8 APRIL 1997

7:00 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.


Members Present: Councilmember Steve Galster, Richard Huddleston

David Okum, Robert Seaman, Councilmember

Robert Wilson, James Young and Chairman Syfert.

Others Present: Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

Jack Pflum, Pflum Klausmeier & Gehrum


Mr. Syfert commented there was an extra page 7 that needs to be removed from

the Minutes. Mr. Seaman moved for adoption and Mr. Galster seconded the

motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with seven

affirmative votes.


Mr. Syfert stated that paragraph 6 on page 10 should read 740 parking spaces.

With that correction, Mr. Young moved for adoption and Mr. Seaman seconded

the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with

seven affirmative votes.


A. Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes - 18 February 1997

B. 3/12/97 Letter to Doug Eades from Chairman William Syfert

C. 4/4/97 Letter to Judith Muehlenhard & Chris Smith from William Syfert.

Mr. Syfert commented that letter was sent at my request since what we had asked for at the last meeting was not submitted.


A. Judith Muehlenhard of Pine Gardens Landominium requests approval of screened in patios and screened in decks for their development on Princewood Court (tabled 3/11/97)

Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr.Young seconded the motion. All voted aye, and this was tabled to the May 13th meeting.

B. Concept Discussion of Proposed Holiday Inn Express, 12037 Sheraton Lane (previous Pizza Hut) (tabled 3/11/97)

Sam Patel stated the architect John Kingston is here with me, and we have changed the whole concept. Mr. Kingston added it will be brick construction on the lower level and drivitt of earth tone colors on the upper. We have changed from 60 to 48 units, which is a little more than allowed but it was understood that it might be possible if everything else was right. We are within all the other requirements of the city landscaping and material wise.

Mr. Patel stated we might have to change from the Holiday Inn, because they wanted more rooms and other facilities which this building would not accommodate. It would be another franchise. Mr. Kingston added that would not change the design that much; it probably would take the wheel off the tower and other minor modifications to the tower, but the materials would be the same.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Two


Mr. Galster wondered why it would not be a Holiday Inn, and Mr. Kingston stated that Holiday Inn wanted 60 rooms and a pool. Mr. Galster continued if you do get conceptual approval, the board should know that because the maximum width of the lot for a hotel is 250 feet and the property is only 150 feet wide, a 40% deviation from the standard, Mr. Wilson and I have decided that this would need to go back before Council.

Mr. Shvegzda reported that relating to what we discussed last time, they have now maintained the ingress egress ability to the adjoining properties. There were several questions we had on the parking layout and those questions have been satisfactorily addressed. There is less impervious area over the previous submittal, so there does not need to be an increase in the volume of the retention basin.

Mr. Shvegzda continued that regarding traffic issues, the original submittal was for 60 rooms and this is 48 rooms. Even the previous submittal had less traffic generated in the PM Peak as opposed to the original usage there, so this is still further reduced.

Mr. Pflum stated Anne previously provided all of you with a four-page report; letís go down through the items that are critical. In Item 5, the requirement is 1,000 square feet of lot per one unit in a motel, and this calculates out to be 891 square feet. In our opinion it is not a significant deviation but it is one to be considered. Item 6, the minimum width requirement of a lot for motels is 250 feet, and this property is 150 feet wide. All the setbacks identified in Item 10 are met, both in terms of front yard side yard and rear yard for the building as well as for the parking; that is satisfactory in all instances.

Mr. Pflum continued we will be seeing a more detailed landscape plan later. You have provided for four street trees and the requirement is one tree per 40 feet so you are okay there. We also expect a lighting plan later. The building elevations as shown on the drawing appear to be satisfactory. Last time you said you would construct this of brick; would that be different if you have another franchisee in place? Mr. Patel indicated no, the building would be the same with a minor modification on the tower.

Mr. Pflum reported in terms of the Corridor Study compliance, it is important and you have shown access to the rear from the existing parking lot; we need that circulation. Iím sure the members of the Commission are aware that the Pizza Hut had two driveways and now it is consolidated to a single driveway, so that is a positive situation.

Mr. Pflum stated I would comment about the signage; the details will be there later, but the site plan that we reviewed here does not have any indication of signage and when you get to that final review, weíll need the details of the ground mounted signs as well as any building mounted signs. That will be fairly important and the sooner you can get that identified, the better.

