MR. BECKMAN advised that the approval process for the CRA will be completed in approximately two weeks. Mr. Beckman reviewed the process for the applications. Mr. Beckman questioned how the Board would like to proceed with the review application at the Township level. Mr. Beckman suggested that the Board could review, that a committee could be appointed, or this placed with the current Ad Hoc Master Plan Committee.
Mr. Beckman stated he would like the Board to start thinking about this matter for further discussion at a future meeting.
MRS. WAGNER moved to amend Permament Appropriation 14-A-7 (EMS - Repairs) from $9,000.00 to $14,000.00. Mr. Bryant seconded the motion and the roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Wagner - 'aye'; Mr. Bryant - 'aye'; Mr. Beck - 'aye'.
Mrs. Wagner moved to approve an expenditure (Then & Now) in the amount of $5,279.58 for emergency mechanical and electrical repairs to Medic 60. Mr. Beck seconded the motion and the roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Wagner - 'aye'; Mr. Bryant - 'aye'; Mr. Beck - 'aye'.
MR. BECKMAN reminded the Board that the Township has been working on the development plans for the Meade Park Project. The Board of Zoning Appeals heard this conditional use request and, based on concerns expressed by residents, is requesting the Township to construct a fence between the abutting property owners and the parking lot. The Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that a six foot high privacy fence be constructed and the parking lot be re-located a minimum of forty-five feet from the property line.
Mr. Beckman reviewed several plans which addressed these conditions and questioned how the Board wished to proceed.
MR. BRYANT advised he was present at the Board of Zoning Appeals and heard the concerns expressed by the residents. Mr. Bryant questioned what exactly is being requested.
SUMMER LINGER stated there are safety concerns on children running into the parking area and being hit by a vehicle. Mrs. Linger further stated that there is no other parking area within other parks that are as close as this proposed one.
Mrs. Linger further stated that the neighbors were advised that this was a done deal and expressed concern that they did not have an opportunity to provide input.
MRS. WAGNER stated she would like to see the mature tree remain and questioned if the residents could construct a fence on their property. Mrs. Wagner further stated that she felt it was their responsibility to keep the children safe.
KARI YEOMANS, Esq. stated the neighbors are requesting that the parking lot be re-located on this property instead of being constructed next to the property line. Mrs. Yeomans requested the Board to listen to the concerns and not just approve the bare minimum required.
MR. BRYANT stated he did not feel that a berm alone would be sufficient to protect the children without the construction of a fence.
MRS. LINGER stated she heard that the Township was required to provide a parking lot for the log house.
MR. BRYANT stated the Board is providing a parking lot for the entire project.
MRS. LINGER stated that there is plenty of room to move the parking lot back further onto the property which will make it further away from the neighbors and make it more accessible to the log house and the Cincinnati Horticultural Society needs.
LISA CRISAFI - Expressed concern that the residents' concerns were not taken into consideration in the development of this plan. Mrs. Crisafi stated she would like to see the parking lot placed further back towards the natural vegetation. Mrs. Crisafi presented pictures of the parking areas in the other parks and noted that all lots are at least one hundred feet from a property line.
MR. BRYANT stated that the Board needs to determine and understand what costs would be associated with the development of a larger berm and additional landscaping for which the residents are requesting. Mr. Bryant questioned if the residents would be willing to maintain the Township property which would be located on their side of the berm.
MRS. LINGER stated she would like to see a fence should the parking lot remain in its current position.
MR. BECKMAN presented the Board with correspondence received from another neighbor would has indicated that they were not in favor of the fence.
Mr. Beckman reminded the Board that the placement of the restroom was determined in order to permit use by visitors to the log house as well as the park. The plans were developed based on the goals of the Township and the Cincinnati Horticultural Society.
MR. MALLOY advised that the entity having imminent domain has the responsibility of determing any public purpose on a property. It is the Township's responsibility to determine that public purpose and to make decisions based on that determination.
NIGEL CHALKEY - Stated he is with the Cincinnati Horticultural Society. A parking area is required for the planned development of this property and many students will be brought to this park on buses for educational purposes. The reason for the present location is that it is a natural area and there is no mature vegetation. Other locations would require the removal of existing vegetation and habitat. This is the only remaining area within the Township that is considered natural. The main entrance to the Society's development will be from this side of the property.
MRS. YEOMANS questioned if there would be any clearing necessary for the proposed buildings.
MR. CHALKEY noted that the Society plans on keeping as much existing vegetation as possible.
MRS. LINGER expressed concern that the Society does not agree with the re-location of the parking area.
MR. BRYANT questioned what problems the Township would have in trying to re-locate the parking lot at the minimum distance required by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
CRAIG HONKOMP, KLEINGERS & ASSOC. - Stated that the minimum distance could be obtained with the removal of the tree. A compromise between Option 1 and Option 2 is possible.
MR. BECK stated it appears that a fence is needed between the parking area and the residents. Due to concerns expressed by the residents, a barrier is required in order to prevent children was running onto the parking area. The question is where the fence begins/ends and what type of fence is necessary - a split rail with mesh or a privacy type fence. The parking area could still be located in the current position with the construction of a fence.
MR. BRYANT questioned what was more important to the residents - no bus parking or moving the lot back.
MRS. LINGER stated keeping the children safe is their main concern.
MR. BRYANT moved to accept Option 1, as presented, which meets the conditional requirements imposed by the Board of Zoning Appeals with the construction of a six foot privacy fence along the property line and placement of the proposed parking lot a minimum of forty-five feet from the property line. Mr. Beck seconded the motion.
MR. BECK expressed concern that Option 1 allows for bus parking and stated that he is not in favor of having buses remain within the parking lot. This would create a visual impact for the residents. The main difference between Option 1 and Option 2 is that the bus parking is eliminated and a drop-off area is provided.
MR. HONKOMP stated the Board could eliminate the bus parking in Option 1 (which still allows for the bus to make a turn) and the setback would be approximately fifty-five feet.
MR. BECK moved to amend the motion in order for the Township to set stipulations in order to provide guidance to the Township's architect with the understanding that the Board is leaning towards Option 2, with no tree, and with the construction of a fence. Mr. Bryant seconded the motion.
MR. BRYANT questioned if this change would allow for the bus movement.
MR. HONKOMP stated it would.
MR. BRYANT questioned what would be the procedure for adoption of this motion.
MR. MALLOY stated the Board could vote on the original motion with the amendment or withdraw and present a new motion.
MR. BRYANT moved to withdraw the original motion for the acceptance of Option 1. Mr. Beck seconded the motion and the roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Wagner - 'aye'; Mr. Bryant - 'aye'; Mr. Beck - 'aye'.
MR. BECK moved to proceed with Option 2, as presented, with no bus parking provided and with the construction of a fence along the south property line. Additionally, the parking lot will be moved further north, with the removal of the existing tree), in order to provide for the minimum setback requirement established by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Bryant seconded the motion.
MR. BECK stated he is allowing for the removal of this tree with the understanding that the Cincinnati Horticultural Society will provide appropriate landscaping in the parking area. The fence is the only way to resolve the safety issues expressed by the residents.
The roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Wagner - 'aye'; Mr. Bryant - 'aye'; Mr. Beck - 'aye'.
MRS. LINGER questioned what was the Board's final decision.
MR. BECK advised that, in order to address the safety concerns, the Board has agreed that there has be to a six foot privacy fence along the south property line. The parking lot will be pushed to the north due to the Board of Zoning Appeal's requirement.
MR. BRYANT noted that the fence will on the property line.
MRS. LINGER stated that she will still be able to see the parking lot and questioned if there could be a berm.
MR. BECKMAN noted that a berm would not provide for total security of the property since there is a portion where a fence could not be constructed.
MRS. LINGER stated that she prefers to have a berm along the property line in order not to see the parking area and would be willing to plant landscaping in order to keep her children from going into that area. Mrs. Linger thanked the Board for moving the parking area.
MR. BECK stated he would like to make an amendment to his motion. The Board agreed it would be best to start over.
Mr. Beck moved to rescind the previous motion. Mr. Bryant seconded the motion and the roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Wagner - 'aye'; Mr. Bryant - 'aye'; Mr. Beck - 'aye'.
Mr. Beck moved to approve a variation of Option 2 to provide for the Board of Zoning's requirements by constructing a six foot high privacy fence and moving the parking pavement forty-five (45) feet from the property line. The tree will be removed and will be replaced with suitable landscaping by the Cincinnati Horticultural Society and there will no bus parking. The three foot high earth berm, currently in the bid document, will be varied in order to provide a berm area west to the woods and east to the detention area and said fence will be placed on top of the berm area. Mr. Bryant seconded the motion.
MR. BRYANT expressed concern that this new fence will now be nine feet from the property line and will cause a gap with the existing split rail fence.
MR. BECKMAN recommended that the fence be placed up to the woods.
MRS. LINGER stated she did not feel these residents will be happy with this placement.
MRS. WAGNER noted that the abutting property owners will have an additional nine feet of space.
The roll call vote was as follows: Mrs. Wagner - 'aye'; Mr. Bryant - 'aye'; Mr. Beck - 'aye'.
|
Minutes
