responded these will be nicer homes that would certainly be a better fit, even though they wouldnít be exactly the same lot size. Mr. Galster said in my experience buying and selling homes in Springdale, in a D size lot you are looking at a number in the $70 or possibly low $80ís figures in comparison to a B size which would be in the $130ís. Itís not going to help the surrounding property values.

Mr. Wilson asked their price range and Mr. Black answered everything would be a basement product and I would think in todayís market you would have a mixture of ranches but more two stories than ranches. Price range would be $120ís to $160ís, based on builders we have talked to and numbers we have looked at.

Mr. Wilson continued it appears you will have one entrance in and out, so you will have 100+ cars during the course of a day coming in and out of one entrance and exit and going on to Cedarhill and going on to Kenn. I donít feel comfortable with this; thatís a lot of traffic and I think that will have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood. I canít see that many homes, regardless of the cost, in this neighborhood. I donít agree that this is the best use of this land, and I canít support it.

Mr. Blake responded there would be two issues in terms of traffic. Number one, the State of Ohio who owns the easement, also owns a small triangular easement which abuts Kenn Road. We would be willing to put an entrance directly off Kenn Road; the only problem I would foresee in that is it would not be a great distance away from the stop sign. Thatís the main reason why we had it drawn out the way we did. At the other end of the community, weíve stubbed this street which would connect through when the adjoining property is developed. The property along the highway would be smaller residential lots and as you go up the hill, which is a prime piece of ground in your community, that should be the larger home sites. There should be a natural progression away from the highway going up the hill to bigger and better sites which will connect through to Yorkhaven both east and west when that is done. Based on the zoning maps that we have, there is a rough drawing of what that would look like when that property was developed, not including this property but it ties together well with the second cul de sac on the easthand side. Certainly we would like to work with that landowner also, and we have spoken with them, so we are looking to connect that through at some future date. Yes, it would create more traffic for the time being, but yes there is another avenue to direct that traffic in two other directions in the future. Mr. Syfert commented probably considering that that is the Home Missionersí property, that will not be developed for along long time, but who knows?



Planning Commission Meeting

12 November 1996

Page Six


Anne McBride reported the request would permit 7500 square foot lots, which is 5.8 units to the acre. There are design considerations with the sketch plan. I donít know that some of the lots are buildable, or if some of the lots are marketable, but that would be up to the applicant to sell them if the zoning request is approved. My biggest consideration is that it has not been proven that the PF-1 is inappropriate; there is no justification for the request other than to say this is a transitional land use. The PF-1 is also a transitional zoning classification and would also offer transitional land uses. I donít see any justification for the request other than this is what they would like to do.

Ms. McBride reported that in terms of traffic based on ITE numbers, it would generate approximately 536 trips a day. I donít know that we would want to encourage a separate access onto Kenn Road because of its proximity to other access points.

Mr. Young asked how 536 trips compares with Oxford Hills or Beacon Hills traffic? Ms. McBride answered the ITE Manual bases it on a little over eight trips per day per single family unit, so however many units are there, multiply that by eight.

Mr. Okum wondered if they surveyed the market to check the homes being built in the area. Mr. Black answered we have worked with a great number of builders in the Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky area, and the ones that we have spoken to have expressed the need for the $120,000 to $160,000 price range homes. Mr. Okum asked what sites they have developed in the area, and Mr. Black answered we have Willow Creek in Deerfield Township with homes from $160,000 to $225,000 and Kings Court in Hamilton Township with homes from $135,000 to $165,000. Both of these projects are in Warren County.

Mr. Okum commented you stated earlier that the lots further away from the interstate would bring a higher dollar value and those would be more upscale. As a developer, is that necessarily the way you develop, a $200,000 home across the street from a $120,000 home? Mr. Black answered you would not have them across the street. As you progress further away from anything detrimental in terms of sound, like I-275 or anything else like that, the cost would be more. A builder takes the lot cost and multiplies it by five and that is how they determine the final cost of the house. It would be a gradual buildup to where you would have homes in the $300,000 and up once you get up to the top of the hill. Mr. Okum said so you drive past the $120,000 homes to get to the $300,000 ones.

