Sign-in sheets are attached at the end of the minutes as Exhibit A.

Sign-in sheets are attached at the end of the minutes as Exhibit A. It was noted that although the Commissioners are leading the meeting, because there are quorums of different public boards present at the meeting, the Prosecutor s Office recommended the process that each public board open and close the meeting accordingly as well as taking separate action to adopt the minutes. Commissioners opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. with Stephen D. Hambley and Sharon A. Ray present. Lafayette Township Trustees opened the meeting with John Crawford, Lynda Bowers and Donna Young present. Lafayette Township Zoning Commission opened the meeting with David Figgers, Dorothy Feron, Joetta Hutton, Ron Ziehm and Karen Schoonover present. Lafayette Township Board of Zoning Appeals opened the meeting with Paul Calvo, Jack Blank, Burlin Clevenger, and Dave Parker present. Mr. Hambley reviewed the proposed agenda: 1) introductions, 2) minutes adoption by each Board, 3) process review, 4) review of zoning text, pages 1-5, 5) public comment, and 6) adjournment. All Boards agreed to the agenda and introductions were made. Adoption of the Minutes: Ms. Ray moved to approve the minutes of September 24; Seconded by Mr. Hambley. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed both Commissioners voting AYE. Mrs. Bowers moved to approve and adopt the minutes of September 24 as the Township Trustees minutes; Seconded by Mrs. Young. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed all Trustees voting AYE. Mr. Figgers moved to approve and adopt the minutes of September 24 as the Township Zoning Commission minutes; Seconded by Mrs. Hutton. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed all Commission members voting AYE. There was no quorum of the Township Board of Zoning Appeals at the September 24 meeting and no action was necessary by this Board. Mrs. Geissman entered the meeting during the above action. Process Review: Mr. Hambley noted that today s newspaper indicated that the County Commissioners will be deciding the zoning for this particular parcel. That is not the intent. Commissioners are representing the property owners by bringing a proposal for zoning under PUD regulations to the Township. This PUD zoning is a request and in order to assure that it is a good request with value and benefits for all constituents, this open process is being undertaken. Once the request is submitted it becomes part of the Township process of review through the Zoning Commission and Trustees. It s the Trustees and Zoning Commission that will decide the zoning on that property. The Commissioners intent is to make this a viable and open process that demonstrates that this is a better way to come up with something new for a township. This is public land and the public process is needed, which is a better process in order to have a better result. Everyone was in agreement on the process. Zoning Text Review: Ms. Theken noted that at the last meeting there was some uncertainty about the kind of development being discussed and there were no regulations to compare with what was submitted. Text and some pictures for an industrial park in another community were sent out to give an idea 1

of the types of things that can be included such as cutbacks, uses, etc. The pictures are of an office park, Embassy Industrial Park, in Montrose. This information should be helpful in preparing the PUD text. There was a PowerPoint presentation showing views of landscaping islands in parking lots, around parking lots and buildings, and used as buffers as well as the driveways, walks and a picnic area. The regulations for this type of park required certain landscaping. The packets sent out also provided some definitions to be used in regulations, which are generally not developed until near the end of developing the regulations. Lafayette Township already has some definitions within their regulations that will be used for permitted uses. Mr. Hambley noted that the discussion on the proposed zoning text has been broken down into phases. The next meeting is scheduled for October 27, and a third meeting will probably be needed after that. At the October 27 meeting we should be able to determine how many more meetings will be needed. There is a smaller group preparing the draft text for these reviewed. There will be more definitions to be taken care of at the end of this process. He noted that at the last meeting there was consensus of the language for the Purpose and District Establishment. The next item to be reviewed is Section 4, General Plan Requirements. Section 4, General Plan Requirements A. Principally Permitted Uses: Concern was expressed at the last meeting relative to curtailing this list; however, Trina Devanney, Assistant Prosecutor, stated that as the discussion proceeded at the last meeting the list was curtailed and she is comfortable with the list. Concern was expressed relative to the hours for the corporate headquarters and offices, noting that traffic levels tie into the hours of operation. The university will have evening classes; they have to have flexibility to offer classes when residents prefer; in Akron the classes are offered until 9 or 10 p.m. A suggestion was made to have separate hours for the business park than the university; one gentleman stated that shorter hours for the business park would be preferred; need to allow for the township to determine otherwise. Concern relative to Professional Activities, clarification of sales versus marketing; determined that a better definition is needed. B. Permitted Limited Accessory Uses: Suggestion to remove outdoor signs from this section. Questions regarding workforce development/employee clinic; is this a training facility for the businesses within the development or part of the university; is this limited access use for within each specific primary use facility; at some time Medina Works may be housed in this facility. Better definition is needed to clarify; need to determine if this could become a principally permitted use. There was concern relative to limited a maximum of 1200 square feet for items such as a bank, coffee shop, newspaper/bookstore, and copy center. Example, a bookstore could need extra room for some of their use, such as for loading; it was noted the university could have a bookstore and coffee shop/cafeteria combined, which could require more than 1200 square feet. Suggestion: add unless otherwise stated which would give some flexibility and give the township authority to adjust the square footage. The only way to allow for discretion on plans submitted without going before the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances is to have the items conditionally permitted; the criteria could then be set at the time the plans come in. Suggestion: go through the list of permitted limited uses and attach conditions for each; Trustees and zoning can be flexible to keep space limits. Suggestion: define an educational institution; if the educational institution includes a bookstore, coffee shop, any of the other limited accessory uses, then it wouldn t work for the other principally permitted uses within the development. 2

