PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
7:00 P.M.


I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

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

II. ROLL CALL

Members Present:        Tony Butrum, Robert Coleman, Steve Galster,
Lawrence Hawkins, David Okum, Tom Vanover and Chairman Syfert.

Others Present:        Doyle H. Webster, Mayor
                Bill McErlane, Building Official
                Don Shvegzda, City Engineer
                Anne McBride, City Planner

III. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGOF 11 APRIL 2006

Mr. Vanover moved to adopt and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted unanimously.

IV. CORRESPONDENCE

A. Report on Council

Mr. Galster said I heard some good news today. As you know on the 747 grade separation, the contractor defaulted on the contract. The Department of Transportation reported that the bonding company has finalized the contract to finish that project, so it seems like they are trying to get it back on track.
B. Zoning Bulletin – April 10, 2006
C. Zoning Bulletin – April 25, 2006
D. 4/12 Letter to President of Council recommending Chick-Fil-A
E. April 2006 Update - Planning Partnership
F. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes – February 21, 2006
G. Planning Commissioners Journal – Spring 2006

V. OLD BUSINESS

VI. NEW BUSINESS

A. Approval of Exemption from Lighting Requirements and Construction Standards for Private Drives – Glenmary Home Missioners, 4119 Glenmary Trace

Bill Santen, of Santen and Hughes said Glenmary Home Missioners have been in Springdale for 66 years, and for 36 years at their present location. Route 4 is a terrible problem for them, a prime area for an accident to happen. So tonight we are asking your permission to build a private lane across their property to Ray Norrish Drive. It is not to serve the general public; it is for the missioners who are there and for their employees. It is not for trucks, service vehicles or commercial traffic. It is a private lane for them to get in and out safely.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE TWO

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Santen added a gate is planned at the Ray Norrish entrance, and the only way you will get in and out is by a pass. Your engineering department recently reviewed the revised request regarding no lighting or commercial roadway requirements. They are recommending to you the plans as we have revised them.

Glenmary’s office building is in a non-residential zone, and Ray Norrish is in a residential zone. Glenmary is not seeking to increase the parking in their parking lot; it will remain exactly the same with no dimensional changes whatsoever. The purpose of our request is to provide safety to these people, the people who arrive and depart in daylight hours.

The driveway is to be constructed 1 lanes wide with a grass berm for traffic to pass if needed. In its plan on May 5th, the engineering department recommended the lane with these words, “This office’s recommendation for accepting the reduced pavement width and the elimination of all driveway lighting would be to require a guardrail or guardrail at least in all areas where the slope height is in excess of 15 feet, a slope steeper than 3 to 1 or an area with a tight radius. Consideration should be given to utilizing an acceptable post with guardrail system.”

Your code Section 153.513 permits the Planning Commission to waive the lighting requirements and to waive the street requirements based on an exceptional condition which would justify such an action. This is a private road on private property, and accidents will occur if they keep going out and coming in the same way.

The trees have been calibrated and looked at by your organization. We are suggesting that be waived and delayed until such time as the property is developed, which we hope will never be developed. We will abide by the tree ordinance, but we ask that it be delayed.

The guardrails would be built, because the engineers consider they would provide safety where there might be a 15-foot drop.

There is no need to construct the lane in accordance with ordinance specifications, because the lane will never serve the general public because the general public will never use that lane.

The lighting requirements of the code would not apply to protect the public either, as it is only a private lane. So there is no need for lighting up and down there; in fact it might disturb the neighbors.

If the property is developed, the strict application of requirements for lighting or street width would have to be brought before you before any developer could use that property for that purpose.

Mr. Santen added secondly the road would not be wide enough
for them to do anything, if they wanted to build condos or whatever, and we hope that never happens. Because of the gate at Ray Norrish, there isn’t any public traffic that can go through there.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE THREE

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Santen said there is no change in the parking, and all we are asking for is a lane to get in and get out with no trucks using it. The lane should not interfere in any way with Ray Norrish. The people come at 8 a.m. and leave at 4:15 p.m. Very seldom will anybody ever use it at night, so there would be no public purpose to require the present street specifications and lights for this private property. It would not be necessary.