Mr. Pflum stated we have four conclusions. If Planning chooses to approve the concept plan, we would recommend that consideration be given that the minimum lot area be reduced, that the minimum lot width be reduced, that because of the restrictions of the site the dumpster should be located within the side yard, and adequate details on landscaping, signage, lighting and actual building designs and facades be submitted at a later date.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Three


Mr. Galster said in terms of the tower, would there be any possibility of reducing the overall height? Right now we are at 45 feet, and part of the Covenants state that no building should be higher than two stories. If the tower has no functional purpose, can it be lowered? Mr. Patel responded that is not a problem; it is just a decorative tower. Mr. Galster wondered how high the top of the second level of the building is and Mr. Kingston answered it is 33 feet. Mr. Galstser continued I donít have a problem with allowing something that sticks up above; I understand you will use that for your signage, but I didnít want to have a tower that continues to grow.

Mr. Wilson wondered if the applicant had any franchises in mind for the site. Are we looking at a similar type? Mr. Patel answered I am looking at a Comfort Inn or Best Western or maybe a Days Inn that do not require a swimming pool. Mr. Wilson commented last time we talked about 42 rooms and we said a few more give or take. I was thinking about maybe three, or 45, and you are at 48. That is not a major concern, but it is a concern because of the square footage. Mr. Patel responded the 48 could go down to 47 with an increase to the size of the lobby.

Mr. Wilson added we have a problem with the lot width; that is the major problem. I am concerned about the number of units to square footage, but I donít think that is as major an issue. I think the fewer red flags you have when you go to Council, the better chance you have of getting an approval. My suggestion would be to reduce it if you can to get more in line; change it to maybe 45 or 46. If you feel that 48 rooms is the best you can do, then present it as best you can. Bear in mind, that might be a concern with some of the other council members. Mr. Patel commented whenever a franchisee comes in, they want to have the maximum number of rooms as possible because their revenue depends on that. On the other hand, I have to justify the cost of running the property and I am trying to get the maximum number of rooms I can and the best franchise I can. Mr. Wilson suggested that the applicant have a Plan B in the event this would become an issue.

Mr. Okum said I have the same concerns as Mr. Galster in terms of the height of the building, and I am concerned that the building does not reflect the residential character of the buildings to the right and left of that building. Both those buildings have cedar trims with very soft colors, mostly stone and masonry, and this building is drivitt and brick, strictly commercial looking. I also would like to point out that signage will not be a free ride on that site. What Pizza Hut had was probably as much as I would approve for that site, so I am not thinking big sign features being applied to that site.

Mr. Okum added I also have some concerns with the access for your guests. You are showing owing them on the front and rear of the building. If you turn to your first floor plan, there is a lobby, but there also is an enclosed staircase area for fire safety on the front and the rear of the building. Both openings into that stairway have doors that stay closed, so if I were a guest coming into the facility, if I was going to a first floor room I guess I could go through that opening into your corridor out of the lobby. But if I were a second floor guest, I would have to enter either through the front or back of the building. There are 10 to 15 parking spaces easily accessible to that rear entrance and four or five easily accessible to the front entrance. This building appears to be not very user friendly, and as a traveler, the easier to access my room, the better. I would be inclined to a more central disbursement of the guests into the hotel.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Four


Mr. Seaman said I want to commend you for trying to address all our concerns. The biggest concern I have is the lot width. In my personal opinion this can work, and I appreciate Mr. Okumís comments on centralizing the entrance. To me that would be more user friendly. I also believe we could take the height of the tower down five feet or so, and I think that would add to the residential nature of the architecture. Overall I believe it is something that can work there. The centralization of that entranceway might even help the traffic flow, because the overhang wonít be so close to that entrance. Mr. Patel commented the canopy could be moved to the center; there should not be a problem with that.

Mr. Seaman continued overall I like the concept. If I were a councilman looking at the best use of this property, my biggest concern would be the lot width. You have done a lot to address our concerns, and I would be in favor of approving the concept at this point.

Mr. Huddleston stated the gentleman is to be commended in addressing some of our concerns, but I still have a problem with the density issue and that deals with the number of units and the lot width. I think you will find that by Code the two entrances on either end need to be protected exitways and probably will have to remain in some form or another. I think that will be a fact no matter where you put the lobby entranceway into the building.

