7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman William G. Syfert.

  4. Members Present: Robert Coleman, Steve Galster, Lawrence

    Hawkins, Robert Sherry, Tom Vanover and

    Chairman Syfert

    Members Absent: David Okum (out of town)

    Others Present: Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Anne McBride, City Planner

    Don Shvegzda, Asst. City Engineer

    Mr. Syfert said it takes five affirmative votes to grant any final approvals.

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

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

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

    Liaison to the Board of Zoning Appeals – Mr. Galster nominated Dave Okum and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. There were no other nominations, and Mr. Okum was elected by acclamation.

  8. Mr. Galster moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were approved with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council
    2. Mr. Galster stated that Mr. Lawrence Hawkins was appointed to the Planning Commission, and he is here for his first meeting tonight. All other members are returning. The Board of Zoning Appeals is returning as it was.

      As a council member, I did have a conversation with an employee of the applicant for Kids R Us which we will consider later in the meeting.

    3. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – October 21, 2003
    4. Zoning Bulletin – November 25, 2003


    9 DECEMBER 2003



A, Approval of Proposed Sign Change at Provident Bank, 495 East

Kemper Road – Tabled November 11, 2003

Lisa Sammons of Provident Bank and Andrea Ward of Holthaus Signs approached the commission. Ms. Ward said we would like to see what we can do to convince everyone to allow us to go with these colors rather than those approved at the August Planning Commission meeting. In the meantime, we got the property owner approval as well as a sample of the colors we are requesting.

Ms. Sammons said for the past two years we have been looking at a way to improve our image and identity in the marketplace. We have done a lot of studies on our signs and logos and what they represent to our customers and prospects. We found that in many of our locations, the signs on the white background were not visible, and people had a difficult time seeing them. The recommendation was made to change the identity of the company which included the signage and the way they are represented and treated at all of our stores.

We want to change from the traditional red white and blue to the blue and gold. We would like to be as consistent as possible with all of our stores so it represents one consistent look throughout the company, and all of our other locations will have the same treatment.

She passed the blue and gold samples around the commission members and Mr. Syfert said do you call that gold; I ate an orange about that same color today. Ms. Sammons responded we got a similar feedback from our CEO. We are one of the sponsors of the Cincinnati Bengals, and we pulled out the Bengals helmet and when you put that color next to the Bengals helmet, it is not orange.

It is a very nice treatment of gold.

Mr. Galster said this commission approved a new sign package for Provident, and you are requesting us to change to the other option that you presented at that time, right? Ms. Sammons answered we only presented one option, and there was some concern about that option.

Ms. Ward added that the white you see in front of you is the option we presented last time. We proposed to paint the fascia blue around the building, and the recommendation was to keep it white with the blue letters. She passed around copies of this.

Mr. Galster said the question is more the banding and color combinations than anything else. You also commented that you wanted to have all the Provident Banks have this new look.

We have another Provident Bank in Springdale. Should we anticipate that will come forward as well? Ms. Sammons confirmed this. It is in the Corridor Review District and those colors would be more than accent colors, and we need to stay with earth tones in that district. In my opinion, you would have a harder time in that location with these gold and blue colors than you will here.





Mr. Galster continued I wanted to make you aware of that, and what happens if you have two in the City with different colors and you are trying to have identity in Springdale? Ms. Sammons answered that would be a challenge and an opportunity for us.

Mr. Galster asked if all the new stores gone in with these new colors. Ms. Sammons answered that none of the stores have been completely renovated. That is to take place in January of 2004. Mr. Galster asked if the ATM would be all blue, and at every bank location, and Ms. Sammons confirmed that it would be.

Mr. Galster added that we have white banding where all the blue banding goes all the way around the building, and they have proposed a blue pole sign and what we approved was a white sign, but I don’t know that the colors of that pole sign aren’t reversed from the approval.

Mr. McErlane reported that at Planning Commission’s August 12th meeting, the new signs were approved. Although the plan that was presented is fairly close to what is shown tonight, the only difference is on that plan we did not see a blue ATM.

Planning Commission approved it with the following conditions:

      1. That the fascia color would remain white, or be white. Right now it has white with blue and red stripes; 2. The wall sign letters would be as shown on the plan presented, primarily because if you look at the elevation photographs, the letters are actually white and not the blue as shown here. So Planning approved the blue letters on a white background and on the pole sign, the letters would be blue and gold with a white background.

It appears that the applicant wants to revisit that tonight. The automatic teller is a new item that wasn’t on the last plan. The square footage of all the signs is within a variance that was granted previously and subsequent to last month’s meeting, we have received a signed owner’s affidavit from the owner as well as the application being signed. Until tonight we did not have a color sample, and the sign drawing shows blue letters instead of the white shown on the fascia of the building.

Mr. McErlane asked the applicant about the blue material for the fascia, and Ms. Ward reported that it is paint on the existing surface, which is aluminum. The vinyl striping will be removed.

Mr. Sherry said I am trying to recall our discussion at the August meeting. Wasn’t there an inconsistency between the pylon sign and the building sign, two different colors? We had quite a discussion and chose the white background for the entire building.

Mr. McErlane reported that the only discrepancy was that this sign has not changed. Even though the signs on the building show white letters, this was blue at the previous submittal as well.






Mr. McErlane added that the only point about consistency was that when they proposed a condition of a white fascia for the background, Planning felt that the pole sign also should have a white background to be consistent.

Mr. Galster said for additional clarification, you are asking for a pole sign with a blue face with white letters and orange in their logo. Ms. Ward confirmed this.

Addressing the commission members, Mr. Syfert asked if they wanted to reverse what they had approved in August.

Mr. Galster said if the commission reverses itself and goes to the blue banding with the white and orange letters and logo, does the ATM need to have that same treatment?

Ms. Sammons answered that is the standard design for all ATMs at this point. Mr. Galster wondered if the ATM needed to be considered as a part of the whole package, and if you can’t get the ATM this design, is it all or nothing? Ms. Sammons answered we would take other options under consideration. The challenge that we faced when we polled our customers and prospects is the fact that ATMs are not readily identified because the white blends in with the entire building. We felt if we painted them blue, our customers could identify them. Mr. Galster commented I am a banking customer, and I can pretty much figure out that every bank has an ATM machine, and the fact that they blend in is kind of nice rather than a big blue box setting out there.

Mr. Syfert asked if they were requesting a blue band around the building, and Ms. Sammons answered it would be around the building on the top where the red white and blue striping is now.

Mr. Syfert said I will not be able to support it. I do not think it is attractive at all. I think we have a real nice image in that plaza, and to put a big blue band up there – I’m not going to support it.

Mr. Galster said to express a comment that Dave Okum expressed to me, he said we should be careful of what might be able to be pulled over into the Tri-County Mall area in terms of accent colors or depth of colors. I think back to the Tire Store and their red, and how that was a problem, which is pretty much the same issue.

Mr. Coleman said having looked at these drawings compared to the earlier drawings, I don’t support this bolder look. I think it is somewhat inconsistent with the plans we have in place for the softer neutral tones.

Mr. Galster moved to deny the application to modify the August approval to change to the presented colors, based on incompatibility with colors in the surrounding area, the desire to have neutral tones in the main thoroughfare throughout the city, and the additional complication of trying to create the identical image in the Route 4 Corridor. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the proposed sign change was denied with six votes.




    1. Approval of Map Amendment and Preliminary PUD Plan for Triad Commercial Properties, 1313 East Kemper Road (Kemper Pond)

    Lowell Easter of Triad Commercial Properties said we are based in North Carolina and have done a great deal of development in that area. WE have a group in the office that has done around 50 IHOP locations in multiple states. Most of those are in locations where sites already have been zoned and ready.

    This is our first project in this market, and we have decided to try to tackle a PUD. We are looking at constructing at least two uses, a project of approximately $3.5 million and hope to start in mid-summer and be completed toward the end of next year.

    We have assembled a local team, including Joe Dillon with Civil Environmental Consultants and Wardell Wilcox, traffic consultant and Andrew Gianelli who is not here but is helping us provide some of the control that the City of Springdale is looking for.

    We have had a number of comments from the staff, and to the extent possible we have incorporated them into the CCRs and site plans.

    The site is located at the convergence of Springdale and Sharonville on Kemper Road, and because of the stop light there, access and transportation issues, we need to work with Sharonville, and we have contacted them.

    We have presented two different alternatives. One is an IHOP and a bank, and the other is an IHOP and a fast food.

    He showed a landscaping plan along Kemper Road. It is a 2.6 acre tract of land that is already zoned part retail and part office. We have a site that does not meet the size or setback requirements of a PUD, but I truly believe that PUD is the most appropriate zoning for this property.

    The A-frame building would be removed and provide access to other properties. The PUD provides other opportunities in terms of shared parking, landscaping and access to Kemper. We can provide the sort of CCR and covenants to offer the City something that is not there right now.

    One of the things we can control ourselves as the potential owner of this property is that the direct access of the center to the site can be eliminated entirely. Obviously there is a lot of traffic on Kemper Road.

    A second recommendation is that you have two shared access points, one on either side, and the more important one would be the one at the stop light. The secondary access would provide a right in right out traffic movement. To the extent that we can control that, we are certainly willing to do that, and that is something that we have submitted to a contiguous property owner. We believe that because of the benefits of better access at the stop light that we can provide, that is something we can facilitate.


    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Easter continued that in terms of the major issue with regards to transportation, Chesterdale Road is this access an office complex which is behind. This comes right into a stop light, and there have been a number of improvements at that interchange recently. There certainly could be significant additional improvements as it relates to this access point, because what you have is a very thin ribbon pavement two lane access without appropriate stacking for that number of cars. Whether it is the existing zone or what we are proposing, .there certainly needs to be improvements there.

    We have worked with a contiguous property owner, Chuck E Cheese in Sharonville trying to work out the access there. They have given us very positive feedback that if we can improve that situation, they would cooperate. The important thing there is that we need easements on their side in order to do the appropriate stacking that is recommended in the transportation study and to do the additional 12 foot wide 36 foot lanes with appropriate stacking.

    We are willing to accept an approval of this contingent upon those final documents being accommodated by those contiguous property owners to facilitate the kind of improvements that would help that situation.

    We are also proposing a dedicated left. If you are traveling west on that road and you come to the stop light, there would be an arrow. Our conversations with the City of Sharonville indicate that this is feasible if the appropriate restriping is done.

    We look forward and hope that we are able to work on this project and become good developers in your fine community.

    Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant is requesting a map amendment and approval of a preliminary plan for changing the zoning from a designation on two different parcels. One is currently zoned Office Building, OB, at 1.66 acres, and the other parcel is zoned General Business, GB, at .967 acres. There is an A-frame building on the General Business property that is vacant. The other parcel used to have Building 100 of what was originally called the Tri-County Office Park and more recently Kemper Pond. Part of that building burned a few years back, and the owner of the property demolished the entire building. It has pavement on it, but the building has been removed.

    There are a few items that were not submitted and are required as a part of the PUD. There were some things penciled on to the check list that was submitted, but there was no formal listing of the cost estimate or the construction schedule.

    The only real preliminary building elevations that we received were some photographs of some prototypical IHOP restaurants.

    The proposed area of the PUD is less than the three acres required by code, but the code says that if the applicant demonstrates unusual circumstances that would merit a PUD for a property that is less than three acres, Planning can waive that requirement.


    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. McErlane reported that the peripheral setbacks for a PUD are required to be 75 feet and Planning can waive that requirement as well.

    The development as proposed, and keep in mind that this is a preliminary plan, meets all of the setbacks for buildings except the 75 foot peripheral setback for PUDs. There are some deviations for parking and paved areas that do not meet the 10 foot setback that is required for those areas. Specifically, the Wendy’s site is shown at 5 ˝ feet on the west side of the property, 2 ˝ feet on the east side and the rear is existing pavement that is up to the property line.

    On the IHOP building, there is 2 ˝ feet shown on the west of the property, 0 on the east side which is actually the driveway that lines up with Chesterdale Road out to Kemper Road.

    In the proposal that shows the bank, there are deviations for parking and paved areas that show only 3 feet on the west side, 2 ˝ feet on the east and 0 on the rear yard, which is current pavement up against the south property line.

    What is required for Wendy’s is 53 parking spaces, and there are 53 spaces shown. The IHOP is required to have 73 and there are 73 shown with 21 extra in the overflow. Some of the required spaces are also in that overflow area. The bank would require 21 spaces, and with that proposed development there would be 37 extra in the overflow.

    A total of five stacking spaces are required for each of the drive throughs. Both Wendy’s and the bank appear to meet that requirement. Wendy’s is required to have three handicap spaces and IHOP is required to have four. Only three are shown for the IHOP. The number of handicap spaces are based on the number of parking spaces you provide, not what the Zoning Code requires.

    The impervious surface ratio is indicated at 77% on Sheet 2, which is the development that shows the Wendy’s and 75% on Sheet 4 which shows the bank. The requirement is 80% so both of those plans meet that requirement.

    There are two proposed monument signs indicated. However, we haven’t received any details with respect to those signs. The covenants do allude to some requirements for signs, but they basically say to meet the Zoning Code requirements.

    There is a draft of restrictive covenants that have been submitted. Paragraph 1.11 in the covenants says "setback requirements", which should be deleted. The setbacks would be as approved on the PUD plan. The point of that would be if they are specifically set out in the covenants, the covenants would have to be amended if there is some minor tweaking that would have to be done with where the building is set on the property. It is better to leave it as approved on the preliminary plan.



    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. McErlane stated that there are use restrictions mentioned in Paragraph 6.3 of the covenants that prohibit theaters, dancing and live entertainment venue, commercial recreation, video arcades, assembly halls, kennels and catteries, auto sales or leasing, residential uses or lodging, funeral homes, gas stations, places of worship, sexually oriented businesses, establishments that sell drug paraphernalia or gambling facilities.

    There is also a section that deals with exterior building materials that indicates that the building shall have at least 20% brick. As it reads in the covenants, it says that the developer shall have sole responsibility for approving those changes, and we believe that should include Planning Commission approval as well.

    The only requirements for signs refer to just the requirements of the Zoning Code and I think Planning Commission would like to see some additional restrictions on those, in particular that they should be monument signs and not pylon signs, even though they are indicated as monument signs on the plan.

    There are several paragraphs in the covenants that pertain to maintenance of landscaping, pavement, drainage facilities, etc. The City typically is party to these covenants which allows them some control over whether or not they get changed in the future. Without being a party to the covenants, they could be changed without the City’s knowledge. If the City has an interest in seeing those covenants stay in place, we should be a signator to that as well.

    A tree survey and tree removal plan was submitted. Sheet 2 which shows Wendy’s indicates 42 inches of deciduous over story hardwoods being removed, 54 inches of evergreens, and 13 inches of ornamentals. Potentially there may be one additional deciduous tree that might be impacted by grading on the north end of the parking lot for the IHOP site.

    On Sheet 4 which is the bank development, it looks as though all of the trees that were presented on the other development would be removed with the exception of one 10 inch pine that could be saved on the bank site. For redevelopment, our Tree Preservation Ordinance requires that each caliper inch that is removed must be replaced.

    Mr. Galster said because the applicant has shown us Option A and Option B in a preliminary plan and we have to approve a PUD for the zone change with the preliminary plan, will the A & B Plan be confusing when it comes to the setback requirements of what we are actually improving? I’m having a hard time figuring out how to deal with that; do you see that as an issue?

    Mr. McErlane responded not really. Planning can approve the options as long as Planning and Council agree that they are viable alternatives and would not have objection to either one of them coming in at final plan stage.



    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Ms. McBride reported that our Comprehensive Plan designates this area for regional business center use, and that provides for complementary retail service or restaurant uses in addition to regional or corporate office uses. It specifies restaurants and financial institutions as a complementary service, so the uses proposed are consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. The PUD district as proposed would allow for those uses.

    There is a requirement of three acres for a PUD District, and we suggested to the applicant that they consider the PUD and would urge the commission to consider this rather than one of our straight business districts, since it offers more control for the City. The applicant has provided us with a justification statement. There also is the 75 foot setback perimeter requirement. Planning would need to modify that as proposed on the two site plans.

    On signage both plans indicate two ground-mounted signs for the development. When staff originally reviewed this, we suggested one center sign, a combined sign. They came back with the two ground-mounted signs and staff believes that if that is to be the case, we need to limit the area of those two ground-mounted signs to 50 square feet per side. Our code allows a maximum ground mounted sign of 100 s.f. per side, so if they are going to have two signs, it should be 50 s.f. per side which would total the 100 s.f. they are entitled to for one of the parcels. Again, it is a PUD so we believe some modifications are in order.

    We ask that the commission limit that to seven feet in height, which is the maximum permitted by code, and that they would be internally illuminated and located on a brick base that would be complementary brick to match the building materials.

    They have to be located a minimum of 10 feet from the Kemper Road right of way. I believe the eastern sign might be a little closer than that, but on the final development plan they would have to be 10 feet off the right of way. They also have to be located within landscaped beds.

    The site plans indicate the dumpster locations and they indicate an enclosure around them but we need to see the details. Any enclosure would have to meet the requirements of Section 153.489, and should also include solid wood gates on metal frames. Staff would suggest that any approval by the commission would include that the gates are to remain closed when the dumpsters are not being accessed.

    We received a conceptual landscape plan for one of the development scenarios, but it does not meet our requirements under Article 60. In addition to plant material revisions that need to be made, we also need to see the quantity and species of material to be identified. We didn’t receive the species. We also need a note that says that mulch will be installed at three inches in depth. Staff would recommend that landscape areas be irrigated.



    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Ms. McBride added that a landscape plan consistent with our Article 60 needs to be submitted reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission as a part of any final approval.

    We did not receive any information on lighting, and a coordinated photometric lighting plan needs to be approved by the City. Staff would emphasize the word coordinated in that the fixtures should remain the same throughout the entire PUD.

    We will need to have building elevations and materials provided, and they will need to be reviewed and approved by the City as a part of the final development plan.

    All of the mechanical equipment needs to be screened from view from the public right of way and adjacent properties. There is an overflow parking area indicated in the southwest corner of the site. It is counted in as the required parking spaces for both IHOP-Wendy’s and is indicated as an overflow lot for the bank. There is no vehicular-pedestrian connection between the overflow parking lot and the sites, which makes coordination a little difficult. There also is no pedestrian access indicated which makes it difficult if in fact that will be part of the required parking.

    The parking areas need to be a minimum of 10 feet from non-residential property lines, so this commission would need to approve a modification for the east south and west property lines.

    A retaining wall is indicated at the northeast corner of the property, toward Chesterdale which is proposed to be the IHOP location. We didn’t get the details on the materials for that wall. Staff would suggest that since this is an entryway to Springdale, this might include some sort of Springdale logo.

    Site Plan A is the 5,000 s.f. Wendy’s and the 3370 s.f. IHOP, and 20% of the site is required to remain as open space. They are proposing 23% so that is in conformance. The IHOP restaurant requires a total of 73 parking spaces, and they indicate that 73 parking spaces are proposed. However, five of those parking spaces are located in the overflow parking lot in the southeast corner. Rough scaling, that is about 200 feet from the front entrance of the restaurant, and there is no vehicular or pedestrian connection between the IHOP lot and that lot, so the commission needs to consider that.

    The Wendy’s Restaurant requires a total of 53 spaces, but 11 of those spaces are located to the rear of the building and they are approximately 250 feet from the entrance with no pedestrian or vehicular means of access.

    The code requires that a minimum of five stacking spaces be provided per drive through lane from the order location. The spaces have to be 9’ x 19’, and cannot obstruct through traffic or parked vehicles. The stacking spaces are indicated, but we would ask that the stacking lane be striped and marked accordingly on the pavement because I think Wendy’s does the biggest drives through business of any of the fast food restaurants.


    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Ms. McBride added that staff has some concerns about the northern curb cut into Wendy’s. Based on the comment about the stacking and drive through, if cars are coming into the site from Kemper in that westernmost entrance, and there are cars waiting to come out of the property to turn right onto Kemper, if there are several cars stacked there waiting to get out, there is only stacking space for approximately two cars coming in waiting to turn left into Wendy’s, they have their stacking for their drive through and now you have people out onto Kemper.

    On Site Plan B which is the 5,000 s.f. IHOP and the 4110 s.f. financial institution, 25% of the site would remain open space in excess of the 20% required. Parking for the IHOP remains unchanged. The financial institution requires 21 spaces, and they are providing 21 on the bank site, not utilizing that overflow parking area.

    On stacking for the teller windows, 9’ x 19’ spaces are required. They cannot obstruct through traffic or parked vehicles, but they do require five spaces per drive through lane from the teller window. They indicate 17 spaces on the site and we believe that is sufficient, and that the commission should consider approving a modification to reduce the 25 stacking spaces that would be required to the 17 proposed. We would indicate in the case of Wendy’s that it needs to be striped and indicated that it is a through drive lane, particularly on that financial institution site plan, you can see where people would end up using that as a double stacking lane, and then you have lost your escape lane for the financial institution. That really needs to be striped and signed very well in terms of maintaining the integrity of that escape lane. There are similar concerns about that northernmost curb cut from the financial institution.

    With regards to the draft covenants, the setbacks need to be as approved on the development plan by the City. Section 7.1 of the draft covenants indicates that 20% of the building materials shall be brick. Staff feels that 20% is too low in comparison with other PUDs we have seen in the City, and would ask that the percentage be significantly increased. Additionally, we think that a provision should be made that the brick shall not be painted.

    Section 7.1 also gives sole approval of the building design to the applicant/owner, and we believe that the City is the final approving authority for the building design and needs to be designated as such. No provisions are made in the covenants to provide for coordinated lighting, landscaping or signs, and that needs to be added, and the City needs to be made a party to the signing of the covenants.

    On the overflow lot and its designation as it relates to the office building that is there right now. I am assuming that it was not counted as part of the required parking for that office building, but is stand alone, but it is clearly designed to be utilized more by that office building than by these two users, and given the types of users, particularly the Wendy’s – IHOP combination, that parking will be needed and used on a frequent basis.


    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Ms. McBride added that the Planning Commission needs to look at the way it is laid out and maybe that buffer should go to the south between the office building and this part of the development and it truly would become integrated with this development as opposed to an annexed part of the office site.

    Mr. Vanover asked the developer if the Wendy’s would be a relocation of the Wendy’s 100 yards east of there? Mr. Easter answered that our focus is with the IHOP. It would not necessarily be a Wendy’s nor would it be a bank. This is to give us flexibility.

    Mr. Shvegzda reported that regarding the overall development, the intent is to create two separate lots. There is a division line noted and we assumed that it would be a property line.

    The existing middle access point to Kemper Road is shown as being eliminated. There was a note indicating proposed drive improvements for the easternmost common drive. This is the drive opposite Chesterdale Road.

    Some widening shown on the concept plan is noted on the adjoining property (Chuck E Cheese), which is within Sharonville. Obviously written approval from the adjoining property owner and subsequent approval from the City of Sharonville, both for the modification in that area and the modification of the signal itself will be required.

    There is also a concern in this area about potential queuing of the northbound movement. The furthest drive to the south is about 130 feet from the stop bar, and the concern would be that if you had enough queuing traffic backing up from that point, it might block that drive into Chuck E Cheese. The traffic impact study indicates about 100 foot queuing length, but we think there may be some differences on that and we’ll get into that as we discuss the traffic impact study comments.

    On the retaining wall, it is about 220 feet in length starting at the northeast corner and running along the eastern side of the property. The highest point, which is towards the intersection, is about eight feet high with an adjacent five-foot walk between the retaining wall and the common drive. There are no colors or details shown for the wall.

    One of the comments that led to the sidewalk was to have a direct pedestrian access way from the sidewalk that is leading to the crossing of Kemper Road that goes over to the bus shelter. With this layout of the sidewalk, it is coming from that intersection and leading around to the back of the IHOP, which is a service area. The problem with making it a more direct access to a more logical terminus is that it is indicated as a five-foot wall height in the area where the sidewalk would be in front of the IHOP building. The question is if there is a better way to make this a better logical location for the sidewalk so it can be more easily used.




    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Shvegzda reported that the western common drive shown on the plans is indicated with no turning movements. One of the concerns is with the eastbound queue length on Kemper Road, which would be for the left turn onto Chesterdale Road. Quite frequently this queues back the entire length of that left turn bay, which partially blocks that driveway. Our strong recommendation would be that the left turn movement be prohibited at this location.

    Regarding the proposed Wendy’s site, which is called Option A, it is 45-degree angled parking. The parking width and drive width added together still leave enough for the drive through lane to have a separate location.

    There is a concern with the location of the drive to the site from the common drive. That is approximately the distance from the drive radius on the site drive to the edge of pavement on Kemper Road, which is about 42 feet. Our concern was the backing up of queued traffic out into the drive so it would be out into the Kemper Road pavement. The attached photos are from a location on Reed Hartman Highway which is very similar to this project in that this has a common drive that enters off Reed Hartman and feeds to Wendy’s and some development on the opposite side. You can see that the cars are queued out to the edge of pavement of Reed Hartman, so there is a concern from both aspects.

    On the bank, Site Option B, it still has the same location for the site drive entering the site, but it has a more circuitous route back to the drive through so you would have additional length for vehicles to stack before they would enter out into the common drive area.

    On storm water management, each site is indicated to have just less than 10,000 cubic feet of underground detention which by preliminary calculations appears to be correct. Obviously additional details for the outlet structures and storm sewer analysis would have to be submitted for the final site plans.

    On the traffic impact study, there was an analysis performed that determined the queue lengths at the intersection of Chesterdale and Kemper. Basically this needs to be performed on the worst case scenario, so that the operating cycle lengths and volumes will be more reflective of the peak hour conditions. This most probably would be a 120-second cycle length for that Chesterdale signal. The submitted analysis utilizes 70-second cycle length. That was part of our concern for how far the traffic would queue back onto the private drive. We feel it would be a little bit longer than what was indicated in the analysis.

    Part of the proposal would be to provide a protected left turn from westbound Kemper Road southbound into the private drive. Right now there is just a prohibited left turn at that location. There is a very short left turn bay, but no green arrow. The concern with that extra green time being taken away from the entire intersection is that the queuing lengths would be increased.




    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Shvegzda said the City of Sharonville has a closed loop system that basically starts from Chesterdale and goes to the east, and there was an analysis submitted to see how that progression works through there and what needs to be done. One of the things that need to be changed is that each of those signals needs to be analyzed with the same cycle. Right now they vary.

    There is a table summarizing the capacity analysis results in the traffic impact study. Overall, the level of service for each intersection is noted. What we need to do is go further to show the individual movements to highlight if there are any significant degradation in any of the levels of service so we can determine what needs to be provided to make those be at an acceptable level of service.