Sandy Becker of Bayer Becker Engineers reported we are asking for three things, a 5-foot reduction in the pavement width and the elimination of lighting along the lane. The third item is the second gate.

You requested two gates on this lengthy curved drive, one at Ray Norrish which we absolutely know that we need, and one up in the parking lot by the chapel on Glenmary’s property. We just don’t feel this makes any sense. Physically to get to this entrance from Route 4, you really have to know what you are doing. You can’t accidentally go up this drive, make a right, another right and then a left and get on this 15-foot lane. It serves as more of a hindrance to the people using it from the interior than it does as a deterrent to the people outside. There is no way anybody would do this.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane is there was anything in their application about eliminating the gate. Mr. McErlane answered I don’t believe it was specifically spelled out in the request. I assume it doesn’t show on the plan.

Mr. McErlane said if you were to go back and look at the minutes relative to lighting on this driveway, most of Planning Commission’s concerns had to do with the lighting, was it going to be on all night and the level of lighting. The conditions that were placed on it had to do with actuation of the lighting and height of the lighting, limiting it to 10 feet. So there wasn’t a whole lot of discussion on minimum levels of lighting.

There was a condition that there are gates at both ends. There was no discussion on driveway width. We just assumed that it would be a two-lane driveway.

Mr. Butrum wondered if the 10-foot grassy shoulders on each side, which are now being requested to be five-foot was part of what we approved, so and wouldn’t that be a fourth request?

Mr. Santen said no, we are still going to move the dirt the same width we were going to. We are just going to reduce the one lane by five feet. Mr. McErlane added it is a reduction in the amount of asphalt.

Mr. Hawkins said so there would be absolutely no lighting on this driveway, and the applicant is not saying that the gates to this driveway would be shut off at dusk or dark. You still would be able to travel that way if someone had a card and chose to do so.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE FOUR

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Galster said so anyone traveling at night will have a reduced lane with no lighting and no gate to prevent anybody that would come onto the Glenmary property from entering that lane that has no lighting and has a reduced width; is that correct? Mr. Becker confirmed it.

Mr. Galster continued we talk about safety issues, and if somebody goes onto the Glenmary property and access that road because there is no gate, they get all the way to the other end and find a gate that they cannot open. Now they need to turn around in the dark on a road that is only a lane and one-half.

Mr. Becker responded there is lighting at Ray Norrish, a street light. There will have to be some type of to access the key card.

Father Dorsey said we have as much concern as anybody coming on our property at night. In addition to this, on our Glenmary Trace, it is my intention to put half a gate with a big sign that says “Glenmary Home Missioners Private Drive – Thou Shalt Not Trespass”. If you still go back there in light of that, I don’t think we should be held accountable. We don’t want people on there. We want to make it very clear. We already have a sign that says “Private Drive”, and people come to the top and say they didn’t know it was private. Now we’re going to stop them so they have to go around the sign. It also has another big sign that says “No Outlet”.

Mr. Galster commented by your own admission even though it is a private drive right now, there are people who come up there and use that drive, and it is very possible that they would try to use the exit drive as well.

We have taken out some of the safety features for the general public. I understand that the people who come from Glenmary may be very capable of driving without a lighted drive, but the general public wouldn’t be able to know that they couldn’t get through that gate until they were all the way to the end of the roadway.

Mr. Santen responded if you went up the drive and got to where the buildings and parking lots were, would you take it upon yourself to pass two signs and proceed down a dark road and get yourself lost?

Mr. Galster answered there are plenty of people out driving that do things that I don’t understand, but I wouldn’t go on Glenmary’s property to begin with.

Mr. Santen commented so that would be your understanding of the general public. Mr. Galster responded that is not my understanding. As the Father said, he does have people who come up there. Mr. Santen continued I am asking why in the world would you ever go up the driveway with the big sign that says “Do Not Enter” and when I get to the top and see a parking lot and cross and a building and see another road over here with a big sign that says “Do Not Enter No Outlet”, why in the world would the general public be silly enough to do that?
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE FIVE

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Galster responded I wish I could tell you all the reasons for all the things that the general public do that I don’t understand, but it does happen. I personally wouldn’t go up there, but that doesn’t mean that the general motoring public wouldn’t do that.

