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

Zoning Inspector:                                                              Joni Poindexter

Ms. Magyaros stated that the first item to be discussed is an amendment to the previously discussed purpose section.  Number four under section 411.1 would read as follows:  “To provide a visually stimulating and attractive area in which to work and which enhances the township’s image.  The use of property and the construction of facilities in the R-T campus, shall be designed, operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and such use shall not change the essential character of the same area.”  Ms. Magyaros stated that she thinks this is a restrictive as they can get.  Ms. Magyaros stated that the board already agreed to the first sentence, so the amendment is what follows after the first sentence.

Mr. Bergman stated that he liked this language.

Mr. Benner stated that he thought the language was fine.

The board agreed.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she suggested that the maximum total sign area for a wall sign be 35 sq. ft.  Sixty-four square feet is the maximum in the B-1, B-2 and C-P District.

Mr. Bergman stated that he doesn’t have a problem with 48 ft. and asked if someone put a sign across the top of a building is that considered a wall sign.

Ms. Poindexter stated yes.

Mr. Bergman stated that 48 ft. would be something like a 4 x 12 sq. ft. sign.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the current regulation for the B-1, B-2 and C-P district is 64 sq. ft. or two times the building frontage, which ever is less.  So even if the building is 100 ft. in width if the maximum size was 48 sq. ft., 64 sq. ft., or 35 sq. ft. they couldn’t go any bigger than that.

Mr. Benner stated that the building is going to have a particular address so it’s not like someone wouldn’t’ be able to find it.  It’s not something that has to be identified to the consuming public.  Mr. Benner stated that he thinks that is the distinction between almost everything else they have.

Mr. Benner stated that he doesn’t recall signs, for example, at Universities that are huge.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks 64 sq. ft. is obnoxious for a building that is to be in a campus environment and he doesn’t see the purpose for a large sign.

Ms. Magyaros asked Mr. Benner if he is suggesting that no signs be permitted on the building.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks the concept of signage is significantly different from what they are looking at for the R-T district as opposed to the commercial district.
Mr. Bauder stated that they could go with a small sign and, if needed, a variance could be requested.

The board agreed that the maximum square footage for a wall sign would be 36 square feet.

Ms. Magyaros stated that there is a suggested section regarding lighting for the R-T Campus.  The board agreed to the following:
A. Lighting shall not constitute a nuisance and shall in no way impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
B. All parking areas shall be properly illuminated with down lighting.
C. All exterior lighting used to light vehicular use areas and pedestrian pathways shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining premises or streets in the district or adjacent streets.
D. All other exterior lighting including, but not limited to doorways, architectural, accent, landscape, signage, decorative, security, floodlighting, or area lighting shall be of fully shielded design and shall not emit any direct light above a horizontal plane passing through the lowest part of the light emitting portion of the luminary or lamp.  Any lighted signage must have the lights integrated into the design of the sign.

Mr. Benner stated that what “D” refers to is where ever the lowest part of the lamp is, nothing should shine above it.  It would all shine down.

Mr. Bergman asked if the object is to enforce down lighting.

Mr. Benner stated yes.

Ms. Conaway stated that she likes the idea of down lighting.

Ms. Magyaros suggested a section regarding on-roof mechanical facilities, which would read as follows: “In the R-T Campus, all on-roof mechanical facilities, such as air conditioner units and satellite dishes, shall be screened on all sides to the height of the mechanical unit.  Such screening shall be complementary to the materials of the principal building.”

Mr. Benner stated that he thought this made sense.

The board agreed to include this language.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald regarding last week’s mention of requiring underground utilities.  Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he didn’t think this could be regulated through the township because it is up to the utilities as to where they put them, but he would do some research on the subject.  It was suggested that we could add to the language that underground utilities are encouraged.

Mr. Benner stated that he doesn’t care where the utilities are before they get to the R-T area, but once it gets to the R-T district it is a development and they are interested in have all utilities underground.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she doesn’t see it being any different than what is required for a development now.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the township does not require underground utilities for a development.

Ms. Conaway stated that they could put the language in and if someone wanted to challenge it they could.

Mr. Benner stated that he didn’t think anyone would fight it.

Ms. Poindexter stated that the board could include it if they wanted to but the township law director will review all the proposed language before it is written in stone and if there is a problem he will let us know.
Ms. Magyaros stated that she would call Mr. Fitzgerald regarding the issue.

Ms. Poindexter stated that she thought the board should seriously consider calling it the R-T District as opposed to Campus in order to be consistent because after all it is a district.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she spoke to Mr. Phillippi and he said if they wanted to keep the word campus in it then they may want to consider calling it the R-T Campus District because it is a district and it would be consistent.

Ms. Magyaros suggested the board continue the work session to August 11th.

Mr. Benner made a motion to continue the work session to August 11, 2005 at 5:00 pm. and Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Ms. Conaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

All was in favor.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector