DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER: John Richardson, Chairman
Minutes: Minutes DT Zoning Commission March 22, 2004
There was a motion by Scott Evans to approve the minutes of March 22, 2004, with modification. There was a second by Robert Giesse.
Roll Call - Matt Evans-Yes, Scott Evans-Yes, John Richardson-Yes, Robert Giesse-Yes The motion was approved.
CASE 2004-112 Tahoe Entertainment Center
Staff Report Mayank Kumar showed the location of the proposed family entertainment center on a map. He explained the surrounding zoning. Mr. Kumar pointed out the location of the dumpster and a sign. He explained the Blong PUD and the suggestion of the PUD for 51% Office Warehouse and 49% Retail. He displayed a drawing of the interior design of the building showing 2 bowling alleys, party rooms, a stage area, and a sports bar. There are plans also for outdoor dining and volleyball. Mr. Kumar explained that the staff did not conduct an “on site” review due to the underlying problem with allowing this. There was discussion on the acreage which will change due to the acreage required for the right-of-way. Matt Evans asked what is the total net acreage in the entire development. Tim said the 84.4261 acres is on the original PUD. Matt Evans said it says 51% to be used for O-W. Mr. Kumar said when the Stage 1 sketch plan was prepared, the term “net useable” acreage was used. Tim Hershner said he believes back when the Stage 1 was done, the term “useable acreage” was inserted because there was uncertainty how much right of way would be taken out. They didn’t want to get shortchanged because of the plus or minus of right-of-ways. Tim said the cell tower parcel should be added in to this PUD. Doug Miller said on the original plan the interior roads were supposed to be private, but now those are to be public. Mr. Kumar said he made the map report from the GIS and it should be accurate.
Proponent
Bill Mees, Cincinnati United Contractors, introduced Todd Clifford and Tim Caskey as owner of Tahoes and Dave Kubicki also with CUC. Mr. Mees distributed an analysis of the Blong PUD. Mr. Mees said the cell tower portion acreage which is 2.6 acres, was recently purchased by CUC. Mr. Mees said this additional acreage would make the percentages of the Blong PUD requirement to be more in line. Mr. Mees said this family entertainment center doesn’t quite fit with retail or O-W.
Todd Clifford, 4636 Sarah Drive, Mason, OH, said he and his partner, Tim Caskey believe there is a need for this family type of entertainment in this area. Mr. Clifford said the high school students could use the facility. There will be a couple small theaters and party rooms. Outdoor volley ball is planned. Mr. Clifford said they were originally approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals to put this facility at the corner of Bardes Road and Wilkens Boulevard but the bank would not finance them at this location. The bank suggested a more visible location. Mr. Clifford said they cannot afford the expense of property on Mason-Montgomery Road. Mr. Clifford said he realized this is not a principally permitted use under O-W. John Richardson said this doesn’t take into consideration the rest of the property.
Bill Mees, Cincinnati United Contractors, distributed some paperwork showing lots 1-8 at the Arbor Square Development. Mr. Mees said the Tahoe site is 4.2 acres and it is classified as non Office Warehouse. Mr. Mees tried to explain the amount of acres of each parcel and the amount of acres which would be required for right-of-way, (.6145 acres of right-of-way). Mr. Mees included the cell tower which is 2.6 acres which Mr. Mees said should be included also for right-of-way. Mr. Mees contended that this is a 50 / 50 split but close enough to the required 51% and 49% in the Blong PUD. Mr. Mees said that they are “under the microscope” but this is a project when many amenities for the township. Mr. Mees said when he submitted this, he thought he was just submitting a site plan. He said he does have a comprehensive plan and the board viewed that. Mr. Mees talked about master detention and he said this detention basin is used by Arbor Square but CUC has an agreement that when they need to, they are allowed to expand this detention area and share in the maintenance of the detention area. He explained the watershed and how the storm water would flow on the property. Mr. Mees said the Stage 2 Plan speaks to the open space, mostly along the area with increased landscaping and walking paths. John Richardson asked him the acreage for right-of-ways. Mr. Richardson said if we are taking that out in one section, we should do that for other sections. Mr. Mees said he did that. John Richardson said the discrepancy is 2 acres which Doug Miller said is the cell tower lot. Matt Evans said we are talking about .07 of an acre. John Richardson asked if there are others from the proponents who want to speak. John Richardson asked for public comment.
Public Comment
Kate Olsen, 8704 Charleston Woods Drive, said she loves the idea of a family entertainment center. She likes the idea for high schoolers but she doesn’t want to see it located in Office Warehouse Zoning. She wants it on Mason-Montgomery Road. She said she is concerned about “retail creep.” She said outdoor volley ball will be loud. Ms. Olsen told the board to not set a bad precedent. She told the board to think, think, think about this. She said the high schoolers could walk there. She wants it on Mason-Montgomery Road. Mr. Richardson asked her if this was planned for the area north of Socialville-Fosters Road, would she be agreeable to it. Ms. Olsen said that would be better but she still wants it on Mason-Montgomery Road.