    The left turn bay from westbound Kemper Road to the common drive would need to be extended to 100 feet from the approximately 40 feet as it exists today. There was a striping plan that shows how this changes the existing striping, and what potential driveways this could affect. After you get out of the existing left turn bay, you do have a two way left turn that allows traffic to get out of the main flow of traffic to access the driveways.

    The site is to be replatted. We have various property lines that are somewhat confusing through that area, and these need to be consolidated and cleaned up.

    Mr. Galster said on the westernmost access point , if it is changed to right in and right out, does it eliminate the stacking concerns in terms of people being able to get into the site? I know it doesn’t address the problem if the drive through happens to be full and backed all the way out there.

    Mr. Shvegzda responded that the biggest problem that resolves is traffic leaving, backing up and blocking the entrance, in the movement of the traffic from the common drive into the site, because you won’t have the left turn traffic there. It certainly would reduce that concern. Mr. Galster said reduces but doesn’t eliminate.

    Mr. Syfert said when you were talking about blocking Chuck E Cheese, are the "Do Not Block" signs effective, like we have out on Route 4? Mr. Shvegzda responded there are a lot of signs out there, and I would have to say that a lot of them don’t do much to enforce what they actually say. That would be a last resort issue in terms of satisfying that concern. The bottom line is I don’t think they generally do much good. Mr. Syfert commented why do we even put them up. Mr. Shvegzda answered it is the last resort.

    Mr. Sherry asked if there was a problem with the queuing lane at Chuck E Cheese now? Mr. Shvegzda said I do not know. It has never been expressed to me, and we really haven’t observed it specifically.




    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Sherry continued with a Wendy’s, would a second right in right out at the entrance solve the backup problem? This would be so if they wouldn’t back up, they would have to come all the way around to get into it. Mr. Syfert commented they wouldn’t do it. Mr. Shvegzda responded it certainly would resolve our problem. I don’t know it would affect the flow of the traffic into the drive through. Mr. Sherry added I have been over on Reed Hartman and I understand the situation; you see it Monday through Friday. I am just curious as to what options might be available.

    Mr. Vanover said the problem with the intersection is that the focus of that signal is on Kemper Road, so Chesterdale in both directions is a secondary concern. Coming from the site, you would be proceeding north on Chesterdale. That signal is a short sequence and we have had accidents there because of that. At best you can get 10 vehicles through on the left hand turn sequence, and that is only if that side of the street isn’t occupied. Anything coming from the south north will slow down the southbound movement. If we add anything to that, there will have to be compensation, and obviously it will have to come from Kemper Road which may add a complication to that side.

    Don is right; the eastbound stacking lane on Kemper Road to make that northbound turn onto Chesterdale, was backed up in front of the car dealership. The intersection is running full right now, and I would be cautious about adding a whole lot to it. If they negotiate and get Chuck E Cheese to move that turn into their property and take it further south and come in more towards the back side of the building, that would help because you would have more stacking capacity. That intersection is tedious right now, and my biggest concern is what we would be adding to it.

    Mr. Shvegzda said to add to Mr. Vanover’s comments, that particular intersection is even worse than normal because of the closure of Crescentville Road at the I-75 bridge. There has been additional green time given to the Chesterdale leg to handle the traffic on there, so there is less green on Kemper Road which further aggravates the situation of the stacking for the left turn.

    Mr. Galster asked the applicant if the combination of the monument sign is something he is totally opposed to. Mr. Easter responded that there are a number of things that PUD provides for in a multi-phase submission. This is an example of an IHOP monument sign; it doesn’t have colors and we haven’t gone into great detail, but it would meet the square footage restrictions Ms. McBride suggested, and in our revised submittal, we provided for that in two ground level monument signs.

    Mr. Galster asked if he had an objection to combining those two signs in a center location as opposed to two locations? Mr. Easter answered yes. Mr. Galster said 220 feet seems like a long distance for a retaining wall. I don’t know if there is a way to transition from a stone wall into something else so we could at least cover that corner with something a little better than masonry brick.



    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Galster asked if they had talked with Sharonville about the traffic signal and traffic counts and left turn in.

    Wardell Wilcox reported that we have been in constant communications with CVS, and CVS luckily is the city engineer for Sharonville. Through out discussions our understanding is that at this point they are deferring to Springdale, and don’t really see a problem with the recommendation saying that we get through some of the technical issues in getting things through the City of Sharonville. That is to be confirmed, but at this point, it seems to be the direction we are going.

    Mr. Galster asked Mr. Shvegzda if that was his understanding as well. Mr. Shvegzda answered that we have been keeping Sharonville informed as to what is going on, and they are looking at us to make a recommendation to them as to how the modifications will affect their system and whether it is appropriate for them to approve the particular modifications. Mr. Galster commented that the light is in their loop system.

    Mr. Galster said Ms. McBride talked about the amount of brick on the buildings; 20% which is in the covenants seems too low. I was making a note that it should be 50% on three sides but we also have it backing up to the office buildings, so I am thinking four sides. Unfortunately you do not have a back side to your building that is not exposed. Are you opposed to increasing the amount of brick and those type issues? Mr. Easter responded in a lot of things I might say yes and no.

    Mr. Hawkins asked the rationale for why there isn’t vehicular access to the overflow lot. Is that something that is up for change?

    Joe Dillon of Civil Environmental Consultants answered that in order to meet the existing driveway, this proposed grade will be a couple of feet lower than the existing pavement so it would make a very sharp rise in a very short distance from the proposed new development. There is access on both those sides for the vehicles and we can put a pedestrian walkway down through here.

