Members Present:                                                            Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                            David Benner
                                                                                            James Bauder
                                                                                            Stephen Bergman
Alternate Member:                                                            Nancy Detwiler
Absent Member:                                                               Donna Conaway

Zoning Inspector:                                                              Joni Poindexter

Mr. Bauder made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of June 23, 2005 and Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Mr. Bergman made a motion to approve the minutes the meeting of July 7, 2005 and Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Ms. Magyaros stated that last week they started talking about buffering.  She looked at what some of the other districts have done, specifically Media because they have addressed just about every issue that could be imagined in their R-T district, and when looking at their language compared to what we currently have she didn’t see anything that needed to be more restrictive.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she considered adding to section 411.9D2a, “At a minimum, one tree shall be planted, with creative placement, every 50 ft. in addition to the random shrub plantings.”

Mr. Bergman stated that he looked at the some of the existing areas where there is a fence instead of plantings and suggested that fencing be eliminated as an option because he doesn’t like the fences.

Mr. Bauder stated that his concern would be that there may be shrubs planted that need to be in the sun and the trees could block it.

Mr. Benner stated that he isn’t real fond of fences for buffering except for industrial areas.

Ms. Poindexter stated if they didn’t want fences for buffering in the R-T district they may want to add “except in the R-T district” to the sentence that refers to fencing as a permitted form of buffering.

Mr. Benner asked what the objection was to adding the sentence that was considered by Ms. Magyaros.

Mr. Bauder stated that there may be shrubs that like the sun and the trees over time will shade the shrubs and then the shrubs may die.

The board agreed not to add the addition.

Ms. Adams, resident of Jackson Township, asked if they could add that the existing natural vegetation needed to be maintained.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the only problem with that is if someone didn’t want to use the existing natural vegetation they could cut down all their trees before applying for any permits and there is nothing to stop them.

Mr. Bergman stated that he thought there was language in the resolution regarding natural vegetation.

Ms. Poindexter stated that there is, but there is nothing to stop anyone from cutting down their trees and then applying for a permit for a development at a later date.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she would work on some more possible language for existing vegetation.

The board discussed a new section titled “Minimum Tree Coverage for a Lot in the R-T Campus”.  The section would read as follows:  In the R-T Campus, in addition to other requirements for tree planting or preservation of existing natural vegetation, a minimum amount of tree coverage shall be provided on a lot where a principal building is constructed or enlarged.  The minimum amount of tree coverage shall be provided by new tree plantings, preservation of existing trees or a combination thereof, at a ratio of not less than one (1) tree for each one thousand square feet (1,000 sq. ft.) of gross floor area of a new principal building space.  For purposes of this section, a tree is defined as having two (2) inches or more of truck diameter measured four and one half (4-1/2) feet above the ground level.

Ms. Magyaros stated this would ensure there will be some trees on the lot in addition to the screening.

Ms. Poindexter asked if the trees could be within the parking setback area.

Ms. Magyaros stated that they could be anywhere on the lot.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she is asking because 5 shade trees are required for 100 ft. of street frontage, so is the board saying that if the lot has 100 ft. of frontage and they are planting 7 shade trees within the parking setback and they are building a 5,000 sq. ft. building then they would need to add 3 more trees somewhere on the lot so they would have 1 tree for every 1,000 ft. of building.

Ms. Magyaros stated that is correct.

Ms. Poindexter suggested if the tree(s) could be anywhere on the lot then this be added to the wording for clarification purposes.

The board agreed to add “anywhere on the lot” to the second sentence so it would read The minimum amount of tree coverage shall be provided by new tree plantings, preservation or existing trees or a combination thereof anywhere on the lot at a ratio of not less then one (1) tree for each one thousand square feet (1,000 sq. ft.) of gross floor area of a new principal building space.

The board discussed and agreed to create a new section titled “Landscaping Materials in the R-T Campus.”  This section would read as follows:  “In the R-T Campus, the proposed landscape material should complement the form of the existing trees and plantings, as well as the general design and architecture.  All landscaping materials shall be installed in a sound, workmanship-like manner, and according to accepted, good construction, and planting procedures.  Artificial plants shall not be used to meet landscaping requirements.”

The board agreed to add “R-T Campus” to the sentence in section 411.9E so it reads, “A landscaped plan shall be submitted for all developments in a B-1, B-2, B-3, PBRD, and I-1 Districts and R-T Campus.”  The only change is adding R-T Campus to the existing sentence.

The board agreed to add “R-T Campus” to the sentence in section 411.10 so it reads, “Accessory uses, buildings, and structures permitted in the B-1, B-2, B-3 PBRD, I-1, and C-P Districts and R-T Campus shall conform to the locations and height standards contained in this section, except where otherwise noted.”  The only change is adding R-T Campus to the existing sentence.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she originally suggested creating a section for Utilities that would read, “All utilities, in a B-1, B-2, B-3, PBRD, I-1 and C-P Districts and R-T Campus, shall be installed underground.  Any access boxes or terminals that must be installed above ground shall be screened and landscaped with plant materials that shall provide seventy-five (75) percent opacity within two (2) years of planting.”

Ms. Magyaros stated that Mr. Phillippi seemed to think they couldn’t regulate this because it is a public utility.

Mr. Benner stated that the public utilities don’t install them; it’s the developer that does it.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she would get a legal opinion regarding this.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the dumpster location and screening should be addressed.

Ms. Poindexter stated that this is already addressed in the zoning resolution where it states, “All waste shall be disposed of and temporarily stored in proper waste receptacle that is enclosed on all sides with a solid fence or wall.”  Ms. Poindexter stated that it is also listed in the resolution as to where the dumpsters can be located.

The board agreed that a new section didn’t need to be created.

The board discussed the maximum permitted area and height of a freestanding sign.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she originally proposed 120 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 10 ft., which is what is permitted in the B-1, B-2 and C-P Districts.

Mr. Bergman stated that 120 sq. ft. isn’t that big.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks it is a huge sign.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the board needed to remember that only one freestanding sign is permitted per property, so if there are several tenants on one property they need to share a sign.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks the maximum should be about 4 or 5 ft. tall and only 8 ft. wide.  This is not a commercial area so the sign doesn’t need to be very big because basically people coming to the R-T area will know where they are going.

Mr. Bergman stated that he likes the idea of a maximum of 64 sq. ft.

Mr. Benner stated that a sign that is 8 x 8 ft. is too big, so maybe it should only be 6 x 8 sq. ft.

Mr. Bergman stated that would make the sign 48 sq. ft.

Mr. Bergman stated that he didn’t really see a problem with 120 sq. ft. until they started talking about it.

Mr. Benner stated that he would compromise with a 6 x 8 sq. ft. sign which is 48 sq. ft.
The board agreed the maximum square footage for a freestanding sign would be 48 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 8 ft.

Ms. Magyaros stated that the board would discuss the other issues at their next work session.

Mr. Benner made a motion to continue the work session until July 28, 2005 at 5:00 pm. and Mr. Bergman seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector