WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES

September 18, 2007

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on September 18, 2007 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, Mrs. Zobrist, and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Rogers was excused.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved the minutes of July 17, 2007 be approved as submitted.

Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.

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

Mrs. Winwood – Questioned why Washington Trace was not on the agenda?

Mrs. Postle – Indicated they did not meet the filing deadline; however, they have filed for the meeting in October.

Mrs. Zobrist – Indicated she would be unable to attend the meeting in October.

Mr. Drain – He will not be attending the October meeting also.

Mr. Anderson – Was unsure of his attendance at the meeting in October.

Mr. Drain – Requested to have Mr. Rogers contacted regarding his ability to attend the October meeting. Also, check if the applicant is agreeable to having a 3-member commission hear the case. Otherwise, the last week in October could be an alternate meeting date.

The Zoning Commission reviewed and discussed the Draft Zoning Resolution Amendments.

Conservation District

On Page 2 (c,1,2) – Add another provision that any dedicated right-of-way, not just the existing right-of-way, associated with the development should also be subtracted out when calculating overall density.

On Page 3 (A, 6), Mr. Anderson suggested adding “including trees” to the reference of vegetation. Mrs. Winwood suggested defining vegetation.

On Page 4, Mr. Anderson noted removal of the end parenthesis.

On Page 4, B-3, Mr. Anderson questioned the allowance of row houses.

Mrs. Postle – Noted the house types allowed in this district are listed in the principle permitted use section. Row House is not included there.

On Page 5, Mr. Anderson felt the reference to “CMU” needs to be removed.

Mrs. Postle – Indicated it needs to be discussed further. Mrs. Postle agreed that the reference should be removed and added that the permitted materials provision could be discussed further as it is also included in the “Planned Development Mixed Use” draft amendments.

Joe Harmon, 531 Willowhurst Street - Questioned the reference to the Army Corp of Engineers designation of wetlands. Felt that was too restrictive with regard to areas to be protected as wetlands.

Mr. Drain – Welcomed suggestions about how to define wetlands but felt that some specific criteria was necessary. Agreed that an official designation should not be required.

Mr. Harmon - Suggested maybe Ohio or Federal level definition or criteria could be used rather than saying “designated” in that an official designation would not be required, just the referenced standards met.

On Page 5, Mrs. Winwood felt a change was necessary regarding wording that materials “convey an impression of permanence”. The goal goes beyond simply conveying an impression.

Mr. Drain – Suggested saying permanence and durability and drop the word “impression”.

Mrs. Zobrist – Suggested drop the wording “to convey an impression of”.

Mixed Use District

Mr. Drain – Questioned the conditional use reference. Do we want to use that term and process in a Planned Development district?

Mr. Ehrhart – Gave the current definition of conditional use. There is a procedural issue with conditional use being part of the Planned Development process. These conditional uses can be heard as part of the Planned Development and not by the Board of Zoning Appeals, so a different term should be used. Staff will recommend the proper term to allow these uses to be considered as part of the Planned Development process.

Mr. Drain – Asked what is meant by “any” for right-of-way requirement as indicated in the “Permitted Uses” section.

Mr. Ehrhart – Some uses are permitted to be located on any existing road right-of-way. Other uses can/should only be located on certain width roadways.

Mr. Drain – Suggested replacing “any” with “N/A” or “Does Not Apply”.

Mr. Ehrhart – Thought there is a need to revisit the entire requirement. Staff will look into it and revise.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked to use the full wording for “square foot” and “thousands” instead of abbreviations.

Mr. Drain – Change “greater than” to “equal to” with regard to the maximum size of a retail sales and service use. Would like to stay with “30K”.

Mr. Anderson – Does not understand the concept of the special note about convenience uses being allowed “When located inside a principally permitted use”.

Mr. Ehrhart – Gave examples of proposed convenience uses within the White Oak Lodge, a coffee kiosk in a hotel lobby, the optical office within a drug store. Asked for clarification about the 30K as intended to be for a single user or entire shopping center.

Mr. Drain – Felt it means a single retailer.

Mrs. Winwood – What if a larger user breaks their space into separate stores, i.e., Wal-Mart food store, shoe store, etc. The concern is about appropriate size and scale.

Mr. Ehrhart – The current provisions address that so there may not be an issue.

Mr. Drain – Questioned the restaurants with outdoor dining as a principally permitted use.

Mrs. Postle – Suggested doing away with the different types of restaurants in this section. Specific activities such as outdoor dining can be addressed in the design standards section.

Mr. Ehrhart – Maybe indicate that a use is permitted in this section and then add standards for all specific uses in design standards section.

Mrs. Winwood – Suggested continuing the headings for the table to the following page.

Mr. Drain – Stated that a landscaping plan should be included in the general provisions section.

Mr. Anderson – Asked who is the “decision-making body” as referenced in the “Design Criteria” section.

Mr. Ehrhart – Revised to new wording. “Design Criteria” section re-labeled as “Pre-Development, First Stage” and “ Washington Township” replaces “decision-making body”.

Mr. Drain – Make sure the density requirements are addressed in this first stage.

Mr. Anderson – When do we require traffic studies?

Mrs. Postle – We can write a provision that the township can require a traffic study in the first stage when certain conditions exist or other similar criteria.

Mr. Ehrhart – Noted this provision should be a condition that would apply to all Planned Development projects.

On Page 4 “E”, Mr. Drain questioned why there is a maximum setback of 10 feet for a building?

Mr. Ehrhart – That reflects the build forward design and addressing pedestrian scale.

Mr. Drain – Suggested that a building could be set back more than 10 feet if heavy landscaping was installed.

Mrs. Postle – This could also allow for amenities such as, outdoor dining, benches, and other similar pedestrian amenities.

Mr. Drain – Felt comfortable in allowing that type of amenity but not parking.

Mr. Anderson – Need to keep in mind that only 60% of any building has to comply with the maximum 10’ setback. The remaining 40% can be back farther.

Mrs. Winwood – Articulation can be safety issue also.

Mr. Anderson – Stated there is a formatting issue. Remove “and”s.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked about the definition of safety at the bottom of Page 5.

Mrs. Postle – Indicated she will check and correct.

On Page 6, Section 4 “Design Standards”, Mr. Drain noted this will now be “Second Stage”.

On Page 7, b, ii, Mr. Anderson suggested changing 8” caliber trees to 6” caliber tree.

Mrs. Postle – Staff finds this acceptable and will re-word the sentence.

On Page 8, 3) “Architectural Design Requirements”, Mr. Drain indicated the 65% brick/stone requirement was not mentioned.

Mr. Ehrhart noted that the proposed wording indicates that 100% of building materials would have to meet the “permanence and durability” requirement.

The various building materials were discussed. Mr. Anderson felt that “articulated architectural concrete masonry units (CMU)” should be removed.

Mr. Drain – Suggested that staff identify permanent materials, remove siding reference, no EFIS.

Mr. Ehrhart – Staff will check with the Township Law Director on the building materials.

Mrs. Zobrist – Is not in favor of rooftop landscaping used for the screening of mechanicals.

The Commission agreed to remove.

On Page 9, c, i, Mr. Drain questioned this section regarding the 10’ wide planting strip – no landscaping in parking lot.

Mr. Ehrhart – Parking areas now have a maximum size of 50,000 square feet. The feeling is that the size would be such that only perimeter landscaping is required.

Mrs. Postle – Noted that staff is also suggesting designating a maximum percentage on piercings of the landscape perimeter for driveways and walkways. This will be added to the next draft.

On Page 11, “Civic Spaces”, Mr. Drain questioned the 5% requirement. What about requiring 10%?

Mrs. Postle – Stated the required pedestrian amenities will add more also. The 5% is for specific spaces defined as “civic”. A provision can be included to this section saying that the township can require more civic space if determined as appropriate.

Mr. Ehrhart – Suggested path pavers as allowed for impervious surfaces throughout a proposed development.

The Commission was in favor.

Copies of the revision for “Definitions” and “Home Occupation” provisions were distributed. These will be reviewed at the October meeting.

In other business:

There was a reminder of the Volunteer Dinner on September 26, 2007.

The October Zoning Commission meeting agenda will include Washington Trace Development day care and the Zoning Resolution Amendments. A reminder that Mr. Drain and Mrs. Zobrist will not be in attendance at this meeting.

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

________________________________

Harry Drain, Chairman

Washington Township Zoning Commission