Suggest: take the space limitation out; say instead that permitted limited accessory uses may occupy space as approved per the permitted plan; when the plan comes in, the designated board would have the authority to say whether the space is too much or too little. It was agreed that as part of the definition for principally permitted uses under educational institution they could include a book store or coffee shop. Permitted limited accessories are for things allowed within the principally permitted use facilities; it was agreed to add an area in to Section B.3. It was noted that the Township is not interested in having little coffee shops just anywhere in this area or bookstores like Borders. It was agreed that there not be a square footage number listed; that the permitted limited accessory uses may occupy space as approved in a permitted plan. There was a question raised whether a meeting/training facility or reception facility would be part a permitted limited accessory use within one of these structures or if the university would be providing this type of activity. The idea for locating near the university is that the university will have centralized training. C. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Similar use is already within Lafayette Zoning; these go through the Board of Zoning Appeals and they have to show they are similar to other permitted uses. D. Maximum Height of Structures: Plans will be reviewed for the type of fire suppression systems that will be used; would like to see sprinkler systems as a must with the higher structures being allowed; fire lanes will also be reviewed with the plans for the structures. It will be beneficial to have the availability of Medina City s equipment; will need to negotiate whether the response is for mutual aid or an automatic response; false alarms will be a problem with automatic response from the City of Medina. Suggestion: change the language from shall be up to 50 feet to shall not exceed 50 feet ; this suggestion was approved. The 50 feet could involve up to 4 floors; this is measured from the grade. Eric Market, resident, raised concern about the height of the buildings, particularly at the highest elevation points of the land. It was noted that the highest elevation is in the northeast quadrant of the property; for the educational buildings, the floor height is driven up to 14 to 16 due to the sprinkling system, duct work, electrical, etc.; the potential participants in the business park will also face this; this makes a 3-story building 48 ; this is why flexibility is needed in the height requirements. E. General Plan Area Landscape Buffering: The buffering for individual lots as they are subdivided is referred to later in sublot requirements; this section applies to the overall general plan area for the district and helps secure the perimeter with buffers. There was a review of map of the area to show the 150 feet buffering around the perimeter. The buffer along Rt. 162 is 200 feet. The buffer where the property abuts residential land is required to have 50 of buffer to be landscaped; the balance will be open space or can be used for parking. These are general conditions. The water main easement is 300 along the front (Rt. 162) and nothing is going to happen in that area; that s not abutting residential property; earth mounds may be included in the 150 area. There was concern expressed relative to buffering, the height of the buildings, and the possibility of seeing those buildings from the homes on Route 162. It was noted that the buildings will not 3