Mr. Huddleston asked how the portico entrance was treated, adding that he was not sure it is clearly identified. Mr. Patel confirmed that it is a covered walkway. Mr. Huddleston added it has a commercial look to it in terms of nestling it between the two buildings, and you couple the issues of the density and the lot widths with the rather massive structure on a very small lot. I think it might work, but if you scale the project down to the size where it really works well, Iím not sure it would make economic sense.

Mr. Galster commented on the first floor plan where we show the elevator, if that was moved out to the street side and made an entryway there, more centered, that might work. It is another option.

Mr. Okum said I was in Blue Ash at Hunt & Reed Hartman and there is a Studio Plus type facility which is low profile, all masonry with shingled roof. Youíd have to look for it to know it didnít fit in the development. There is quite a difference between this plan and what I saw there. The building to roof eave was maybe 17 feet high and It think yours is 27 feet. Mr. Patel commented the first floor is 10 feet high. Mr. Okum responded you could clear story your entryway, maintain the height on your lobby and bring your other elements into standard height. Mr. Kingston added we are showing a height at the peak of the roof at 33 feet, but the eave height would be 17 to 18 feet high. Mr. Okum responded maybe it is just the setting of the building, because that property is already elevated off Route 4, so it will stand up there on its own, so having a high feature on the building is not as important as the actual appearance of the building.

Mr. Okum said I donít have a problem with your concept. I think if you can make the land use work and bring that concentration and density down, you have a very viable project there. I donít have a problem with your traffic counts. I do live up behind there so I see that site every day, but on the other hand I donít have a problem with a hotel going in there. It is just if it can fit.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Five


Mr. Patel responded we do not have a problem with bringing the brick all the way up. The colors could be changed according to the rest of the buildings, and the roof shingles will match what they have on the rest of the buildings.

Mr. Okum said the front of the building and the Sheraton Lane exposure is critical. I do not have a problem with making a conservative recommendation to get it to Council for their consideration of the use of the land, but it would come back to us for final plan approval, and based on what you have here, I would not be voting in favor of it. If someone moves to go to Council, they will base their consideration on what you have here before us. Mr. Syfert said we could agree to some of the changes in terms of concept; I donít think that is a problem. Mr. Okum responded I think Council has to consider what we approve, and there are a lot of things that have to be fulfilled before you can make a presentation to Council for a PUD modification. Itís a lot better to go before Council with all the requirements of the PUD fulfilled.

Mr. Seaman said so we are at the concept discussion level, and we need to give the applicant direction as far as what we are looking for him to bring before us for the preliminary plan approval before it goes to Council, is that correct? Mr. Syfert said that is correct. Mr. Seaman added I wanted to clarify that because I was confused as to whether we were voting tonight or giving input into a concept. Mr. Galster added there have been two PUDs recently. In one we didnít give Council a conceptual opportunity to address the applicant, and the applicant spent a lot of money on plans and were ultimately turned down by Council. For the other applicant, we conceptually discussed it at Council so they could get ideas on the money they needed to try to make it work. I can tell you that Council is a little uncomfortable with having conceptual discussion. My point to the applicant is it may not be a bad idea to modify this conceptually again for this board until you feel you have a lot of support here before it is submitted to Council. Whether you want to gamble, make the changes and submit it as a preliminary plan approval next month for Planning, that is your choice. I donít know that I would go in that much detail, because there are basic fundamental issues about the appearance and the use of the land that this board has that need to be addressed and toned down before you do a full presentation on your preliminary plan.

Mr. Patel responded you want me to present this conceptually again at the next meeting. Mr. Galster said look at the residential appearance of the building, the height the color the mass and try to get as much support from this board as you can before you move on to the next step. Mr. Syfert commented I believe we all agree that Mr. Patel has made great strides and should be commended on that, but your point is well taken.

Mr. Young said I would concur that all the changes so far have been agreeable. I think the big issue will be the minimum lot requirement; that is what a lot of us are struggling with right now and I donít know how you overcome that

Mr. Patel commented it could be done by shortening the tower and lowering the roof line and using different colors, and we could have another conceptual discussion with all the changes, but if it comes back to haunt us that we can only have 250 feet, that is not possible at all.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Six


Mr. Syfert said I think possibly some of us are a little concerned because right now it looks like we are probably going to have a fairly substantial structure on a small lot. If the structure could in some way be toned down a little bit, flattened out or made a little more residential to be more in compliance with what is up there, perhaps we would have an image a little bit different than what we see right now. I think that is probably the only way we will be able to overcome this. Weíre not going to expand the lot; we know that, so with what we have there I think we have to soften that into a smaller lot if it can be done. I think that is the direction; I truthfully do, and I see a number of heads nodding.

