12 AUGUST 2003

7:00 P.M.

  2. The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Acting Chairman David Okum.

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

    Huddleston, Tom Vanover, David Okum

    And Robert Sherry

    Members Absent: William G. Syfert, Chairman

    Others Present: Beth Stiles, Economic Development Director

    Bill McErlane, Building Official

    Pat Madl, City Engineer

    Anne McBride, City Planner

  6. Mr. Huddleston moved to approve and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the Minutes were adopted with six affirmative votes.

    1. Report on Council

    Mr. Galster reported that at the meeting August 20th, Council will have the public hearings on the PUDs that we forwarded to them a couple of months ago (CMHA and GEEAA Park projects).

    B. Zoning Bulletin – July 10, 2003

    C. Zoning Bulletin – July 25, 2003

    D. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – June 17, 2003

    E. Planning Commissioners Journal – Summer 2003

    1. Approval of Color Palette and Landscaping for Dunkin Donuts, 11424 Springfield Pike – continued July 8, 2003
    2. Mr. McErlane reported that the architect for the applicant, Wayne Fan faxed us a memo this morning asking to be tabled until the September meeting because of some sophisticated comments on the landscape design. It is up to Planning Commission to consider tabling his request.

      Mr. Galster moved to table and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the item was tabled to September 9, 2003.

    3. Concept Review – Condominium Project -309 West Kemper Road – tabled July 8, 2003





    12 AUGUST 2003



    Mr. McErlane reported that the applicant, Mrs. Alice Todd, faxed us a memo today asking that Planning table her request until the September meeting. They said that they are still are developing plans.

    Mr. Galster said because of the fact that they are still developing plans, and we have had this tabled for two or three months, I would move to remove it from the agenda. They can always get back on when they have their information together. Mr. Okum commented I have to agree with you. It has been quite a while and quite frankly there have been changes on how this request will come forward. I’ll support that. Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. By voice vote all present voted aye, and the item was removed from the agenda.

    1. Alexander Patterson Group requests approval of 50 s.f. sign to be placed on the south side of the building at 12075 Northwest Boulevard

Gary Bice passed around a color photo of what it currently looks like without the sign and with the sign. You received black and white copies of this in your packet.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned Planned Unit Development, and is a part of the original Northwest Business Center Planned Unit Development.

The building is a warehouse, and originally was reviewed against the General Industrial Zoning District requirements. GI uses are permitted one identification sign. That identification sign can be 1 ½ times the tenant width not to exceed 125 square feet.

The applicant is proposing a second wall sign at 5’ x 10’. There currently is one 4’ x 8’ on the front of the building. They are proposing to put the 5’ x 10’ on the Pictoria Drive side. There are two smaller signs on the back of the building that are more directional in nature that don’t count towards the sign allotments; but even together with the two identification signs that are proposed, they total 82 s.f. which is less than the one sign they are permitted to have.

Ms. McBride stated I don’t have anything to add to Mr. McErlane’s comments. Personally I don’t have any objection to the second sign. They have two frontages, and it seems to be a reasonable request.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the sign as submitted and Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted with six affirmative votes.







12 AUGUST 2003



B. Concept Discussion of Proposed Redevelopment of Kentucky Fried Chicken, 11707 Princeton Pike

Chris Chrzanowski said I have some revised elevations. I received the staff comments Friday, and there were 22-24 comments. What I would like to say is that we are amenable to resolving every issue that has been brought up. In terms of landscaping, we are going to comply with the requirements and build a nice facility. Currently, we have no landscaping at the site, which was built in 1968 and is tired and ready to go.

There were a lot of sign comments, and I would like an opportunity to show some new elevations. We were asking for three times the amount allowed; it was the image that KFC has as a standard package. I have talked to the parent company, and we have scaled back the building signage to have one ID sign on the building. We hope to relocate our existing sign.

We also have taken the comments for the site lighting and have reduced it down to 400 water metal halide versus the 1,000 that was submitted.

Every stumbling block that has been mentioned, we can comply with. There are some that are out of our hands. We layout, we are very confined in the existing site. . We have modified the building to a non-standard 30’ x 74’, which doesn’t exist in KFC, but it has been engineered for this particular site. It will have a double drive-through window, a pay window and a pick up window. Our current business has no drive-through.

It has been engineered for efficiency. We have reduced the seating inside and the table tops to try and meet the fact that we also are losing parking spaces, from 21 down to 11.

I also have information that will show that even with a 30% increase in sales, we will actually have less traffic inside the building requiring fewer spaces because of the amount that will be moving through the drive-through.

KFC is predominantly a carry-out business, and we are sure that the site will accomplish and meet the needs of our business, get our sales increase and not congest the traffic flow in the area.

If I could, I would like to pass out the new elevations and answer questions.

Mr. Okum said the staff comments were based on the initial submission and after their comments, we will allow you to present your changes, unless the commission wants to see what you have now and then hear the staff comments.




12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Galster said I would suggest we go through staff comments one at a time, and he can address them after each, rather than get into a new package.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is zoned PUD and is part of the Princeton Plaza Planned Unit Development. It is used as a KFC Restaurant for dine in and carry out only. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and pavement, and construct a new structure with drive-in carry-out and drive through service.

Parking requirements are 21 spaces. With one van accessible handicap space, the parking layout shows 11 parking spaces.

The existing impervious surface ratio is fairly close to 100%. The proposed is 86%, but the PUD requires 20%. There is very little buffer yard that exists today, which is the area around the parking areas. The proposed plan shows a 5 ½ foot buffer yard on the east and 2.8 on the west.

PUD requires a 75 foot peripheral setback from adjacent properties. When this property was zoned PUD, it didn’t meet that requirement. However the existing KFC currently has a 45 foot setback from the north and a 68 foot setback from the west. What is being proposed is 27.1 feet to the north and 24.8 feet to the west.

