MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: John Richardson, Chairman
MINUTES: Minutes DT Zoning Commission January 12, 2004
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to approve the minutes of January 12th, 2004, with one small change on page 5, in the second motion at the bottom of the page changing Case “#2004-61” to “2004-611.” There was a 2nd by Robert Giesses
Roll Call - Matthew Evans-Yes, Don de Reynier-Yes, S. Evans- Yes, J. Richardson-Yes, R. Giesse- Yes The motion was approved.
John Richardson explained the procedure of the meeting, reminding all involved that they must be recognized by the board in order to be allowed to speak. He said they must come forward to the podium and give their name and address. He said the meeting is being recorded by audio tape and there is also a court recorder doing the audio. He read from the zoning code the purpose of this board. Mr. Richardson asked the persons in the audience to please refrain from applause. Mr. Richardson said Neil Tunison, Warren County Engineer was here tonight to answer questions.
Neil Tunison, Warren County Engineer, 105 Markey Road, Lebanon, OH 45036, came forward to answer questions. John Richardson asked him if when pre-development traffic studies are done, could they extend the area of study to include interstate highway connections and take in a larger radius to study? Mr. Tunison said the improvements are located generally around the immediate site. He said previously when Nordstrom was coming to the area and TIF Funding was proposed, there were planned improvements maybe 900 feet away. Mr. Tunison said this made sense. John Richardson said there were plans anyway for the Irwin-Simpson Road intersection to be moved. Mr. Tunison said this will be the 3rd and final realignment of Irwin-Simpson Road. Mr. Tunison said he wants this road to be a transition to the residential area to the west.
John Richardson asked Mr. Tunison if he thinks Wilkens Boulevard will help with congestion. Mr. Tunison said it could carry 15% easily, maybe 15,000 to 25,000 cars per day. Mr. Tunison said Wilkens Boulevard will be an alternate route when they are repairing Mason-Montgomery Road and people may get used to using it in their daily route to work. Hopefully, they will continue to use it after the repairs are finished. Mr. Tunison said ODOT is concerned about back ups on I-71. The developers are concerned because it could affect businesses. John asked him the daily number of cars added from this development. Mr. Tunison said around 15% to 20% increase. Mr. Tunison said there are about 45,000 per day on Mason-Montgomery Road. He said if you add 20% that would be an increase of around 7,000. Mr. Tunison said the residential growth over the last 20 years in Mason and Deerfield has significantly increased the number of residential vehicles.
On traffic impact studies, there is a grading system like a report card, with grades from A to F. He said there are still many areas in Mason and Deerfield Township which are level E. He said that rates the delay through a traffic signal and E means there is a 40 second delay. Mr. Tunison said much of the congestion is caused from general residential growth, not due to retail development. John Richardson asked him what percentage of the traffic is “through” traffic and which traffic stays here. Mr. Tunison said this is a very expensive study and it is called an Origin Destination Study. This study has not been done. Don de Reynier said there are studies which in the long term would help. Mr. Tunison said they don’t anticipate a problem on “opening day for Walmart” at this time. Mr. Tunison said they are looking for improvements in the area of the interchange. Robert Giesse asked him if there is a time frame for this. Mr. Tunison said purchase of the right of way takes time and the costs involved are what makes the improvements so expensive.
Tim Mara, attorney for some of the opponents, asked if some of the people would come to Walmart and Shoppes of Deerfield by way of I-71 North and get off at Fields-Ertel Road. Is that correct? Mr. Tunison said yes. Mr. Mara asked Mr. Tunison if there has been any attempt to quantify by the Warren County Engineers or the developer the amount of cars. Mr. Tunison said an estimate was made but he didn’t remember the number. Mr. Mara asked him if he could supply that report. Mr. Mara asked him if he has other information on the number of cars coming to this development from other directions, such as Socialville-Fosters Road. Mr. Tunison said yes that information was part of that study. Mr. Mara asked if any improvements are proposed to a more distant location. Mr. Tunison said the developer contributed money for improvements around the site. Mr. Mara asked him if the developer would be asked to contribute to improvements at Fields-Ertel. Mr. Tunison said they have indicated interest. Mr. Mara asked him about the Wilkens Boulevard and Fields-Ertel Road intersection and if he would describe to him the problem with that intersection. Mr. Tunison said it is due to congestion coming from Mason-Montgomery Road and Fields-Ertel Road. Mr. Tunison said the improvements which were done in the mid 1990’s for P & G, he said that he thought that based on the traffic in the future, we could handle that. There are 80,000 cars through that intersection per day. He said he hopes that can come up with a solution. Mr. Mara asked where is the county line and does that complicate it? Mr. Tunison said the county line is down the middle of the Fields-Ertel Road and said he works with the Hamilton County Engineer very well and sees no problem with that. He said the purchase of right of way is very complicated and the engineering is difficult. On the Hamilton County side of the road the houses are very close to the road. There are a lot of details to work out. Tim Mara asked him if Fields-Ertel improvements will be worked out by opening day. Mr. Tunison said he wasn’t sure. Mr. Mara asked about the truck traffic. Mr. Tunison said truck traffic is usually about 3% of the actual traffic on the road. Mr. Mara asked how much of that is generated by Walmart. Mr. Tunison said he did not know. Mr. Tunison said if the trucks can’t get there during the day, they will find another time to drive there. Mr. Tunison said Walmart is very astute and they may do that at night.