Mr. Okum stated I tend to agree with Mr. Galster and Ms. McBride regarding the site being zoned for public facility. Currently my home is one of those that back up against the interstate, and I have no problem at all with that, and my home is worth more than these homes that you are considering building here. I would say if public facilities would go on that site as envisioned 20 years ago, I donít see any reason why public facilities canít go on that site. If it were to convert to homes, I certainly couldnít justify going to an R-1-D type zoning next to an R-1-B. A transition of uses in a development of 21 acres with homes ranging from $120,000 to $300,000 - I could not support that. We have seen a lot of developers start projects in our community and belly up because they start them without good planning or a basis for building. Either you will bring in the biggest bulldozers and totally reconfigure that terrain or you will have to make use of the existing terrain and in order to do that, you could not build on those sites the way you have it laid out.

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Seven


Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert said I asked you to begin with if you had tried this at R-1-B which you had not. I was a part of the original rezoning of this property, which I did with certain reservations, but it did make sense to make it a PF-1 along there. I think there was some comment at that time that PF-1 was about the only thing we would consider in there. If you want to rezone it from PF-1, I would not be amenable to anything less than R-1-B. If R-1-B wonít work, I donít know where we would go from there.

Mr. Black wondered if the board would be willing to accept R-1-C as an alternative. The reason I ask that is it would certainly cut the density down and would not be a large change from the R-1-B in terms of stability, but it does make a difference to the development as far as being able to progress. Mr. Syfert responded Ms. McBride indicated for us to consider rezoning, there has to be some indication that the PF-1 will not work, and I do not see anything to that extent at this point.

Mr. Black said theoretically it can work. I know that the sellers of the property have diligently tried to market it with some very good realtors for the last four years and could not make anything work as far as selling it to any buyer for that type of facility. That is the reason we are requesting it be changed back to residential. We are not here to tell you what to do; we are asking for your guidance and advice. Certainly R-1-B would be what it abuts, but being up against the highway, I am asking if it could be R-1-C, if that would be an acceptable exchange.

Mr. Huddleston commented I would agree that it should be proven that the PF-1 is not appropriate to the current need of that site if any rezoning were to be considered. If any zoning were to be considered, I think the density and access and something very toposensitive through that area to be compatible with the existing land mass as well as the housing is important. If it is not going to enhance the overall quality of that area, I certainly donít see any reason to change it.

Mr. Seaman said I agree; thereís not a lot more to say.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert wondered if based on the comments we have heard, would you like to study it a little longer and come back? I donít know whether anyone here can say they would be amenable to an R-1-C; I donít know if they could say that at this point without looking at it a little closer. Based on the comments that have been made, would you like to look at it and come back, or do you want a vote? Mr. Black responded I was looking to come up from the R-1-D and see if the R-1-C could be voted on. Mr. Syfert commented the request is for R-1-D; what is the feeling of the board?

Mr. Wilson read a portion of Ms. McBrideís report. "The site plan proposed has a number of design considerations, a number of lots, 16, 65 etc. would appear to be undevelopable due to topographic constraints. Several of the lots are undesirable from a marketing point of view due to street frontage, lot size, etc." My comment would be perhaps you might want to see how many houses you can actually put on that property before you request a rezoning from us. Personally I am not in favor of C or D. If you wanted to develop part of this into a few homes, nice size, maybe we can talk about that. If you are talking anything more than 10 or 12 houses, Iím not comfortable with it when Iím looking at traffic and the design considerations. The land is not developable. I canít see you putting 67 houses on here, even if you could I wouldnít go for it. It is too much traffic and too many houses in a confined area. If you changed it to a C and still had 65 homes, I still wouldnít go for it.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Eight


Mr. Galster commented based on what I have heard from this board, I would have no problem making a motion to amend the application to

R-1-C and let the board vote, if it is your desire to do this. Mr. Black responded weíll go ahead and work over the plan some more, see what we can can do, and come back. Mr. Syfert said then if youíll be ready, we will table to next month. Mr. Wilson moved to table and Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All except Mr. Galster who voted no, voted aye, and the item will be considered at next monthís meeting.

E. Roberds Grand Requests Approval of Revised Directional Signage, 11755 Commons Drive

Mr. Huddleston stated that he would excuse himself from the discussion.