The pavement setbacks to adjacent properties are shown at less than a foot from the north property line and 2.8 from the west property line. The existing pavement setbacks are less than a foot from the north property line and a foot and one-half from the west property line. The Code requires 10 feet.

Allowable sign area is 85 square feet. What is shown on the drawings is 267.6 s.f., or three times the allowable.

The main building material finish is a brick which is primarily a buff color with a brown wainscot height brick. The sign board is white EIFS, the tower face is EIFS and is white. There is a blue trim cap at the top of the parapet and red bands below and above the sign board. The awnings over the window in the tower roof are red and white striped and backlit. The walks in coolers are indicated to be brick to match the building although on the drawings they look like standard metal finish.

Mr. Chrzanowski reported that on the parking and pavement setbacks, we have shrunk our building down beyond what a normal and conventional KFC building generally is. It is going to be a custom building.

There is not a whole lot I can do to make the building smaller to move everything more to the center of the lot., I think we have reached the maximum on that.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Chrzanowski added I have reduced the signage immensely, taking it down from 267 s.f. to 147 s.f., one wall sign and the relocation of the existing pylon. The pylon being visible from I-275 is very important to us. Even if the people who see it don’t stop at that location, we have locations at Mt. Healthy, Sharonville and Milford. I don’t know what the impact would be to lose that sign; it probably would be immeasurable based on this location.

I have revise locations bricking in the cooler box; it was an architectural error.

I have continued the EIFS banding around the rear of the building, as mentioned in the staff reports, and I would like to share the new elevations and answer questions. I have my general contractor here, who has built four buildings for us, 54 Applebee’s and 18 Outbacks.

Mr. Huddleston said in the interest of time, I respect the process of hearing staff’s comments to update the commission with the requirements of the site etc. but I don’t see a lot of benefit in discussing this if we are going to see a revised submittal when we are still talking concept. I would rather go through all the staff reports and then see the revisions.

Mr. Galster commented so the building has gone from 2400 s.f. down to 1960 s.f. Is the brick you are proposing on all four sides painted or natural? Mr. Chrzanowski answered it is a clay brick, and I have samples available tonight. The elevations on the 11" x 17" do not necessarily represent the soft tones of the brick.

Ms. McBride said that if this commission is going to consider a modification from required 21 parking spaces to the 11 spaces they are proposing, they will need to see some justification for that. I think there is justification available since a significant percentage of their sales will access the new drive through window and there is the possibility that their employees can park off site. In the next submittal, there should be some written justification given to the Planning Commission to allow them to modify the parking requirements.

Our code requires five stacking spaces for the drive through window. They have provided five stacking spaces but this is a really tight site, and both the city engineer and I had questions about the location of those five stacking spaces, which would block a significant number of those parking spaces. I don’t know how you get around that on a site this size, but we need to point that out to the commission.

Fourteen percent of the site will be open space, and we require 20% in a PUD, so you would have to modify that requirement.


12 AUGUST 2003



Ms. McBride added that the building setbacks would require modification as well as the parking lot setbacks.

There is a fence that exists on the north and the west property lines and the applicant has indicated that they are going to replace portions of the west fence. There is a topography change going down towards Petsmart and we want to make sure that it doesn’t require additional fencing in that area, perhaps the wrought iron detail that we have been locating throughout the city. We will want to look at that before we move onto development plan level.

Our code requires that they submit information for 200 feet surrounding the subject property, and we do not have that, and it is important on this particular site. This has to do with the two proposed access points. The concern is how those two access points play into existing access patterns within the center, both going in and out of Frisch’s as well as the rest of the center, and the parking backing out from TCBY.

They have provided us with a photo of a dumpster enclosure that would more than meet the city’s requirements, but we need that specked out on the plan so it becomes a part of future submittals.

They are entitled to 85 s.f. of signage and they were proposing 267.6 s.f. and they have cut it down. She asked the applicant which on building signage they wish to keep. The applicant responded that they have changed the architecture of the building to move from a corner tower to a center tower in the center of the façade of the building and it would be one 5’ x 7’ face.

Ms. McBride said they were proposing six red and white striped awnings internally illuminated. They also have the tall tower feature which as you just heard has been moved to the center of the building, so these comments might not be applicable. They had a red and white striped awning on the top and a blue band all of which was proposed to be illuminated.

The pictures shows a blue neon band around there, and we did not see that on the elevation so I am assuming that there will not be the neon but the blue band was a part of the illuminated feature. Mr. Chrzanowski responded that the blue band was internally illuminated and the neon has been taken off the building.

Ms. McBride said the rear (north) building elevation should be given additional detailing. One suggestion was the continuation of that EIFS band which the applicant has indicated that they have done on the revised plans, and also that all the HVAC equipment should be completely screened by a parapet wall which they have proposed to do.



12 AUGUST 2003



Ms. McBride reported on the lighting plan, their initial submittal had two of those 1,000 watt fixtures on three different poles. The revised submittal has one light fixture on each of three poles, but still the 1,000 watt metal halide fixture. Staff feels that is too bright. I have provided you with comparison numbers in terms of what our recommendations are for the city. It sounds like the applicant has read those and taken those to heart.

Most of the landscaping comments are minor in nature, like adding parking blocks, identifying specific types of grasses, adding shrubs along one of the property lines, adding ground cover instead of grass for maintenance purposes and adding a flowering tree in front of the store. The applicant indicated that there wasn’t any problem with complying with hose requirements.

Mr. Galster said for clarification, the blue band is only illuminated in the tower area, not around the whole building, is that correct? Mr. Chrzanowski responded that the tower cap is internally illuminated; from the blue band down it is not illuminated.

Mr. Madl stated that on the site layout with regard to the dumpster enclosure, it appears that the dump truck will have to access it going through some parking spaces. However, assuming that will not be done during store hours and due to the restricted nature of the site, we don’t feel that is a major issue, but wanted to point it out.

We also wanted to point out that we also agree with Ms. McBride that when you have five cars stacked up in a queue, it will be difficult for vehicles parked along the site to back out. The site being as restrictive as it is, we don’t see too many ways around it, because the intent of arranging the site as it is is to make it work better with the shared drive, which also is being widened.

On the storm water management, there is no existing detention on the site, and there is no proposed detention. It is part of the overall Princeton Plaza PUD however, and we have come up with a couple of different numbers if the commission feels that detention would be necessary. Twenty-six hundred cubic feet would be providing detention for the entire site and 312 cubic feet if you are just looking at the building footprint. On the overall PU D, there are only 7,020 cubic feet of detention on site.

On the shared access drive reconfiguration, we need additional information on the as-built portion from the BP Procare which has been widened out towards 747. We are requesting survey information 200 feet to the west so we can better determine how all the access points with regard to the KFC and sites across from the shared drive will work out.




12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Madl added that we have some concerns on where the locations of the curbing are shown south of the KFC site. We don’t feel that is necessarily accurate, so it is difficult to tell how the movements from the KFC to that parking lot will occur. We need more detailed information for the shared access drive.

Mr. Sherry asked if backing out into the driveway would improve if the parking stalls were angled. Mr. Madl answered it certainly would help, but I do not believe there would be the required width, although I would have to check the standards.. If you go to 45 degrees, you certainly would minimize the width of the drive and it would be a possibility. If nothing else, it would help the situation. It may not get you to the standards, but it would get you a lot closer..

Mr. Sherry responded I am not suggesting that we minimize the width of the drive. I am just worried about the backing out, like you are. Mr. Madl answered the required width goes from 24 to somewhere in the range of 20, once you go to the angled spaces, so that would give you some additional width.

Mr. Sherry said on the reconfiguration of the roadway, does that affect any of the parking stalls at ProCare? It seems to me that on the south side there are parking stalls. Mr. Okum said they are gone; they took them out with BP’s improvements.

Mr. Coleman asked if TCBY has been made aware that they may lose some parking, and if it would be a problem for them.

Bob Gilhart of the Princeton Plaza reported that I talked to the TCBY people and told them that there may be some impact there. Initially we thought maybe a space. From the conversation here tonight, there may be more than that. They really don’t have a problem with it. Obviously if you gave them 10 more spaces, they’d love to have them. It is a very friendly relationship between the two parties and whatever happens they are amenable with.

The parking spaces Mr. Sherry asked about are gone; that was part of the requirement, so at least we have the alternative at KFC to take care of that part of the equation.

Mr. McErlane reported that a question was raised by Mr. Sherry concerning angled parking, and angled parking was looked at. One of the concerns there was that it even reduces the number of parking spaces further. We would lose about two more spaces if you go to angled parking. It does resolve a little bit of the problem in terms of maneuvering out if the drive through is backed up, but it results in some other deficiencies.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Vanover said coming from an old restaurant background, there are layouts where you would have a left hand or right hand store. Would we gain anything if we reversed the rotation and brought them in on the west side?

Ms. McBride responded we did look at that, and I believe the city engineer had more concerns regarding that interface with the existing center layout than what is proposed.

Mr. McErlane added that the concern was that the alignment turned out worse with the existing intersection by shoving the building over and putting the parking on the pickup side. It made it more confusing with respect to things like a driveway for Frisch’s and the main intersection.

Addressing Mr. Gilhart, Mr. Okum asked if the fence between Markets and Princeton Plaza their line. Mr. Gilhart responded that the fence is on our side. Mr. Okum added that there is a concrete structure in that landscaped area. Mr. Shvegzda thought that your property line was in a little bit of a different position on the site drawing than where your fence is. Mr. Gilhart responded I can’t answer that, but I do know that the drawings that everybody is working from are from the surveyor so the drawings are accurate. Mr. Okum said there are little xx’s and a y that I presume is the fence. Mr. Gilhart answered that is what it appears to be.

Mr. Okum said obviously the building screens the back end of BP. Moving the building to the west will totally expose that elevation. There currently is a door on the back of the garage coming out of BP, and there is nothing there. Have you allowed some sort of cross working relationship between the two properties so that we can deal with the back side of that building? It will be pretty ugly looking for the people coming out of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Mr. Gilhart answered that there is a requirement already in the construction bids and drawings to finish off the back side of the building with split face block, so there won’t be that flat concrete wall. It is built into our lease agreement that if KFC takes their building down, they have to finish off that side. Mr. Okum commented that recently they painted it white. Mr. Gilhart answered that was just because they were painting the rest of the building. The contractor is ready to go and if this building comes down, that side gets finished off, per our requirement and approved by Procare.

Mr. Okum said if there were any landscape buffer issues it could be addressed with staff. If you have five feet and five feet, it would be better to have 10 feet of space that you would teat as one entity.




12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Gilhart answered they both have their own lease and they both are liable for and responsible for that single line there. With the amount of cooperation between the two, it shouldn’t be any problem whatsoever.

Mr. Chrzanowski added we have an opportunity to help that situation by screening. it with landscape from the front of BP back because we are slightly forward of the BP. The landscaping that would block that building wouldn’t impede on our visibility from the street.

Addressing the applicant, Mr. Okum said you have a modified plan that you mentioned you would like to submit with answers to some of staff’s comments. Would you like to present it at this time?

Mr. Chrzaowski responded I would like to present it, at least get it into everybody’s hands to look at one more time, but my main question before closing tonight would be where do we go from here? Is the next presentation another concept with correcting all the deficiencies and responding to the issues, or does it move towards the PUD?

Mr. McErlane reported that there would be a formal application by the applicant to Planning for a modification to the PUD. Then the two councilmembers would determine whether or not they feel it is a major departure from the originally adopted preliminary plan that would need to go to Council.

