ANDERSON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 2017 The Anderson Township Zoning Commission held a regular meeting, duly called, on, at 5:30 P.M. at Anderson Center. Present were the following members: Brian Elliff, Alternate, Jay Lewis, Patrick Reagan, Alternate, and Scott Boone Also present when the meeting was called to order were Paul J. Drury, Director, Ryan Feist, University of Cincinnati co-op student and Becky Campbell, Secretary. A list of citizens in attendance is attached. Jay Lewis will be Acting Chair for this meeting. Approval of Agenda Mr. Reagan moved, Mr. Boone seconded, to approve the Agenda, as written. A unanimous vote was taken. Approval of Minutes The March 27, 2017 minutes were postponed due to no quorum. Case 1-88 Anderson, 1270 Nagel Road Mr. Feist read the staff report for an application filed by Bob Carpenter, CSS Signs, Inc. on behalf of Cincinnati Federal Savings and Loan Association, property owner, located at 1270 Nagel Road, described in book 500, page 121, parcel 155, and zoned OO Office District. Mr. Feist stated the application was to approve a Major Modification to the Final Development Plan (FDP) to allow an expansion of the existing freestanding sign with the addition of an electronic message center. Mr. Feist stated that the tract size was 1.183 acres. The frontage was 248.83 on Nagel Road. The topography was relatively flat. The zoning for the surrounding properties to the north and east was OO Planned Office, to the
Page 2 south was E Retail, and to the west was B and C Residence. Mr. Feist stated that the applicant had proposed a modification to an existing, free standing sign at Cincinnati Federal. The modification would increase the total size of the sign from 32 SF to 48.5 SF (excluding the base). The proposed LED message board would cover less than 50% of the overall sign. The proposed sign would utilize the existing base (52.9 SF) which elevates the sign out of a detention basin for visibility along Nagel Road. Without the base (37 ), the sign is 51 ¼ in height. Since the overall height of the sign (base included) exceeds 6, the total area of the base and sign are included in the square footage of the sign. A variance for the modification is being requested from Article 5.5 G,1,e which requires a 32 SF maximum. Mr. Feist stated that in January of 1991, the original development plan for Case 1-88 comprised of a 40,000 SF office building for the site. Later in 1991, a Final Development Plan was approved which allowed the construction of the 2,500 SF Cincinnati Federal Savings and Loan building as well as the 10,000 SF Goddard School building. On September 24, 2001, a minor modification was approved for the relocation and expansion of the existing free standing sign. On October 28, 2013, a major modification was approved for a 50 SF freestanding sign (with electronic reader board) for The Goddard School which has not been constructed. Finally, on April 28, 2014, a major modification was approved for The Goddard School for a 5,900 SF addition. Mr. Feist stated that any modification to the approved Final Development Plan that fails to meet the requirements set forth in Article 5.1,C,1,e but does not infringe upon a specific requirement or standard as set forth in the development's approving Resolution as adopted by the Board of Township Trustees shall be considered a Major Modification to the Final Development Plan. An increase in the area of a freestanding sign meets this requirement. For approval, there shall be findings that any proposed changes to the Plan will be in substantial conformance with the intent of the approving Resolution including related conditions as adopted by the Board of Township Trustees. Mr. Feist stated that in the Zoning Resolution, Article 5.5 G,1,e requires maximum freestanding sign surface area per side to be 32 SF in OO districts. The applicant is proposing an increase in the current free standing sign from 32 SF to 48.5 SF (101 SF including stone base). Mr. Feist stated the applicant asserts the requested variance is in harmony with the intent of the OO Planned Office zoning classification. The grant of this variance and major modification allows Cincinnati Federal to identify its office