Mr. Okum said I donít have a problem with the 150 feet frontage, because if I had a choice of Budgetel across the street with 250 feet of face facing Route 4, or a narrow strip that is 285 feet deep, 150 feet wide, I would take your choice over that because of narrow versus broad. I donít have a problem with that, but I think your density of 48 rooms versus 42 rooms is an issue that needs to be weighed. With the traffic numbers I feel this would generate, I think getting somewhere between 48 and 42 would be acceptable. On the other hand if you do go with the other comments we have made, I would not have difficulty with this. In summation, 150 feet doesnít bother me at all because you have 285 foot depth. Considering Budgetel with 150 foot depth and 285 feet across Route 4, I would take your site for appearance for the Route 4 Corridor.

Mr. Huddleston commented I have a problem with the massive appearance of this structure on a very narrow lot. The requirement of 250 feet is in our ordinances, so we canít arbitrarily deal with that. Even if we go along with this, whether Council chooses to give you that variance or not it is still at their discretion. You have to recognize that if you choose to pursue this you are at risk, regardless of what we do. That is the fact. It says 48 rooms, but I count 46 and 1/2. You have a half unit behind the elevator core on the second floor. Mr. Wilson commented that has to be storage. Mr. Patel counted the rooms and announced that there are 47 rooms.

Mr. Huddleston continued I question what it is we are trying to approve here. I think your density may be a little lower than what is stated here, but I have a concern from the public safety standpoint. I donít know if you have taken a prototype design and tried to modify it, but what are we doing behind the stairwells? Those look like areas of potential public safety concerns.

Mr. Kingston reported the fire stair itself will have to be enclosed. Mr. Huddleston responded I realize the stair corridor will, but I wonder what is happening in those areas and I am concerned from a public safety standpoint. Again, my concerns were with the massiveness on the site and what exactly we are addressing in terms of total units.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Syfert asked if he wished to table this and work on it once more. Mr. Patel answered I will try once more.

Mr. Wilson moved to table and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was tabled to the May 13th meeting.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Seven


B. Gilhart Enterprises requests approval of proposed 3,050 s.f. addition to Princeton Plaza - 80 West Kemper Road

Bob Gilhart of Gilhart Enterprises stated we have had the opportunity to finish off the end of the shopping center. It is not so much a financial venture as it is filing in the gap.

Mr. Gilhart showed photographs, adding this is the former shoe store and it was an orphan for the last 10 or 12 years. We changed the occupancy and brought in Strictly Golf. Prior to that, we finished off the painting of the facade of this building. Around the corner is Borders Books & Music, and the intention was to bring that retail unit back into the center with an attractive retailer like Strictly Golf.

Mr. Gilhart continued now we take a look at it and see a dumpster there adjacent to the property. We donít like it and I assume the city doesnít like it. I donít have a particular retailer in mind for the spot, but I would rather see glass there and something that would tie the two builders together. Wes Noble of HavTech is with me tonight, and if we have any construction questions he will answer them. We contract with him to move the dumpster to another location and keep the architecture the same, preferably the Borders look. The drawings show the same split face block that is on the Borders building and a sidewalk that ties in with the Borders sidewalk and the Strictly Golf store. They show a shifting of the dumpster around the side and into the hillside and angled back towards the greenery section of Frankís.

Mr. Gilhart reported as far as parking is concerned, we held off on this project until we decided who was going into the Strictly Golf store. We did entertain some heavier parking usage type retailers. Had we put them in, we would have done this a little differently, but we decided to go with a long term lease with Strictly Golf. They are much like a furniture store; you have two or three customers and thatís a crowded day.

Mr. Gilhart stated with the low usage we decided to go ahead and seek permission to add the additional square footage. Even with the additional 3,050 square feet, it leaves us with 20 parking places on the immediate site, not including the ones in front of Borders and we have 10 spaces adjacent on Francis Lane, which primarily would be used for employees and not customers. With the two combined, we have 30 parking spaces , which I believe works out to 4.25 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which is not bad for this type of usage.