Mr. McErlane said there are several items that the applicant would need to get a feel for from the Planning Commission. One would be the signs, and it looks like the applicant is addressing those to a degree. Because there is a major discrepancy in the required parking versus what is being provided, they need a feel from Planning Commission if that is appropriate for this project. It makes sense from the standpoint of timing to know whether or not councilmembers have a concern about this being a major departure so the applicant can figure that into their schedule.

Mr. Okum added and traffic, not just the car count but the traffic flow, how it ties in with the adjoining properties.

Mr. Chrzanowski reported that one of the requests was a 200-foot survey and topographic of the site. We would like to move to that stage and spend the money with the engineer to do all that, but if 11 spaces isn’t going to get the job done, it would be very hard to have him spend the time to do the topo and correct the water drainage. Eleven is 11 with the constraints we are working with.







12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Huddleston asked the applicant if he was prepared to present to us this evening a revised plan? Our difficulty with that is we wouldn’t have the benefit of the updated staff comments. I for one would like to see that presentation, and then we can go back and decide if we are still in concept or if we could move to some preliminary approval.

Mr. Chrzanowski passed out copies of the revised elevations.

Mr. Galster said the parking that runs to the west of your site shows 12 spaces; who is using those now? Mr. Gilhart answered that they are allowed to be used by anybody, including customers. What we try to do is have all employees park in that direction all the way down towards Princeton Bowl. Mr. Galster wondered if all that space was used up, and Mr. Gilhart answered it can be. It is theoretically possible, but generally there are a few spaces down on the end. It is first come first served.

Mr. Chrzanowski said on the parking issue with those 12 spaces, it seems that the parking guidelines are based on the square footages of the buildings. For the public, 14 spaces are required and seven additional are required for the private portion of the restaurant (employees). With the opportunity to use 12 spaces, we can park the employees in four or five of those spaces. We will have seven to eight employees and not all of them will be driving. I assume 60-75% of them may.

Having the drive through, which is 50% of our business, we believe 50% of our customers will go from parking and coming into the building to moving through the drive through lane with a pay window and pickup window, thus expediting the cars out of the lot much quicker than parking and coming in. The building we will build in 2003-2004 will be laid out and efficient compared to what was built in 1968.

With better service, double drive through window, and off site parking for the employees, we think we can manage. We certainly don’t want those spaces used backed up into the lot, because then we can’t do any business. We have looked at this from an economical standpoint, i.e. if we build this building will it financially carry the cost of doing this project. We believe it will and that we can get the cars in and out of the lot.

We have narrowed and shortened the building beyond any current KFC building out there. We could take two feet out of the front of the building, but that doesn’t help us with our width, and the issue is how wide the building is and not how deep it is. Taking two feet out of the front of the building also would reduce the public required parking area, lowering it by one or possibly two spaces.



12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Chrzanowski reported that 85 s.f. of signage is allowed and we previously presented 267 s.f. We have taken it back down to a road sign and one wall sign on the front of the building, since we are off site for visibility and identification of the building.

Mr. Okum asked if they were changing the height of the sign and Mr. Chrzanowski answered that we would like to maintain the height, not change it at all except to move it back 10-15 feet out of the roadway into the area designated on the site plan.

A light plan has been submitted which falls under your foot candle allotment. We associate light with safe, clean and attractive to the building, but compliance is the issue here, and that’s what we will meet.

The landscaping is a non-issue to us. We will be complying in all aspects with what you would like to see out there. My landscaper is Timberland Landscape who has done work in Springdale and he will follow any requirements. We would like to have a nice pretty green store, because we have nothing there now.

The first page that I have submitted to you is elevations. They have been revised to take what was a corner tower with two wall signs, move the tower to the center façade and minimize it to a 5’ x 7’ wall sign (instead of the two 6’ x 9’ signs).

There is no neon on this building. Staff asked that we continue the EIFS band around the building and we have done that. That back side of the building is visible to Petsmart and some other businesses, so it is only beneficial to us to do that.

The original elevations didn’t show brick on the cooler box. This elevation shows it and we intend to brick it in.

You will not see rooftop units. Any of the cooling systems on the cooler also will be behind a parapet wall, which would elevate above any mechanical systems on the building.

The second submission is confidential actual sales results for our restaurant, showing the Springdale sale doing 2,130 transactions. Summertime is our season and this is for the period ending 8/11/03. It is as good as it gets for us, and we show no drive through transactions so we are pushing 2,000 people through the lobby in a week.

I tried to pick the most similar store in a similar area, Sharonville, which has a drive through and it is running 50.02% through its drive through.



12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Chrzanowaski said our company averages slightly higher than that, but this means that 2,197 customers would have visited the restaurant, half through the lobby and half through the drive through. Under that scenario, we would cut the customers that would be parking in the lot by 50%. I have taken that and added 40% increase to our customer count and a 50% increase to our customer count since it is a new building. We wouldn’t be building a new building for the same business; we are anticipating an increase in growth. Multiplying those numbers by 40 and 50%, we will still only be pushing 1500 people through the lobby in the Tri-County restaurant, that is currently pushing 2,100 people through the lobby.

We are new owners of this location; it was owned by KFC Corp. Food Folks and Fun is a franchisee and we have had ownership of the Cincinnati market since 1999. We have done several projects and have raised a lot of our standard bars and the way the stores were operated and the way we are operating them now and the direction we are moving is very intense with many layers of management inside the restaurant, layers of management above the restaurant that frequently visit.

We are totally amenable to the wrought iron fence; we want a nice looking facility and I think it is a good background. I believe there is a retaining wall with a significant drop, and for safety purposes, we don’t want our customers leaving the lot and going out the back and walking onto any adjacent property, so we will contain that with the fencing as required.

There were certain questions on proposed grasses. I called my landscaper and he will revise this based on the comments.

The last submission was a photometric and we have reduced the lighting to come into compliance.

I appreciate your time and would be glad to answer your questions. I would like to continue to move forward on this and get over every stumbling block possible.

Mr. Sherry asked how many tables and chairs are there currently. Mr. Chrzanowski answered that there are 42 seats with 18 table tops. The new floor plan would take the seating to 32 with only 10 table tops.

Mr. Sherry asked how much of the business is carry out, and Mr. Chrzanowski reported that 50% is drive through and 50% is carry out, so 50% would be lobby traffic. Of the 50%, I would say we are down to about 10 or 15% on dine in. That will skew as lunch hour; off hours they carry out and dine in is the lowest portion of the KFC business. Mr. Sherry said you anticipate that 50% of the business will be drive through, but you also stated that the company standard is slightly higher than that.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Chrzanowski reported that our company averages are up to 52 to 55% drive through business just because we are a take home meal and not a sit down place.

Mr. Galster asked how many franchises they have, and Mr. Chrzanowski answered that there are 44 locations, 15 in Dayton and 29 in the Cincinnati, Hamilton Middletown area. Mr. Galster wondered how many had been redone, and Mr. Chrzanowski answered when we bought the company, a lot of our locations were not at current standards for KFC, and this will be our second scrape and rebuild since we have owned it. We also have built three new locations as part of a contract to develop and redevelop Cincinnati, and we have remodeled 13 locations. Mr. Galster asked how many of the restaurants did not have drive throughs, and Mr. Chrzanowski answered four to five, two in Cincinnati. Mr. Galster asked if the 50% was a national figure, and Mr. Chrzanowski said I didn’t have time to pull the figures, but I would say that the national average is 50% minimum in the drive through because of the large pack carry out.

Mr. Galster asked if the other rebuild converted a non drive through to a drive through and Mr. Chrzanowski said it was a free standing KFC and free standing Taco Bell with no drive through on Montgomery Road, and we knocked both buildings down and built one building, two in one concept with two drive through windows. That one is running above the 50% drive through, nearing 55%.

Mr. Huddleston said the issue significance is that you have quite an intensely developed site there. Normally I don’t think it is the purview of this commission to look at the economics of what you are doing. In this case it is important to us only to the extent that if you are comfortable and Mr.Gilhart is comfortable that this will still add to the vitality of that center, we have to have a comfort level with that and then take it to the significant public safety issues involved here.

I would defer to my colleagues who sit on Council to determine whether this is a major or minor PUD revision, and I also want to ask staff if there are any known public safety issues. That is a terribly congested area. It always has been terrible, but if there have been no problems, maybe it isn’t as terrible as we all think.

Mr. McErlane said the existing parking field probably aligns better with that intersection where you make the decision to turn in front of the shopping center. Early on we talked about how to configure this and still get a drive through, and we ended up with this as the best scenario. It may not be as good an alignment as currently exists there. I don’t know if the total number of trips in and out of this business hampers that flow to a great degree, but it adds to it, and I would have to defer to Mr. Madl about the internal traffic flow. I assume that is what you are really concerned about.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Huddleston responded I was wondering about accident reports there. Mr. McErlane answered I am not sure how accurate they would be because they are on private property, but Mr. Gilhart may be able to expand on that.

Mr. Gilhart said as landlords, one of the things we are trying to gain with this is not an economic advantage. They are spending all the money and we are not. We are really not receiving a lot of money as far as a retailer using a pad site. What we have been trying to do is get the traffic off Princeton Pike, get it into the center faster, and allow traffic to turn into Frisch’s without backing up into traffic on Princeton Pike again. This is the way we thought it could be done.

Having said that, there are still issues on how to fine tune that to make it work with traffic coming around the new KFC directly in line with the drive in front of TCBY and Skeffington’s, taking one or two parking spaces away from TCBY etc.

On the parking for TCBY, they really have all that along there with Skeffington’s too, because everybody that goes into Skeffington’s parks in front. Almost nobody parks on the side, so the parking really isn’t an issue for TCBY.

The traffic flow coming off Princeton between Procare and Frisch’s is enhanced enormously by having the two lanes come in there. From my standpoint, allow the cars to come in from Princeton. If they want to turn into Frisch’s let them turn in there, and if they want to go straight ahead, fine too. If they want to go into Procare, fine, but go somewhere. Just get away from the intersection. Unless the KFC building comes down, if you stop to turn left into Frisch’s, everybody behind you stops.

From my standpoint, the building has to go somewhere, and it is up to you to determine how it is to be done. This is probably one of a dozen or so layouts and it is the best one that I have seen. I like the angled parking better too in terms of backing out, but then you get into nine parking spaces versus 11. The building is out just far enough to have a drive through and have a pass it around it too. There are a lot of features to that; from the time we started to where we are now, it has improved enormously. I think we are getting into the fine tuning stage.

Our lease agreements, especially with restaurants, includes where their employees park. We control where the employees of Frisch’s, Wendy’s and KFC park. If they park in the wrong place, we have every right to have them towed away. We give them locations where it doesn’t impede the sales of a retailer and they can choose from those. There are another two dozen parking places always available right now.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Coleman said having looked at the drawings and listened to the comments, it would seem to me that you are sacrificing parking spaces to accommodate the drive through. I wonder if you anticipate an impact in employment by having more people going through the drive through and fewer dining in.

Mr. Chrzanowski responded I believe that the employees in the store now would be working the drive through since we will have fewer seats in the dining room. In fact with the new location, we would be increasing the staff levels to make sure we fully staff the store and expedite both the front counter and the drive through lane.

With the new configuration, Mr. Sherry wondered how you would access the site from the south. I don’t see an easy way to make that happen. You seem to have solved one traffic problem on one hand but created another one. I don’t know how you would access the property, other than coming in from Princeton Pike.