Matt Evans asked Mr. Tunison if infrastructure comes pre-development or post-development. Mr. Tunison said what we design for is post development., but the development is based on what the current zoning is in that area. Mr. Tunison said another factor that we are realizing is that the number of cars per family in Warren County is higher than the average. Mr. Tunison said there are many factors. Mr. Tunison said we take existing conditions, add to that what we anticipate to be the future background traffic, then we add to that the site plan, and the traffic generated by the site on top of that. We are looking at post development. Mr. Tunison said the problem is what is the future traffic for the area. That is growing at a faster rate than what we anticipated. Matt Evans said so based on this, to make improvements to the streets specifically based on this specific application would not be wise. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Tunison said Walmart, the trips in and out of the site should remain the same. The reason it fails is because Mason-Montgomery Road is having more cars for what ever reason. Mr. Tunison said the right turn stacking lane should be longer. Later on it may be widened to the west.
Don de Reynier said the pre or post construction as to meaning, we should get the road ready before the site is built. Mr. de Reynier said do we have to wait to have a problem, to get people’s attention, previous to getting that fixed? Mr. Tunison said if we had the funds to do that yes we would. The funding is not there previous to the project. Mr. Tunison said Walmart is paying 25% of that cost. Now we need to come up with the other 75%. Mr. Tunison said all these projects are a matter of funding. Mr. Tunison said on the Deerfield Towne Center, their study indicated that they did not need an additional left turn lane. In fairness to Walmart, nobody else is doing that (funding) but if they are willing to do the 25%, Warren County will take it.
Joe Trauth, Attorney for Walmart, asked Mr. Tunison if much of the traffic is generated from the residential sector. Is that correct? Mr. Tunison said yes. Mr. Tunison said most of the growth in both Mason and the Township has been residential, especially between Butler-Warren and I-71. Mr. Trauth asked if the Deerfield Towne Center was required to spend any money on traffic improvement. Mr. Tunison said only with regards to their site up Mason-Montgomery and Irwin-Simpson. They did not participate in the funding of any of the main road. Mr. Trauth asked if Walmart is going above and beyond the call of duty in terms of contributing toward traffic improvements. Mr. Tunison said that is true.
David Oakes, CESO Civil Engineers, 1700 Lyons Road, Dayton, Ohio, said in the discussions from the last two meetings there have been three issues that were concerns, 1) water run-off, 2) traffic, and the 3) development site itself. 1) On the storm water run-off the plan was approved by two professional engineers (CESO & CES), Henderson & Bodwell for Deerfield Township and Warren County Engineers. Mr. Oakes said on the opposition, there was no expert testimony. 2) The main peak traffic problem is from people going to and from work. An office at this location would create more peak traffic. The retail would have more during the day. The Office Warehouse creates a lot of truck traffic. He said the traffic studies are paid for by the developer. 3) The developer has worked a long time with the township staff over several months to arrive at the current plan. The plan was discussed and revised with suggestions from the staff. Compliance was made in landscaping, bufferyard, lighting, signage, building elevations, pond features, screen walls, pedestrian access, wet ponds, and lighting. There are recommended actions that Mr. Oakes said he agrees to comply with. Those include Conditions 1-14 from the Deerfield Township Staff and Recommendations 15-23 from the Warren County Regional Planning Commission. The plan design is the result of a professional team made up of civil engineers, land planners, traffic engineers, hydraulic engineers, landscaper architects, etc. The opposition provided no expert testimony.
Steve Dragon, CDS, 11120 Kenwood Rd., Cinti., OH 45242, said he is here to discuss the out lots for restaurants. Mr. Dragon said this development has been scrutinized in all areas. He said they have worked with the staff to make improvements. He said the storm water calculations were reviewed by the county and Deerfield Township. A lot of effort has gone into the site plan you see before you.
Jim Harkin, Lusk & Harkin Architects, said he wanted to address a specific issue regarding signage for the outlot buildings as well as the retail building adjacent to the Walmart site. This is regarding the revised Condition #38. Mayank Kumar pointed out to the board that this paper work has a blue cover on page 10. He said the nearby Deerfield Towne Center is a very professionally done retail center with very appropriate signage. Mr. Harkin he is requesting the very same sign approach on this project. There are some conditions on retail buildings where you limit the size of the sign in relation to the size of the storefront. He said this leads to uneven signage. Each retailer is only allowed to have a small sign or a big sign. In the Deerfield Towne Center they limit the areas allowed for the signage. That way signage is more uniform and creates an overall better appearance. He said the reason they are requesting signs on the west side is because the staff has included pedestrian areas to outlots and they want to allow people to see what is in the outlot area and what is in the retail buildings. Mr. Harkin said he would also like to maintain the graphic standards that were originally submitted.
Joe Trauth, Attorney for Walmart, asked for all paperwork presented at this meeting to be put in the record.
John Richardson asked the board if they had any additional questions for the township staff. John Richardson said the board would move to discussion and recommendations. Tim Mara, Attorney for the Residents, said Mr. Oakes discussed storm water and Mr. Mara wanted to introduce some expert storm water information from the opposition but the person could not be here tonight. Doug Miller said we generally don’t allow a rebuttal to a rebuttal. Joe Trauth, Attorney said unless there is an expert opinion it is all speculation, and innuendo. Tim Mara again stated his expert couldn’t come tonight because he couldn’t tell him what exact time he would be speaking. Mr. Mara asked to submit the report from the opposition to the board. Joe Trauth said he is confused that the engineering reports done by Warren County Engineers and Deerfield Township aren’t acceptable. Mr. Trauth said they waited until the whole case was presented and now want to present that. Mr. Trauth said he thinks that is inappropriate. John Richardson said we don’t have time to review that tonight. Mr. Mara distributed the opposition storm water report and said his expert would come to the next meeting. Mr. Mara said he wants to make closing arguments. Doug Miller said this has been done and he thinks the board has bent over backwards to hear this case. Doug said so just so everyone understands, this case will also go before the trustees. John Richardson said we have heard a lot from a lot of people, some experts, some not. We have been given staff reports. Mr. Richardson said at this time he would like to open it up for board discussion.
Don de Reynier asked for additional information in one area in order for this board to make an informed decision. Mr. de Reynier said starting with Section 19.09 of the zoning resolution, it lists 8 conditions which should be met and 2 of these conditions seem pertinent to this case. Number 1 states, “Proposed uses will not be detrimental to the present surrounding uses or to uses authorized to the surrounding real estate.” The second one, Number 5 states, “The plan is consistent with the intent and purposes of the zoning resolution to promote the general welfare of Deerfield Township residents.” Also, Section 8.01 E-3 of our resolution, that covers reviewing site plans for their impact on the general welfare of both the general public and the occupants of nearby properties.” Among the factors to be considered is in Item G which says, “Any other factors necessary for complete review by the Zoning Commission.” The one other factor which we need information on and I think we need it on an area wide scope, is economic impact of this proposal. The applicant is proposing a large amount of additional retail in an area where we have already approved a significant amount. Have we reached a saturation point here? I don’t know but I think it is important to find out before we go ahead and approve additional retail. Mr. de Reynier said this sounds cruel, but the popular sentiment can have no bearing on what we’re doing here. He said so your applauding and cheering isn’t helping and can have no bearing because we deal with facts and the law. Mr. de Reynier said he is not going to argue with the audience. Lastly, Mr. de Reynier said Section 8.01 E-2, allows us to request a professional consultant to review any site plan with the cost passed on to the applicant. He said he would hope the applicant would agree to this. Mr. de Reynier said if this isn’t acceptable then, he thinks he would vote to deny the site plan and encourage the township to fund such a study. Mr. de Reynier said he feels uneasy that we are at the point that there is too much retail to be sustained.
Scott Evans said that if Walmart didn’t think they would make it, they wouldn’t have planned to come here. Mr. Evans said the economic impact is not our concern and it is not our finding of fact. John Richardson said it is very pertinent. Mr. Richardson said just because they are the last to come in, we can’t say “sorry your land can’t be developed because everybody else around you was developed first.” Mr. Richardson said we have to keep that in mind also. Mr. de Reynier said he wrestles with the fairness aspect of it and said what is different. He said when we approved the other 2 locations, there weren’t big retail developments next door. Mr. de Reynier said it is the “luck of the draw” maybe you could say and Walmart wasn’t in here first. They were in here third. John Richardson said his concern is the density. Mr. de Reynier said he doesn’t like the retail extending over to Wilkens Boulevard and he said that is not consistent with having a buffer zone between the residential area.