Mr. Ed Keyes of KAP Signs reported that they wish to increase the size of the directional signs. We have three 2í x 3í directional signs that are tough to read. I felt this was going to happen; we tried to put this in at the beginning, but we had a lot of things coming forward and at that time, I didnít think it was prudent to go ahead and try to get these signs bigger. This was one little glitch I was concerned about, and it has turned out to be a really tough thing to read these signs. This is something that creates a traffic hazard; it is tough for people to see it and the signs are ineffective. It is something we need for direction.

Mr. Syfert asked if these would be on the ground like the current ones only bigger, and Mr. Keyes confirmed this, adding we are spending extra dollars with aluminum facades and accents to have a good looking product. It will be an enlargement of what is there now. We felt it would be better to keep the integrity there of what we have tried to achieve.

Mr. Okum commented I have no problem at all with this request. I have driven back there and the existing signs are very petite. I would like to move that we approve their request. Mr. Galster seconded the motion.

Mr. Syfert said I donít think any of us could argue with the fact that they are hard to see. Mr. Wilson wondered how this would affect your overall signage. Mr. Okum commented these are not calculated in the total signage because they are directional.

By voice vote, all (except Mr. Huddleston who did not participate) voted aye. Approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

Mr. Syfert stated we will move back up to Item A, Community Management request for additional parking at Wimbledonís Plaza. There still was no representative present, so Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Wilson seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item was tabled to December 10th.


Ms. McBride reported that for the January 4th meeting, they have speakers lined up for the informal session. The speakers have asked if there are any particular areas that members might have an interest in.

Mr. Young asked the backgrounds of the speakers. Mr. McErlane reported David Alour is a planner, and Marty Kenworthy will be here for legal issues. In addition to Marty being in our law directorís office, he is also the chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals in Union Township, Clermont County.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Nine


Ms. McBride added that David Alour is the former director of the School of Planning at U.C. He nationally trains Planning Commissions and Boards of Zoning Appeals and those types of boards in procedural types of things.

Mr. Okum commented there is always a fine line between contract zoning; if they could address that to help the commission to prevent ourselves from getting into a position of contract zoning with potential applicants, in other words making a deal in order to approve. You have to be careful about what you are requesting.

Mr. Galster said I attended this workshop last year, and it was very informative; for new members, it is a good learning experience. You can pick and choose which seminar you want to go to.

Mr. McErlane said to clarify, a month prior to our January 4th workshop, the Ohio Planning Conference is holding a workshop on Friday, December 13th. In our January workshop, we may cover some of the same issues that they cover. Ms. McBride added for the December 13th workshop, there will be a session on zoning legal issues, how to run meetings, how to read site plans and what to require, and other issues. Particularly if you are new on the commission, you might want to think about attending the December workshop as well as the one on January 4th. Mr. Galster indicated that he would be attending the seminar on December 13th. No one else was able to attend.

Mr. Galster said when I go to Council I usually bring the report of what happens in Planning to Council. After our last Council meeting, I thought that there are a lot of issues that Planning sends to Council that they donít know what happened, so I thought Iíd make a report from Council back to Planning Commission on a couple of issues.

Mr. Galster reported that the Air-Tite Window proposal was defeated by a 7-0 vote. That change in the PUD was not allowed. The Sterling House was approved for their zoning change. We had a little involvement in the dangerous animals ordinance, and that was passed after the public hearing. We also passed an ordinance with an emergency clause that gave Anne McBrideís firm the go ahead to start rewriting the Zoning Code and organizing that. On that piece, we would like to form a rewrite committee, taking staff, Planning Commission and BZA members. Itt will be a long drawn out process; I assume it will take nine to 10 months before it is done. We will have to have different meetings that would have to be fit into tight schedules. Right now I will be on that committee; either Marge Boice or Kathy McNear will come over from BZA and anybody else who is interested from Planning or BZA (Dave Okum indicated his interest).

Mr. Young asked why the Air Tite request was defeated. I thought they made a pretty good presentation. I donít have the history some of you have in terms of what has happened in that area, especially with Pictoria Island. My question would be how long will we give Pictoria Island to do something, or will that land set there forever? It seems to me when somebody brings a plan that looks like a good plan, and this gentleman put some money and effort into it, but being relatively new on this board, I wonder why that land keeps setting there.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Ten


Mr. Galster responded I think I can sum up Councilís view on it pretty quickly. We looked at what they were proposing to do, the number of jobs, the fact that they want a tax abatement, the fact they were looking at overgrowing the building within a certain period of time, concessions that they wanted, and we weighed that against Pictoria Island, which granted is not moving along as fast as we originally thought it would. Mr. King was there, and there were all kinds of concerns raised to him about the appearance of his massive sign and the fact that it was not landscaped as it was presented to this commission and all those things that needed to be addressed. His ability to move forward is based on his having the land, and he will now have the possibility of getting that land. It is one of the last entrances into the community.

Mr. Galster added it was believed that it needed to be protected a little bit more than just letting the industrial zone continue to creep down into it. Air-Tite Window would have been great for this city as far as the development goes, but not right there on the interstate in the middle of that overall plan that we have for the last piece of land that is the gateway into Springdale.

Mr. Young responded I understand that, but again did Council give Mr. King a time period? Mr. Galster answered no. There was a time period given to him to bring up to snuff the lot as it exists right now, but as far as saying you have to develop this project within two years, no.

Mr. Wilson said to explain to you why I was against Air-Tite, this is the last pasture of land that we have. Initially we wanted it to be restaurant/hotel/retail type. They were talking about bringing in manufacturing, and at this meeting, they were talking about moving out in five years, and they wanted to fix this building up and use the make up of the building to offset the cost of having to replace trees. They were talking about five years, and that night at Council they said 10 years so we would have a white elephant there. Then the president said we might move out in 10 years and then the developer said we might just take the manufacturing and put it someplace else and keep the corporate offices there. There was so much indecision in terms of what they were going to do. This is the last piece of good land that we have for something like restaurants and hotels, and that is what we want to use it for. By letting Air-Tite come in, that would hamper Mr. King being able to develop his property; he would have to start all over again.

Mr. Wilson continued I asked about the maintenance of the signage and the land, and he said he would get on that immediately and make the necessary landscaping improvements and he would also get on the development of it. At that point, he had six or eight interested parties. When we talked before it was three or four, some of whom came to our meeting. I think this was an awakening for him, that he could have lost that land and millions of dollars that he has invested. So, the awakening is there, and I think he is going to move on it. I think he will take our points into consideration and move forward.

Mr. Syfert commented the thing that bothered me most about that was all we seemed to offer were areas of encouragement at this board, and he went out and spent a lot of money on all his plans and everything and then it goes down 7-0. I have trouble with that. Why wasnít this all brought out before? Why did we let him go that far? Thatís not fair.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

12 November 1996

Page Eleven


Mr. Galster responded I understand, but I believe from a planning commission point of view, we did exactly what we were supposed to be doing. He knew he would have to go and get a modification to the PUD. There was no doubt from the first meeting when he came in here that this was definitely a change to what had been presented and voted on in the PUD before Council. We let him know that going in. I think Planning Commission did a good job of presenting the best package that we could for that particular applicant in that particular building. Now whether or not that translates into the Council meeting as being the best change or the best use for that land, that is the decision they had to make. If you are saying that as a councilmember on this commission I should have voted against the project because I thought Council was going to vote it down, I donít think so. I think his proposal and his project from a planning perspective was very well done. I think it was important that it came through to Council with a 7-0 vote saying if you are going to make an exception and make a change to this PUD, this is how strongly Planning feels that this is a very well done project. To send that forward with a 5-2 vote because Bob or I donít think Council will approve it , I donít think is the right way to go either.

Mr. Wilson added I understand how you feel Mr. Syfert. To me, it was wishy washy. First itís five years and then itís 10 years. Mr. Syfert commented you heard a different side than what we heard here. Mr. Wilson continued what bothered me was the song and dance that I saw that night. When you are talking about our giving up land for that facility with the uncertainty, it bothered me. Maybe Mr. King wonít do any better, but hopefully if he doesnít someone else will come in and develop it the way we want it.

Mr. Huddleston said my only comment is I think we definitely send the wrong message to potential developers, and there are good and bad, but if this commission does that and it is turned down in the fashion it was, I think it sends the wrong message to legitimate developers who come here looking for direction.

Mr. Syfert asked if anyone would not be able to be here at the next meeting, December 10th? Everyone plans to be there.


A. Instant Interiors, 11784 Springfield Pike - wall sign



Mr. Wilson moved to adjourn and Mr. Seaman seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Planning Commission adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,1996 __________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



______________________,1996 ___________________________

Richard Huddleston, Secretary