WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP
ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES

May 22, 2007

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in special session on May 22, 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.

Mr. Drain thanked the commission members for agreeing to re-schedule the regular Zoning Commission Meeting for tonight.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

MOTION – Mr. Anderson moved the minutes of April 17, 2007 be approved with modifications.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

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

Mr. Drain – Indicated that staff recommended changing the agenda order to accommodate changes in the Washington Trace daycare case.

There were no objections.

CASE Z-437B – The Kettering Foundation, 200 Commons Road

Request is for approval of an addition of 1,195 square feet for meeting room space to the existing research institution on property located in a Planned Development Office (PD-O) zoning district.

Andy Ehrhart , Zoning & GIS Manager, presented the case and indicated the addition is to the conference center.

Mr. Drain – Asked if the building materials will consist of brick and stone on the addition and match the existing building?

Mr. Ehrhart – Yes.

Mr. Drain – Stated the location of the dumpster seems very visible.

Mr. Ehrhart – Applicant is willing to do away with the dumpster.

Applicant confirmed this.

Mr. Drain – Questioned the parking.

Mr. Ehrhart – Stated the Commission should discuss this with applicant since the use is unique. They can outline the details of the use and the township can provide modifications if deemed appropriate.

Mr. Drain – How does it meet the code now?

Mr. Ehrhart – The current Planned Development is approved with the existing parking. The proposed addition would require three (3) additional spaces for office use or twelve (12) additional spaces for indoor assembly use depending on which requirement is used. It has been reviewed as a Planned Development in the past. We cannot say whether the parking meets the requirements because we didn’t treat it that way.

Mrs. Winwood – Indicated that 36 parking spaces for 6,000 square feet for the total building would meet the requirements.

Mr. Ehrhart – There are other buildings on the site as well.

Mr. Drain – Asked if there is a lighting plan?

Mr. Ehrhart – We have not received one. There is the possibility they may not add lights.

Mr. Anderson – Indicated that there is no identification of the existing landscaping versus the proposed landscaping on the site plan. Stated it is unclear.

Mr. Ehrhart – We have not received any additional information on the landscaping.

Mr. Drain – Asked the applicant to address the Commission.

Applicant represented by Mindy Fogt, 1360 Cornish Drive, Vandalia. Ms. Fogt gave general comments about the Kettering Foundation and reviewed their mission statement: What does it take to make democracy work as it should. She stated they are very proud of their site and are trying to maintain a retreat-type setting by improving the east end of the center with additional meeting and storage space. They have opted to exclude a dumpster as shown on the site plan. They will be using toters from the waste hauler which will be located directly outside the garage door.

Mr. Drain – Commented he would like to see that area screened.

Ms. Fogt – Indicated there will be two (2) lighting points. One at the point of building egress and the other at the garage door area. They feel that the existing lighted path is sufficient. The Foundation uses a shuttle service to bring participants to meetings held so the site and surrounding areas are not overloaded with parking.

Mr. Drain – Asked if the parking areas have ever been full?

Ms. Fogt – Only when there has been a board meeting which is once or twice a year. The permanent staff consists of 35 to 40 people.

Mr. Drain – Expressed his concern with parking overflowing onto the adjacent street. Feels they need assurance that the demand doesn’t exceed the supply. He has concerns about special events taking place.

Ms. Fogt – Indicated that is when they will use the shuttle service. The addition will be used to accommodate existing groups and not necessarily used as space for new groups.

John Westenkerchner, John Poe Architects, 116 E. Third Street, Dayton - Indicated they will repeat the building materials and the general appearance. They have done extensive landscaping with the previous addition. They will change the grade on the roadway into the east side of the building, as well as do fill in front of the addition and landscaping there will need to be redone. The site plan submitted shows the existing landscaping only. Any existing landscaping that will be disturbed will be replaced.

Mr. Anderson – How will the lights be integrated?

Mr. Westenkerchner – Lights will be only at exit doors with little or no impact.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included: None.

Public hearing closed.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Rogers – Stated he had no problems with the proposal.

MOTION - Mr. Rogers moved in Case Z-437B to approve applicant’s request for approval of an addition of 1,195 square feet for meeting room space to the existing research institution on property located in a Planned Development Office (PD-O) zoning district, subject to: 1) staff comments; 2) removal of dumpsters and the waste containers to be screened; and 3) lighting details as presented.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

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

Case Z-437B approved with modifications.

CASE Z-588G – Divided Ridge Associates, Ltd.

Request is for approval of a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage plan for the construction of a daycare center at the southwest corner of Sheehan Road and Social Row Road.

Mrs. Zobrist was excused from hearing this case due to a conflict of interest.

Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case and stated there are two plans being presented. One plan is dated May 7, 2007 and the other plan is being submitted tonight.

Mr. Drain – Is concerned that there was not sufficient time for staff to review the plans that were submitted at the last minute.

Mrs. Postle – Indicated that she and Mr. Ehrhart had reviewed the plans; however, no other township staff has reviewed the plans. From a zoning standpoint, there are no concerns with the changes.

Mr. Drain – Feels it is a good idea to look at the proposed county road improvements for Social Row Road.

Mrs. Postle – The applicant’s plans show a 110’ right of way. Stated she had talked with Montgomery County and they indicated a minimum 90’ right of way will happen, no matter what the final design of the roadway.

Mr. Drain – Asked about the location of the stone walls on the plans.

Mrs. Postle – Reviewed the landscape plan showing the wall locations.

Mr. Drain – Stated the plans show two walls.

Mrs. Postle – Yes. They are approximately 30’ in length each and approximately 3’ to 4’ in height.

Mr. Drain – What about the area directly to the north of the playground area?

Mrs. Postle – Nothing is shown in that area.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked if staff could review the stone wall locations.

Mrs. Postle – Indicated on the site plan the areas where the walls would be located.

Mrs. Winwood – Questioned if it was just a small piece?

Mrs. Postle – Yes. Just the two sections of approximately 30’ in length each.

Mr. Drain – Again, what is the height of the wall?

Mrs. Postle – Approximately 3’ to 4’.

Mr. Anderson – Questioned if there were any comments about the bike path and curb and if they would be installed with this plan.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked if staff was surprised with today’s submittal of new and changed plans?

Mrs. Postle – Stated she has been in contact with applicant about the concern with the guardrail and applicant seems to have addressed that concern with this plan.

Applicant represented by Greg Smith of Oberer, 2800 E River Road. Mr. Smith has been working with staff and client to address the Zoning Commission’s concern about safety issues. He indicated some options to address that restricted the future church use so they had to work with in the defined area of the existing site. The daycare doesn’t want to purchase more land just to maintain. They feel that 1.4 acres is a size that meets their needs. The site location is limited by the access point on Sheehan Road. Mr. Smith stated they hired CDS Engineering firm to address the safety concern but didn’t address aesthetics of the proposed guardrail. They could have moved forward with plan submitted May 7, 2007, but chose to work with staffs’ advice to change. Montgomery County added the existing guardrail along Social Row Road since the original approval of Washington Trace by the township. The guardrail in place by the county is much longer than what was proposed by CDS. Mr. Smith presented photos.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked about moving the daycare site to the south of the access point on Sheehan Road.

Mr. Smith – Indicated there are two issues with that suggestion. The daycare as a commercial use needs to have corner visibility. The remaining tract for the church use would place the building in the middle of the tract so the parking for the church would go at the intersection along Social Row Road.

Mrs. Winwood – Stated that Normandy Church (on Alex-Bell Road) has parking in front of the church that works fine.

Mr. Drain – Is there a client for the church site?

Mr. Smith – Indicated there is no potential church user at this time. He pointed out that a vehicle would have to go through steep ditch then through the guardrail and up the existing elevation and then to playground fence to pose a hazard to children in the playground. The proposed rock wall is just a safety net in addition to what exists.

Mr. Drain – The new roadway design on Social Row Road will eliminate the guardrail and ditch and be replaced by sidewalk and landscaped area. The site plan should take that into account.

Mr. Smith – Presented slides showing the concept plan for Social Row roadway improvements from the Montgomery County Engineers. Sheehan Road improvements will be completed by the developer when the site is developed. Mr. Smith reviewed details of the concept plan on the 110’ right of way on Social Row Road. The center line of the road will most likely change by moving to the north instead of the south onto the site due to the assumed difference in cost of property. The submitted site plan dated May 22, 2007, shows the right of way boundary 55’ from the existing center line, which is the worst case scenario as it relates to proximity to the playground area.

Mr. Smith – Noted the proposed walls are similar to those used in Paragon Place. They will be structurally sound and not just decorative. They will improve the aesthetics and provide better protection than the guardrail. One scenario to plan for is the westbound to eastbound vehicle leaving the roadway.

Mr. Drain – Likes the rock wall aesthetically, but the playground that abuts Social Row Road is not protected. Suggested extending the wall along the entire length of the playground.

Mr. Smith – Aesthetically it would be too much rock wall and the cost would be substantial.

Mr. Drain – Suggested moving the building to the corner closer to the intersection and having the playground between the building and the parking lot.

Mr. Smith – Stated it is difficult to get the children to the building if you have to go through the playground. The issue is the existing and potential roadway design. They would consider a wall along the north side of the play area as part of the roadway improvement that would remove the guardrail and not replace it with mounding. The county has verbally committed to mounding at the intersection. Proposed a condition of approval being the installation of the stone wall to occur when the Social Row Road improvements are installed could be a condition of approval.

Mr. Drain – Will the developer do the Social Row road improvements?

Mr. Smith – Montgomery County requires the owner to escrow a percentage of the estimated cost of improvements now and then also agree to pay an assessment when those costs become real and known. The county can make concessions to the owner for improvements the applicant installed in the future right of ways, like the subject stone wall.

Mr. Drain – Stated the safety of this playground is the responsibility of the property owner, not the county. The stone wall should be constructed on the property.

Mr. Smith – CDS recommended a 30’ clear zone from the edge of the pavement. Presently, there is about 65’ clear zone. In the improved roadway scenario, it is about 45’ clear zone. Those zones get better if the right of way moves to the north.

Mr. Anderson – The west rock wall is not very valuable. Suggested taking the rock wall on the northeast and extending it to the Sheehan Road bike path to look like it had function as integrated with the bike path to relate it to the whole corner. Eliminate the wall to the west and go some distance south to provide sufficient safety. Mr. Anderson feels that the county will address safety issues with the improvements.

Mr. Drain – Stated the county will not address safety concerns on adjoining private property.

Mr. Ehrhart – Indicated there is the possibility of the county negotiating with the property owner for additional enhancements.

Mr. Rogers – His experience is that the county is not going to provide any additional elements in the right of way to address playground concerns.

Mrs. Winwood – Had questions about the clear zone definition containing the shoulder. Asked if this is typically in the right of way?

Mr. Smith – Yes.

Mrs. Winwood – The clear zone on this site is actually on your property, so this may not be acceptable.

Mr. Smith – He is not sure what the roadway design will be so he identified the entire clear zone on the property.

Joe Valentour, 10225 Blossomwood Court – Indicated the safety concern is shared. They could wrap the playground totally in stone but don’t know what the county will do with the roadway.

Mr. Drain – If you install the wall on your property, it doesn’t matter what the county does.

Mr. Valentour – Agreed with Mr. Drain; however, they would like to have breaks in the wall for aesthetic issues.

Mr. Drain – Moving the playground to the west and re-adjusting lot lines could be done and still contain 1.4 acres.

Mr. Valentour – The Paragon Road extension not being done which requires them to locate on the Sheehan Road side of the property.

Mrs. Winwood – Suggested moving the site plan to the south of the Sheehan access to eliminate the safety issues. Feels the safety issue is paramount. Does not understand why it can’t be moved away from the intersection.

Mr. Valentour – Would prefer wrapping the playground with the proposed stone wall at the current site. Questioned if he would have to start the process over if they moved the site?

Mr. Drain – Not necessarily. It could go through as a modification.

Mr. Rogers – Supported Mrs. Winwood’s idea of re-locating the site.

Mr. Valentour – Would prefer to stay with the corner lot and doing a wrapped wall.

Mr. Drain – Stated there could be openings in the wall.

Mr. Valentour – Indicated they could put additional mounding and dirt in conjunction with the wall. Mr. Valentour used the Miami Valley Hospital site on Clyo Road as an example.

Mr. Anderson – Questioned if there were any pictures of the stone entrances on Washington Trace areas?

Mr. Smith – They are aesthetic only and would not be identical. They are not structurally sound. The proposed wall would match in color and material.

Mr. Anderson – Is more interested in the design concept being used there. This would connect this development with the overall project.

Mr. Smith – Indicated that is a possibility. He also would like to have signage taken into consideration for Washington Trace on the stone wall.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included: None.

Public hearing closed.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Drain – Would like to see the wall all the way around the entire length of the playground and tapering into the Sheehan Road bike trail as suggested.

Mrs. Winwood – Feels this is an inappropriate site due to the safety issues created by the intersection. Feels it is better to move the site to south of the access road on Sheehan Road and flipping the existing site plan. Having the playground back up to the park is much better than it backing up to the intersection. Mrs. Winwood did not feel comfortable with the proposal.

Mr. Rogers – Agreed with Mrs. Winwood. High speed on Social Row Road will be a concern with major future roadway improvements when the interchange opens. It is uncertain how the stone wall will provide safety. There are just not enough details.

Mr. Anderson – Stated there is vagueness in the initial approval of the overall development. Stated the Commission asked applicant to take a look at the safety issues but weren’t specific about what was needed. There was nothing mentioned by the Commission about moving the site. The revised plan addresses the safety issues. If the Commission wanted applicant to move the site, it should have been mentioned previously.

Mrs. Winwood – Indicated the Commission did mention that they did not like the playground at the intersection and noted it is still at that location.

Mr. Drain – Asked Mr. Anderson what he would like to see.

Mr. Anderson – With the right configuration of wall the location of the playground may be alright, but he is not comfortable with forwarding this case to the trustees without further review of details associated with the wall.

Mr. Drain – Stated the general feeling is that we would like to work with applicant. Mr. Drain noted that applicant’s options are the stone wall or relocation. Asked applicant if they want to revise the plans that have been submitted or have the commission vote on their proposal? Reiterated the importance of moving the playground off the corner.

Mr. Valentour – Indicated he has looked at other locations and sites and the elements do not fit. They look similar but the area to the south on Sheehan Road doesn’t work. Noted he has not seen any accidents on SR725 where a vehicle leaves the pavement and runs onto property.

Mr. Drain – Recommended that applicant submit final drawings of the stone wall and any other details and then come back to the Commission. Also, he would like for applicant to consider relocating the property as was suggested.

It was suggested that this case be tabled until the revised drawings are submitted.

Mr. Anderson – Disagreed with tabling this case. Would like to see the Commission either approve the proposal with the condition that the final plans are reviewed by the Commission before forwarding the case to the trustees. Feels that applicant is entitled to action by the Commission.

Mr. Drain – Felt the proposal could be approved with the Commission having final review of the wall details.

Hearing closed.

MOTION - Mr. Anderson moved in Case Z-588G to approve applicant’s request for approval of a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage plan for the construction of a daycare center at the southwest corner of Sheehan Road and Social Row Road subject to: 1) include staff comments; and 2) stone wall and berming detail on Social Row Road and down Sheehan road about 70’ be resubmitted to Zoning Commission for approval.

Mr. Drain – Questioned the need to review the drawings.

Motion seconded by Mr. Drain.

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

Case Z-588G denied.

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

________________________________

Harry Drain, Chairman

Washington Township Zoning Commission