WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 16, 2009

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on June 16, 2009 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, Mr. Anderson, and Mr. Paulson and Mrs. Zobrist.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

MOTION – Mr. Anderson moved the minutes of May 19, 2009 be approved as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.
VOTE – Mrs Zobrist, yes; Mrs. Winwood, abstain; Mr. Anderson, yes; Mr. Paulson, yes. Mr. Drain, abstain.
Mr. Paulson asked if the final recommended changes to zoning amendments were incorporated into the draft forwarded to the Trustees for consideration. Ms. Scott indicated that they were.
 
Zoning Case #Z588L  Epiphany Lutheran Church
Request for approval of a second stage Planned Development Residential (PD-R) for approximately 16 acres located at the southwest corner of Sheehan and Social Row Roads.

Jo Scott, Deputy Administrator presented the case.  This parcel is part of larger Washington Trace planned development which has a second stage approval in place. This request is technically a modification to that prior approval.

Mrs. Zobrist asked what type of development is approved for the land to the west of this. Scott indicated that it has been approved for residential development.

Mr. Anderson asked if the public park that was part of the previous approval had been removed on this proposal.
Ms. Scott indicated that it had been removed.
Mr. Drain expressed concern with that change and asked that the park district be notified of this proposed change. Staff should report any concerns or comments the park director has regarding this change.  Washington Trace is a large residential development and the park areas associated with the development are an important asset to retain.

Mr. Anderson asked about access to Paragon Road and how that will be incorporated into the proposed development. He noted that the site design does not incorporate the access point into the development. As presented, there is no paved area, such as a driveway or parking area on the site from that access point.
 
Mr. Drain agreed and asked the applicant to address that issue.

Mr. Anderson noted the significant modification to the proposed retention basin. The pond looks to be about ten feet deep with the area along Paragon Road being open possibly creating an attractive nuisance. The previous approval included landscaping and site features as part of the pond.

Mr. Drain added the pond was previously designed to serve as an amenity of the development with landscaping and a walkway.   

Ms. Scott noted that the existing Washington Trace development has entry features at various intersections including Paragon and Social Row Roads. She added that the commission should recognize that any future approvals that do not include these elements would then supersede the existing approval.

Mr. Drain noted that the applicant had not provided details on the percentage of brick and/or stone associated with the building elevations submitted. Ms. Scott added that the previous approval required that 50% of the building materials be brick or stone.

The commission briefly discussed the function of the proposed concession area located on the west side of the church building. Ms. Scott noted that it appeared to be ancillary to the primary use of the development which was the church component and the recreational uses. If the concession component of the development was for the use of church and/or recreational patrons, which it appears to be, this use would be permitted.

Mr. Drain expressed concern about the banquet hall element of the proposal. He would like some assurance that the owner has dedicated sufficient parking space for that use and also that this part of the development would be incidental to the other uses. He added that he was skeptical about the applicant’s indication that the church and recreational uses would not occur simultaneously. He asked that the applicant address that in more detail.

Mr. Nelson, representing the applicant indicated that the owner requested the 6’ chain link fence around the retention pond to prevent soccer balls from getting into the pond.  He would need to discuss possible changes to this with church representatives and then come back to the commission with the response.

Mr. Drain asked about any future plans to move the existing congregation at the Far Hills Epiphany church to this site. The applicant indicated that both facilities would continue to operate separately. The proposed facility has the emphasis on recreational activities as the youth ministry outreach element of the church.   

Mrs. Zobrist asked if the recreational facilities will be open to entire community, or just church members.
Mr. Proehl replied that the church will organize community leagues. As this is an outreach activity of the church, community members who have joined a league will be welcome to use the facilities.
Mr. Drain expressed concern about the building restrooms being sufficient to serve league play associated with eight soccer fields.

Mr. Paulson expressed concern regarding sufficient parking for the leagues that would use these facilities. Ms. Scott indicated that the township zoning resolution does not outline parking provisions for active recreational uses such as soccer fields and softball diamonds, making it difficult to make that determination. The site plan includes 109 parking spaces. Required parking in association with the church use totals 84 spaces so an additional 25 spaces have been provided. Mr. Drain asked that staff confer with representatives of the Washington Township Park District for guidance on parking requirements associated with the recreational activities represented on this site plan.

The commission discussed the road improvements associated with this development. There was concern about who would be responsible for completing these improvements.

Mr. Greg Smith with Oberer Development reported that Oberer will post a bond with the county engineer’s office for the approved road improvements on Paragon Road and Sheehan Road.  The Paragon Road extension should be completed within the next two years and Sheehan Road improvements within the next three years. 

Ms. Scott noted that it is also important for the site plan to indicate the 110’ right-of-way width for Social Row Road even though the final design of that roadway has not been approved by the county. Mr. Drain noted the importance of including recommendations regarding the road improvements if this proposal goes forward to the Trustees.

Mr. Phoehl indicated that the long-range plan for the church is to build a larger sanctuary building in the northeast section of the property. The soccer fields in this area would go away. The proposed building in the current site plan would remain and serve as an accessory building for the remaining recreational uses.

Mr. Drain asked if the Springboro and Far Hills congregations would merge to the new church.
Mr. Phoehl indicated that the Far Hills church would remain with this church having an emphasis on youth ministry through organized sports and recreation. 

Mr. Anderson asked if the long-range plan for a larger church would require a re-submittal as a change to the planned development.
Ms. Scott indicated that it would. 

Mr. Drain suggested that it would be beneficial to indicate long term plans for the property as part of the current submittal. He requested further details on future proposals so that they can be considered as part of this review. The other commission members agreed.

Mr. Paulson asked for further details on the retaining wall adjacent to the softball fields.
Mr. Nelson responded that the elevation fall of property required a flattening of the ball diamond, so the retaining wall was added. He added that the wall would be a six-foot landscape block with a six-foot vinyl covered chain link fence on top of that. 

Mr. Paulson noted that the entrance to the site along Sheehan Road does not include the significant landscaping with trees for screening as was included in the previous approval. The chain link fence is not a good alternative.
 
Mr. Nelson indicated that the proposed fence is the same as the tennis courts across Sheehan Road. 
Mr. Paulson expressed concern about the split-face concrete block and steel appearance around the ball field. 

Mr. Drain agreed.  Wants the previously-approved landscaping added as a buffer along Sheehan Road. 

Mrs. Winwood asked about the connection through the property from Paragon Road to Sheehan Road possibly becoming a cut-through. Mr. Nelson indicated that he did not think that would become a problem based on how the access would traverse through the property.

Mrs. Winwood felt that there should be additional parking for the sports fields.  Mr. Smith indicated that they could create grass parking areas if the township would approve.

Mr. Drain requested more detail on additional parking provisions and the long-range plan. He added that the township does not want to lose the landscaping around the perimeter of the property and the retention pond being designed as an amenity to the site, not just a functional element. He also felt that the recreational areas should be shared with the general public to compensate for loss of park space.

Mr. Drain expressed concern about chain link fences and block walls noting that they should be more aesthetically pleasing and add quality to the development. It appears that the dumpster is screened with a wood fence. He would like to see that be brick which is a higher quality product with lower maintenance. He suggested that the applicant provide actual examples of the proposed materials, including building materials.
Mr. Drain noted that the HVAC equipment on the east side of the building was not screened with the required landscaping.

Mr. Liles, Apex Engineering stated that the dumpster would most likely be moved within a few years which is why the current proposal is for a wood fence enclosure instead of brick.

Mr. Anderson would like to see the retention pond better protected on the Paragon Road side. He noted that the proposed pond is a significant departure from the one in the current approval. He asked that the developer look at making the pond a larger feature with something less than the proposed ten foot depth. 

Mr. Drain asked about the absence of the site feature at corner of Social Row Road and Sheehan Road which was included in the previous approval. 
Mr. Smith responded that original plan did detail features which included a stone wall and statute at the northwest corner of the property. He indicated that the Oberer Company will still build three original features, including a bench at the northwest corner. 

Mr. Anderson expressed concern about updated information being provided to people interested in purchasing a lot on Paragon Road across from this development. Will potential buyers be aware of this proposed development.
Mr. Smith indicated that if a new development plan is approved for this site, that information will be incorporated into the marketing materials for the Washington Trace development.

Mr. Drain asked that the church consider designating some portion of the property for a township park to assure public use of the open space.
Mr. Smith indicated that they would take that under advisement.

Mr. Anderson noted that the Washington Trace clubhouse on the east side of Sheehan Road just south of this property is a nice looking building. He would like to see some of the design elements of that building, such as the metal roof, incorporated into the proposed building on this site.

Mr. Drain asked for additional comments from the applicant. There was none. He opened the public hearing.

No comments.

Mr. Drain noted that the public hearing would open as the applicant agreed to take the comments received and incorporate them into revisions that would be presented to the commission at a later time.

MOTION - Mr. Drain moved to table case Z-588L to allow developer to address the concerns expressed.
Mr. Anderson seconded.
There were no further comments from the commission.

VOTE - Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mr. Paulson, yes.
Mr. Drain asked staff to research parking for this kind of recreation facility and to obtain information regarding restroom requirement for this use also. 

Other Business

Ms. Scott reported that the township has hired a zoning manager scheduled to start working on July 6th.  Jim Wahl will attend the next zoning commission meeting.

Ms. Scott reported that the public notices being sent out for zoning commission hearings now include a site plan on the back page to provide people with additional information. This provides people with more information about the upcoming hearing.   

The zoning resolution amendments for sign regulations were passed by the Township Trustees last night.  Those will go into effect in 30 days. The trustees were very complimentary of the effort put forth on this project and commended the zoning commission.

Ms. Scott noted the pending amendments on home occupations, bed and breakfast establishments and utility trailers. She added that the Board of Zoning Appeals has asked the commission to consider an amendment to the zoning restriction on temporary outdoor sales which staff will provide further information on.
Mr. Drain asked if commission should look at parking requirements for recreational facilities. It was agreed that staff will research and present further information.

Drain was pleased to see the use of landscape architect to review landscape plans.

July meeting has no cases currently scheduled.  Possibility that this case can come back.  Staff should inform Commission and they may make move to August for next meeting. Winwood will not be available for the July 21 meeting.  All other members should be available.  Anderson won’t be here in August. 

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