    Mr. Easter said there was a comment from staff that there might be a way to designate that as employee parking. With a pedestrian walkway installed here, there would be an easy access.

    Mr. Syfert asked if that parking area was being utilized. Mr. Dillon answered that it was tied into the original building that burned down, and I have been there a number of times, and there are not that many cars in that section. Mr. Easter added that it is because there is another parking lot before you get to these buildings.

    Mr. Vanover said we do have that bus stop out there and there will be an effect on it. Also, there could be a park and ride use there. There is not a whole lot of usage there. In all honesty, it probably won’t get a lot of usage except for the IHOP breakfast rush. Are we talking about relocating that bus stop?



    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Shvegzda reported that the bus stop will remain where it is. Essentially all that was done as part of the improvements was to extend the sidewalk to the corner and provide a curb ramp for the crossing.

    Mr. Galster said presently the Chester Road extension is a private drive, and with these improvements will it continue to be private or will it be up to City standards? Mr. Shvegzda reported that our recommendation would be that it remain a private drive.

    Mr. Syfert said I have been in favor of the PUD concept but I thought when we were talking about this two or three months ago, we were focusing somewhat on some storefronts that would be a convenience to the office occupants, like dry cleaners or whatever rather than fast food chains. I know this fits in with the Comprehensive Plan, but has the applicant thought along those lines?

    Mr. Easter said we would love to do more than one project in your community, but what brings us here is the IHOP. The other out parcel is somewhat of a fill in the blank right now trying to make the project viable. We have done a major shopping center with a combination Coldstone, Starbucks and cellular, so that is not impossible, but the driving force for us is the IHOP.

    Mr. Coleman said with the level of congestion currently in that area, I am not sure how much more congestion that area can stand in the way of traffic flow and trying to address it with the queuing up of the various traffic signals.

    I like the idea of the IHOP restaurant coming in, and it seems to me that if there is a way to move the traffic off Kemper, rather than having it back up there, based on having another fast food restaurant in that area, (Wendy’s), that area will become a major bottleneck. There should be some business in there so you can get the traffic off the street and up into the area, rather than backing it up onto Kemper waiting to get up into the area.

    Mr. Hawkins said you said that the IHOP is the main focus. Does your client not have a preference between a bank and a fast food operation, or do they truly prefer the fast food?

    Mr. Easter reported if it is a direct competitor that sells the same thing that they are selling, they have a problem with that. You can bet that they will have restrictions on us to the extent that we can control that, and I am sure we will have to do so. They are looking to be a part of an activity center.

    This all gets back to the fact that transportation is a major issue with regard to all of this, and is a viable concern. We are trying to take a difficult and bad situation that is already there, and whether we do this deal or not, somebody else will come back to do something. Whether there is a traffic island or not, it becomes a right in and right out because of the amount of traffic there.



    9 DECEMBER 2003



    To the extent that there is a lot of office users, retail does not overlap exactly as it relates to peak hours, and I would hope some of those trips could be eliminated by the fact that you would have a walk in capacity.

    Mr. Vanover said I do like the PUD approach. I can take the IHOP a whole lot easier, because people come in and tend to stay for longer periods of time, unlike the fast food places. You stand on that corner, and you can see all the major fast food competitors. I think the natural flow is to something a little less intensive for that secondary, whether it is a bank or dry cleaner or something along those lines. In all honesty, the secondary user will be a big concern of mine. The traffic is hideous at this point, but you don’t have to answer to our residents and the reality is if they can’t succeed, it won’t fly. I would implore that the secondary business be something other than an intense user.

    Mr. Galster moved to approve the submitted PUD rezoning and the preliminary plan with either Option A or B, but all options still needing to make sure that the traffic flow and the interfaces between the two uses and between the existing roadway system meet the approval of the City Engineer. All staff comments shall be taken into consideration. There shall be 50% brick on the building on all four sides, to be a natural unpainted brick or stone. The landscape, lighting and sign packages are not included in the approval because we do not have the details which need to be submitted at a later date. Special attention should be made to that secondary use to address the concerns about the heavy traffic there already. All right of way approval and approval requirements of the adjoining city and property owners need to be in place for the proposed road improvements.

    Mr. Vanover said I don’ t know who else feels that fast food is a problem, but fast food could be one of the prohibited uses in the covenants, and that could be included as part of the motion.

    Mr. Galster commented that would pretty much eliminate Option A. Mr. Syfert added I’m not sure that should be in there as a prohibited use. Mr. Galster said different restaurants could possibly have different flows. We will have to address that once we know the user.

    Mr. Easter said the problem I have tonight is I am not the owner of the property. If this were my home town, I could say that you can trust me; I won’t let you down. I’d like to be able to, because I believe we are responsible developers that can add to your community. The fact is that I am not the applicant for this rezoning, and he has not given me the authority to do anything else.

    We are under some time constraints in terms of the kinds of approvals that this requires, everybody from the contiguous property owners to the actual property owner himself who has it under contract with us. I certainly will take into consideration that very valid concern, and if it is a choice between a bank and that use, we definitely will make the right choice for you.


    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Mr. Vanover responded it was a thought and a way of addressing it. I appreciate your candor, and obviously you can’t speak for the property owner. Also, this is a preliminary.

    Mr. Galster said I can add to the motion that the particular names that are shown on these drawings are not in any way implied approval or consent to those uses or businesses at this point, and would need to be submitted in further detail at a later stage.