Mr. Santen commented so you are telling me that you have a grave concern about somebody doing that, is that what you are saying? Mr. Galster answered I have a safety concern about people who would access that drive with no lights. Mr. Santen said I respect what you have to say; I don’t agree with it.

Mr. Galster added I have been behind people on southbound Route 4 in the lane to enter the interstate, cross over the median to get out of that lane and make a left hand turn onto the entrance ramp to go eastbound on 275. I have seen them do crazy things.

Mr. Santen commented we have seen all kinds of people do crazy things. How many people do you think are crazy enough to do that; one every 10 years or one every five years? Mr. Galster responded I would have to ask the police department. I’m sure it happens more than once every 10 years; I’m sure it happens on a daily basis. Whether those people would go on Glenmary’s property; I don’t know, but to say it wouldn’t ever happen – Father Dorsey said it already happens.

Mr. Santen responded they come up in the morning but what do you do when you see a sign of that size? Mr. Galster responded I read signs, but obviously some people don’t. Once we eliminate the gate at the entrance to the drive, we would have a non-lit smaller than two-lane width drive that somebody could get stuck on, and I don’t like that situation.

Mr. Coleman wondered how much room there would be in the event that illogical driver has to back out and turn around. I’m wondering how much space, and if there would be a problem with turning around.

Mr. Becker answered they have 40 feet of graded area, and you can easily turn around.

Mr. Hawkins said I understand these exemptions are based on finances. Are you far from where you would like to be in terms of financing? Are you saying if you didn’t have these exemptions you would be far off budget.

Father Dorsey answered yes; we wouldn’t do it right now. I understand your concerns about somebody being able to turn around. We will do this; I’m not saying we won’t, but if there is somebody trespassing on our property, we have to allow room for them to turn around? It is private property. We are taking what I think are very reasonable precautions so somebody does not get themselves in that position. Are we responsible for somebody trespassing? Mr. Syfert responded ask Mr. Santen that question.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE SIX

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Butrum asked how much guardrail would have been required based on staff’s recommended spots? Mr. Becker answered I’m not sure that they are requiring any more than what we were already showing. We are not reducing any of the graded areas, so you still have a safety factor.

Mr. Butrum said so the electronic gate is at Ray Norrish. What are the contingency plans if that gate doesn’t function and you need people to be able to get in and out. Father Dorsey answered we would use Route 4. Mr. Butrum commented so the gate won’t be left wide open. My biggest concern is if you are going up Ray Norrish, especially if you are unfamiliar with it, if that gate weren’t there, it would kind of look like the road continues. If the contingency plan is that Route 4 becomes the only entry/exit to your property, I am much more comfortable with it.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane if this were approved under a Conditional Use Permit, and Mr. McErlane indicated that it was. Mr. Okum added I don’t have a major problem with discussing this, but because it was approved under Conditional Use Permit shouldn’t this be advertised and the neighbors be notified so that the residents could be involved in the discussion?

This seems pretty major. If it was a minor change I think it would be something for the commission to take a look at. We are looking at lighting requirements, construction standards and elimination of a gate.

Mr. McErlane reported that it is a modification of two of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. The plan does not change what the Conditional Use Permit was issued for.

Mr. Okum responded based on that, I think we really need to carry it forward in that manner so this can be properly executed. I will say that there are some benefits to what you are saying, Father. If those gates were on both ends and those gates were closed all the time and controlled, I would understand a reduction in pavement, and maybe even an elimination of lighting. But I see Office Depot or a delivery truck coming into your development at 4:30 p.m., and they can’t get out onto Route 4. If they see an access drive a delivery truck might drive down the reduced width driveway. The gates as both ends are germane to the project and necessary for public safety. I still would support what I said at that hearing, and I will support it again.

Mr. Okum said when you are exiting the area and come upon a gate that is closed, the gate automatically opens; most automatic gates do. Maybe we can eliminate some of the public hearing issues, but at this point with these three issues, I am pushing that this be advertised for a Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Santen responded Sandy Becker tells me that it doesn’t need to be advertised for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Becker added I’m not trying to practice law, but it seems to me what the conditional use was for was to permit the driveway in the first place.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE SEVEN

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Becker added I understand that the approval was granted on conditions that were discussed at the public hearing. In like manner no one from the floor brought up any of the topics. All of these were brought up from the Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum answered you are requesting construction standards deviation. That is not a part of the conditional use. That is within the Planning Commission’s right to grant.

The issues that drove the Conditional Use Permit that granted that use were lighting requirements and gates at both ends that were closed at all times. That was set forth and was a part of the public hearing process.

Mr. Okum added if we wanted to deal with the driveway issue, with other things tied to the driveway, I think this commission could work with you and Father Dorsey on this.

Mr. Santen commented we want to work as much as we can with the Planning Commission. The driveway is a very costly thing and with the gate, which we don’t think is necessary, because the gate will be actuated by a pass key.

In terms of the Glenmary Missioners, if a Home Depot truck comes up there at 5:00 p.m. and can’t get out, we are wiling to put in the conditional use requirements that this not be permitted and that we be prosecuted if it does happen.

Mr. Okum commented the prosecution would be a revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Santen added you can see that we would be crazy to let somebody go out that gate under those circumstances.

Mr. Okum said if that were a condition for the usage of that driveway, it would be a part of the public process, and we would have to bring it back through the public process.

Mr. Santen said what is going to happen in the public process? Is that some sort of threat to us?

Mr. Okum responded no. It gives the community the opportunity to communicate how they feel about a particular conditional use. This is required by law.

Mr. Santen commented before I came here, I researched the law, and your zoning ordinances regarding trees, lighting, and the private drive requirements on this private property have nothing to do with the public welfare. Insofar as the public welfare is concerned, if a court does not find in a declaratory judgment action that the public welfare is served on a private area where the zoning ordinances are imposed on it, the zoning goes down. My question was what purpose does the requirement that this lane conform to construction requirements of Springdale bear to the public welfare of the people of Springdale when this is only used for private purposes? This is a big expense to these people. These are not people deriving revenues daily from a profit-making business.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE EIGHT

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Okum said you are entitled to your opinion. You can interpret our code any way you want. Mr. Santen answered I am not trying to interpret it. I am looking at the 2001 and 2002 case log in our District Court of Appeals. I have been a trial lawyer for 50 years and have tried 150 jury cases, all in this series, in eminent domain and so forth., and I am just giving you my opinion. As a lawyer I am telling you what the law is, and we’ll do whatever you say, but I don’t see that we should argue over one simple gate where there are signs that any person with an intellect would say I’m going to go down there.

Father Dorsey said a gate costs a lot of money. I would invite any one of you to come over for dinner and go up and see this property. The kind of scenario that you are envisioning can’t happen. Come for dinner tomorrow night, and I will show you clearly that a truck from Office Depot or whatever couldn’t get up there because it is not wide enough. I know you have doubts, but I invite each and everyone of you to come up. Please see with your own eyes.

We can’t afford it; that is the problem. We are between a rock and a hard place. We want to put this in and we can’t afford another gate. We don’t want to put anybody at risk. We are in the business of helping and caring for people.

If an Office Depot truck comes up there at 5:00 p.m., he’s not going to go all the way around up in the back. He’s going to go back to Route 4. It’s hard to get out of there, but if you make a right turn, it is easy to get out of there.

We’re trying to meet everybody halfway, but we don’t have the money to do what you are asking. One gate is fine; we understand that, but two gates we can’t do.

Mr. Okum commented we didn’t know there was an issue about the two gates until tonight. I really feel you are asking for relief on lighting and gates and those were a part of the Conditional Use Permit and a part of the hearing. We’re going to have to bring this to that arena for residents to be informed.

Father Dorsey said would you be willing to come up and have dinner with me? Mr. Okum responded I would be willing to come up; it’s not necessary that I have dinner, but I would love to visit with you and see it. I hesitate to go up your driveway because it is a private drive. I appreciate the invitation, and I think it is important for us to see that.

I think we could deal with the lane width issue tonight but I think the gates and the lighting both part of the Conditional Use Permit hearing, need to be part of a new public hearing so the public can express themselves. This would give us more time to meet with you and see the situation.