Mr. Gilhart said regarding landscaping, when we brought Strictly Golf in, my personal thought is it might be a little too heavy relative for consumers to see who the retailer is. I suggested they look at it after they get into the store and if they wanted us to cut some back or replace with smaller stuff it was fine. They opened on Monday so I havenít heard back from them yet. The trees are fairly small in size but they can get extra large over the years. I donít know what other issues there might be. All HVAC units are roof mounted and out of sight similar to Strictly Golf.

Mr. Shvegzda stated there always has been a concern in terms of access agreements to the adjoining properties for this particular development, both Value City and the former Swallenís property. Regarding detention required by this additional square footage, based on the 3,050 square feet, there would be approximately 360 cubic feet of detention required which would be very minimal so our recommendation would be that detention not be required for this particular expansion.


Planning Commission Meting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Eight


Mr. Gilhart commented on cross easements, I do not know it is appropriate relative to this particular project. I can see down the road in the next two or three months where it would be appropriate to bring it in the picture. I am not prepared to change our access or easements or ingress and egress relative to Value City, for instance, for this particular project. I donít know that there is any good scenario that I have seen over the years about how to tie in Value City to our property. Because of their traffic pattern of semis going in along side of their building, there is nothing that excites me about bringing that onto our property. When it was originally built, it was the intention of the owners of that property to do that. I donít think it would have worked then, and I donít think it would work now.

Mr. Gilhart continued I would be more interested in the consumer towards the expressway as far as a co-user of the retailers in our place versus potential users in for example the Swallenís property. I am not adverse to the consumer in the Value City property; I just donít see the common thread there. I think both the nursery and the other parts of the store are very destination oriented. They are for the most part not the same consumer as in the Princeton Plaza Shopping Center with the possible exception of some of the restaurants. What I want to do tonight is dodge it for now because I think in a few months it will become a very critical element and will be worth the time and effort of somebody to spend the money on a traffic study. I would lean towards the purchaser of the Swallenís property to do that. The major concern I have right now is to minimize the flow on Kemper Road, get them over to Princeton as fast as you can, not through the intersection of Princeton and Kemper, get them on the expressway and get them out of here. That is my major concern along with the Cityís, I think, but I donít see how any of that really applies to this 3,000 square feet.

Mr. Pflum stated our comments are primarily concerned with the parking. We would agree that the total number of spaces as they would affect the entire center is not significant, and the concern is what the particular users are. Strictly Golf is a low user and that is a positive. It depends on the type user that would go in there; the elevations indicate that there might be three users.

Mr. Gilhart responded my personal preference is one user; two would be max. One of the concepts was to move my office over there. I am not looking for three 1,000 square foot users, so I would say the odds are against that.

Mr. Pflum reported our concern is if it is one user of 3,000 square feet, there could be a large turnover and parking problems.

Mr. Pflum stated the striping of the existing parking area is worn off and confusing, so we would strongly recommend that this be rectified. Also, there is no indication as to where the existing dumpster would be relocated. Mr. Gilhart stated that is on the construction plan along the side to the west of Strictly Golf.

Mr. Pflum asked if there would be room for traffic to circulate on Francis Lane, and Mr. Noble indicated that there would be. Mr. Pflum commented we will take a look at that.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Nine


Mr. Pflum reported our biggest concern is the flow of traffic. If you develop this space, and since there are three full access points, we are suggesting that if this is approved the middle access be closed and additional parking be provided there. There is no doubt that if that is kept open, almost anybody turning in there could make a right hand turn and go against the flow of traffic. It could be confusing and may be a potential hazard.

Mr. Pflum concluded his report with the following recommendations:

1) The access point to Kemper Road, opposite the new space,

be closed and parking be provided in this area;

2) The frontage of the closed curb cut be landscaped between the

right-of-way line and the new parking area;

3) The entire portion of the parking area (30 spaces) be resurfaced

and striped so that spaces are easily identifiable;

4) The existing dumpster be relocated to the rear of the center, out

of view from Kemper Road;

5) The building materials will match those of the existing Borders


Mr. Okum said if the Francis Lane entrance were widened to give more into that portion of the development and that entrance were closed, wouldnít it be reasonable to consider traffic on that as a one way in off Kemper Road, and angle parking to the other direction for that development?

Mr. Pflum responded we have not thought of that, but it sounds like it has merit. We could take a look at it.