Heidi Marchese, 9242 Nottingham Way, said she liked the idea and sees a need for this type of business. She said she lives off Irwin-Simpson near Snider. Ms. Marchese was concerned about “retail creep.” Ms. Marchese wants Office Warehouse in that location and wants this business on Mason-Montgomery Road. Tim Hershner said this type of activity is related to retail use and he asked her if there was a zone change and it was listed as commercial recreational zoning would that make a difference. Ms. Marchese was concerned about noise from outside activities, drinking, and it being too close to residential. Matt Evans said the building actually buffers the volley ball courts. Mr. Clifford showed on the drawing the noise is directed toward Mason-Montgomery and the building is between the volley ball courts and Wilkens Boulevard. Mr. Richardson asked Diana Hallegin if she had storm water questions. She did not.
Robert Giesse said bowling alleys and office warehouse would be using parking at different times and asked if they considered sharing parking with an office. Matt Evans asked if there is shared parking in other PUD’s. Mr. Clifford said that is a good idea and they will consider that. Mr. Clifford said that at the BZA meeting where this project was approved there were fewer parking spaces planned. Mr. Clifford said he would like for this business to be located on Mason-Montgomery but they cannot afford the prices for land there.
Matt Evans commented that John Richardson’s suggested parcel north of Socialville-Foster Road would be a good location. Mr. Mees said yes, that area was considered. Mr. Mees said that location is for office and smaller users such as doctor offices. Mr. Mees said that parcel is already taken. Bill Mees said they will look into shared parking. Mr. Mees said the development is 800 feet deep and the volley ball courts are 750 feet from Wilkens Boulevard and behind the building. Tim Hershner said the building area could go into one zoning category percentage for the PUD requirement and the parking could go into the other category.
Mayank Kumar read a letter from Elaine Elko, Charleston Creek Drive, expressing that she likes the entertainment concept but that she wants it located somewhere else. She was concerned about “retail creep.”
Scott Evans asked for hours of operation. Mr. Clifford said during the daytime there would be leagues for seniors and housewives and it would open around 10:00 AM. On Friday and Saturday nights, it would be open until 1:30 AM. On Sunday it would be open noon until 6 or 7:00 PM. Mr. Kumar said on Condition #4 Warren County Regional Planning Commission suggested an amended traffic study and that the applicant would be responsible for any road improvements. John Richardson asked if there would be outdoor music. Mr. Clifford said there could be acoustic guitar. Mr. Clifford said much of the volley ball will be 2 man volleyball on 3 courts.
Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, asked if the area around the detention pond would be made a wetland area, would that increase the open space. She asked if that would change anything on the open space requirement.
Scott Evans asked about size of parking spaces. Mr. Clifford said they propose 9 x 19 feet for parking spaces. Bill Mees said he talked to Dan Corey at the Warren County Engineers about traffic and Dan said they would come back with a revised site plan. Mr. Mees said they told him they may get a right turn study to see if they must add a decel lane. Mr. Mees said may be able to acquire some of the detention pond from Arbor Square. Mr. Mees said they could come back with a revised site plan. Mr. Mees said there is a 1 percentage that is holding up the whole project. Doug Miller said that he is not sure that they can pick up an acre here or there. Mr. Miller said when the whole thing started there was a line and the retail was on one side and the office warehouse on the other side. Doug Miller said it needs a zone change to do it properly. Mr. Miller said if you don’t consider this retail use, and the code does not, that may be fine. Mr. Miller said at this point in time it does not comply with the resolution at 50 / 50. Matt Evans asked what it is we would be approving tonight. Doug said as they present it, they don’t meet the Stage 1 requirements. Bill Mees said his understanding that to meet the Stage 1 requirement, they should adjust the acreage of the project so that it meets 51%. Doug Miller said at that point is that it is a given to you guys that they are still going to approve it if you meet the technical requirement because it is still a site plan review. Mr. Mees said his client met with the planning staff in January. Mr. Mees said the rezone is another 90 day process. He said he is looking to this board tonight, if he can solve the problem of the 51%. Mr. Mees said he is willing to spend the architecture people’s time to try to rework something here. He said they have been working on this for 3 months. Matt Evans asked if this is a lease or a sale. Mr. Mees said it is a sale. Matt Evans asked what are we considering this a retail use? Tim said through a PUD you could put a limitation that it is commercial recreation area or office warehouse. Matt said everyone seems to think this is a great idea, if we can get the shared parking. Tim said the problem is, it needs to go into an office warehouse area so if it goes under it could be redeveloped as office warehouse. Mr. Kumar said the staff did say it might require a zone change but until we receive the application and review the site plan we don’t know what is going to be proposed. Mr. Mees said in my defense, you compared this with the Child’s Place on Duke Drive. There is no percentage requirement there like there is on the Blong PUD and I didn’t realize that until this morning. John Richardson closed the open portion of the case and opened it up for board discussion. Mr. Richardson said we need to give them some direction.