Mr. Gilhart answered that 99% of the traffic is going to come in and go into KFC and go back out again. I see very little coming from the shopping center and driving through the drive through. We cannot address every angle that they are coming from. We wanted to try to address the bulk of it, and the bulk of it definitely comes in off Princeton Pike, goes to their food destination and goes back out again. I think the key to that is lining up that intersection in front of TCBY so it is a reasonable shot coming out of the drive through into a reasonable intersection. Maybe we should get rid of that one parking space in front of TCBY to give a little bit more room coming straight across. I think we have addressed about 90% of the traffic flow issues, and the south would be the weakest one.

Mr. Galster said I have gone through this intersection many times, and it seems to me that the entering and exiting from Frisch’s is the biggest problem. With this, we are actually cleaning up that problem area because of that additional lane to bypass those people who are trying to turn. I see an improvement to the biggest problem area, but IL need to get a bigger picture of how that whole flow is.

I don’t see this as a major change that needs to go to Council. Mr. Vanover agreed with this.

Mr. Okum said the awnings on most of your sites and on your national web page show them as extremely illuminated, and we would be very concerned about how those awnings are lit. There is an indication that they are lit with fluorescent lights and we would want to know the lums they are generating and how much down lighting and reflective lighting there is. Also we need to know how much light would be emitted from the top of your tower.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Okum said the lighting plan you submitted this evening needs to be reviewed by staff but you still have some fall into the adjacent properties that is pretty heavy. I would recommend shielding to protect those properties below the lens, especially for the Petsmart because they are at a lower elevation and those lights would be dropping into their space.

Additionally I would like staff to look at trip generations on your Sharonville facility that does have the drive through so we know what will impact on that intersection at its peak periods. That way staff can see the number of cars that will be stacking and the number of cars that will be coming out.

Mr. Okum added on the block structure of the BP, I think that vertical landscape elements will be necessary to give that some appearance.

On your pole sign, it is a massive pole for such a small sign and if you are going to move it over, that is fine. If you could engineer a smaller pole, that would be great; it seems to be massive. Mr. Chrzanowski reported that it may have been over engineered, but I am afraid to change anything. Mr. Okum responded I don’t care if the sign is the same height and size and is not any higher and if you want to make the pole smaller, that is fine.

Addressing the commission members, Mr. Okum said I think the applicant would like to get some direction from us in regards to the parking, the signs and the traffic.

On the parking, I think if there is a modification to the covenants that reflect that the parking for the employees must be off the leased site. I think the reduction to 10 table tops pretty well sets the limit, and I am not too uncomfortable with that.

Mr. McErlane reported that there are a number of things that I pointed out that the applicant should get some kind of feel for before he leaves here. One of the things that I forgot to mention was that Mr. Madl brought up the issue of water detention. It would be beneficial for the applicant to know if that is going to be required, and the kind of volumes we are talking about.

Mr. Okum said on the retention/detention, what would the commission members like (based on the engineer’s recommendation). Mr. Galster responded it has gone from 100% down to 86% impervious surface, a decrease. Mr. Okum said so you are saying no additional retention.

Mr. Huddleston who said we are making exceptions to about every requirement of the site, and since the applicant is building a completely new structure with what is basically 100% impervious surface there already, anything we can do to improve that downstream flow we should look at.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Okum asked if the applicant had any problem with meeting the requirements that the engineer has recommended, just for the site? They are recommending 2600 cubic feet of detention. Mr. Chrzanowski asked his contractor to respond, and Gary Schneider said it is such a small site, that is a small amount of water to be detained. As long as we have an outpost structure we can tie into, that is not a problem and we can detain it on site.

Mr. Madl said the question is, is there a location to connect the outflow structure to? Mr. Gilhart responded that there is not, because all of the retention is in front of Kids Are Us, Coconuts and Pier I, all underground. Mr. Okum asked where the storm water went, and Mr. Gilhart responded I just know roughly where the culverts are for the entire center. It was based on the PUD at the time (30 years ago), and where it flows, I don’t know.

Mr. Huddleston said I’m not going to make a big issue out of this. I just feel that the applicant is asking for an exception about everything he can do on this site, and if there is some chance to improve something else relative to this very intensely developed site, I think it is only fair to look at that. If they can’t do it on site, perhaps they can do it off site. That is just a suggestion at this point of time. I certainly don’t think it is a make or break issue. My concern is not what the applicant is proposing to do from a business perspective. If he is comfortable this will work, I think our concern needs to be the public safety issue and how that flows.

Mr. Vanover said I am in agreement. Mr. Gilhart has been the recipient of excessive water in the past, and anything we can do to help the situation cannot hurt.

The rest of the six commission members present agreed, and Mr. Okum added I also don’t feel it is a make or break issue, but it would be important to tie to the project.

The next item is parking requirements. Anybody have a problem with the limited number of spaces that they have presented? No one did.

On the signs as revised, this is all preliminary – no one expressed any concerns.

Mr. Gilhart said when you say on the signs, is it the general agreement that the pylon sign relocation is not a problem? It is fairly significant for this whole program.

Mr. Okum responded I did not see any negative comments on that, as long as the numbers are what the applicant has indicated and it has been reduced down to the number that the applicant has presented.




12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Huddleston added that I would reiterate what Mr. Okum said earlier. Part of your image/sign package is the awnings and the cupelo roof. I think that needs to be as toned down as it can reasonably be. Mr. Gilhart commented I agree.

Mr. Gilhart continued the other question that I had is relative to the traffic patterns, turns, etc. I read all the notes and my main concern is does anybody have a specific problem that we should focus in on relative to either the drive through, the intersection, the left turns going into Frisch’s or, the left turn coming in front of TCBY? If there is, it gets into my category, and if I see that it is insurmountable, it doesn’t matter what he thinks he can do with his building, it may not happen. I have to address that side of it, and it is awfully important to the City and it is awfully important to me that it is safe and secure.

Mr. Okum said it has to function and with some safety, and staff has to have some comfort level with what is presented. It significantly involves you because you have to make it work so his business can prosper.

Mr. Gilhart asked if there was something specifically that somebody has seen so far that is a concern? For instance, if someone feels that under no circumstances is that left turn into Frisch’s the right way to go. I need to know if there is something specific.

Mr. Okum responded the only thing specific I have is internally on the site. If you could get 10 spots in there and have them angled so that they are not backing directly against those cars on the drive through, I would be thrilled to death.

Mr. Madl reported there are no main concerns. There are mostly detail with regards to transition and the pavement striping, and I think we can work those out.

C. To Allow Banners for an Extended Period of Time – Bahama Breeze, 325 Pictoria Drive (PUD)

John Mayne, General Manager of Bahama Breeze stated we are going to open for business for lunch and will hire about 30 new people. We have a hiring banner out now and we would like to keep that up until the 25th, when we open for lunch and have a Now Open for Lunch banner in the same place until the end of September.

It is big business for Bahama Breeze. We have 34 restaurants throughout the United States, and we will be spending about $40,000 just to get open on the 25th.

Mr. Okum asked if the sign we approved on the building six or eight months ago help your business? Mr. Mayne answered I can’t comment on that because I have only been here five months.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Mayne added that Bahama Breeze opened really strong, and the second year, which we are in, we are always down in sales, and we try to grow in the third year, which we are about to approach. Our business is down, compared to the first year.

Mr. McErlane reported the reason this application is before you is because the property is in a Planned Unit Development. Typically this would be a variance request before the Board of Zoning Appeals if it were a standard zoning district.

The Building Department issued a temporary sign permit on 7/31 for a banner for a two week period from 7/30 to 8/12. The applicant is asking for an extension for not only the existing banner but on the 25th that banner would be removed and a new banner would be up for an additional month for a total of nine weeks, to September 30th. The new banner would say "Breeze in for Lunch".

Mr. Huddleston asked Mr. McErlane if we would be setting a precedent here that the Board of Zoning Appeals wouldn’t normally approve?

Mr. McErlane answered that they have placed conditions on banners before. For example, if it is a long period of time, they would make it a condition that it be the only banner permitted for the balance of the year, because they are permitted four events per year. Or they may limit the time period for something less than the applicant is requesting.

Mr. Huddleston commented based on what you have said, I don’t see it as a problem.

Mr. Okum said I don’t have any problem with the banner, but I do have one comment. We approved the new sign and there were two feature lights that we shining on the building. When they put the new sign up, they put them facing straight up in the air, so what you see is a white light on the building. It actually detracts from your sign, and if you could have those turned off or taken out, you see a white spot. Mr. Mayne answered I’ll make it happen.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the banner that exists and allow the change on August 25th to the new banner that designates that they are open for lunch and allow it to remain through September 30th. Mr. Van over seconded the motion. All present voted aye and the variance was granted with six affirmative votes.








12 AUGUST 2003


D. Provident Bank requests approval of exterior color change and signs at 495 East Kemper Road (Springdale Plaza (PUD))

Mr. Okum reported that typically a sign change comes to the chair for approval but this involves an elevation change on the building as well and I requested that it be brought to the commission.

Andrea Ward of Holthaus Signs said we are doing both the sign and the drivitt change out on the building.

Mr. McErlane reported that the property is located in a Planned Unit Development, and because of that exterior finishes are approved by Planning Commission.

The applicant is proposing a change out in the sign package for the Provident Bank building, as well as painting the sign fascia board a blue color. The proposed signs are four 1 ½’ x 10’ wall signs at 60 s.f. total and the change of a panel on the pole sign which is 6 ½’ x 15’ or 97 ½ s.f. The total signs for the business would be 157.5, which is less than the allowable sign area of 188.5 s.f.

We received some color copies, but no color samples have been submitted. There is a little bit of a discrepancy between the sign drawing and what is shown on the elevations. The sign drawing shows blue letters, and the elevation drawings show white letters on a blue background. I don’t recall seeing an owner’s affidavit or an application signed by the owner of the property. Even if it didn’t come before this board, we would require landlord approval on the signs.

Ms. Ward reported that Provident Bank obtained the owner’s affidavit; they have it and I hope to pick it up first thing in the morning.

Mr. Galster asked if there was a quarter moon at the end of each of the blue bands on the building; what is that? Ms. Ward answered that there will be and it is called the swoosh; it is a part of the logo. It is a painted water mark of a lighter blue color. They are taking it from the new slope of the icon and are trying to carry it out through their water mark. The light blue is a Pantone 660 and the darker blue is Pantone 661.

Mr. Galster asked if the color was noted on the rest of the blue, and Ms. Ward answered it should be. I have paint samples of every color but the lighter blue, unfortunately, but I do have them of the gold, white and darker blue.

Mr. Okum asked if it were a repainting of the drivitt, and it is an aluminum panel that is up there now painted white with vinyl striping. The vinyl striping will be removed and it will be repainted with the proposed colors.




12 AUGUST 2003



Addressing Ms. McBride, Mr. Okum asked if she found this consistent with the rest of the development’s color pallet. Ms. McBride answered that she did not find it inconsistent with the rest of the development’s color pallet.

Mr. Okum said on the picture of the building, it shows that the blue swoosh as white and the lettering as white and the sign drawings are different. . Which is it? Ms. Ward answered that is an error on our part. It will be the white letters. Typically we show on the white background an outline of the letters in black, because the white doesn’t show up on the white paper

Mr. Okum asked if this is a Provident Bank thing? Ms. Ward answered that it depends on the architectural design of the building. Most will have this blue somewhere throughout. There will be just a handful that will not. This is taking place within the next month.