Mr. Gilhart stated we can look at a small part of the total and get ourselves into a box. I would rather look at it as part of the Swallenís property development. I think it is imminent, and if we start changing things now, it will negate whatever we decide on the other side, both with potential cross easements and access to Princeton Pike. We have addressed some of these issues with Mr. Shuler and Mr. Osborn

Mr. Gilhart continued on the possibility of one way for Francis Lane, over the last five to six years we have lost our left turn lanes coming out of the shopping center. To help customers to get to the expressway we have cooperated on a number of issues with the City. The only way I would ever consider changing anything we have right now is if there were a traffic light, and that is not going to happen. If a traffic light were at Borders, it would give us an easier way in and out and would eliminate a lot of our problems, but that is too close to the intersection. I can understand all the problems, and there are no easy solutions.

Mr. Okum said my concern is cars turning left into your site going down into your development and then stopping to turn left into this new development. I have a problem with it.

Mr. Gilhart commented I would be very much surprised if one of 100 customers would come in to Borders to get to Strictly Golf with the two entrances down there. It is significantly back from the Borders Store. I do not see cars coming in front of Borders to get to the 3,000 square foot addition. Mr. Okum commented I do not disagree with that.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Ten


Mr. Gilhart continued I do not think there is a safe thing to do on Kemper Road, and I do not have the answers. I have had a dozen conversations with potential users for the Swallenís property. There are some who say we do not want cross easements on our property, and others who say they would like to have them. It is a side issue and not relative to this 3,000 square foot addition. I think it can be addressed as a larger issue but not with this 3,000 square foot project.

Mr. Huddleston commented what you are proposing is an upgrade, but you are asking us to give you a blank certificate on what is going to go in there, and we need to look at all that situation. There are already a number of situations in your center where there are overall safety and pedestrian type concerns, and we do not need to confuse that further.

Mr. Gilhart stated we already had one potential user who probably would have used three or four times the parking that Strictly Golf will, and we nixed that. The First Watch Restaurant would have been great, but we are trying to not overkill the area. No retailer with a high usage parking will go in there; they just will not do it. In this case, we already have shown that we are using good judgment to accomplish that.

Mr. Gilhart continued you will not find a restaurant going in this other spot; there is not enough parking, so the retailer and landlord have a lot of control over the use of that parking. There is 60 degree parking on the side of Borders, and then we go into 90 degree in front of Strictly Golf. I do not know if it is better to keep it all at 48 degrees coming across, if you have preferences on the angling of the parking spaces, we will do it in a heartbeat.

Mr. Okum moved to grant approval with the five recommendations outlined by Mr. Pflum. Mr.Young seconded the motion.

Mr. Wilson commented that Mr. McErlane indicated that there was no landscaping submitted, and no light packs on the side of the building.

Mr. Gilhart responded there is one secondary light up and that will come off if we fill in that space and have the light come from the stores.

Mr. Wilson asked about the signage and Mr. Gilhart stated that it would be the standard raceway sign with individual lighting.

Mr. Galster said we have a motion to close that access on Kemper Road even though the applicant said he would not do that. Mr. Okum commented it is up to the applicant if he will accept those recommendations or not, particularly the one concerning the access on Kemper Road. Mr.Syfert wondered if the applicant agreed with the recommendations.

Mr. Gilhart responded on Recommendations #1 and #2 concerning the access point being closed and parking provided and landscaped, we would oppose any space being closed on Kemper Road. On Recommendation #5, the building materials are on the drawings and they are the same as the Borders store. On Recommendation #4, the dumpster will be relocated and the enclosure will not come any further than the front of Strictly Golf. Concerning Recommendation #3, resurfacing and striping the parking area, I still would not mind a recommendation on the angles for the parking, straight 90 degrees or 60 degrees. If we get down to #1 and #2, assuming they are not closed, I would be inclined to keep the 60 degree angle for the next building and 60 degrees along Borders. For the 3,000 square foot addition, 60 degrees and in front of Strictly Golf 90 degrees might be more practical.


Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Eleven


Mr. Gilhart added I am not inclined to close off that access in front of the space. As cars line up to come into that side of the shopping center, by having those entrances, we can unload three people into the center, versus coming into the one entrance at Borders. Going out, we have a very similar situation. If you have three cars lined up or three can go out at the one time, but if all three are at one location, it is much more difficult and counterproductive. If someone comes up with a traffic light to go into Princeton Plaza, that is when I would consider changing those accesses along Kemper Road. If you go down Francis Lane, the next traffic light is at Value City. In front of Borders makes more sense, but it has gone from two to four to five lanes, and that is difficult to control. A traffic light would be best; we would like to see it, but I do not know if ODOT or the City would want to do it. Traffic does not flow now, and I do not have answers, but I do think eliminating that one entrance will not help anybody. It may be aesthetic, but I do not think it is in the best interests of the center and our customers, so if recommendations #1 and #2 are requirements, we would say no. If they are recommendations, I would leave it open for when the Swallenís property is developed.

Mr. Wilson commented coming out from Borders you only have a small amount of time to get out and make the right turn. Occasionally I will go through the middle, but there are people who are trying to turn left. Maybe we should consider making that middle one right only, look at the right turn only for the middle one. Would the Commission consider that right only?

Mr. Pflum reported we considered the possibility but there are three access points within 400 feet from Francis Lane to this location. We do a lot of traffic studies for shopping centers and it is hazardous to have these accesses on Kemper Road. The benefits for the retail are minor and difficult to quantity, whereas there is the matter of safety on Kemper Road as well as benefits within the enlarged parking lot. We always are reluctant to close off driveways because of the patterns that people are used to, but we still believe a full closure would best serve public safety and would have minimal impact if any on the operation of the center.

Mr. Wilson said based on that, I will retract my comment. If we were to close that center section, we would have cars going to Francis Lane. If you go against the 60 degree parking along Borders, who will let them in to go out on Kemper Road, and then they will want to turn left. I do not see how we have solved the problem for anybody. Maybe we need to realign the parking so they can go out on Francis Lane. I do not see that many cars who will want to go across to go to Camelot. The people going into Strictly Golf will go into and come out on Francis Lane.

Mr. Gilhart commented there is no easy solution. I am trying to use destination oriented shops. The other ones we are considering are a photography shop, or a bakery, destination types that do not rely on the rest of the center. That parcel stands on its own in a number of respects and the owners of that parcel would like for the tenants to continue to be destination oriented type retailers and to be able to come easily in and out. If we were to use a different type of retailer there, I could argue that, but we are not and we have not.



Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8 April 1997

Page Twelve


Mr. Wilson commented at this point, we are going to vote on the motion with the recommendations and you will have the option as to whether you will agree to it or not. I think we are at a stalemate; you do not want the access closed and the motion is to have it closed.

Mr. Huddleston commented I think you have a very successful shopping center, and what has been created there is not a situation any of us would prefer. You have more than adequate parking in the center, and I have a serious concern about all that access and egress along Kemper Road. I think what you are proposing would be an improvement, but I believe it is in everybodyís interest that this access be closed.

Mr. Gilhart asked if this would be a recommendation or a requirement. Mr. Syfert answered it is a recommendation in the report, but the vote would make it a requirement. Mr. Okum added after it is approved, those would be the conditions that need to be met if the development is to go forward.

On the motion to grant approval, Mr.Okum, Mr.Young, Mr. Seaman, Mr. Huddleston, Mr. Galster and Mr. Wilson voted aye. Mr. Syfert voted no, and the approval, with five requirements, was granted with six affirmative votes.


Mr. Okum stated that the meeting for the committee to review the zoning code is scheduled for the 3rd Monday of the month, April 21st. Mr. Galster added committee members are Mr. Okum, Mr. Young, Marge Boice or Kathy McNear, Mr. McErlane, Mr. Osborn or Mr. Parham and myself. Mr. Syfert asked if everyone would be present at the next meeting, May 13th and everyone indicated that they would.


A. Futon Factory, 107 W. Kemper Road 14" x 51" neon window sign

B. Laser Graphics 12195 Princeton Rd. 2 neon window signs

C. Springdale Coin Shop 11500 Springfield Pk 2 painted window signs

D. Smyth Auto 11625 Springfield Pike 2 illuminated window signs

E. Strictly Golf 80 West Kemper Rd. wall sign & panels in pole sign

F. Tri-County Shoe Repair 340 Northland Blvd. neon window sign

G. Cincinnati Subs 1333 E. Kemper Road neon window sign

H. CENCOR, 294 Northland Blvd. window signs

I. Kemper TV -370 West Kemper Road - window signs


Mr. Galster moved for adjournment and Mr. Young seconded the motion. By voice vote, all voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


_________________,1997 _____________________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



________________,1997 ______________________________

Robert Seaman, Secretary