Mr. Santen said do you agree to vote on the requirement of the road tonight, and have the publication for the lights and gate? Mr. Okum said that is up to the rest of the commission.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE NINE

GLENMARY HOME MISSIONERS – 4119 GLENMARY TRACE

Mr. Syfert reported the application was for the exemption from lighting requirements and the construction standards for the drive. As Mr. Okum said, the lighting requirements were a part of the Conditional Use Permit, so I don’t believe we should separate them.

Mr. Galster said if the second gate were there, I wouldn’t have any problem with the lighting and width of the road. But, once you eliminate the gate and the width and the lighting, it becomes a different issue for me. I don’t want to debate one thing separately from another because I think it is all part of the package.

Mr. Santen said let me confer with Father Dorsey and Mr. Becker, and maybe we can resolve this gate issue. Mr. Galster responded I don’t know that we can because we still have the lighting issue. If in fact both gates were left, Mr. Okum’s point was that we could deal with the width of the road issue tonight, but we couldn’t deal with the lighting tonight. If there was a commitment to leave the gate and take that part off the table, I would be okay with voting on the width of the road tonight. I believe we could vote on the width of the road, but I don’t believe we could vote on the lighting. I believe that is the position of the majority of the board.

Mr. Syfert asked Mr. McErlane if the commission was correct with this interpretation. I know you are not an attorney. Mr. McErlane responded and I wouldn’t want to give my opinion as an attorney not being an attorney. Obviously there were conditions to the Conditional Use Permit. I’d have to confer with the city attorney to determine whether or not it is necessary to hold another public hearing for changes to that.

Mr. Santen said I just talked to Father Dorsey and Mr. Becker, and I guess we will have another hearing of some type.

Mr. Hawkins said on the roadway width and the lighting, I believe there is more of a safety risk if there are not two gates and you can’t control what is going back there. I will be more likely to be flexible on the lighting and the width of the roadway if there are two gates there to control the traffic going back there.

Mr. Vanover said I think these are all intertwined. The whole package was granted a conditional use so I think the proper mode is to set up a public hearing, advertise it and address it totally.

Mr. Galster moved to table the item until our next meeting so it can be advertised for public hearing. Mr. Okum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the item will be on the June 13th agenda.

Father Dorsey asked if they would get an answer next month. Mr. Syfert responded it should wrap it up next month. Father Dorsey asked what the majority of votes would be, and Mr. Syfert answered it needs five affirmative votes. Father Dorsey said again, I invite all of you up for dinner to look at the situation.




PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE TEN

B. Modification of Springdale Plaza PUD for Public Roadway Improvements

Mr. Shvegzda reported that the Kemper Road Phase III project is in the vicinity of the Springdale Plaza development. There is widening taking place that is affecting the placements of the signs, the parking, landscaping and lighting. At the request of the property owner, we wanted to take this before Planning to modify the PUD for the final condition of the property after the roadway improvements.

The road is being widened along Tri-County Parkway to the west side adjacent to the applicant’s property so that the new curb, six-foot sidewalk and the wall with the parking lot will be starting adjacent to that wall for the majority of the length along Tri-County Parkway. That affects the lighting and landscaping in that vicinity.

Along Kemper Road at the corner of Tri-County Parkway to align it up with the lanes on the east side of Tri-County Parkway, it angles out so that the National City Bank is losing 17 parking spaces.

There was a discussion with the property owner, and the width that was taken away would eliminate the parking, but if we brought it back to where the new edge of pavement would be, there wasn’t enough room for any parking, and parallel parking isn’t a desirable situation there. The property owner agreed to take back an additional width that would maintain 24-foot drive aisle and still allow additional room for the landscaping in that area. That is where the majority of the trees and other landscaping that is removed along Tri-County Parkway are replanted.

The other thing that the plans show is the general location of the relocated pylon sign currently at the corner of Tri-County Parkway and Kemper Road.

In the audience is Drew Chrien who is the representative of the property owners so if there are any questions on the property itself, he can answer them.

Mr. McErlane reported that there is a net loss of 17 parking spaces, which brings the total to 974 spaces. There has been a change in our Zoning Code since we evaluated this plan initially. We now have a different parking ratio that is required for shopping centers, and the required parking is now 931 spaces, so there still is an excess there.

The impervious surface ratio has changed slightly, but in essence it is 5/1000’s of a percent change.

In terms of plant materials, most of them are being replaced with similar materials. However there are no sizes indicated on the drawings, but there is a net loss of 16 Zelkova shade trees on the site, and I believe that is because we are losing plant area along the roadway, and there is not a place to replant those.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE ELEVEN

SPRINGDALE PLAZA PUD – PUBLIC ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. McErlane added the existing pylon sign is being relocated approximately 170 feet west of its current location along Kemper Road.

Parking lot lighting is being relocated. The ones along Tri-County Parkway are being moved almost directly toward the parking lot field so that the lighting levels will not decrease because of that. The only one that might be in question is the one along Kemper Road which is being shifted diagonally to a different location. It may change some lighting levels and needs to be evaluated.

The owner needs to take a look at the striping in the parking lot, particularly the north access drive on Tri-County Parkway. The black that was put on there to obscure some of the striping has worn off and some of the new striping has worn off as well. It makes it ambiguous as to what lanes you should be in to make what moves. I think some of the parking spaces have been restriped. I don’t know if all of them have, and that needs to be looked at as well.

Mr. Okum asked if it would be possible for the owners to allow partial replanting in some of the concrete or striped out parking areas within their parking field that are being removed?

Mr. McErlane responded if there is a reasonable amount of planting area there to accomplish it. Mr. Shvegzda may have a better indication about this.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. Chrien if he saw any problem with getting this driveway entrance on the north side of Tri-County Parkway fixed. It is dangerous.

Mr. Chrien responded I understand. Mr. Shvegzda and I talked about that today, and we have talked about it in the past. I know they are realigning the Lowe’s drive to line up with this one. I will bring this up with our property management group which has a regular maintenance program on the driveway and restriping, and I’ll get back with Mr. Shvegzda.

Mr. Shvegzda added in terms of that driveway, with the widening of the road and reconstruction of the driveway in the immediate area, as part of the roadway improvements it will be resurfaced to the radius return back on the driveway. So as part of the roadway work that is being done. It is further in that there may be other issues.

Mr. Okum said the restriping won’t be done until August or September, and certainly something could be done before then. Mr. Chrien said I’ll get a timetable and report back.

Mr. Okum moved to approve the modification of the Springdale Plaza PUD for public roadway improvements as presented by staff, including staff’s reports and recommendations and the agreement of the owners to do something with the driveway entrance temporarily until it is permanently redone. Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All voted aye, and the approval was granted unanimously.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE TWELVE

C. Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission 2006 Election Ballot

Mr. Galster moved to vote for David Okum. Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye.

D. Approval of Petition from Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission to Create a Hamilton County Planning Commission

Mr. Okum reported there is a restructuring of appointees to the Hamilton County Planning Commission. This recommends that a municipal appointee and a municipal Planning Commission appointee be taken out of the required appointments to the commission. The commissioners would make all appointments to the commission. They would hire the executive director, so it would eliminate the representation from any municipal appointment, unless the Hamilton County Commissioners decide to so appoint. There are no requirements for them to do that.

Based on that, I probably would not be supporting it, but I would rather defer this to the next Planning meeting. I want to get some more answers back from the Regional Planning Commission. I have spoken with another member, and they had a concern in that area as well as some other issues that might make this change a little more difficult.

The cover letter states that there are 37 municipal planning commissions and planning and zoning boards in most of 12 townships. There are quite a number of communities for which there is be no mandatory representation. I don’t know why it was structured that way. It shows a carryover of that position that I am serving in, it also shows a carryover of Mr. Martin. As you notice, those are municipally appointed by the county commissioners. This will be representatives as an alternate, and it is not required. I am asking that we carry it over to the next meeting.

Mr. Galster said I am opposed to the changeover. I personally don’t think any more control to the county commissioners is necessarily a good idea. They are talking about expanding this board from seven total representatives to 11. If they are going to expand any board, they should look at their own and expand it from three to five or seven.

I believe there is no municipal representation here. I think that is a mistake and it is more toward regionalization of government and I don’t like that. There are bold statements in here that say the purpose is to align the planning commission more with the desires and the goals of the board of county commissioners. I don’t think planning should be done based on politics. I have a problem with it whether it is this month or next month.

Mr. Okum said do you want to take action tonight? Mr. Galster answered I don’t mind waiting if you feel you want to get more information in order for us to make a better decision. To me this is the wrong way to go.



PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE THIRTEEN

PETITION FROM HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. McErlane said it was the administration’s opinion that because this involves some expenditure of funds or possibly doing away with some expenditure of funds that it is more likely that it should be handled by City Council with the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Okum said then we would need to act on it tonight in orders for Council to get it in time. Mr. McErlane reported that it is not due back until July 31st so you still have time. Mr. Okum said I would like to at least carry my discussions a little further. Mr. Syfert commented I think we should. Mr. Okum added there may be other municipalities that have similar concerns and possibly there would be a situation of rewording of language. If we deny it they can always revise it and redo it. Right now it doesn’t look like it will encourage input from the communities.

Mr. Galster said what could they possibly say that would change your mind? Mr. Okum responded maybe some rewording. Mr. Galster continued the way it is written now, can you forsee any way that you would support it? Mr. Okum said no, I wouldn’t support it the way it is written. After I get the answers back, a resolution from Council expressing their position on it might be appropriate.

Mr. Galster reported originally we were a member of the Regional Planning Commission. This board made the recommendation that we join and it went to City Council because they needed to expend the funds. They are eliminating dues in 2007 and if it goes back to City Council they would have the ability to not spend the money this year. The bottom line is I don’t think anything will happen that will have the Regional Planning Commission modify what they are going to vote on right now. We can talk about wordsmithing, but it’s not going to happen before the vote happens.

Mr. Okum said so you feel we should vote on it and give reasons why. I think a vote no doesn’t say enough. Mr. Galster said there are so many reasons why I am opposed to this that I didn’t make a list. I don’t have any problem with voting on it now because I don’t think there is anything that will change. I think we need to get our vote in there and let our position be known.

Mr. Galster said there is really not a ballot to cast. We either adopt the resolution or we don’t. So by not adopting the resolution, we vote no. Mr. Okum responded there are three choices. Mr. Galster commented I don’t support any of it.

From the audience, Mayor Webster said we have asked the legal department if it is proper for Planning Commission to adopt it. It is their opinion that it is not. They feel Planning should make a recommendation to City Council and have them handle this.

Mr. McErlane added this board does not typically make resolutions, so it would be a recommendation to Council. So the suggestion is that Planning give a recommendation one way or another to City Council.


PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
9 MAY 2006
PAGE FOURTEEN

PETITION FROM HAMILTON COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Galster moved that the Planning Commission submit a negative recommendation in reference to the adoption of the resolutions that are proposed by the Hamilton County Commissioners to convert the Regional Planning Commission to a County Planning Commission. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All members voted aye, and a negative recommendation will be forwarded to City Council.

VII. DISCUSSION

A. Approval of Sprint Antenna on Howard Johnson sign, 400 Glensprings Drive

Mr. McErlane reported we discussed last meeting that the Sprint people decided they were not going to put what we thought was a cover over the antenna, which turns out to be more of a filler that makes it look like a cylinder. They now have asked if they can leave it in its current condition. At the last meeting the members decided to take a look at what was there and determine whether or not they felt it was necessary to have that cover.

I have a photograph and a picture of what the cover looks like (he showed them to the members). He added even though this does look a cylinder that covers the antenna, it turns out that they are fillers that go between the antenna and there a cap on the top and bottom that make it look like a cylinder.

Mr. Galster said I don’t have a problem with what exists there. I don’t notice it until I go looking for it. Given the fact that Sprint went to such efforts to locate on an existing sign, I don’t see any need to require them to come back, and I will so move. Mr. Syfert seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye.

Mr. Okum asked Mr. McErlane about the tree replacement for the Walgreen renovation. He added that the trees they planted don’t look like our standard for trees. They are very dwarfed. What happened? Mr. McErlane responded we will take a look at them.
Mr. Okum asked about the Super 8 Motel tree planting. Mr. McErlane reported that the owner was in today saying that they were going to start next week, and Natorps will do the planting.

VIII. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Galster moved to adjourn and Mr. Butrum seconded the motion. All voted aye, and Panning Commission adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

                        Respectfully submitted,


________________________,2006    __________________________
                        William G. Syfert, Chairman

________________________,2006    __________________________
                        Lawrence Hawkins III Secretary