Discussion
Matt Evans said he didn’t see a problem with it if the parking is split up and the percentages are worked out. Scott Evans said either that, sharing the parking, or getting the open space by the retention pond. John Richardson said there is still a line as to where the office warehouse and where the retail is supposed to be. Mr. Richardson said this proposal is in the office warehouse space. Tim said the easiest way for the applicant may be to incorporate the cell tower property into the Blong PUD. Doug Miller said you are right, but in order for this all to work the cell tower has to come into the PUD and that requires a zone change. The procedure is going to Regional Planning, back here, and back to the trustees. That is a minimum of 90 days. David Kubicki, Cincinnati United Contractors, said everybody wants this family entertainment center, but he realizes there are issues. Mr. Kubicki said they would take care of that. Mr. Kubicki said they are willing to work through those percentages. Tim said one option is to ask the applicant if they want to table this here since the cell tower must go through the zone change. Tim said they could show on an overall sketch plan of the PUD how the percentage changes due to the cell tower acreage. John Richardson said what they are looking for from us tonight is a confirmation that we would approve this at a later date, if they meet these certain percentages and conditions. John Richardson the only issue is the “retail creep.” Mr. Kumar said the distance required between the two zonings (R-SF to Retail) is from 700 to 850 feet. There was discussion as to whether it should be considered office warehouse or retail. Doug Miller said he is not sure the affect of the detention basin, or whether it is office warehouse or retail. John Richardson said retail should be closer to Montgomery Road. Doug Miller said the Resolution is what we must adhere to. That should be taken into our site plan review what is the intent. The 51% should be the office warehouse use. Mr. Miller said the apartments on the Bowen property, which are they retail or office warehouse? Tim Hershner said in the definitions chapter, under the code commercial recreation areas are defined separately from retail. Mr. Giesse asked how much parking they show? Mr. Hershner said 50%. Mr. Mees said on the plan they show 201 parking spaces. Mr. Kumar said 1 parking space for each participant in the maximum occupancy is the requirement. Tim said in the BZA case there was a requirement for the floor area but with bowling lanes, party areas, bar area, we came up with a reasonable number. John Richardson asked if the BZA approved this. He was told yes. Mr. Clifford said in the BZA case they required 189 spaces. John Richardson asked him if there would be sidewalks. Mr. Clifford said yes.
Doug Miller said he is hesitant for this board to say if you do something, we will approve that without seeing the plan. Matt Evans said it sounds like they have been getting encouragement over the last several months. Tim said leaving the rezoning out, if they were able to come back with a plan that complies with the 51% / 49% split would the board entertain that. Tim said that line would have to be moved to the west. Doug said certainly we would look at it. Tim said because the 49% / 51% can only be met with the cell tower property, which requires a zone change, he didn’t think the board should or can consider the ultimate outcome until the application is made and is before them in a public hearing. Scott said we can’t speak for the board who is there that night. Doug Miller said this board is not the final say anyway. Tim said the trustees would make the ultimate decision.
Mr. Mees said he wants to proceed forward on the project. Mr. Mees wanted to know if he can achieve that 51% and come back with a revised site plan. Mr. Mees said they would do landscaping, building aestheics, dumpster enclosures, etc. John Richardson said the plan has never been an issue because they always have a good plan. John Richardson said he does want this in the community. Mr. Kumar asked Doug Miller if in the rezoning process with the cell tower on the 2.6 acres, would they just rezone the cell tower as office warehouse individually, or as part of the Blong PUD. Mr. Miller said they should go for the zone change and ask for the condition to allow this use to be allowed on there or ask to make the cell tower part of the Blong PUD. That way the cell tower would have the same requirements on it as the Blong PUD. Doug said a zone change is more complicated than a site plan review. Doug said even if this board likes this, they don’t make the final decision. Doug said this board can’t make the decision without a plan in front of them that shows 51% / 49% to approve. Mr. Mees said if we meet the 51% and the trustees do not like the plan could they turn it down. Doug Miler said yes that could happen. Doug Miller said they may say this use is not in the best interest of the township. Mr. Mees said we believe we have Stage 2 approval on that area. Mr. Mees said we got a Stage 1 when CUC bought the property. With Arbor Square we have gotten Stage 2 approval. Tim said we should go back to the Stage 2 and Stage 3. Doug said where is the Stage 2 Plan which was approved. Doug said if you are not building what was approved in Stage 2 you must get the Stage 2 amended. Tim said each area must come back in for approval. Tim said when this went to WCRPC, we wondered what is their opinion on land use.
Motion There was motion by John Richardson to table Case 2004-112. There was a second by Matt Evans.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by Scott Evans to adjourn. There was a 2nd by Robert Giesse.
Roll Call Scott Evans-Yes, John Richardson-Yes, Robert Giesse-Yes, Matt Evans-Yes The motion was approved.