WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES

March 20, 2007

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on March 20, 2007 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, Mrs. Zobrist, and Mr. Anderson.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved the minutes of February 20, 2007 be approved with modification.

Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.

VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, abstain; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

CASE Z-467M – Mills-Woodley Development, Inc. (The Pavillions)

Request is for modifications to the existing approved planned development (Cases Z-467K & Z-467L). These modifications are related to footprint and architectural elevations of Buildings “B”, “D” and “K” that are proposed to be constructed on Washington Village Drive. This request is located in a Planned Development (PD-B) zoning district.

Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case and reviewed the changes to the proposed plan from the previously approved plan.

Mr. Drain – Questioned if all the additional square footage is in the two-story building. How is it divided up?

Mrs. Postle – Explained how the square footage was allotted.

There was discussion between staff and the Commission regarding the parking.

Mr. Anderson – Indicated the documents that have been submitted do not include Building “K”.

Mrs. Postle – Stated that Buildings “K” and “D” are essentially the same.

Mr. Anderson – Wants to make sure that is represented on the final plan.

Applicant represented by Todd Duplain, 1127 Ashburton. Mr. Duplain addressed the site plan and indicated that tenants desire first floor space. They are anticipating professional spaces such as investment firms as tenants. Mr. Duplain indicated there are no current issues with the parking demand. Mr. Duplain also stated they will label the elevations to Building “K” for the single story building. That was the intention of the drawings.

Mr. Drain – Why not keep the original size of Building “B” as was approved?

Mr. Duplain – Explained they needed to change to a larger size for financial reasons.

Mr. Drain – What is the vacancy rate of the existing buildings?

Mr. Duplain – The vacancy rate is minimal. They are about 90% occupied. Mr. Duplain explained the site still has over 30% green space and it is their intention to do nice features between the buildings which will reflect the quality that is currently there.

Mrs. Winwood – How do the proposed single story buildings match with the existing buildings?

Mr. Duplain – They will be about 4,000 square feet larger but look the same.

Mr. Anderson – Feels the existing single story buildings are nicely scaled and that the proposed buildings will be bigger with two (2) entrances instead of four (4) on the existing. Noted it will detract in appearance and will have to sit on the property different.

Mr. Duplain – The decisions are being driven by the need of the end users. The clients cannot always buy the larger sized buildings. Market decisions lend toward small buildings. Feels the change is better than the approved large two-story building.

Mr. Anderson – Feels they could get the same square footage if both buildings were built around the circle.

Mr. Duplain – Indicated the smaller buildings are being purchased because people can afford them. The larger buildings just get rented.

Mr. Anderson – Larger building could be subdivided and condominimized so it can still be purchased.

Mr. Drain – Would be more attractive to simply replicate the existing single story building and to go larger.

Mr. Duplain – We are comfortable with the size and scale of the buildings proposed.

Mr. Anderson – How is the trash being removed from the site?

Mr. Duplain – Not sure, except for one dumpster currently located nearby. They do not need anymore dumpster space and will use the existing facilities. There are three (3) dumpsters on site and the property manager takes the trash out to the dumpster.

Mr. Drain – Questioned the location of the mechanicals.

Mr. Duplain – They are located inside of the buildings. Some mechanical elements are on the roof but not visible with the roof pitch. Other elements are located inside the chimney chase.

Mrs. Winwood – What is the size of Building “K”?

Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager – Building “K” is 26,000 square feet.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included: None.

Public hearing closed.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mrs. Zobrist – Stated the 2 one-story building modification is an improvement over the two-story approved building. Does not have a problem with the modification. Feels it is premier office development in the township right now. Wishes it was more visible.

Mr. Rogers – Agreed with Mrs. Zobrist’s remarks. Stated he is impressed with the developer and the quality of the project.

Mr. Anderson – Agrees that the development is very attractive; however, Mr. Anderson feels it could be improved in appearance if the buildings were rearranged, such as making the two-story larger and both single-story buildings smaller to maintain the positive feel of the circle area.

Mrs. Winwood – Agreed that the larger one-story buildings will detract. Suggested expanding the two-story and the possibility of 3 smaller one-story buildings to keep the current feel around the circle area.

Mr. Drain – Asked Mr. Duplain if he was willing to look at ways to address those concerns.

Mr. Duplain – Wants to keep a good working relationship with the township. Stated they have looked at numerous options for the size and placement of the one-story buildings similar to what is being expressed. The frontage of the single-story buildings is not much larger than the existing buildings. Indicated these buildings are deeper, not wider, so they shouldn’t look out of scale.

Mrs. Zobrist – Stated the approved plan was not a balanced site with regard to the two-story building placed in the circle area. Agrees with the applicant that the depth won’t be seen from the circle.

Mr. Drain – The proposed Building “D” is much closer to the circle than the existing buildings and that may change the feel and appearance.

Mr. Drain – Added that the existing single-story buildings encompassing the circle make sense and he is willing to consider the Commission redesigning the placement of the proposed single-story buildings or would like to proceed with deciding on the proposal as presented.

Mr. Duplain – Is concerned about delays since they have applicants waiting for space. Stated they will look at setting the single-story buildings back from the circle but indicated he is not sure what to do to address the concerns expressed.

Mrs. Winwood – Indicated that the Washington Township VIP Consultant had provided a general guideline of two-thirds of the building height to determine an acceptable front setback.

Mr. Drain – Recommended applicant going back to redesign the one-story buildings.

MOTION – Mrs. Winwood moved in Case Z-467M to approve applicant’s request for modifications to the existing approved planned development (Cases Z-467K & Z-467L), which modifications are related to footprint and architectural elevations of Buildings “B”, “D” and “K” that are proposed to be constructed on Washington Village Drive located in a Planned Development (PD-B) zoning district, subject to: 1) setbacks to equal the average setback of the existing buildings; 2) adding Building “K” note on single-story elevation; 3) any future change of use from professional office to medical would require recalculation for parking; and 4) all staff comments.

Motion seconded by Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers – Questioned how to figure the average setback.

Mrs. Winwood – Take the average of all three buildings.

Mr. Anderson – Stated that may be difficult to do. Shifting buildings will change the appearance but not in size and scale. It will still be significantly different from the existing structures. We will have to review the new drawings to see if it meets our requirements and if that is done, we are designing the project.

Mr. Drain – Stated he is uncomfortable with the motion as we are designing the building and don’t want to do that. Asked applicant if they are willing to go back and look at a redesign.

Mr. Duplain – Yes, we will look at that; however, we can’t shift building so we will have to make them smaller in size. Stated they are willing to do that in lieu of being denied approval. Mr. Duplain questioned if the footprints could be compressed to see what kind of setbacks they could come up with. Mr. Duplain also questioned the turnaround time for staff review for approval.

Mr. Drain – Stated that a special hearing could be scheduled before the next regular meeting.

Mr.Ehrhart – Will gain about two weeks, if possible.

Mr. Rogers – Noted a motion had already been made and seconded.

AMENDED MOTION – Mrs. Winwood amended her motion to approve applicant’s request for modifications to the existing approved planned development (Cases Z-467K & Z-467L), which modifications are related to footprint and architectural elevations of Buildings “B”, “D” and “K” that are proposed to be constructed on Washington Village Drive located in a Planned Development (PD-B) zoning district, subject to: 1) setbacks of proposed single-story buildings to be no closer than the closest existing building; 2) adding Building “K” note on single-story elevation; 3) any future change of use from professional office to medical would require recalculation for parking; and 4) all staff comments.

Amended Motion seconded by Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Ehrhart – Noted that #1 of the amended motion pertains to Building “E”.

Mr. Drain – Asked for applicant’s response.

Mr. Duplain – In agreement with the amended motion assuming that they have the opportunity to come back before the Commission if that doesn’t work and start over.

AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED MOTION – Mrs. Winwood moved in Case Z-467M to approve applicant’s request for modifications to the existing approved planned development (Cases Z-467K & Z-467L), which modifications are related to footprint and architectural elevations of Buildings “B”, “D” and “K” that are proposed to be constructed on Washington Village Drive located in a Planned Development (PD-B) zoning district, subject to: 1) the front yard setback of building “E” be used to establish the front yard setbacks of the proposed single-story buildings fronting the circle; 2) adding Building “K” note on single-story elevation; 3) any future change of use from professional office to medical would require recalculation for parking; and 4) all staff comments.

Amendment to Amended Motion seconded by Mr. Rogers.

VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, no; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, no.

It was noted the drawings are to be modified and applicant will work with staff to complete.

Case Z-467M approved with modifications.

Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.

________________________________

Harry Drain, Chairman

Washington Township Zoning Commission