MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER: John Richardson, Chairman
ROLL CALL: Scott Evans, John Richardson, Don de Reynier, Matthew Evans, Alternate John Rickert were present. Robert Giesse was present. Also present was Deerfield Township Law Director, Doug Miller.
Minutes Minutes of DT Zoning Commission Feb 23, 2004
There was a motion by Scott Evans to approve the minutes of February 23rd, 2004. There was a 2nd by Matt Evans.
Roll Call J. Richardson-Yes, D. de Reynier-Abstained, M. Evans-Yes, S. Evans-
Yes, J. Rickert-Yes The motion was approved.
CASE 2003-611 Shoppes of Deerfield, North Stage 2 PUD
(These minutes are typed verbatim, just as they said them. Any question marks indicate I could not quite understand what was said, per Marilyn Arnold.)
Staff Report John Richardson said, “The second item on the agenda is Case 2003-611, The Shoppes of Deerfield, North Stage 2 PUD.” Mr. Richardson asked Mayank Kumar to come forward. Mayank Kumar said, “for this case we are at the status that the board has to open the floor for the public comments and the staff presentation was already over and the board has also given a chance to the applicant to respond. In the meeting packet you can find the revised conditions for the north site which includes 28 conditions. And then we have the applicant’s response to those conditions. Also the board has requested to have a map which shows the setbacks of the Conservancy Apartments from the proposed building so those things are all attached and we have each and every condition on the Power Point.” John Richardson said, “Have these conditions changed?” Mayank Kumar said, “Yes. They have changed but only for the purpose of clarification. There is no additional regulations or…anything added to these conditions. The Condition 1 is modified and there are a few conditions that are added.” John Richardson said, “Mayank, I don’t see my response, oh here it is. Okay. Does anybody have any questions regarding those conditions and the response?” Mayank Kumar said, “If the board wants me to go over each condition, I have those conditions on the Power Point but I think the board might allow the public to speak on this case.” John Richardson said, “Well, we intend on doing that. Does anybody from the board wish to go through those conditions?” Doug Miller said, “ ??? to comment on those conditions, be it number 7 where it talks about the sidewalk plan being approved by the zoning commission, at what point in time will you be doing that?”John Richardson said, “Well unless we request the Stage 3 come back to us, it would have to be done during Stage 2.” Doug Miller said, “Which you have in an addition further back. I didn’t know if you meant that to be done at the same time. You could spell that out.” Mayank Kumar said, “It is Condition 20.” John Richardson said, “Okay. I guess that would be a fine time to do that. Okay any comments. I think what I’ll do now, I’ll open up the public portion of the case again. I have 3 persons that have filled in the form to speak this evening. I’ll take them in the order that I have received them. We are out of forms. Marilyn just give them a sheet of paper. Okay, Eugene Lang?” Marilyn Arnold said, “He wants to speak on the other case.” John Richardson said, “Kate Olsen.” Kate Olsen, 3704 Charleston Woods, said, “The first thing tonight I thought I would start where I left off. We were talking about the TIF agreement, the actual TIF agreement that the township agreed to spend more than a half a million dollars for public improvements, that’s public improvements were made available for public use. Those improvements included Bowen Drive which the township built, Bowen Park which the Bowens actually donated some of the land for, half of the park was going to build an office building. The benefit of the office buildings for Deerfield Township of course is bringing jobs to the township and increasing the tax base . That was going to
be a 4 story building that one corporation could use for jobs for our community. So that was a TIF agreement. Of course that was put in place after the Stage 1 approval for offices on that site and which was about 1998. That’s what Bowen Park looks like, the half of it thats been built. It’s got a retention pond. The creek is to the east or to the right. The tree line is in the back ground there. You can see the rear end of the Conservatory Apartments back there. So here we ‘re considering now Vandecarr’s Stage 2 proposal, and should we be retail or not. Offices, offices are better for our community and increase the tax base. I know some of us are worried that the Bowens might not be able to get offices built on that piece of land and maybe we should consider an alternate use. I personally
am not worried about that. I know that the economy is turning around and office is gonna to pick up. When we do our traffic study and when we fix some of our problems on Fields-Ertel, Mason-Montgomery interchange, that’s gonna improve the value of office space also in the township but we are here and we are talking about should we not do offices, per the TIF agreement. An alternate use, if we are going to start considering that has to have a commeasure of benefit to the community, to the public because we have already spent a half a million dollars. Vandecarr is the one proposing to build here and they’re proposing between the north site and they want to put it in front of Walmart to build 164,000 square feet of retail in front of the 203,000 square feet of Walmart. It’s a lot and I think it is time that we say “anti-up”. Let’s see what Vandecarr is going to give if we’re gonna back out of this TIF agreement. Walmart has given over a million in roads. The Bowens have given land. Summit gave ??? this agreement. What do you think about this? So the TIF agreement was for the public use, public good. Public good characteristics, non-???. You can be used by many people at once. Like clean air. It is also non-excludable. It is impossible or impractical to exclude anyone from consuming it, like fire service. Anybody who
needs a fireman can get a fireman at any time that they need it. Pubic use, public good. That ‘s what we need to be thinking about. ??? or benefit for the money we have already put into this land if we are going to change this TIF agreement. So let’s think about a fire station. A fire station would be good there. Think about that land. Except we need a fire station in the northern part of Deerfield Township so it’s really not right for us. Let’s think of something else we could do. We could do a recreational facility. We could do an outdoor swimming pool. We could do a skate park. We could do / play tennis courts. That would be pervious and less damaging. We could do baseball fields. We just had an article where the MYO is upset that Deerfield Township does not have baseball fields. That is becoming a problem. We could do things that would benefit the public cause we have already spent money on the TIF agreement. While you are looking out for the pool that could be built on that land, I’m going to introduce something that makes me a little nervous that I normally wouldn’t have done. Instead of Pandora’s Box I’m not gonna open it but I know you all received a letter from Bill Morand talking annexation so we are just going to talk annexation for a few seconds and we’re gonna move on. We don’t want anybody to annex. We like Deerfield Township. Right? We have called and talked to the members of city council in Mason to figure out what ‘s going on with that deal. And indeed it was on their agenda and they discussed it in their city council meeting, at their last meeting. They are currently approving the minutes and it will be public record for all of you to see. Mason City Council is not at this time working to annex the Bowen land. They do of course have to have a meeting if Bowen initiates one and would be willing to do that. They are not interested in annexing the land. Also, Ohio has changed the annexation laws fairly significantly such that it would be very difficult if not impossible Scott Lahrmer said at the council meeting to annex that piece of land. I just wanted to ??? that and put it away. One of the other things we could consider for this land is a museum. A museum would be interesting because it would be like an entertainment / educational facility. Maybe Paramount would want to build one. Schools could use it. We could have it be for public good, public use and allowing residents in our township one free entrance every year. We could build something like that there that would be beneficial for our community. And my absolute favorite that I would really love to see built there. We could build a public library and we could build it on this piece of property. That would benefit our community, and that would be for public good and all of our community would use it. It would be wise investment. Some of the things we could do with it is we could have an outside patio area overlooking the creek so that we could work into the creek into the plan. We could have a walking path with a play area. We could put a library drop box at the northern fire station to meet the needs of those folks north. The best thing is that it is compatible, traffic wise. Cause toddler story time is at 10. People go to the library when they are not going to work. People go to the library in the middle of the day. It would not add to theburden of Mason-Montgomery Road. It would be really clever planning. That is something we could build on Bowen’s land. That is what I would like us to think about. If we were to do these things with this agreement, we might get support from the developer. Maybe an offer of the land below market price, reduce construction costs if you are building a house, assistance with any of these things like security, landscaping, ??? something like that. The improvements that were promised to us for the amount of money we are currently spending, the public is spending, Bowen Drive, Bowen Park, and office buildings. That’s what we want. We want office buildings. Hey, Deerfield Township is looking for an office building. Let’s build Deerfield township Offices over there. That would be a great location. What I am asking you is once again, we don’t really need 2 strip malls and 3 restaurants. We don’t need retail. We don’t need that much retail and we certainly don’t need it right there. Please deny this site plan and lets do something for our public good that meets the needs of the TIF agreement. Thank you for your time.” John Richardson said, “Thank you. Robb?” Robb Olsen, “I will speak on next case.” John Richardson said, “ Okay I’m sorry. You aren’t both speaking? She covered it? Tonya Hines?” Tonya Hines, 9041 Fields Drive, said, “I am representing the Montgomery Fields and Woodland Trace Subdivisions. At the expense of being redundant we have talked so much about a lot of this content. We were talking about the south property. So I am just gonna go through a lot of the same of the same issues that I saw this board struggling with when we were talking about Deerfield Shoppes South. We spent a lot of time talking about what what PUD means and PUD’s allow us to do. We’ve looked into….PUD’s are supposed to bring variety or also sometimes referred to as mixed use. Flexible, that is another adjective that we use to describe the advantages that a PUD developments have over straight zoning. I love these words, variety and flexibility. Yet constantly I hear the developer compare this PUD to others for example like Arbor Square, arguing over setbacks, buffers, and the number of trees. Each property has unique features and adjacent consideration that must be dealt with individually and in this case the north property the creek is paramount. So a PUD’s permitted uses are meant to quantify the goals of the development in regards to the public health, safety, and morals and general welfare. General welfare, again for me these terms are broad and open to interpretation. What’s general welfare to you, may not be general welfare for me. So again the PUD, Matt you talked about the design and the architecture in there should be innovative, reflect the natural characteristics of the land such as the Simpson Creek. Well in all honestly the north site plan is none of these. In actuality, what it really is, is density, maximum density. It contains 4 retail stores and 3 outlots totaling 106,000 square feet. The most apparent feature about this site plan is its density. And you will see this on an aerial view but what you don’t see in the isolated image is its proximity to the Conservancy Apartments and the ??? that bisects Bowen Park. Mr. Duran you spoke about retail saturation, and its viability and long term sustainability and impact to the whole corridor. You have already recommended a market study be done as part of the 44 conditions to the ??? site. I am asking that you attach that same condition to this site as well since the intended use at this point in time is retail. Alternately, with quantifiable data a chance for a regional market study is in the hands of the trustees. I realize that this board is limited in what it can actually propose but I think it is upon you to stress to the trustees the importance of this because once you build it, you can’t take it back. Just like that farm field, that creek can never go back to its original state once you ??? on construction.” “I hope that the trustees have ??? to the growth of this township. I am really concerned about retail, retail sustainability. In trying to give this board a snapshot of the retail explosion, I counted the number and types of commercial development along the Mason-Montgomery / Wilkens Boulevard corridor. This is between Fields-Ertel Road and Socialville-Fosters. Now these numbers are not meant to be a market study. Only a qualified individual could make that analysis, however anybody with some common sense could form a hypothesis from this data. Clearly the township needs to conduct a market study as the Warren County Regional Planning Commission has recommended but that means we have to stop this until that study is completed. Also lets clear up the difference between a market study that a retailer such as Walmart or Vandecarr or anybody who wants to build something conducts to determine if their store would be profitable in a given location. Their measures are based on market share and brand identity and point blank market take over. Their success is measured by return on investment, not the long term health of a community. Our market study would be very different that what they do to see if their store will live where they build it. So in accordance with the TIF agreement which Kate has already talked about, the land should be office space. This is not a request for re- zoning. It is currently zoned for office warehouse. This is really a request for mixed use. The case needs to be made for mixed use and not how much retail can be squeezed on the 15 acres. In fact this would be the perfect location for the township offices, a medical office, or a library, which is a clear stated need that the township has recognized for along time. The site plan violates Simpson Creek and Bowen Park by moving the curb cut farther west of it current location. Right there in the arrow is where the current curb cut actually is. They have moved it north. The reason they have moved it north, they’ll tell you is because Neil Tunison and the traffic impact study indicated that it needed to be moved. That’s because it needed to be moved because they are building it for retail and they are worried about the stacking coming up in the right hand turn lane. If that is office use that curb cut won’t have to be moved and Bowen Park can contain it’s integrity. Also, Vandecarr needs to honor their plan for the Bowen Park and combine the other 2.5 acres. It preserves the creek. It will help with our run-off issues. It is the right thing to do to decrease the density of this site plan. Of the public comments that have been collected by the Zoning Department the number 1 concern is traffic, as always. And the second largest concern is retail saturation. Developing a great community you know requires balance and diversification that respects the needs of the residents and the community. Again, we have talked about this before. Fields-Ertel is the right place for retail as it has a low residential density. Mason-Montgomery Road north of Irwin-Simpson Road is the wrong place because this is where we live. You are going to cut us off from our homes and make traffic back and forth to our schools nearly impossible. So I ask you, I ask this board to deny this site plan based on the fact that it is zoned Office Warehouse as it has been reinforced when they made this TIF agreement. It is not 100 % retail. It is against the intended zoning.” “Also we need to be concerned with the current site plan as it approaches the Conservatory Apartments. I have tried many times to reach the Conservatory Apartments and unfortunately because they are owned by a large Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Chicago, the local branch manager, she is not able to say anything about this because she is managed by a company that does not care what happens in Ohio. I would ask the board to just look at how closely set those Office Warehouse and/or Retail uses are to the Conservatory Apartments. Thank you.” John Richardson said, “Thank you. I just have one question. You stated that if it is office use the curb cut does not need to be moved. Where does that information come from?” Tonya Hines said, “That came from a meeting that I had with Dan Corey and Neil Tunison.” John Richardson said, “Okay. Is it in writing anywhere?” Tonya Hines said, “No. You would have to speak with them. Again, I’m not the, I’m not the… But again that curb cut was put in when the Summit Apartments, you know when the Summit office warehouse space was supposed to be there. So that’s why when they built the road, that’s why the curb cut is where its at. It’s because the office use as it stands. Vandecarr’s plan was for office use as it is today, there would be no need for that curb cut. But because of it’s retail use, again it is a right turn stacking issue. That they need to merge. They need to move that curb cut higher up the street.” John Richardson said, “Thank you. Any other questions?” John Rickert said, “Why further north? I understand the stacking.” Tonya Hines said, “Yes. The stacking will happen north on the south bound side of Mason-Montgomery for people trying to turn right and can’t get in.” John Rickert, “Got it.” Tonya Hines said, “So more than 5 cars…..Neil Tunison could give you that information.” John Rickert said, “Did you try to call Met Life?” Tonya Hines said, “I did not personally. No. Thank you.” John Richardson said, “Diana Halligan?” Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, said, “Where do you park? It’s a catch 22. You can see the Conservatory Apartments. ??? This is out in the back of the apartments backing up to ??? Arbor Square. This is some kind of oil spill. This is one of the roads going into the Conservatory Apartments and the creek finding its own way. This is a ??? presedent that I like. Living green roots on ??? This would be very nice. The Bowen property where the creek goes under Bowen Drive and the park. Some nice shots of the creek without flooding. This is one I’m always bringing up because it’s the ????? And this Blue Heron, a frequent visitor. And then quite simply 10 reasons to deny. #10 The zoning ?????? #9 There is no effort on the developers part to build a green. #8 Where’s the office warehouse? #7 The retail is fragmented. #6 Not enough green space. #5 Building a road through a Deerfield Township Park. #4 No one is accounting for the drainage from the right-of-way. #3 The site plan is unimaginative with regards to storm water run-off. It is possible to keep all the drainage on site. #2 Building a road on a pond. With all the flooding, I hope more of us can walk on water. And the #1 reason to deny. The quality and quantify of run-off will impact Simpson Creek. Any questions?” John Richardson said, “Any questions from the board?” Doug Miller said, “Let me remind everybody, that anybody submitting Power Point presentations that we need hard copies of the pictures for the record.” John Richardson said, “Is there anybody else who wanted to speak that did not turn in a sheet or a request? Last call. We are going to close the open comment portion of Case #2003-611 . Discussion with the board. Comments? Were there any further questions from the board for the applicant or staff? Clarification from the law director? Go ahead.”
Don de Reynier said, “We just got the e-mail tonight from Corey Daniel to Mayank.” Mayank Kumar said, “That is for the second case.” Don de Reynier said, “That is. Okay. It wasn’t clear to me. Thank you.” Matt Evans said, “Mayank can you tell me what the required / recommended buffer yards are to the north and to the west in your findings? Mayank Kumar said, “If you go to the straight zoning, that requires about 100 feet of buffer but what we have recommended in the Condition 1, is trying to draw a line between what is a front yard and a rear yard and making a building that doesn’t look like a rear yard and still having a certain buffer so that we will have buffer at least 12 feet high of the building and anything beyond 12 feet high will have a kind of a front looking elevation on the rear side of the property. So what we are saying is, the landscaping in the buffer as shown on the plan will be okay if an additional 6 feet of privacy fence is added. In addition to the building materials requirement of the rear face of the building.” John Richardson said, “Do you happen to have on Power Point those elevations, we can look at again?” Mayank Kumar said, “The elevations” John Richardson said, “Right.” Mayank Kumar said, “For the building?” John Richardson, said, “Correct.” Mayank Kumar said, “No. There was no rear elevation submitted. There was one front elevation submitted but again those were speculative.” John Richardson said, “Okay. The ones we have right here. That’s it.” Mayank Kumar said, “Yes.” John Rickert said, “John, is it your intention to vote on this tonight?” John Richardson said, “If we are satisfied that we have sufficient information, we will. If there is additional information needed, no. I need a clarification myself on the TIF and how it reflects on this. We’ve all heard……” Doug Miller said, “It doesn’t on the zoning case itself. It’s up to the trustees to decide. The indication I’ve gotten at this point it they don’t want to deal with that until they see what happens in zoning.” John Richardson said, “Okay. John, did you need additional information?” John Rickert said, “No. I’m pretty certain how I feel about this.” John Richardson said, “Okay. Any further comments?” Don de Reynier said, “I’m troubled with the general welfare aspects of ...well TIF is one but if that’s not in our domain, so be it. I see little evidence that an attempt has been made to integrate the proposed buildings with the existing property. I see little creativity of the site plan. I have already expressed a concern about the amount of retail that’s been proposed / approved. I have the same comment here. I don’t know whether we have reached saturation here or not but I think a market study would be definitely in order. That’s where I am.” Matt Evans said, “Don, along those same lines I’d like to say that, I got a copy of the original proposed PUD from Mayank a while ago. I gotta to say that this plan it really doesn’t engage the PUD in my opinion. It is almost self supportive to a certain extent as far as land use. I don’t believe that it really engages the PUD with respect to the residential area. Nor does it, with the use of the…It is cutting off the existing pond and the walkways around the pond. I would like to see it somehow not turn its back on that area in that back corner. We have to look at this entire development, the south and north, the residential area as one entire PUD and all these pieces should work well together. In my opinion this structure and this land, this development at this site doesn’t engage the residential units at all. If anything, it turns its back on it. It creates a very small buffer yard between the two. I don’t see walkways between the areas. If anything, I went up to the apartments. I spent some time up there. I walked around. I don’t believe, in my opinion, there was some question before if this was a public or private street. These are parking lots. These are driveways for people to park in. Legally, maybe there could be public roads. The way they are used, its not (roads). The way I see this structure, it needs to be, if you are going to put something retail there, I think you need to put it much further away from these residential units and much further away from the paved surfaces that are there now.” Don de Reynier said, “I don’t think it is a good plan for a transitional area between heavy retail and residential the way its constructed. Making a much larger buffer on the north side would help. Matt Evans said, “At the west. Again, spending some time up there, there are tennis courts up there and a pool up there. There’s a lot of use up there in that space and although nobody is here to represent the residents or nobody is here to represent the owners, I think it is our job to go up there and look at that land and see how this structure is going to impact the area. John Richardson said, “Okay. Scott? Anything?” Scott Evans said, “No, I just keep going back over my old notes of ’96. That’s what I was just looking at here and when we wrote back then, the 41% - 59% and I just don’t see that area right now for retail. I think the plan is not any great changes from….. what we have is a regular old strip mall.” John Rickert said, “It’s not an appropriate place for retail when it is already zoned Office Warehouse.” Scott Evans said, “Yes it is.” John Rickert said, “I want to make a motion to deny.” John Richardson said, “Motion on the floor.” John Rickert said, “I will make a motion to deny.” Don de Reynier said, “I’ll second.” Marilyn Arnold said, “Is there going to be any discussion before the roll call?” John Richardson said, “Further discussion? Hearing none, Marilyn call the roll.” Marilyn Arnold said, “We have a motion on the floor by John Rickert to deny Case 2003-611. We have a second by Don de Reynier. Motion: On roll call, John Richardson-Yes, Robert Giesse-Yes, Matthew Evans-Yes, Don de Reynier-Yes, and Scott Evans-Yes.” The motion was approved. (This is the end of the “verbatim” minutes for the meeting per Marilyn Arnold.)___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CASE 2004-036 1712 King Avenue, Kings Mills, 19.6 Acres, Zone Change from O-W to R-SF
Staff Report Mayank Kumar gave details of the location of these 19.6 acres and the surrounding zoning. He said that subject property is surrounded by about 45 acres Township Park property and also showed the location of about 35.0 acres property owned by Ohio Department of Natural Resources and located in close proximity with the subject property. He also said in 2003 the applicant applied for this zone change. At that time Warren County gave their approval of the zone change. When it came before the township, the case was withdrawn. Mayank said that in the requested straight zoning, conditions do not carry forward. On their drawing they show the lots are 100 feet wide but in straight zoning the plan could change and the minimum lot width for straight zoning is 80 feet. Mayank showed county engineer’s Right-of-Way (ROW) maps of 1960 and 1999 which showed a right-of-way which was a former road down the hill. Doug Miller said you cannot land lock a parcel. Doug Miller said the township has access to this property on King Avenue. Doug Miller said according to Dan Corey’s letter that right-of-way does not exist. Mayank said the township believes the letter was in error and that the right-of-way still exists according to a 1960 and 1999 map. Mayank said there is a walkway there. Doug Miller said we have frontage on King Avenue. Mayank. John Rickert asked Mayank what is the concern about this? The concern is that if this is a right-of-way and if it is, why don’t we have it anymore and this is the access to the Township Park property. Mayank said staff believes the county made an error. Mayank said there are 3concerns from Tony Lavatori, the Township Park Director. 1) Ownership of the roadway (right-of-way) along side the proposed development. 2) Zicka’s offer to clear fence line and grade a parking area. 3) Another concern is the drainage from the subdivision could cause severe erosion on the hillside. Tony suggested a detention area. There was discussion on the drainage situation. Mayank also said that staff has received a letter from Ohio Department of Natural Resources regarding their concern with storm water drainage and the letter is forwarded to the board members for review. Matt Evans asked why this is being brought up on the zone change level. Mayank said because once a straight zoning is approved, no conditions will carry forward and will go to Warren County Planning Commission for review and the Township will never have chance to review the plans. The Planning Commission review the subdivision plan based upon “Subdivision Regulations” and we are not sure that the storm water issue would be addressed in subdivision regulation. John Rickert asked what is an appropriate forum for the applicant to discuss these issues? Mayank said the Zoning Commission is an appropriate forum. Mayank said the Zoning Commission can approve, approve with modifications, or deny the submitted rezoning request. The Staff recommends rezoning to Residential Single Family with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay or the applicant shall record covenants and restrictions on the subject property to the public benefit prior to rezoning approval from the Zoning Commission. Mayank asked the board for questions. Matt Evans we are going to make this area a Heritage District in our new zoning code? Why couldn’t we apply this new district to this parcel? Mayank said the conditions cannot carry forward. John Richardson said any application prior to the new zoning code will not be affected by it. Matt Evans said how can we change that area up there to a Heritage District. Don de Reynier asked how does it actually become it? Mayank said a Heritage District is an overlay. It is not different zoning. Matt Evans asked why can’t we put a Heritage District overlay on this property, also? John Rickert asked if the staff had met with the applicant. Mayank said, “No.” John Richardson said we will hear from the applicant. Don de Reynier asked why it is Office Warehouse. Mayank said he doesn’t know why but it was zoned that under the county, also.
Proponent Bob Krumgold, Zicka Walker Homes, 7861 Kemper Road, said there is a lot of confusion on this property. Mr. Krumgold said he had an agreement with the township and he was denied. He said that he met many times with Tim Hershner and Dan Corey in the field on this property. He said he and Tony Lavatori discussed an 8 to 10 feet wide sidewalk system with pedestrian access. He said Zicka has been in business over 30 years and they have been successful selling their product. Mr. Krumgold said the right-of-way has been abandoned and does not exist. On the storm water management, he said he met with Dan Corey and they agreed to allow the water to quickly run down the hill. He said this method is a common practice. He said Tony Lavatori was interested in storm water management and having a lake. Mr. Krumgold said they are open to having a retention pond and if everybody wanted it, he would be amenable to it. Mr. Krumgold said the Heritage District is a new thing to him. He took photos of the homes. He said they are all different and many of them are neglected. Mr. Krumgold said he knows what his people want and they don’t want Cape Cods, detached garages, small kitchens. He said he doesn’t want a PUD because he said he needs big lots. He said a PUD is more dense. His plan would be less density. His product needs 100 feet lots. He said his product is brick. He showed the map and said this lot is separated from old Kings Mills and hidden away. Mr. Krumgold said he met with the residents and he said his product is one of the better choices. He said the homeswould run $350,000-$400,000. Mr. Krumgold said he doesn’t want the township controlling what their elevations are. He said he know what his customers want. He said Tim wanted something incorporated into the covenants and restrictions. He said they will attempt to add details if they understand what is suggested. He said they would not ignore the right-of-way. On the detention basins, they will keep that on their plan. He said he doesn’t know what the “grid like” plan of Kings Mills is. He said he needs someone to explain to him what is unique about the Kings Mills architecture. Mr. Krumgold said the “proposed” zoning code has not been adopted. Don de Reynier said his concern was not that we want to tell you what to do, but once we rezone, we don’t want to “get burned.” John Richardson said we can’t control that if it is not a PUD. Doug Miller said our code says the minimum is 80 feet wide. Doug Miller said if we want 100 feet lots, we should change our zoning code, saying R-SF has that 100 feet minimum. Doug Miller said he is concerned about the storm water plan and the speedy way of allowing the water run-off.
Matt Evans asked Mayank what is the scenario for Office Warehouse. Mayank said the Office Warehouse buffer depends upon the building size, twice the building height plus 20 feet for each 100 feet of linear frontage plus 50 feet. Mayank said in residential zone there is a minimum of 50 eet buffer. Mr. Krumgold said that Office Warehouse zoning was put in place by Warren County due to the former Peters Cartridge Company and the former factories in and around Kings Mills. Matt Evans asked if there will be retaining walls. Mr. Krumgold said the slope of the land is such that he doesn’t think retaining walls will be necessary. Matt Evans answered Mr. Krumgold’s question about the concept of heritage district and explained the architecture of buildings and reasons for which the Kings Mills is considered as Heritage District and said it is valuable to the residents who live in Kings Mills neighborhood as well as to the Township. Mr. Evans said “Heritage” shall not be referred as medley of old and ugly looking houses. Mr. Krumgold said he cannot see how his development could conform to the Heritage District since those are old homes and his company builds new homes. Mr. Krumgold said in his discussions with Tim, he looked at some photos but Mr. Krumgold said he knows what sells. John Richardson asked how deep the back yards are for the older homes which back up to this property. He was told the yards are 330 feet deep.
Public Comment Brian Fagan, 1664 King Avenue, Kings Mills, pointed out on the map the location of this property and said he moved there because he and his wife were looking for this type of neighborhood. He has lived there 4 years. He said he respects Zicka Walker for the nice high end homes they build and their good financial reputation. He prefers homes over a possible Office Warehouse area. Mr. Fagan said he would be concerned with a PUD because of the possibly more dense development.
Jim Spencer, 1710 King Avenue, Kings Mills, said he would rather see homes there than Office Warehouse. His family has lived in Kings Mills since 1946. He doesn’t appreciate the increased traffic. He referred to the right-of-way Mayank discussed earlier as “the lane” and said his family has used it over the years and is a good way to get down to the river.
Robb Olsen, 3704 Charleston Woods, said that a PUD would be for whatever achieves the best development and landscaping and buffering would help make the transition from Old Kings Mills to the new one. He asked for a harmonious integration of the new development. Bob Krumgold said that there is a corner lot owned by Kathy Siegla and they had discussed with her an entry feature for the development and also possibly tying their sidewalks in with the park sidewalks.
Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, said she was concerned about the storm water being quickly “shunted” off site down the hill. She said a lot of damage is done during construction and explained that it is possible to keep all the drainage on site. She said retention and filter strips can help. She made suggestions for ways to slow the storm water flow. Sheldon Davis, 3353 Cutter Lane, is involved with the hiker / biker paths throughout the township and said that the old Kings Mills Road (right-of-way) that goes down the hill is of less grade than the road. He said there are some sites which should be preserved along there where former buildings stood. He said some historical markers and photos could be placed along the path for interest.
Tim Healy, 1689 King Avenue, said he lives across the street from the property and said many residents are in favor of the residential development.John Richardson closed this portion of the meeting and asked for discussion. Don de Reynier said he would be pleased if the type of houses which were shown would go there. He said the only reason he would think PUD is because it wouldn’t necessarily have to look like this. Someone could build something else. Doug Miller said he saw in the covenants and restrictions that Zicka would have to approve any designs. John Richardson said Zicka would have control. John Rickert said he is for the straight zoning instead of a PUD but storm water is a concern. He said storm water is handled by other agencies and we can’t zone to that. Mr. Rickert said he was concerned about conversations Mr. Krumgold said he had with staff. Don de Reyner said residential is such a big improvement over Office Warehouse. John Richardson said residential is the preferred use of this property. Mr. Richardson said the developer is making every effort to provide a lake if the township wants it, provide detention on the site if the township wants it. Drainage is controlled by the county. If they want the water to be shoved through as quickly as possible, Mr. Richardson said he thinks that is the county’s call there. If they want to retain it there, that is the county’s call. Mr. Richardson said you can’t sell a house today that is 30 feet wide and has a detached garage that holds a Model A.
Motion There was a motion by Matt Evans to approve Case 2004-036. There was a 2nd by John Rickert.
Roll Call J. Richardson-Yes, Matthew Evans-Yes, Don de Reynier-Yes, S. Evans-
Yes, John Rickert-Yes The motion was approved.
Motion by Don de Reynier to take a break. There was a 2nd by John Richardson. The motion was approved.
Motion by John Richardson to re-adjourn. There was a 2nd by Don de Reynier. The motion was approved.
CASE 2004-050 1.0806 Acres, 8872 Columbia Road, Zone Change from R-SF to N-B PUD
John Richardson asked Mayank to give the staff report. Staff Report Mayank Kumar explained the request for rezoning the 1.0806 parcel from Residential Single Family to Neighborhood Business PUD. He pointed it out on a map where it is located on the corner of Columbia Road and Montgomery Road. Mayank said it includes both the old Hardees site and a wooded area near the Cinti. Bell facility. Together, it is about 2.2 acres. Mayank said since the 20 Mile Plaza was approved, a higher standard would be expected of this proposed development. Included would be quality landscaping, enhanced elevations, sidewalks, and storm water management. Mayank asked the board for questions. Matt Evans asked Mayank if this is a Stage 1 PUD and Mayank said yes. Mayank said the applicant needs to understand some of the concerns of the board. Mayank said in the event the board would approve this case, the staff recommends compliance with Conditions 1-6 from the Warren County Regional Planning Commission and Conditions 7-9 from Deerfield Township as follows:
1. The designation of a planned unit development (PUD) overlay shall only mean approval of the rezoning (Stage 1) and shall not include approval of site plans, as this is a matter of Stage 2 (Site Plan Approval Process) and Stage 3 (Final Detailed Plan Approval).
2. Mr. John Kanelos shall be the spokesperson for the PUD in all dealings with Deerfield Township, regardless of the number of landowners within the project. Mr. Kanelos may delegate his role as spokesperson to another individual, subject to notification of the Deerfield Township Zoning Administrator. In any event, only a single spokesperson shall be recognized by the Deerfield Township as representing the PUD.
3. Compliance with all conditions and requirements that may be set forth by the Deerfield Township Trustees in their resolution granting a PUD overlay and compliance with Chapter 19 (Planned Unit Development Regulations) of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution.
4. Approval of Stage 2, Site Plan, in accordance with Section 19.06 and approval of Stage 3, Final Detailed Plan, in accordance with Section 19.07 of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution.
5. Prior to approval of the final Detailed Plan, the developer shall expend and/or upgrade the water system, water treatment and storage facilities, sanitary sewers and wastewater treatment facilities necessary to serve the development, as determined by the Warren County Sanitary Engineer.
6. Specific land uses, as determined by the Deerfield Township Trustees, inclusive of whether a drive-thru window may be permitted.
7. Sidewalks shall be provided along Montgomery Road and Columbia Road in compliance with the proposed pathway plan. The width of the sidewalk shall be determined by the Warren County Engineer’s Office in compliance with the Warren County Thoroughfare Plan, Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) Montgomery Road improvement plan and shall be approved by Deerfield Township Zoning Commission and Deerfield Township Trustees.
8. The proposed building as shown in the conceptual site plan shall include at least two front elevations. The building elevation shall be upscale and shall have a residential character rather than a typical big box. The building elevation shall also take into account the presence of the historic site (20 Mile Restaurant) to the south.
9. The Stage 2, Preliminary Site Plan review for the proposed development shall be in compliance with the sections of the Deerfield Township Zoning Resolution.
Proponent Sam Boulemetis, Architect, 644 Linn Street, Suite 1212, Cinti., OH 45203, said he worked on the 20 Mile Plaza and has been involved with it for the last 20 years. Mr. Boulemetis said they are talking about the land next to the Cinti. Bell building and they plan to raze the Hardees He said he hasn’t discussed or reviewed the conditions yet. He said they are requesting a zone change. John Richardson asked him when Stage 2 comes, does CVS have a minimum number of parking spaces that they must have? Mr. Richardson said in a PUD we have an opportunity to reduce the number of parking spaces. Many times all those required spaces are not used. Mr. Boulemetis said he did not know. Mr. Boulemetis stated that due to widening of Montgomery Road, ODOT is taking away many parking spaces. He said he will create whatever open space is necessary but it is difficult to answer that at this time. Mayank said they would probably require about 55 parking spaces. Mayank said the issue of the site plan review should show a separate drive way for the Cinti. Bell building. Matt Evans said front elevation materials will be important because of the way the building will sit on the property. Three sites will be visible from road. Doug Miller was concerned with the conditions from the previous 20 Mile Plaza PUD. Mr. Miller said we will be taking the Hardees lot from the old PUD and creating a new PUD. Mayank said under the old PUD the Hardees lot will be included in that. Doug Miller said you may find the old PUD could conflict with the new plan. Mr. Miller said the Hardees building is being removed. Mr. Miller said it could be approved and you could say “provided it doesn’t conflict with the old PUD.” Doug Miller said they have a sketch plan. Mr. Miller said Lot 1 (Hardees) should be removed from the old PUD and it should be added to the new PUD. Mayank said the replatting should be done before Stage 2 or Stage 3.
Sam Boulemetis questioned why in Condition #6 a drive through is excluded. Mr. Boulemetis said they do need a drive-through for a pharmacy. Mayank said that condition is there because the trustees are very sensitive about approving drive throughs. Doug Miller said don’t leave it up to the trustees. This board should recommend to them “yes” we approve a drive through or “no” we don’t approve it. Mr. Miller said the applicant may want to withdraw their plan if a drive through is not approved. Matt Evans said he would have no problem approving a drive through for pharmacy use. Mr. Miller said the trustees feel like this board is leaving too much up to them. They want to know if this board approves. Don de Reynier said Condition #6 should read, “A drive through window for a pharmacy may be permitted.” Doug Miller said we need to do something with Lot 1 (Hardees), otherwise the two plans may conflict.
Public Comment Eugene Lang, 8732 Columbia Road, gave the history of some of the storm water run-off problems in his neighborhood and in front of his house. He said all the storm water from Hardees goes in the pipe along his front yard. There is 31 inch pipe which Warren County installed several years ago. Mr. Lang said the county also installed some drains near his garage and in the corner of his lot. He said the pipe is adequate now, but he is worried that if the amount of water increases from the parking lot from this proposed new CVS, this pipe won’t be sufficient. Doug Miller said it sounds like this pipe solved the problem for now. Mr. Lang said the yard is still wet all the time. He said the work in his yard is just a band aid fix. Mayank pointed out from which direction and to where the storm water flows. Scott Evans asked him if there was a problem previous to Hardees and the shopping center. Mr. Lang said the problem wasn’t as bad and he had an open ditch at that time.
Ruth Eldridge, 8821 Columbia Road, said she lives next to Underwater World, across the street from the proposal. She said she has lived there since 1953 and thinks it should remain a residential community. She said the business will be increase traffic and was concerned about property values being affected in a negative way.
Diana Halligan, 4071 Brookside Court, said she agreed with what Mrs. Eldridge said about the businesses encroaching on the residential area. Doug Miller said you can’t tell somebody such as a competitor they can’t build in a particular place. Ms. Halligan had suggestions that if the old CVS becomes a restaurant, that it be a tea room.
Muriel Kinder, 3208 Locust Avenue, had storm water concerns and traffic concerns.
Charles McIlvitch, Locust Avenue, said he lives directly behind the CVS strip center. He said \ there is a lot of storm water which crosses his yard and the storm water pipe is too small to accept it. There is a lot of flooding. John Richardson closed the public portion of the meeting and asked for board discussion. Scott Evans said he would like to see the zoning and those old conditions from Lot 1, Phase 1, (Hardees). Don de Reynier said he would also like to see that information. Doug Miller said one concern that he has from a legal standpoint is regarding this creeping of commercial / retail development down Columbia Road. Mr. Miller said he would feel more comfortable if the zone change would be cut off directly across the street from Mrs. Eldridge. Matt Evans says the development which is proposed here, the location seems appropriate because it is directly across from the other structure. Scott Evans asked about that Cincinnati Bell zoning. Mr. Miller said a utility is not subject to township zoning anyway but that might make a nice buffer to stop the commercial at that point. Scott said if Hardees is there as a final leg, that could be in there as one of the conditions. Mr. Evans said when Montgomery Road is widened, it looks like they are going to lose 65 parking spaces. Matt Evans said he can understand Doug’s concerns because we are “stair stepping” our way down Columbia Road with commercial development. Scott Evans said we still must find out what the conditions are on the Phase 1 PUD. Scott Evans said he would make a motion to continue this case. Mr. Kaneapolis said time is of importance to them. Mr. Boulemetis said they could have brought the conditions from the Phase 1 if he had known this board was interested in seeing it. John Rickert said you have other people who could be affected by this development and the storm water issues. John Richardson told Mr. Boulemetis this board would like to see those original conditions. Doug Miller said you haven’t applied to demolish the Hardees yet. Mr. Miller said the plan shows the CVS on top of the Hardees. John Richardson said we don’t want to create a hardship but we don’t have enough information to make a decision on this. Mayank said the important thing is that the development of that 1 acre is relative to the Hardees property. There was discussion on again hearing this case on March 22nd, 2004.
Motion There was a motion by John Richardson to continue Case 2004-050 to the March 22, 2004, Special Meeting. There was a 2nd by Scott Evans.
Roll Call Matthew Evans-Yes, Don de Reynier-Yes, S. Evans-Yes , J.
Richardson-Yes, John Rickert-Yes The motion was approved.
OLD BUSINESS Mayank discussed having the meeting on March 22nd and told them the BZA and the Deerfield Township Trustees will be invited and have an opportunity to make comments on the zoning code. Doug Miller said the trustees would be there more to observe. Mayank told the board there are copies of the Revised Zoning Code if they want one. Don de Reynier said he would be unable to attend the meeting on March 22nd. Scott Evans said the board needs to read this revised code and be prepared.
ADJOURNMENT Motion by John Richardson to adjourn. There was a 2nd by John Rickert.
The vote was all yes. The motion was approved.