DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER: John Richardson, Chairman
MINUTES: Minutes DT Zoning Commission August 11, 2003
Motion Motion by Robert Giesse to approve the minutes of August 11, 2003. There was a 2nd by Lee Speidel.
Roll Call Matthew Evans-Abstained, Don de Reynier-Abstained, S. Evans-Yes, L. Speidel-Yes, J. Richardson-Yes, R. Giesse-Yes
The motion was approved.
CASE 2003-483 8470 Landen Drive, Addition to Abiding Word Lutheran Church, Site
Plan Review
Staff Report Linda Tong, candidate for the planner’s position, was introduced by Tim Hershner and she did the staff report. Ms. Tong showed some photos of the property at 8470 Landen Drive and explained them. The surrounding properties have R-MF PUD, G-B, and G-B PUD zoning. The church is proposing a 4700 square foot addition to a 2300 square foot existing building. The new building will be brick veneer. She pointed out the existing and proposed parking. The parking spaces required for 228 seats is 58 spaces. The plan shows 9 feet wide parking spaces and the code wants 10 foot wide spaces. The existing pine trees do buffer the current parking lot but more plants are required. The two planned lights are higher than what we allow. The township policy is for poles to be no more than 15 feet high and the lenses must be shielded. The code recommends providing a loading area. On the plan no loading zone was shown. There are 3 sheds which are to be moved which need to be screened. Ms. Tong said if the zoning commission considers approval of this plan, there are 9 recommended conditions
.· 1. More plants / landscaping on east side of property to the property line.
· 2. More plants / landscaping near entrance parking lot area
· 3. More plants – in island or peninsula landscaping of the parking area
· 4. Lighting – shielded lenses, on 15 feet high poles
· 5. Parking space size to be changed from 9 feet width to 10 feet width
· 6. Loading space provided
· 7. Sheds – to be moved to rear of lot and screened.
· 8. Dumpster – if there is one, it must be screened.
· 9. Compliance – Warren Cty Water & Soil Conservation, Warren Cty Engineer, DTFR
Board Questions John Richardson asked for questions from the board. John asked abou t 500 or 600 feet of island area. John pointed out other areas. Tim said there is a larger area at the drive through portico. John asked about light height since this is not residential. Tim said the building is near residential. Scott Evans asked about “existing lighting”. Linda pointed out the location of the light but the new addition will cover it. Tim Hershner pointed out the planned lights for the parking lot. Tim said they want down directed lighting. John Richardson asked for the proponent to come forward.
Proponent Mike Barnard, ML Barnard, Inc., 4357 Ferguson Dr., Suite 220, Cinti, OH 45245, said he would like to keep the 20 feet tall light poles in order to get lighting farther out and being able to use fewer poles. Tim Hershner told him the 9 feet wide parking space has been allowed in the past. Mr. Barnard said the addition will match the old section and there will be a new roof put on the old portion of the building.
Board Questions Matthew Evans said he noticed that 3 trees must be removed in the construction of the new building and he wanted to know if those trees will be replaced. Wayne Graydon said they will try to be saved, if not they will be replaced. Tim said that this lot is one of the lots along Landen Drive which doesn’t have many trees. Don de Reynier asked him what is the concern about the 15 feet, shorter light poles. Mr. Barnard said the higher poles spread the light out better. John Richardson asked for public comments and there were none.
Board Discussion John Richardson said he doesn’t have a problem with the 20 feet high poles, if there is no exceeding of .02 footcandles of light at the property line. He said 15 feet is pretty low. John said the 10 feet to 9 feet wide parking spaces are very often approved by this board. Don de Reynier said we are eliminating Condition #5 “Parking space size, changed from 9 feet wide to 10 feet wide” and Condition #3 “Provide additional interior landscaping of parking areas to comply with Section 21.08.” Don de Reynier said we think it does comply so we must eliminate the word “additional” in Condition #3. There was discussion on 20 feet tall poles. Lee Speidel said we must modify Condition #4 to 20 feet instead of 24 feet.
Motion Motion by Lee Speidel that we recommend approval of the site plan with staff Condtions 1 and 2. On Condition #3 strike the 2nd word “additional”,_on Condtion #4 change 24 to 20 feet, eliminate Condition #5 and then include Condition 6, 7, 8, and 9. On Condition #4 also to read “.02 foot candles at the property line.” 2nd _by John Richardson._
CASE 2003-498 Irwin-Simpson Rd, Chard Snyder Office Building, located between
the Columbia Square offices at 3230-52 Irwin-Simpson Road and the
Northeast Cincinnati Child Wellness Center at 3484 Irwin Simpson
Site Plan Review
Staff Report Tim Hershner introduced Mayank Kumar who did some GIS work for us earlier and is now a candidate for the planner position. Mr. Kumar explained the zoning and buildings on the surrounding properties and pointed them out on the photo. He gave the description of the proposed 11,829 square foot office building. Mr. Kumar said the parking plan is not in compliance with the zoning code since the parking spaces are 9 feet wide instead of 10 feet wide. The interior landscaping is not in compliance. There is no loading space shown. The dumpster screening should be higher. The screening of the parking lot should be improved perhaps with a mound. He said the lighting is to be no more than .02 footcandles near the residential area. He said no signage plan was turned in at this time to review. DRAFT
Board Questions John Richardson asked if there would be signage at a later time. Mr. Kumar said there most likely would be signage planned at a later time. Tim said there is some lighting shown in four locations and in the landscaping around the building itself. Tim said the lights are 20 feet high. Tim said this is in a General Business District like the church in the previous case. Matt Evans asked what is the height of the lights at the nearby, older office and the school. Tim said those have been there a while and they are pretty high. Tim said as the height comes down, the number of poles increase, so there is usually a “trade off.” John Richardson asked about the retention areas for drainage. Mr. Kumar said from this plan you can’t tell from which direction the water would flow. There was some discussion of the drainage plan and viewing of the drawing. Tim said he would like to see the lot lower so sidewalks could be implemented at a later date. Tim said in subdivisions we can require sidewalks. Tim said the Warren County Engineers do not think we could require sidewalks there. Tim said most of the area there is in a swale and sidewalks are more difficult to install. Tim said in the future when sidewalks are in place we need to be able to require them with a new assessment district. Proponent Rick Young, Henderson & Bodwell Engineers, said on parking spaces, are basements included in the calculations? Tim said no just the finished floor plan. Mr. Young asked if they could keep the 9 x 20 feet parking spaces as shown on the plan. Mr. Young said they have no problem with adding more landscaping, plants, changing spacing, or required species of plants to comply. On the lighting, Mr. Young said they are separated from residential areas and the lighting on the property line was not that significant. Mr. Young said he thinks the lighting is more for security purposes. Mr. Young said there will be a sign and that will be brought to the township at a later time. Mr. Young said they will work on changing the landscaping and reducing the intensity of the lighting. Board Questions Bob Giesse said he was concerned about the lighting going over to the area by Landen Lake. John Richardson asked Mr. Young to explain the retention plan. Mr. Young apologized for an error on the plan which has caused some confusion and explained it. Bob Giesse asked him how is this plan is affected by the Simpson Creek Water Study. Tim said the Deerfield Township Trustees have been very diligent in making sure the Simpson Creek Water Study recommendations are followed. Matt Evans asked if there is a swale. Mr. Young said this storm water is directed toward a box culvert then to the creek. Lee Speidel said the Warren County Engineers encouraged cross easements with the nearby other office. Rick Young said when you put driveways to adjoining parking lots you lose parking spaces. Tim said he likes the idea of keeping Irwin-Simpson more like a residential street. Lee Speidel said he didn’t see a great need for cross easements but he said he wanted to see what Mr. Young thought about that. Tim said fire safety would be one asset for cross connections. Tim said the staff appreciated the additional trees and good landscaping they presented in their plan. John Richardson asked about the planned parking lot landscaping and the deficiencies from the requirements. John said we require parking lot landscaping of 600 square feet and they show 400 square feet. John said the amount of landscaping offsets the lack of peninsulas in the parking lot. Don de Reynier said it won’t be seen from the street and he likes the landscaping plan. Don said that would do away with Condition #1. Tim said this is not a parking lot like Meijer which is just a “sea of asphalt.” DRAFT
Concerned Citizens Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, said she likes the idea of an erosion plan but she is concerned about Irwin-Simpson flooding. Mr. Kumar had photos of the flooding which were e-mailed from Ms. Halligan. Tim said we can add to the conditions that they use recommendations from the Simpson Creek Watershed Study.
Discussion / Recommend There was discussion on the lighting. Tim said Clopay lighting is bad because the bulbs hang down and they are intense. He said P & G lighting is great. Rick Young said they can make changes so the lights won’t intrude. Rick said he can work with Tim and get these lighting issues resolved.
Motion Don de Reynier made a motion to approve the site plan for Case 2003-498 with the staff conditions, 6 listed ones minus the 1st one which would be 1 through 5, adding a letter of approval from Henderson & Bodwell regarding the Simpson Creek Watershed Study, and recommending the down directional, full cut off, shielded lamps, and the height to be determined by a staff review. There was a 2nd _by Scott Evans_
Zoning Code Update – Randy Mielnik, Poggemeyer Design Group
Randy Mielnik, of Poggemeyer Design Group, said he wants to talk about some major zoning issues. He said they are working on access management and what the county can do and what the township can do. One thing was how the PUD district might be amended to reflect some of the concerns of the previous meeting. Randy said they would try to focus on some areas which are vague and try to nail down how the township would view a PUD, kind of favoring the whole idea of clustering residential density but at the same time allowing for some mixtures of uses.
Randy said he would take questions. Don de Reynier said once it is rezoned, there is a mystery about what the last percentage of the property will be. Don asked does this basically allow us to say, “okay we will rezone for this PUD but only with the plan that is presented and if it changes then the zoning reverts or we can do something else with it.” Randy said plans can change but we cover this toward the end of our material. Lee Speidel said we have had a lot of problems with PUD’s being approved and a sketch plan being presented and then the development at subsequent stages gets developed in a way totally different than the sketch plan which was presented. Lee said he would like to see some way that the Stage 1 sketch plan be adhered to in future plans. Lee said at a certain point if they want a change from the plan they have when the PUD was made, they need to ask for a rezoning in the PUD. Doug Miller said you could put a condition in that you are allowed to add more conditions. Doug said on every PUD some change happens. Tim said from a staff point of view, we need a good sketch plan at Stage1 to early lay it out. John Richardson said it evolves from stage to stage. Lee Speidel said the sketch is so rudimentary and we need specifications telling what amount of detail on what they need to present. Doug Miller said Section 19.03 basically allows any use in a PUD. Doug said the underlying zoning should be what you are looking at. Lee Speidel said in a PUD everything is a permitted use. Lee said we need to have it so that the PUD, if it is a RSF PUD, the only things permitted are the normal R-SF uses unless when writing the PUD Resolution we add other uses because we want a mixed use project. Randy said the PUD has to represent 50% of the permitted uses in the underlying district. That way you are not deviating substantially from the existing zoning. Lee said we have followed that policy and Warren County did too. Lee said he thinks when we do a PUD rezoning, we specify the uses so that we know what mixture of uses we want in a PUD. Doug Miller said we need to know where the uses should go, what is going where. Doug Miller said there can be retail on the ground floor and residential on the upper floor. Tim said the Arbor Square plan showed the majority of the land as Office Warehouse. Lee said the whole concept of a PUD is that we are supposed to integrate the multiple uses. Matthew Evans said not only do you integrate a PUD, but you integrate different uses and mixed uses within an area. Somehow we have to control is how it is developed but how it is developed proportionally. Matt said can we decide how it is broken up proportionally? Tim said that is the concern another “bait and switch” whereby the retail is built first and then two years later they tell us there is no demand for office warehouse so they ask to build more retail.