    Mr. Syfert seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

    B. Approval of neon lighting around building of Jade Buffet, 11499 Princeton Pike

    Mr. McErlane reported I advised the applicant on Wednesday, December 3rd that we had not received the owner’s affidavit nor had the owner signed the application. The applicant indicated that they were meeting with the owner on Thursday and expected it soon. We didn’t see it, and I called the applicant today and asked him to call me. He never returned the call, so I guess it is up to Planning whether they want to consider tabling this. Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.

    Mr. McErlane said Ms. McBride reports that according to her new Roberts Rules the motion is to postpone instead of table. Ms. McBride added that it has to be postponed; otherwise it will die at the end of this meeting if you table it. Mr. Galster responded my motion is to move this item to our next meeting. All present voted aye, and the item was moved to the January 13th meeting.

    Mr. Galster said I got legal opinion on this, because there was never a motion to remove it from the table or bring it forward again. According to the legal department, if you table something at your meeting and you fail to act on it by the end of that meeting, it will automatically be on the agenda and come up again at your next regularly scheduled meeting.

    C. Approval of store closing banner to be up for 60 days – Kids R Us, 11711 Princeton Pike

    Phyllis Schoonover, Manager said we are closing the store, and the projected date is January 31st. We have a store closing banner up on the side of the store which is helping draw some business in. We have 24 employees, and in order to keep our business going as long as we can, we are asking for a 60 day extension on that banner. The landlord has signed off on it. We had it professionally installed, and we will have it professionally removed when we have to.

    Mr. McErlane reported that previously there was more than one banner up, and we told them we could issue a 14-day temporary sign permit for one sign. The other banner subsequently was removed, and we issued a temporary permit that expired Sunday. The applicant is asking for 60 days which would take them to January 22nd.


    9 DECEMBER 2003



    Ms. Schoonover stated that the longer we can keep it up the better, but if that is what we can go with, January 22nd would be fine too.

    Mr. Galster said how did you determine January 22nd? Mr. McErlane reported that it would be 60 days from the original placement of the sign. The banner permit wasn’t issued until five or seven days after that.

    Ms. Schoonover reported we had a liquidator that came in and took over, and put all these banners up. We began finding our information, and that is how that came about.

    Mr. Galster said right now you are scheduled to be pretty well done on January 31st. Ms. Schoonover answered that some stores will stay open through April, but I doubt we are targeted to do that. We don’t really know which stores will be targeted to do that, but the date they gave us was January 31st.

    Mr. Galster asked if all the Kids R Us in Cincinnati were closing. Ms. Schoonover answered that all the free-standing stores are.

    Mr. Galster commented I have no objection to going to the 31st if that is the applicant’s schedule and move to approve the temporary use of this banner until January 31, 2004. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

    D. Approval of Right of Way Dedication Plat – Springfield Pike (Springdale Church of the Nazarene)

    . Mr. Shvegzda reported that as part of the plan approval for the Church of the Nazarene expansion, it was agreed that they would provide additional right of way to bring the right of way width in front of their property into conformance with the remainder of the corridor. This is what is before you this evening.

    Mr. Galster moved to approve the right of way dedication plat and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.

  3. Mr. Galster said I haves had conversation with the Mayor and City Administrator about possibly putting on another event where we have Planning and BZA members go through a course. I know there are Planning certification courses that Hamilton County offers, but we are interested in doling it here and more specific to our needs and therefore more helpful. Would that be of interest to the members of the commission? If so, what time frame might be best.

    Mr. Syfert said the last time we did it was on a Saturday morning. Mr. Galster said we started at 9 and went until noon, and those three hours were pretty productive I thought. We get more out of those three hours than we get out of those other one or two day trainings.


    9 DECEMBER 2003


    Mr. Syfert commented that the certified planner course is good, but you get a lot of information that really doesn’t apply to our city. Anne and I talked about this before; we can get down to the nuts and bolts of what we do here.

    Mr. Coleman commented I certainly would be in favor of participating in sessions like that. Mr. Galster said if I don’t hear objections to a Saturday morning training that is what we will try to pursue.

    Mr. Galster added that Mr. Okum asked me to bring up the idea of creating a small committee to look at some of the issues in the Zoning Code on some of the setback requirements that BZA deals with, and some of the issues that Planning deals with.

    Mr. Syfert stated that what BZA wants is a conditional use permit versus a variance. The variance stays with the property forever, and we can put a time limit on a conditional use permit, and BZA does not have the power to do that presently.

    Mr. Galster commented that presently they issue what they think is a temporary variance, which doesn’t exist. There is no such thing. I did a search on the Internet, and the only place it came up was in Springdale, Ohio. Some of those items need to be explored, and a committee of three or four was to be formed. He wanted to get the blessing of the chair to start putting that together.

    Mr. Syfert said I blessed it once before. Does anyone have a problem with me sitting in on that committee? Mr. Galster said we were thinking that Tom or I would sit in, you would sit in, the liaison to BZA and possibly one other BZA member. We didn’t want it to be too big of a committee. We can set that up and get it rolling.

    1. Game Stop, 620 Kemper Commons – Wall Sign
    2. La Prophecia – 326 Northland Boulevard – Wall Sign
    3. Sprint Store – 80 West Kemper Road – Wall Sign
    4. El Mariachi – 123 Boggs Lane – Wall Sign



Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Mr. Galster seconded the motion. By voice vote, all present voted aye, and Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



___________________,2004 _______________________

William G. Syfert, Chairman



___________________,2004 _______________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary