WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES

November 27, 2007

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in special session on November 27, 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.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Mr. Drain – Thanked the applicant for rescheduling the meeting date to tonight. He also stated that Mr. Rogers has resigned from the Zoning Commission and that with four (4) members present, there is a full board. Mr. Drain introduced staff.

MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved the minutes of September 18, 2007 be approved as submitted.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

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

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

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

Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case. Mrs. Postle highlighted changes to the plan from the previous case, Z-588G.

Mr. Drain – It looks as though the fence extends around the building to connect the playgrounds. Does it circle the entire building?

Mrs. Postle – The fence encompasses the playground area around three (3) sides of the building.

Mr. Drain – Is it the white vinyl fencing?

Mrs. Postle – No, it is a wrought iron type of fence. The white vinyl fencing is inside the wrought iron fence to screen the mechanicals only. Indicated there is a sample of the vinyl fence in their packets.

Mr. Drain – So the white vinyl fencing is only a small portion to screen the building mechanicals and is located inside the wrought iron fencing?

Mrs. Postle – That is correct.

Mr. Drain –Asked if it was possible to have our landscape expert review the landscape plans as it has been done in the past.

Mrs. Postle – Yes, we can do that. Mrs. Postle explained that in 2006, Sandy Spees reviewed landscape plans. When Mrs. Spees passed away she was replaced by a consultant for the VIP Committee who helps with the plantings in the township. Her time is limited as she has a full-time job. She was not able to review this plan.

Mrs. Winwood – Questioned the staff comment about the southeast corner of the building being thirty-five feet (35’) from Sheehan Road.

Mrs. Postle – Indicated on the site plan where the building was 35’ from the Sheehan Road right of way. Normally under straight zoning, the setback would be 100’. This seemed significant and staff wanted to point that out to the Zoning Commission.

Mr. Drain – What is the setback from Social Row Road?

Mrs. Postle – Depending on the eventual road right of way dimensions by Montgomery County, it is either 50’ or 59’.

Mr. Drain – Was there a concern by staff with the vinyl fencing?

Mrs. Postle – The concern was how the vinyl and the wrought iron would look layered against each other, mainly due to the difference in color and material.

Applicant represented by Greg Smith, Oberer Companies, 2800 East River Road, Dayton. Mr. Smith indicated that the November submittal of plans was the first time they were made aware of the reference to the 100’ setback requirement for the daycare center. The reason the building is closer is to address the concerns of the Zoning Commission regarding the location of the playground. There is no playground on the north side of the building in this plan. Fire code requires fencing to be along the north side of the building. It is not meant for a play area. The fencing is to allow for the children to exit the building directly from the classroom. Mr. Smith indicated they are willing to work with staff on the color of the vinyl fence at the HVAC areas as either black or white.

Mr. Drain – What about using landscaping as screening for the mechanicals?

Mr. Smith – Stated there would be a problem with the children potentially “interacting” with the landscaping there.

Mr. Drain – Will the vinyl fencing be durable?

Mr. Smith – Vinyl would be better than wood with regard to durability.

Mrs. Winwood – What do the gates on the wrought iron fence look like?

Mr. Smith – The gates are the same as the fence which will be green.

Mr. Smith – Stated the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office (MSCO) indicated there will be a traffic signal at the Social Row/Sheehan intersection in place within the next two (2) years. More land was added to this site to accommodate the Commission’s concerns about the playground area. The future owner of the property has made many concessions with this plan. He has purchased more land and the redesign works better for him.

Mr. Drain – Wasn’t the original building located parallel to Sheehan Road?

Mr. Smith – Yes, the entire building was 40’ from the right of way. In this plan, there is one location where the building has a 35’ setback. The average building setback along the Sheehan Road side on this new plan is larger than 40’.

Mr. Drain – Seems like the playground safety concerns are on the Sheehan Road side right of way instead of Social Row Road, as before. Why not put all the play areas together?

Mr. Smith – Need to separate play areas due to different age groups.

Mr. Smith – Presented data from MCSO regarding past traffic accidents.

Mr. Drain – Indicated it doesn’t really matter what has happened in the past. Feels there is still a problem with the playground location.

Mrs. Zobrist – Stated there was an accident recently at the intersection where cars were up against the guardrail at the southwest corner. She is also concerned with the gate at the southeast corner of the building. Feels it is not a secure location if children should get out.

Mr. Smith – The designated loading area at the southwest corner of the building and staff operations associated with loading and unloading should address these issues. The playground on the Sheehan Road side is the infant/toddler area.

Joe Valentour, Applicant, 8095 Garnet Drive – The State requires separate playgrounds for infants and toddlers from school-age children. The gate at the southeast corner is padlocked which is located about hip high. There are 2 gates at the other side of the building. Indicated they can shrink that southeast playground area down to 200 square feet, but they still have to be separate from the other playground.

Mr. Drain – Stated there are still safety concerns with a playground close to Sheehan Road even if the area is smaller.

Mrs. Zobrist – Asked what the road improvements will be for Sheehan Road?

Mr. Ehrhart – Not aware of any improvements other than the bike trail. The Paragon Road connection will also relieve some of the traffic volume using Sheehan Road.

Mrs. Winwood – Asked how would the drop off area work?

Mr. Valentour – Morning toddler drop off would occur at the southwest side of the building. The gates are at each side of the northeast and northwest side of the building so that access is limited. All other kids will go through the main entrance of the building.

Mr. Drain – Asked if patrons would be walking between the parking lots and Sheehan Road to get to the building?

Mr. Valentour – The area will be landscaped so it is not truly a walkway.

Mr. Anderson – Stated the play areas have certain code requirements concerning the square footage ratio per student. Do the play areas as shown on the plan exceed those requirements?

Mr. Valentour – Yes. They can reduce the area to the east to 200 square feet.

Mr. Anderson – What about the area to the west?

Mr. Valentour – It exceeds the minimum standards. There is a paved sidewalk around the perimeter of the building to accommodate walking and strollers.

Mr. Anderson – Along Sheehan Road, there is a 5’ elevation drop from the bike trail to the play area so the building will set down from the street. Mr. Anderson stated his concerns about drainage provisions. There is only a reference to tying into the detention to the west. He realizes that the County will oversee the drainage requirements but was interested in how that will work as the area is relatively flat.

Mr. Valentour – Stated the area will be piped to the detention area southwest of this site.

Mr. Anderson – Noted the toddler area is closest to Sheehan Road. Suggested relocating the building to the west to move away from Sheehan Road to address the safety concerns.

Mr. Valentour – Stated they could not do that because the parking lot would not fit on the site. Rest assured that if the developer doesn’t address the road improvements to create safety for the daycare, then he would.

Mr. Anderson – Have you considered installing larger and more dense landscaping, i.e., large evergreens, along Sheehan Road which would create a significant buffer for the playground?

Mr. Valentour – Would like to have hardwoods to create shade, but could do more landscaping including evergreens.

Mr. Drain – What type of surface do the playgrounds have?

Mr. Valentour – Rubberized for fall area, mulch and grass in the rest of the area.

Mr. Drain – Indicated there is a reference to a metal roof.

Mr. Smith – The awning of the covered area is canvas, the metal roof is trim band in association with the dormers. This design matches the clubhouse design. The color of both the metal and the canvas is green.

Mr. Anderson – Note that these minor changes needed for clarification: The east elevation exhibit references landscaping for screening instead of fence. The example of wrought iron fence references the pool area so you would need to have the plans revised since there is not pool here.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:

Bob Kyvik, 2555 Goodfield Point – Stated the biggest problem is the setback of the building which should be heard before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Feels this case should be denied based on this alone.

Public hearing closed.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Drain – Feels the major concern is the safety and the proximity of the building area to Sheehan Road. Asked applicant if they are interested in reconsidering the site layout?

Mr. Valentour – Was not sure what the Commission was asking.

Mr. Drain – Explained that he would like to see it closer to the standard zoning regulations with regard to the building setback. Suggested locating the building in the southwest area of the site. Stated the Zoning Commission cannot design, but can express concerns for applicant’s response and consideration. We can proceed with the case or let applicant re-work the plans.

Mr. Valentour – Asked the Commission to please proceed with the case as submitted.

Mr. Anderson – Asked staff what could be done with regard to variation of the standard zoning requirements.

Mrs. Postle – The resolution clearly states the Commission can allow variation on siting of building on site to whatever degree comfortable as part of the “Planned Development” process.

Mr. Ehrhart – Reminded the Commission that the first stage approval had no site constraints for the daycare/church site so there are no other guidelines established.

Mr. Anderson – Indicated the Commission has heard this request two or three times and every time is different issue to consider. A concern was never expressed about the siting of the building so it is unfair to make it an issue now. Feels that dense landscaping would address the concern.

Mrs. Winwood – Stated that she did have a concern about having the building 40’ from Sheehan Road the last time the request was heard. She is glad to see the playground area was moved away from Social Row Road. Would still like to see the building flipped to the south area of the site near the park and away from Social Row Road. Feels the daycare does not need visibility of the corner. Safety is more important.

Mrs. Zobrist – Can the building be moved 15’ to the west away from Sheehan Road?

Mr. Smith – Stated they could take a look at that but would have to look at what happens with the parking area. Would have to have the fire department review the change as well. Could look at the minimum setback of 50’ at Sheehan Road.

Mr. Drain – Based on the comments you have heard, do you want the Commission to proceed or do you want to re-work the plan and bring it back?

Mr. Smith – Would prefer that the Commission consider the current submittal with conditions as discussed and then we can bring something back for further consideration.

Mr. Ehrhart – If the building is relocated, would the playgrounds shrink and the eastern one move away from the Sheehan Road right of way?

Mr. Smith – Yes.

Mr. Drain – Suggested they look into a permanent barrier along Sheehan Road at the playground area.

Mr. Smith – Could they combine the barrier with the landscaping?

Mr. Drain – Yes. Substantial trees and boulders would be appropriate. Indicated that in his opinion, this would be required as part of the approval. Mr. Drain again asked applicant if they would like to go back and re-work the plan or have the Commission continue to discuss this case.

Mr. Smith – Is the Commission willing to act with conditions in reference to moving the building and adding landscaping as discussed.

Mrs. Zobrist – Stated she could live with the proposal with those conditions.

Mr. Drain – Still has concerns with the playground on the east side of the building but re-working the plan as discussed would help. Cannot give a definite answer about the possibility of approval without seeing revised plans.

Mrs. Winwood – Is willing to look at it but still feels that the building doesn’t fit there on the site and would like to see it relocated to the south.

Mr. Anderson – Stated the Commission is not giving the applicant any idea of what is wanted. Mr. Anderson stated he would be in favor of the proposal if revised as discussed. However, he is not giving them any guarantee of approval but willing to consider.

Mr. Smith – Stated he is interested in re-working the site and coming back to the Zoning Commission. Mr. Smith requested this case be tabled until the December Zoning Commission meeting.

MOTION - Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-588I to table applicant’s request for approval of a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage plan for a daycare center located at the southwest corner of Sheehan and Social Row Roads in order to give applicant the opportunity to re-work the design of the plans based on input by the Zoning Commission.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

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

Case Z-588I tabled.

In other business:

There was discussion of the proposed Zoning Resolution Amendments. Staff reviewed the changes as a result of the last Commission work session and review by Law Director. Proposed changes to Article 12 are shown in draft as bolded italics. The “Design flexibility” text change is clarification regarding how process should work procedurally.

Mr. Anderson noted some additional changes:

1) “Photostat” reference in Section 5 of Article 12 should be revised to more current terminology.

2) On Page 3, change the word “and” to “any”.

3) On Page 7 in Mixed Use section, Materials to be permitted includes articulated CMU. Add specific material for “horizontal boards” and list hardie plank composite as an example.

Criteria 5(c) in Mixed Use to be changed as shown on draft per Bob Surdyk, Township Law Director. (staff)

Add new definitions such as, “Convenience use” and “Main public access”. (staff)

Mrs. Winwood – Noted a previous discussion regarding concerns expressed over the working “impression of permanence”. This should be rewritten by removing “to convey an impression”. She also noted that Mr. Anderson indicated he did not want CMU’s at that discussion.

Staff noted proposed changes to Article 16, Section 5 regarding political signs. Words will be removed to result in signs being allowed no closer than 20’ from road pavement edge.

Mr. Anderson asked about time limitations for political signs.

Mrs. Postle – The Township previously restricted time for sign posting. There is case law that now restricts having time limitations as part of the zoning regulations.

Mr. Drain – Suggested revisions be made based on this discussion, then make application on behalf of the Township for a public hearing.

Mrs. Postle – Asked if the Commission is willing to add provision for a bed & breakfast/home occupation?

Mr. Drain – Stated that those can be discussed at the next round of amendment changes.

The attendance for the December Zoning Commission meeting was discussed. There will be a full board.

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

________________________________

Harry Drain, Chairman

Washington Township Zoning Commission