be 5 stories; there may be some ventilators on the top of the buildings, which would be centered on the tops at about table height and they would not be visible from the ground. There was a discussion about including the 200 foot buffer in this section; it was noted that the text already states that the landscape plan for this section has to be approved by the Trustees. It was noted that there are no plans at this time to remove the mature trees along the railroad track area; a small maintenance building is possible to the east part of the property and buffers will be there; the trees will be taken into consideration when they site their facilities. There was a concern expressed about having sidewalks or bike paths directly behind the homes on Lake Road. The intent is not to disturb the trees that line that property. F. Streets and Drives: There are 2 dedicated streets and they will not be less than the County Highway Engineer standards. G. Utilities: There was consensus with this section regarding underground utilities and the use of screening and landscaping for access boxes and terminals. Gateway Signs: There was a review of pictures of the University signs used in Akron; there is concern with the size of the signs and staying with a rural atmosphere for signs in this area. The sign may be allowed as a sublot sign along the new township road at the University s entrance, but it will have to be smaller. It was noted that the sign at the main entrance in Akron is 28 feet tall, including the base. The University is using this sign design at all campuses and they want to keep the image; it can be made smaller. Signs at the main entrances of the streets will have a different design. There was a review of signs from the Embassy Industrial Park signs and a review of the materials used for the University signs. The intent is that in the general plan area to talk about the signs at the next meeting and then get into the sublots, which will be more specific. That will need to have some flexibility, but needs to show potential tenants what the buildings, signage, landscaping, etc. will be allowed. Public Comment/Questions: Through questioning, Mr. Hambley stated that we are working towards legislation that Lafayette Township will work with. The hope is to accomplish this before the end of the year. The County would like to have something in place so the Port Authority, who will basically be the developer of this land, can start working with this to get potential businesses in. By that time the University will have their basic architecture planned and they will have more details for their facilities as they submit their plans. Mr. Pierson stated that they are currently working on the programming to determine the actual numbers and sizes. They are also working on the best utilization for the site. One idea is a gazebo type facility that will mimic Medina s. They are reviewing where the facilities will go, noting that they need to stay off the stream and they want to keep with the topography. Relative to the Port Authority, there was a question whether Jim Gerspacher s appointment is a conflict of interest. Commissioners confirmed that this issue was discussed with Mr. Gerspacher. If there is any potential conflict Mr. Gerspacher will seek guidance from the County Prosecutor and bond 4

counsel before taking any action. He has an expertise and interest in the area of fiber optic network, which the Port Authority will be taking over. He is looked at as an asset because he has been involved in both the fiber optics and University Center. He is well aware of his boundaries on this board. Through questioning, Mr. Pierson stated that their consultants came in with 10 proposed plans for their parcel and those were narrowed down to 2. They are currently working on details now for review. Dave Mosgrove noted that he lives to the west of this property and asked that he be included in any discussions regarding storm water runoff. Mr. Hambley noted that work has already started with the Soil & Water Conservation District and there will be a massive storm water management plan in place. Part of the purpose of this TPD, the attempt is to include the Chippewa Watershed Plan for the site. Mr. Pierson stated that in the development of their site plans the water easement shown on the map may adjust based on where the buildings can be located, which will be developed to keep their buildings out of the watershed area. That easement is not locked in to that specific location on the map. Mr. Hambley noted that there were discussions with the county s attorney for the transfer of land and that description is being eliminated. There is a need this waterline for the loop pressure and the University Center and Technology Park will need it to get water. The line will occur it s just not set where it will occur within the property at this time. Through questioning, it was noted that this area is in the county s plan for sanitary sewers. The sewer is already available for the Highway Garage, County Home and Park District. Some upgrades will be needed. There is enough capacity at the nearby pump station for this site. The next meeting will be on October 27 at 7:00 p.m. There was a brief discussion regarding the 10 acres north of this site. A proposal is being prepared by the current owner for that property. The Port Authority will review that proposal. They are working on the proposal with the Park District. There was a discussion regarding possible annexation, particularly if the county gets that 10 acres that is closer to the City of Medina. At this point it is up to whoever owns that property to go through the annexation procedures under the current annexation law. There is a balance test under the law and there is more leverage by the Township. Relative to wells in the residential area around this site and concerns about disruption of the existing wells, Mr. Hambley stated that in the past the County has done testing before and after construction to determine if there is any disruption, and commitments are made for resolution. This will need to be reviewed with the University. Relative to the roads, they are planned to be in place by next summer. At this time specific details have not come through on this. Mike Salay, Assistant County Engineer, is working on this through the Transportation Improvement District (TID). December 15 is the target for the bidding the roadway. There was no further discussion. There was a motion and second for the Board of Zoning Appeals to adjourn the meeting. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed all members voting AYE. There was a motion and second for the Zoning Commission to adjourn the meeting. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed all members voting AYE. 5

Mr. Crawford moved to adjourn the meeting; Seconded by Ms. Young. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed all Trustees voting AYE. Mrs. Geissman moved to adjourn the meeting; Seconded by Ms. Ray. There was no discussion. Roll Call showed all Commissioners voting AYE. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Attachments to the Minutes: Exhibit A Sign In Sheets Exhibit B PowerPoint Review of Text : Stephen D. Hambley Respectfully submitted, Sharon A. Ray Pamela J. Terrill, Clerk Patricia G. Geissman 6