Page 3 and differentiate it from other institutions. The increase is needed for legibility of the message posted as the applicant believes smaller text on the free standing sign would be difficult to interpret for drivers and could potentially distract them when trying to make out the message. This variance thereby satisfies the intention for clients and visitors unfamiliar with the location to find the appropriate facility and know where they are supposed to go. Furthermore, granting this variance and major modification will not have adverse effects on any of the adjacent property owners or those in the vicinity. Mr. Feist stated that the applicant notes that current zoning code states that structures over 6 in height include the stone base area as signage, the existing 52.9 SF stone base is intended to bring the existing sign up to grade to make it visible from the street as the location of the sign is in a basin that stands around 2 below the rest of the property. Mr. Feist stated that staff recommends approval of the sign modification, as: 1. The proposed sign improvements are consistent with the approving resolution for the site and conditions contained in the case. 2. The proposed improvements are appropriate for the street frontage of the property (248 ) and the location of the sign, setback approx. 30 from the edge of pavement due to the large right-of-way. 3. The proposed sign, while larger than permitted in the office zoning district, is consistent with the sign approved for The Goddard School on the adjacent property. 4. The modification would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (i.e. water, sewage, garbage). 5. The modification allow for the applicant to realize a reasonable profit from the property, while not compromising the intent of the office zoning district. Bob Carpenter of CSS Signs, Inc. on behalf of Cincinnati Federal Savings and Loan Association, property owner of 1270 Nagel Road stated Mr. Feist explained the case well and he had nothing to add. Mr. Reagan asked if the messages would be broadcast 24/7 or just during the daylight hours. Mr. Carpenter, CSS Signs, Inc. replied they are programmable either way. Mr. Reagan asked what kind of messages the bank will display. Mr. Carpenter replied it would display items to promote business for the Bank. Mr. Schuler could probably answer non-technical questions.
Page 4 Mr. Elliff asked about the dimming features and impact on the residential across the street. Mr. Carpenter replied they have a multi stage photo sensor with 250 different settings and can be fine-tuned. The darker it gets outside, the dimmer the sign becomes. Everything is fine-tunable and can be reset based on standards. Mr. Elliff asked if the sign is on the lowest setting, how noticeable would be to the residents across the street. Mr. Carpenter replied that unless they are looking at it, it wouldn t be noticeable at all. It is no different than any other light in the area. Mr. Elliff asked what the basis of his statement that it would not be noticeable. Mr. Carpenter replied the settings are made to keep it from being a nuisance. It probably wouldn t be any more noticeable than any other light in the area unless it was scrolling, and it s all been programmed to meet zoning standards. Mr. Elliff asked how the new sign would fit in with his business as opposed to the current sign. Mr. Schuler replied that it s an updated sign, with their new logo. They would use it for community messages, i.e., Beechmont Players, consumer loans, their community shredding day on June 10. They worked with neighbors, i.e., Anderson Pub & Grill. He stated the neighbor across the street cannot see the lot from there because of his view from his property it is a dead spot. The basin was encouraged in 1995 by the Township for the community in regards to storm water run-off. The public hearing was closed at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Boone moved, Mr. Reagan seconded to approve Case 1-88 with the following recommendations: 1. The proposed sign improvements are consistent with the approving resolution for the site and conditions contained in the case. 2. The proposed improvements are appropriate for the street frontage of the property (248 ) and the location of the sign, setback approx. 30 from the edge of pavement due to the large right-of-way. 3. The proposed sign, while larger than permitted in the office zoning district, is consistent with the sign approved for The Goddard School on the adjacent property.
Page 5 4. The modification would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (i.e. water, sewage, garbage). 5. The modification allows for the applicant to realize a reasonable profit from the property, while not compromising the intent of the office zoning district. Vote: 4 Yeas Case 1-2017 PUD, 7716 Beechmont Avenue Mr. Drury read the staff report for an application filed by Greg Dale, McBride Dale Clarion, on behalf of 7716 Beechmont LLC, property owner, located at 7716 Beechmont Avenue, described in book 500, page 201, parcel 175, and zoned E Retail Business. Mr. Drury stated the application requested approval for a planned unit development application (PUD) to develop a 2,095 SF drive-thru restaurant. Mr. Drury stated the tract size was.697 acres. The frontage was approximately 130.23 on Beechmont Avenue. The topography was flat. The existing zoning to the north, south, east, and west was E Retail. Mr. Drury stated that the applicant had proposed the demolition of the existing restaurant (former KFC) and the construction of a 2,095 SF drive-thru restaurant (Tim Horton s). Eighteen parking spaces are proposed, and allowance for a future cross access with property to the east and west. Mr. Drury stated the former KFC was constructed in 1988. Zoning history on the site primarily consists of signage and façade improvements. Mr. Drury stated in addition to compliance with the Township s Zoning Resolution, the development is also being reviewed in light of adopted plans for this area, such as the Anderson Plan, the Beechmont Corridor and Vision Plans, Anderson Trails Plan, and the Anderson Township Design Guidelines. Mr. Drury stated the proposed site plan was in compliance with the Zoning Resolution, pertaining to retail zoned properties, except for the following: Article 5.3 (Parking, Loading, and Access) Article 5.3, D, 2, d parking space set back from right-of-way Article 5.3, D, 3 - parking stall size
Page 6 Article 5.3, D, 9 bicycle parking Article 5.3, J, 1, c off-street loading space Article 5.3, K (Table 5.13) parking lot lighting Mr. Drury stated the proposal was consistent with the goals and objectives of the Anderson Plan, and its recommendations for enhancing economic activities. The Future Land Use classification identifies the site for General Retail which is defined as community and regional-oriented business uses that tend to locate along highways with relatively high traffic volumes. Development in these areas may also include mixed-use developments that contain a mixture of retail commercial, service commercial uses, office space, and residential dwellings. This restaurant use meets this description of General Retail Use. Mr. Drury stated that the application was consistent with the following Goals of the Anderson Plan: Quality of Life: Residents will maintain a high quality of life that includes quality schools, entertainment, and cultural activities, health care, religious offerings, and a diverse parks, open space, and recreation system. Economic Health: Anderson Township will have an expanded and diverse tax base with an increasing amount of land developed for a mixture of nonresidential uses with a focus on attracting new businesses and promoting existing businesses. People and Housing: The Township should provide a variety of businesses and housing options to meet changing demographics and market demands. Land Use and Development: Anderson Township will be a well-planned community with a mixture of agricultural uses, residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, and an industrial base balanced with public uses, parks, and recreational uses. Beechmont Avenue will be a viable and attractive destination for local residents and a regional destination for the larger community. Anderson Trails Plan The proposed development identifies pedestrian connectivity including a sidewalk from the main entrance that will connect to a sidewalk along Beechmont Avenue. The Township is constructing the Beechmont Avenue sidewalk with the Downtown Anderson streetscape project, slated for construction later this year.
Page 7 Downtown Anderson Plan / Beechmont Plans The site falls within the Downtown Anderson in which The Downtown Anderson Plan notes the following Guiding Principles: 1. Establish a unique, downtown identity and character 2. Create a walkable and accessible pedestrian-oriented environment 3. Develop vibrant and active outdoor gathering spaces 4. Guide redevelopment of existing properties oriented towards open spaces Mr. Drury stated as stated earlier, the Township is implementing the streetscape recommendations of the Downtown Plan later this year. These improvements consist of a wider sidewalk, landscaping, and pedestrian scale lighting. The proposed development achieves the following of the Downtown Plan: The building is sited with a 30 front yard setback. While a front yard setback of 10-15 is desired, the 30 setback accommodates a drive-thru and elimination of one curb cut. The proposed building is oriented toward Beechmont Avenue with pedestrian connections and parking along the side and rear. Future cross access to the east and west is proposed in the rear of the property. Staff suggests the following elements of the Downtown Plan be considered by the applicant: The appearance of a two-story building, roof forms such as gables and dormers that create a unique environment Human scaled architectural elements to contribute to the unique pedestrian environment of the Downtown Anderson area. Outdoor dining area. Incorporation of more green area on the site. Mr. Drury stated that the following are areas consistent with the Design Guidelines and areas recommended to come into compliance: Site Planning, Architecture: please see above Landscaping, Lighting and Signage: Landscaping is provided along the Beechmont Avenue frontage with the Township s streetscape project, as well as additional landscaping by the applicant. Staff is of the opinion that additional
Page 8 landscaping should be provided on the site through interior landscape islands and perhaps perimeter landscaping through a reduction in drive aisle lane widths. A lighting plan was submitted however there are areas that do not meet foot candle levels at the property line. This should be adjusted to be in compliance with Article 5.3, K (Table 5.13). The wall signage package submitted is compliant with the Zoning Resolution and the Township Design Guidelines. The existing free-standing sign on the property is nonconforming as it has a setback of 6 from the edge of pavement where 10 is required. Staff is of the opinion a monument style sign is more in keeping with objectives of the Design Guidelines which state: Create distinctive signage that is compatible with quality architecture and site design. Reduce visual clutter along roadways in Anderson Township. Protect the investment of commercial interests throughout Anderson Township by establishing a quality benchmark for future signage. Mr. Drury stated that staff feels that the following is consistent with the Planned Unit Development evaluation criteria: 1. The building location is consistent with the existing E Retail requirements of the Anderson Township Zoning Resolution, the general retail land use category of the Anderson Plan, as well as the requirements of the Zoning Resolution, with the exceptions noted above. 2. The application is consistent with the Vision and Goals of the Board of Trustees as outlined in the adopted Anderson Plan. 3. The use is compatible with surrounding retail land uses and will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses. 4. The project enables adequate protection of surrounding property and orderly and coordinated improvement of property in its vicinity. 5. The development can be substantially completed within a minimal period of time to avoid disruption to adjacent properties. 6. The proposed development is served adequately and efficiently by essential public facilities and services, which are already in existence. ODOT has given preliminary approval to the proposed access points. 7. There are no scenic or historic features, as identified or contained in plans duly adopted by the Anderson Township Board of Township Trustees and Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, which would not be conserved. 8. Sidewalks are proposed to tie into the existing pedestrian network along
Page 9 Beechmont Avenue. 9. The development would not be detrimental to surrounding uses. Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The sign package shall be resubmitted to reflect an accurate site plan, elevation drawings, and a monument style sign, consistent with the Downtown Plan. 2. A future cross access easement shall be recorded in favor to the properties to the east and west, prior to final occupancy of the building. 3. A lighting plan shall be re-submitted in compliance with minimum lighting requirements of the Anderson Township Zoning Resolution. 4. The exit only drive located in an easement for the adjacent property to the east shall be removed if / when that property is redeveloped. 5. The parking lot shall be re-designed to be in compliance with the Anderson Township Zoning Resolution, including parking stall size, loading space, bicycle parking, and setback from right-of-way. 6. The dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of materials to match the building. Mr. Greg Dale with McBride Dale Clarion, 5720 Dragon Way on behalf of Tim Horton s and Marty Writtenhouse with QSR7, the Developer. Mr. Dale stated they are fine with the conditions except for the sign. They appreciate staff s monument sign but think it would not be visible to westbound approach. The applicant proposes redesigning the parking by removing the first two parking spaces in the front and add green space there and in the rear and to use the existing sign but move it slightly to the west where the current driveway is located. The applicant asked for relief on the monument sign and the parking space shortage. Mr. Elliff asked are the dimensions of the loading space and where would it be located. Mr. Writtenhouse stated it s in back to the right, on the east side of property. Mr. Elliff commended them for being on-board with the cross access easement and that it s an odd situation. There are some property rights issues going on. If you put that easement in place, the physical barrier curbs on that property could be saw cut and removed. Mr. Writtenhouse stated they are fine with this but the other property owners would have to agree. Mr. Elliff stated with regard to the sign, it won t take the traffic on Beechmont long to figure out their location and access points. Mr. Writtenhouse replied
Page 10 they are an impulse, convenience type place wanting to capture the unfamiliar traveler on Beechmont and not getting business due to signage and could provide a case study as an example of good and bad signage. Visibility is important for business and imperative to their success and hopes that the Township realizes this. He stated the existing sign proposed to them would be substantially smaller and may not allow someone to get into the proper lane to turn safely into the property. Mr. Boone asked if a monument sign would be an obstruction. Mr. Reagan asked about their environmentally sustainable practices they incorporate into their construction methods for Tim Hortons. Mr. Writtenhouse replied he didn t know the specifics of the building materials but he could obtain more information. Mr. Reagan asked if one ingress and egress would cause traffic to back up onto Beechmont since 80% of business is from the drive thru. Mr. Writtenhouse replied the width of that front aisle is about 15 wide. They don t foresee any problems. Mr. Reagan asked if the proposed green spacing fits in with the site and is it more or less consistent with other Tim Horton s locations. Mr. Writtenhouse replied he thought it was a little bit more. Mr. Boone asked if the monument sign would cause any blockage from customers pulling in and out. Mr. Writtenhouse replied he did not know because there wasn t a monument sign there. Mr. Drury stated the setback requirements are out of that blocking sight so if it s at an intersection, it s required to be set back a little farther out of the sight distance triangle with the implementation of the downtown plan. Also keep in mind that lanes are going to be a little narrower and where you are pulling out will actually be farther out than what was seen in the picture. There will also be a wider sidewalk area. Mr. Lewis asked if ODOT will reduce speed in that section. Mr. Drury replied no. Mr. Boone asked if the two story facade would be something they would consider. Mr. Writtenhouse replied that he doesn t fully understand what you envision the end result would be.
Page 11 Mr. Boone asked if Tim Hortons would agree to turn a lane into an outdoor seating area if all parties agreed that their customers could come from the other lots. This would bring the restaurant closer to the road. Mr. Writtenhouse replied that it wasn t realistic. Mr. Lewis asked if there was an entrance on the west side for people to park and come in. Mr. Writtenhouse replied the entrance is on the east side of the building. Mr. Lewis asked about outdoor eating in the rear behind the restaurant where the landscaping is where cars are coming around as an option for an outdoor eating area. Mr. Dale replied they considered it where the landscaping is but with the drive thru that would not be an option. There is seating in the front. Mr. Drury replied that staff made recommendation to have seating in the front. Mr. Lewis asked where the drive thru waiting area would be. Mr. Writtenhouse replied there is still space to pull around to the front (south end of property) a 15 wide drive. He stated he hasn t seen it happen. Mr. Lewis asked what the hours are for operation. Mr. Writtenhouse replied from 6 am to 9 pm. With the opportunity to be 24 hours. Mr. Lewis asked if deliveries are limited to certain hours and if there is issues with a truck getting in and out. Mr. Writtenhouse replied typically one to two deliveries a week. He believes they come on Wednesday and Sunday. Mr. Lewis asked about the parking and since you are short on parking where will the employees park. Mr. Writtenhouse stated they will have six to nine employees. They would park farthest away. Joyce Buelsing of 7720 Beechmont, Buelsing LLC., located east of Tim Hortons stated there are a lot of trucks that go behind there. If it s going to be open to Wolfangel, trucks will be going that way instead of turning around in the parking lot behind her building. If there is a curb cut so traffic could come to the east, it s not getting you to a traffic light, it s congesting her area and eliminating parking in the back and LaRosa s is busy on Friday nights. She doesn t think it would be an advantage for them. Big Semi s will be cutting through rather than trying to turn out of LaRosa s driveway. The side where she has an easement is used by cars, no trucks or anything and she thinks the cars could come out the other way more to the east between LaRosa s and her property. It would also be a nuisance to all the neighbors who live behind them. She stated she would be at a disadvantage. Her husband lined all this
Page 12 up and he s been gone for 17 years and she knows there is an easement there. She thinks it would be to Tim Hortons advantage and she will lose parking in the back. Tom Fucito of LaRosa s at 7756 Beechmont stated we are not opposed to Tim Hortons. They are opposed to some of the issues that it s creating. It s difficult exiting from 4:00 pm to 7:00 pm which is The Lounge s happy hour and LaRosa s is busy at that time. Trying to make an exit heading east at that time of day with the traffic is difficult. He was concerns about losing parking for sidewalks. He wants to help make it work without too much sacrifice. Mr. Reagan asked what would be the ideal situation for the easements? A limited easement that would only apply to the situation between your properties and Tim Hortons or would it be no easement. Mr. Fucito replied without having representation advising what is best to do, he has in his mind what to do but it may not be good business. Mr. Reagan stated that the issue comes down to the easement being too congested with deliveries and customers. Mr. Fucito replied that is part of it and the other issue is loss of parking. He owns the lion s share of the egress on the LaRosa s side. Ms. Beulsing s would be from the telephone pole. Mr. Lewis asked how the sharing currently is done. Mr. Fucito replied they have an agreement to share all the parking spaces. Ms. Buelsing stated there are no parking spaces directly up against the warehouse in the back. If you put an opening for an egress it would eliminate a lot of the parking spaces that she currently has. She is not in favor of this. Mr. Drury stated Tim Hortons would allow for cross access when or if the neighbors can agree. The Public hearing was closed at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Reagan moved Mr. Boone seconded to approve Case 1-88 with the following recommendations: 1. The building location is consistent with the existing E Retail requirements of the Anderson Township Zoning Resolution, the
Page 13 general retail land use category of the Anderson Plan, as well as the requirements of the Zoning Resolution, with the exceptions noted above. 2. The application is consistent with the Vision and Goals of the Board of Trustees as outlined in the adopted Anderson Plan. 3. The use is compatible with surrounding retail land uses and will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses. 4. The project enables adequate protection of surrounding property and orderly and coordinated improvement of property in its vicinity. 5. The development can be substantially completed within a minimal period of time to avoid disruption to adjacent properties. 6. The proposed development is served adequately and efficiently by essential public facilities and services, which are already in existence. ODOT has given preliminary approval to the proposed access points. 7. There are no scenic or historic features, as identified or contained in plans duly adopted by the Anderson Township Board of Township Trustees and Hamilton County Regional Planning Commission, which would not be conserved. 8. Sidewalks are proposed to tie into the existing pedestrian network along Beechmont Avenue. 9. The development would not be detrimental to surrounding uses. This approval shall be based on the following conditions: 1. The sign package shall be resubmitted to reflect an accurate site plan and elevation drawings, as well as location of the freestanding sign. 2. A future cross access easement shall be recorded in favor to the properties to the east and west, prior to final occupancy of the building. 3. A lighting plan shall be re-submitted in compliance with minimum lighting requirements of the Anderson Township Zoning Resolution. 4. The exit only drive located in an easement for the adjacent property to the east shall be removed if / when that property is redeveloped. 5. The parking lot shall be re-designed to be in compliance with the Anderson Township Zoning Resolution, including parking stall size, loading space, bicycle parking, and setback from right-of-way.
Page 14 6. The dumpster enclosure shall be constructed of materials to match the building. 7. The landscaping plan shall be modified to show the future cross access connection. Vote: 5 Yeas The next regular meeting would be held on Monday, May 22, 2017, at 7:45 p.m. at the Anderson Center, 7850 Five Mile Road, Anderson Township, Ohio. Respectfully submitted, Jay Lewis, Acting Chair