Scott Evans said in the 1997 Land Use Plan, Page 13 said, “The general policy of the plan is that Mason-Montgomery Road is an appropriate area for additional office warehouse uses such as those found in the Governors Point Development on Duke Drive. Mr. Evans said it is also the policy of this plan that commercial uses along Mason-Montgomery Road be limited in size to prevent more traffic congestion on already congested road. The commercial uses that are shown are those that are permitted in PUD’s and are presently being developed.” Mr. Evans said this hasn’t come up yet that Warren County asked us to commission a market study to determine the long term viability of the current permitted volume of the retail use of the unincorporated Deerfield Township. Mr. Evans said looking back at our history Warren County suggested 51% Office Warehouse and 41% Retail. Mr. Evans said at this time Office Warehouse is not selling and we cannot deny the property owner the sale of his property to the best advantage he can take. Mr. de Reynier asked for clarification on that from Mr. Miller. Mr. de Reynier said he understands we cannot deny a property owner reasonable economic return but he said this board does not have to allow the maximum. Doug Miller said you cannot deny someone an economically feasible use of their property. Mr. de Reynier asked if Office Warehouse would be an economically feasible use. Mr. Evans said if that is not what is selling right now, that would not be an economically feasible use. Mr. Miller said the property is zoned O-W G-B PUD. Mr. Richardson said zoning can’t look at the economic aspect of it.? Mr. Miller said the zoning is already there, and you’re looking at whether this project meets the perimeters of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution, and he thinks particularly, as they relate to the general welfare issues that are contained within the code and the law. Mr. de Reynier said he was responding to Scott where Mr. de Reynier got the feeling that Scott said that we would have to allow the maximum or highest value right now because that is what is selling. Mr. de Reynier said he didn’t think that was true. Mr. Miller said you don’t have to allow the highest and best use of the property. Mr. Evans said again, Office Warehouse is not selling and the owners right now of that property could not get a return on that property as Office Warehouse.
Doug Miller said if there is a request from the board that they want additional information, they need to get more specific from whom they want that information. Mr. Miller said that Mr. de Reynier has requested more information and Mr. Miller said he is not sure that is the consensus of the board. Mr. de Reynier said what it is called is an economic impact study. Mr. de Reynier the general concept would be if this additional retail is sustainable and if we allow it , what kind of impact would it have, the cost to the township of the services for this particular development, and how much tax money would be received by the township. Scott Evans said it is interesting that none of the competition to this business has come to any meetings to voice their opinions. Mayank Kumar said on the cost of services, the Warren County Regional Planning Commission suggested in Condition #16 an abandonment fund. Tim Hershner said in responding to Mr. de Reynier’s concerns with, “Is this an appropriate use for this land?” has been reviewed under the Stage 1. Mr. Hershner the Stage 1 process is over and we are saddled with that reality. He said the staff has worked very hard trying to make this as good a site plan as we can get and in fact we believe this is as good as site plan as we have received from any prior development of this nature. Matt Evans asked if these studies should not be used for specific tenants but rather for the specific areas to be used.
Mr. Hershner said if a study were desirable, from a township’s perspective at this point, it is something we probably ought to do ourselves. Tim said it is difficult to require an applicant to do a study, for something they have already received approval, to have that type of use. Similar to the engineer’s issues, it is not just with this one site. It is all the retail components along Mason-Montgomery in addition to along Fields-Ertel. It is not just Walmart entering into the community. Tim said I think we have a responsibility to make sure our retail component is vibrant and will live on for as long as we need it to. He said I certainly would expect it will evolve as land uses will, but since it has already been approved as a land use, it is not so much having to approve it, because Office Warehouse is dead for the most part. It is that as I understand, the original Stage 1, PUD, the 41% retail that was approved on this Bowen property was generally the property to the south of where Bowen Drive sits now. Everything to the north of that was proposed to be Office Warehouse. So if anything, that is where the change is, anything north. This to the south appears to comply with the original Stage 1. He said it is a little sketchy. We did not process that and the records are not real clear but it appears to be that is the logical approach of what the Stage 1 planned for.
Don de Reynier said X% the land being used for retail is one thing. The amount of retail is another. He said we are dealing with a large operation here. Mr. de Reynier said it is the volume of retail here that concerns him. Mr. de Reynier said traffic and water problems can be corrected in an engineering sense. They can be corrected. He said this troubles him and is not so easily correctable. Doug Miller said I don’t know if this is relevant to the approach you are taking, but you may not use zoning to limit competition. You cannot establish zoning regulations that are going to keep out a particular business. Doug said he didn’t know if we particularly have any provisions in our zoning code that deals with a maximum size of a building, other than height regulations. Doug said you can’t use the zoning code to limit competition in the township. Don de Reynier said specifically, the zoning code doesn’t do that, but the general welfare clause may cover that for things that are not specifically in the code. Doug Miller said you can’t look at that and say this is going to provide competition for other businesses, therefore it is against the general welfare. Doug said that is not proper and he wanted to make sure the board is clear on that. Mr. de Reynier said he would expect that the company would excel and be very successful in that location. He said he is not trying to limit competition. Matt Evans said he thinks Mr. de Reynier is saying it is not a question of competition but it is a question of how much retail we have and if we need anymore or not. John Richardson said we cannot limit that by zoning if it is already there. Don de Reynier said the amount of it and where it is located he thinks, and he feels this board will be able to address. He said the amount of it, is where it gets into the general welfare economic impact, in his mind. John Richardson asked Mr. de Reynier if he could limit it, what is he going to limit it to. Mr. de Reynier said he did not know. Mr. de Reynier said that is why he wants a study, to see if we are at the limit, or over it, or there is yet opportunity to add to our retail capability. That is on a volume basis. On a physical location on site basis, he said he would limit it to the retail to the eastern portion of it consistent with the adjacent properties’s treatment. Mr. Miller asked Mr. de Reynier, if the study says there is too much retail in Deerfield Township. What are you going to do on this project? Mr. Miller said it is zoned for retail. Mr. de Reynier said he would allow the minimum amount. Mr. Miller said he didn’t know what the minimum amount is.
John Richardson asked Tim or Mayank if they have a comparison of square footage versus the acreage of this project with previous developments. Tim Hershner said this particular development is 20% impervious surface which is similar to the Deerfield Towne Center which was approved to the south and similar to Arbor Square to the north. Tim said if you want to suggest a higher open space ratio, because, if there is a track record set on prior projects, there needs to be some justification. Tim said just because we are maxing out on retail, he would argue that there is not a reason to have more open space. There needs some public benefit, not suggest it is just because you don’t want anymore retail. Don de Reynier asked if anyone else is troubled with the fact that the retail extends so far west. John Richardson said yes he is troubled with that but we are stuck with zoning that has been already approved. Mr. de Reynier said he needs an explanation for O-W PUD. Mayank Kumar said the zoning is General Business Office Warehouse PUD. This is because the zone change happened when the township adopted zoning. Mr. de Reynier asked if all the acreage is both. Mr. Kumar said yes. There was more discussion on the history of the zoning and the apartments are 40% of the property. Mr. de Reynier said that doesn’t mean that all the remaining acres must be retail. Mr. Kumar said that is allowed. Doug Miller said that on the Warren County Commissioners Resolution they suggested that all of the retail portion on this site must be south of Bowen Drive. Mr. Miller said it does not say that it must be a distance away from Wilkens Boulevard or it does not say that it must be a certain distance away from Mason-Montgomery Road. Doug Miller said do we count the apartments as O-W or retail. Tim Hershner asked where do these apartments go in the zoning classification and he said since the apartments are north should be part of the O-W of the overall PUD. Tim said there was the specification for retail to be south of Bowen Drive. Don de Reynier said the part of this application that he doesn’t like is the retail being so close to Wilkens Boulevard.
Tim said we have a record of having 20% open space. The pond near Bowen Drive will remain open space. He said the staff finds it a challenge to push the open space more than 25%. Mayank Kumar said the impervious surface is about 24% and the open space is hard to count but it is about 20%. John Richardson said in our zoning code update meetings there was discussion on how much extra parking is provided in so many of our current retail developments. Mr. Richardson wondered if decreasing the parking lot size could be a way to increase open space. Tim said we can look into that if you want.
John Rickert asked Mr. Miller about the general welfare term or condition as it applies to a PUD, to what extent can the zoning board consider general welfare and under what criteria as pertaining to general welfare can be used for approving or denying an application. Mr. Miller said there is a list. Mr. Rickert read off some of the criteria such as, proper integration with the surrounding area, consumption of the public services such as sewer, water, storm water, fire & EMS. He said traffic is the secondary consideration, stabilization of neighborhoods, maintaining for and enhancing property values, environmental considerations, aesthetics as a secondary consideration and general nuisances. Mr. Rickert on item of, “proper integration with the surrounding area,” asked, to what extent should the zoning commission consider denying or approving a case based on that. Mr. Miller said you would have to have some reasons and some evidence in order to make that determination. Mr. Miller said yes it is a consideration of general welfare but it is a factual determination. Mr. Miller said it is a factual decision that the board has to make. Robert Giesse asked if there is a list of conditions. Mr. Richardson said there are 41 conditions on the Staff Report of January 12.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to take a 5 minute break. There was a 2nd by
Robert Giesse. The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to re-adjourn. There was a 2nd by Scott Evans.
The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.
John Richardson reminded the board that this is not a zone change. Matt Evans read the Ohio Revised Code, Section 519 on PUD’s and public welfare. Matt Evans said a large box with interchangeable facades is not very innovative. He said there are concerns about existing vegetation and a creek on the site. He said this structure is the same as the one proposed in Milford. Mr. Evans said a PUD should allow them to go in different directions. He said this Walmart could be different than other ones in the area. John Richardson said we can make a motion to approve, to deny, or to approve with conditions. Don de Reynier made a motion to delay the decision on this case, get information from Warren County Regional Planning Commission, and get an economic feasibility study. There was no second to this motion.
Robert Giesse said he would like to read the storm water report from the opposition, Tim Mara. Doug Miller asked Don de Reynier what do you want to see in the market study? Mr. Miller said if the market study says there is too much retail,
what are you going to do? Mr. Miller said Warren County suggested that the township have a market study but it would not be just for this property but for a bigger area. Mr. de Reynier said how much retail activity can be supported in Deerfield Township. What is going to come on board that we have approved and how much more would this proposal add. Scott Evans said you are talking about the entire township, 27,000 residents. Mr. de Reynier said we would get an expert. Scott Evans asked who would pay for this? Mr. de Reynier said he would ask the proponent and if they wouldn’t do that, then ask the township to pay for it. John Richardson asked Doug Miller if this board is allowed to ask for the proponent to pay for the market study. Mr. Miller said it could take 6 months for something like this and we can’t continue with no decision. Mr. Miller said this application has been in since October.
Scott Evans asked the applicant if they did an economic study of this area. They said yes. John Richardson said that this board can limit the scale of the building but we cannot limit the fact that it is commercial. John Richardson asked Mr. de Reynier if he would like to limit it. Mr. de Reynier said that this proposal extends much further west than any of the other developments along Wilkens. Mr. Richardson said in the PUD, retail was limited to south of Bowen. Don de Reynier said he wants to make a recommendation that to better integrate with the surrounding area, that retail type activities not be contained on this portion of the property that is no further west than the adjacent properties. Tim Herhner said he is concerned that our attorney said, that the zoning is in place that allows retail in that entire portion. Doug Miller asked if Don is saying to move the building or to switch the building and move the parking lot. John Richardson said the property is zoned for the use they want to use it for. This board can force the use (the planned project) to be better. We can’t force it not to happen. We can control but we can’t deny it unless there is something being missed. Don de Reynier said conducting a study isn’t denying it. Mr. de Reynier said not putting it all the way over to Wilkens Boulevard would help. Mr. Richardson said if the board forces that, the park land may be in the back. Mr. Richardson said it has some buffer to it out front. John Rickert said none of this is black and white and there are many, complex issues. Mr. Rickert asked how far does this zoning commission go in stabilizing neighborhoods. Doug Miller said the board has listened to evidence for 3 nights. Mr. Rickert said the time being spent in these meetings has been beneficial to all parties. Mr. Miller said this board has to make a decision in their own mind and come to a resolution.
John Richardson said the parcel is zoned for the retail and we need to work through, how we make it , the best we can. Don de Reynier said he’d like to see a staff report on what kind of economic impact study could be done, who might do it, how long it might take, and what it might consist of. John Richardson asked if there is anybody who feels the same way he does. Robert Giesse said he agrees with John and we must move forward. John said should we work through every item, commenting, changing. Mr. Giesse said we need to make sure that we agree with all the conditions.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson , to discuss in detail the 41 conditions compiled by the staff report and discuss each one, look at the plat, and comment, approve, or change the conditions. Mr. Richardson said the board would make changes and additions to the conditions and sign off on each one. Mr. de Reynier asked if we are just agreeing to a procedure. Mr. Richardson said yes. Matt Evans asked, “is it my understanding that Walmart has agreed to all these conditions except for signage.” Mr. Richardson said that is correct. Mr. Miller said the board should think about if they want to add any conditions that the board would want to impose. There was a second by Scott Evans.
Tim asked Doug Miller would it be appropriate for the board members to have questions for the staff. Mr. Miller said yes. John Richardson said if the board members have questions for the staff to feel free to e-mail them.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to continue Case 2003-612 , to February 9th, 2004, at the Lakeview United Church of Christ. There was a 2nd by Don de Reynier.
Roll Call Matthew Evans-Yes, Don de Reynier-Yes, S. Evans-Yes, J. Richardson-Yes, R. Giesse-Yes The motion was approved.
John Richardson suggested that next week the first case should be the 2003-612, Walmart. The second case will be 2003-611.
Staff Report Mayank Kumar described the location of the 15.54 acre site and explained the surrounding zoning. He said there are 7 structures proposed totaling 106,600 square feet. There is a plan for 4 retail structures and 3 restaurant outlot structures. He gave details of vehicle access, landscaping, lighting, and signage. Mr. Kumar said the board shall approve, approve with modification, or deny the submitted Preliminary Site Plan Review In the event of approval the staff recommends 29 conditions (see attached).
Matt Evans asked Mr. Kumar how he comes up with the sign measurements. Mr. Kumar explained. Tim said the way the zoning code defines measurement of sign, is that it does not even include the frame work, if you have a box sign. It doesn’t include the frame work around that, but it does include the entire plexi glass piece which is in that box. Tim said it is within the board’s discretion, that if there is a sign proposed, that you could limit the square footage of the sign itself. You could allow specific, stone work, brick work, around it to occur. There is the over riding issue that if there is a flat there is a potential for them to come back in and say well we just need another square foot here. Just let us expand it but if you are very clear. We have done that in the past. The square footage is limited to say 150 square feet. That’s all they get. No matter where they put it. Tim said there has been a dramatic change in signs for these type of centers since Arbor Square and Towne Center was approved. It used to be you could have signs that were upwards of 40 feet high. It was a dramatic change to a maximum of 20 feet for a project such as Walmart where you have over 200,000 square cumulative square feet retail. When you get below 200,000 but exceed 50,000 you can have up to 10 feet in height. It is a dramatic difference. John Richardson said we have a different sign shown. Mayank said that plan is from a previous plan. Mayank said 10 feet is different for the ground mounted signs and the free standing signs. The free standing sign is 10 feet. For the ground mounted sign it is 7 feet. Tim Hershner said the concept is that you don’t want to discourage them from using a ground mounted sign. John Richardson asked the board for questions or comments. There were none.
Steve Dragon, CDS Associates, said the Shoppes of Deerfield North site is approximately 15 acres. There are plans for 600,000 square feet of retail shops and 17,000 square feet of brick restaurant buildings. There is 4 ½ acres planned for landscaping and buffers and other green space. There are private streets within the development. Tim Hershner said those streets have been constructed to the same standards as public streets which are required by the Warren County Engineer. The road plan has already been approved by the Warren County Engineer’s Office and the storm water plan for this site has been approved by Warren County and the township engineers. Mr. Dragon said the sign plan which has been developed is consistent with the signage at Deerfield Towne Center. Mr. Dragon asked for the board’s approval of the plan.
Tim Hershner asked about a change to the park plan. Steve Dragon explained the change. John Richardson said he did not understand the plan. Tim said the buffering is suggesting trees and bushes. John Richardson said from the building itself to where the street is, is that 30 feet from the road? Steve Dragon said the distance from the building is 60-70 feet but from the edge of the drive, it is 30-40 feet on the north side. Steve Dragon said he would get the measurements of the distance between buildings. Tim Hershner said what’s important to add to that is that the buffering that they are proposing is quite different from the standard buffering that they are suggesting for that area. What is suggested is trees or bushes and what they are proposing is a variety of evergreens or coniferous trees. Tim said there are a number of other considerations. What does the material on the back of the buildings look like or is it dressed up? Matt Evans asked about the buffer yards and staff asked compliance with that. Mr. Evans said there should be 104 or 122 feet, is the staff in agreement that there can be only 30 feet or not? Tim Hershner said what was pointed out after is that, if we are holding the standards that the zone change occurred on this property and the conditions did not carry forward, then in 1997 the buffer requirements were 30 feet. Tim said 1 1/2 years ago we changed our buffer yard requirement between commercial and residential that it is 2 times the size of the height of the building plus the normal buffer. Matt Evans said wouldn’t you typically grandfather zoning restrictions to non complying existing structures, not proposed new structures. Tim said you can’t have it both ways. Doug Miller said it would not be what it was at the county previous to 1997 but what was adopted by the township in 1997 or what it is today. Matt Evans said he could understand a smaller buffer yard for an existing non conforming structure but not for a structure which is proposed to be built. Steve Dragon said according to the previous PUD it was between 10 and 15 feet and that is how we came up with the 30 feet which is much better. Matt Evans said you suggested 6 ½ feet, yes staff says to the north it must be 104. Mr. Dragon said he disagrees. Mayank said we need to ask Doug Miller if for the buffer yard requirement, we use the code today or the code in affect when the zone change occurred on this property. Mayank said if we use the one for today we would go with 122 feet. Matt asked Mayank if Mayank agrees with using the current requirement and Mayank said yes. Mayank said he would like to see the buffer yard to be 104 feet to the north and 120 feet to the west. There was discussion with Doug Miller the former requirements in 1997. Mayank said it is not just for the buffer yard but the 1997 standards would also apply to landscaping, signage, etc. from 1997 and would have to be adhered to. Matt Evans said he is looking for a straight forward, cut and dried, answer. Doug Miller said he didn’t have that answer tonight. Mr. Miller said Mayank had asked him 5 minutes ago and he doesn’t have that answer yet. John Richardson said next week or at the following meeting the board needs to see how close these properties are to each other and where the streets are. Mr. Richardson said the loading areas need to be shown. Doug Miller said if we are dealing with the property and language as it exists today, they interpret that differently than we interpret that.