John Richardson based on the PUD at Krogers (Arbor Square Development), they must build office warehouse unless they come back to us and ask for a change. Doug Miller said then that becomes the question. Should this be a Stage 2 or back to a Stage 1? Matt Evans said we could make sure when retail is built that the same percentage of office warehouse is built. Tim said we don’t have any standards in our PUD which suggest what type of building materials are recommended. Lee Speidel said Miami Township recently removed all their PUD’s from their code so they don’t have them anymore. Mr. Meilnik said some areas have PUD’s in their code but don’t ever use them.
Randy Meilnik said another issue is usage on steep slopes. Matt Evans asked him if a geotechnical study should be incorporated into the development of the properties. Randy said there is some reference to that for foundation plans. Mr. Evans said that is being required in some areas around here. Matt Evans said some engineers will not design something without this information being available. Mr. Evans thinks that is important to have this information up front.
Randy Meilnik suggested a Heritage Residential District for Kings Mills and Loveland Park and said they should have newly designed requirements for these districts. Matt Evans said they should have a Heritage District Review Board. John Richardson asked Randy if this is done in other communities. Randy said that one township, Bath Township, has an advisory board with architectural guide lines.
Matt Evans said in our code we need to address accessory structure not accessory use. He said accessory structures should be addressed separately. Tim said in Section 25.09 and 25.11 we have permitted accessory uses, residential and office. Doug Miller asked what is the definition of a permitted accessory use. Matt Evans said that it would be if you were in a house and you wanted the use of that house to provide a business such as a day care but not do anything to the structure. Doug Miller said if you are in a residential area and a home occupation can be used there. Doug Miller said Home Occupations as defined in the code can be allowed in every district. Doug Miller said we don’t need another category. Doug said if it is allowed put it in there. Doug said if it is not allowed, don’t put it in there. Randy Meilnik if it is allowed as an accessory use only. Mr. Meilnik said you couldn’t just take a residential district and have a home occupation. It is a secondary use. Randy Meilnik said the purpose is to eliminate the need for a lot of variances. Doug Miller said Kings Mills and Loveland Park do not like people telling them what to do. Matt Evans discussed the Heritage District. Don de Reynier described the Heritage District as “keeping the character that already exists” so the zoning is determined by what is already there. Tim said in Kings Mills there are certain blocks that were developed after the real historical development and are ranches. Don de Reynier it’s like you want to give the people “home rule” in that limited area. Tim said some of the merits of creating a special district such as Kings Mills but at the same time we need to educate the public in trying to preserve a certain standard, whether it is architecture or whatever. John Richardson said it should be called R-SF H. Tim said the purpose is quite different between Loveland Park and Kings Mills so two different districts need to be created.
Tim said there has been a lot of information given tonight and Tim asked the board to review the information from Randy between now and next month’s meeting. Tim said the staff would be doing this also. He said there are some technical aspects. For example, Tim said on accessory use 35% of the rear yard should be left open. He said sometimes people want to build these pole barns which are larger than their house. Tim said
DRAFT
the trustees will be looking at the changes also. John Richardson asked if there were some public comments. Mayank Kumar added a comment concerning his studies and steep slopes.
Concerned Citizens Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, said she thinks an “overlay district” may be something which would help with the Simpson Creek Watershed area. The board told her they would look at her information on that.
NEW BUSINESS Review & approval of 2004 Calendar for the Zoning Commission.
Motion Motion by John Richardson to approve the 2004 calendar for the Deerfield Township Zoning Commission. There was a second by Robert Giesse. Roll Call Don de Reynier-yes, S. Evans-yes, L. Speidel-yes, J. Richardson- yes, R. Giesse-yes, Matthew Evans-abstained, The motion was approved.
9:45 PM ADJOURNMENT Motion by Scott Evans to adjourn. There was a second by Lee Speidel
Roll Call S. Evans-yes, L. Speidel-yes, J. Richardson-yes, R. Giesse-yes Matthew Evans-abstained, Don de Reynier-yes
The motion was approved.
John Richardson Date Marilyn Arnold Date