Mr. Huddleston asked if they did any of these prototypes as blue on a white background? Ms. Ward answered that they will be. It depends on the architectural design of the building. In some cases they will be using a blue sign cabinet which will be blue on a white background.

Mr. Huddleston wondered if they had considered doing this as blue on the white background. To me with this submittal you have a sign on all four sides of the building. It is a continuous sign band on all four sides.

Ms. Ward responded that quite possibly they could. They are trying to be consistent with different styles of the building. Mr. Huddleston answered I understand that, but I personally would prefer to see this submitted in blue on a white background.

Mr. Galster commented blue on a white background would also add the uniformity we are going to be looking for once she looks at the other Provident Bank in Springdale which is on the Route 4 Corridor.

Mr. Okum commented the current signage is white background with a blue and red pinstripe and the Provident sign in blue.

Mr. Galster said if in fact these are blue channel letters on a white background, what happens to the swoosh on the end? How would you accomplish that if we end up with blue letters on a white background?

Ms. Ward answered that’s a good question. I don’t know that the designer has thought that far. What they were trying to accomplish is to pull away from the blue letters a little bit because they do not illuminate as well at night. White letters illuminate a little bit better.


12 AUGUST 2003



Ms. Ward continued I do not know that they are not opposed to going with the white, but this is what their initial proposal was, to show the Swoosh with a lighter blue.

Mr. Galster asked what happens to the pole sign; does it become a white face with the blue letters as well? Is that what the commission is asking for?

Mr. Okum answered I think their submittal shows that sign being a blue sign with white letters. Mr. Galster responded if we are asking them to change the building sign to a white background with blue letters, are we also asking them to change the pole sign to the same look as the band on the building and therefore has a white background with blue letters as well?

Mr. Okum responded I think we are talking a building feature versus a sign in a sign cabinet. My personal feeling is that the band around the building is a building structure item and not a sign. If they want to make the sign white with blue letters they can make it white with blue letters. If they want to make the sign blue with white letters, it doesn’t matter to me. It is their choice.

Mr. Galster said so you are asking them to change the blue band to a white band with blue letters on the building and they can either match the sign that is out there or use it as submitted and have two different color combinations on that site.

Mr. Okum said right, signs don’t always match the building. I think the frame around the building is a building element and not a sign. We are not asking them to change it to white; it currently is white with some stripes on it that they probably would paint out.

Mr. Okum added that the chair can act on the signage. The building marquee is the reason that I did not sign off on it because it is in the PUD and it is the commission’s decision.

Mr. Galster commented my only concern is if we are asking them to have blue channel letters on the building against the white backdrop we wouldn’t want the same thing on the sign. It seems to me that the reversal of those colors would look odd when they are right next to each other.

Mr. Huddleston said I guess what I see is a building here with a sign banner on all four sides of the building. I hadn’t thought through what the pole mounted sign would be. My preference from an architectural control standpoint would be to say that I would prefer to see the building with blue letters on a white background, which is much more subtle. I like Provident Bank very much and I understand their preference because the other one is a much brighter sign. On our side, I think we are looking for a little more subtlety.


12 AUGUST 2003



Mr. Huddleston added that having said that, none of this is a deal breaker to me. I would defer to the other members. I just suggested that as an alternative.

Mr. Coleman said based on the direction that the commission has gone to date which is the subtle look, any change in the other direction certainly defeats that purpose. I don’t see why we would prolong the discussion at this point. If we are looking for subtlety, then subtlety is what we should stick with.

Mr. Galster moved to approve the signage for the Provident Bank based on the following:

      1. That the channel letters shall be the blue and orange as proposed on Drawing 55996 in the proposed channel letter elevation, which is the reverse of what is shown in those building elevation. Therefore, we will not have a blue stripe around the building.
      2. I would like to see the pole sign stay with the same blue and orange text on a white background.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion. All present voted aye, and the approval was granted.

Ms. Ward said to clarify, it is a white background with blue channel letters, and the same with the pole sign – is that correct? The commission confirmed this.

      1. To allow banners for an extended period of time – Sam Ash, 11805 Commons Drive

Mark Stottman of Quality Sign Company reported that we are asking for an extension to leave that temporary banner until we get the permanent signs up. Their projected date for the new signage is the first week of September. AT that time we would take down the temporary banners and put up the permanent signs.

Mr. Galster asked if the chair has approved the sign that will be installed on the building? Mr. Okum said yes, and there is a reduction in the total signage on the site. Mr. Galster asked when they anticipated completion, and Mr. Stottman answered we will start the first week of September and the job will take three or four days depending on the weather. Mr. Galster said so by September 10th should it be completed? Mr. Stott man said yes.

Mr. Galster moved to allow the temporary banners until September 10th or until the permanent sign has been placed. Once the permanent sign is in place, any temporary banner must be removed if it should go up before the September 10th date.

Mr. Vanover seconded the motion.


12 AUGUST 2003


Mr. McErlane added for clarification no later than September 10th? Mr. Galster said yes, and if it goes up on September 1st, the banners must come down. Mr. Huddleston asked if that was sufficient time for the applicant, and Mr. Stottman indicated that it was.

All present voted aye, and the temporary banners will stay up until September 10th or until the permanent sign is installed.

    1. Cooker Restaurant, 11333 Princeton Pike – Ground & Wall Sign
    2. Tuesday Morning, 427 East Kemper Road – Wall Sign
    3. Sam Ash, 11805 Commons Dr. – Wall Signs/Directional Sign Panel

Mr. Vanover moved to adjourn and Planning Commission adjourned at 8:59 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,



______________________,2003 _________________________

David Okum, Acting Chairman



______________________,2003 __________________________

Robert Sherry, Secretary