Tim said let me clarify. I think they interpret the same way that we interpret it, in that the buffer yard between these 2 uses, given that there is a private street, is about 6 ½ feet, because it is just a parking lot buffer. However, the sprit and intent of that buffer yard approval that requires 2 times the height of the building plus what the matrix required, was intended to go between some commercial and residential. The bare fact that there is a driveway to an apartment complex on the other side, it still presents land uses that are adjacent but I think that is a mere technicality. I think there is merit to that technicality, so then we have to back off. Again those are minimums but I think the spirit and intent is there but I want to clarify that what they are proposing doesn’t seem what we have required. Tim said his big concern at this point is what do the back of those buildings look like? What kind of connectivity do we have? There is some proposed access from this development to the apartments. It makes it a 4 sided development. Matt Evans said we treat these in essence as possibly as 4 different public streets and right-of-way, then don’t we consider all 4 sides of these to be front faces of the structures. Doug Miller said the question is dealing with the PUD, we’re not looking at what is the minimum that the code requires that we can get away with. It’s what integrates this development into the neighborhood. Maybe that’s a buffer yard that is greater than what the code calls for anyway. Matt Evans said he agrees with what John said. Mr. Evans said we must see how close and how much space we have but if that is going to be considered a street and it is all open space, its gotta have a nice facade to it. Mayank said the loading space is located against a public right-of-way. Mr. Evans said we must decide if we are going to treat that as a street or not. Matt Evans said the façade in the back should look like the front.
Joe Trauth, Attorney for Walmart, asked if the apartments next door have special architectural treatment to the back of those buildings. Tim said we did require cornice detail on the side. In the back we required that they paint the block in the back because they would be seen by the Office Warehouse that CUC is proposing to build. Tim said even though this is a Stage 2 and they don’t know who the tenants will be, we recommend, that they come back for a site plan review, tenant by tenant. John Richardson asked for further questions. Bob Giesse said we made a commitment to the owner to put in the boulevard for the apartments. Mr. Giesse said changing the use of the space is a concern. Doug Miller said he understands but we can’t deal with that now. Matt Evans said if we require that they come back in Stage 3 is valid with respect to the materials to be used in the building, but it is important to make a note to the applicant that if that is what we are going to require, that they come back in Stage 3. We can say we want a façade on all sides, we should require that up front. John Richardson said we could make that a condition.
Russ Bowen, representative of the Bowen Family, gave the history of their progress in trying to sell their farm. He said the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers were included in the preservation of the Simpson Creek.
John Richardson asked if there were more questions. Tim Mara, Attorney for the Opponents, asked Russ Bowen if was true that at the time the site plan for the offices was approved you agreed to donate in 1998 to the township, 2 acres for park land? Mr. Bowen said they offered to donate 5 acres. Mr. Bowen said the schools were worried that there would be too many children from the development. He was asked to donate 5 acres. Mr. Bowen said during that process Perigrine pulled out and donated their 2 acres and we donated our $16,000 and granted an easement to the rest. Mr. Mara asked him if there were TIF service agreements from 1999. Mr. Trauth said TIF’s have nothing to do with this. Mr. Mara how much land did you give to the township. Mr. Bowen said the Bowen’s didn’t give the land. The developer did. Mr. Mara asked him what is the current use of the land? Mr. Bowen said agriculture. Mr. Bowen said we grow crops. Mr. Mara asked him about the current storm water run-off of this property. Mr. Mara would I be correct if I said the volume water run-off from this property is 2-3 times more than it formerly was? Mr. Bowen said yes. Joe Trauth, Attorney for Walmart, said there has been some confusion throughout the evening on the review of Stage 2 and Stage 3. Mr. Trauth said the staff has done a good job and there are 29 conditions. Mr. Trauth said the property is zoned properly and said they ask that they are treated like the property to the south, the Towne Center. Mr. Trauth said the buffering has been adequate. Mr. Mara asked him if in 1998 the township approved for an office to be built on this site? Mr. Trauth said yes. Mr. Mara asked if the Deerfield Towne Center to the south that you made reference to, had to go through a rezoning process which you are not doing here. Mr. Trauth said that is correct.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson that we continue Case 2003-611 to February 9th, 2004. There was a second by Don de Reynier.
Roll Call The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.
Motion Tim said a text amendment has been initiated to the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution. Tim said we need to set a date to set the text amendment for the public hearing. Tim said it should be set for March 8th, 2004.
There was a motion by John Richardson to review Resolution 2004-09 on March 9th, 2004, the regularly scheduled meeting. There was a 2nd by Matt Evans.
Roll Call The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson that we hear the latest zoning code update on February 23rd, 2004. There was a 2nd by Scott Evans. Roll Call The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.
Adjournment
Motion There was a motion to adjourn by Scott Evans. There was a 2nd by Robert Giesse.
Roll Call The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.