WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 17, 2007
The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on April 17, 2007 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, and Mr. Anderson. Mrs. Zobrist was excused.
Call to order at 7:00 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
MOTION – Mr. Rogers moved the minutes of March 20, 2007 be approved as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
CASE Z-588G – Divided Ridge Associates, Ltd.
Request is for approval of a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage plan for the construction of a daycare center at the southwest corner of Sheehan Road and Social Row Road.
Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case.
Mr. Drain – Questioned if all the comments from Andy Ehrhart’s memo had been addressed.
Mrs. Postle – Yes. This current plan addressed those points.
Mr. Drain – Asked if the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office comment about the playground location had been addressed.
Mrs. Postle – Reviewed the fence location as submitted by the applicant. The Sheriff’s Office comment was not addressed.
Applicant represented by Greg Smith of Oberer Development Co., 2800 E. River Road, Dayton. Mr. Smith reviewed the proposal for the daycare and reviewed the sections of the Washington Trace development that have been installed.
Mr. Drain – Have the material requirements for the percentage of permanent materials, especially on the east side, been previously approved?
Mr. Smith – Indicated he will double-check but believes it to be alright.
Mr. Rogers – Stated it looks like materials other than those approved have been used in the construction.
Mr. Smith – Believes zoning allowed them to do other materials, like wood for trim.
Mr. Ehrhart – Will check into that.
Mr. Drain – Asked if this site was always intended for a day care.
Mr. Smith – Stated that the user, Joe and Cathy Valentour, will own the building, which will be a second day care facility. It should bring in 20 new jobs to the area. The daycare received approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals as required. Mr. Smith reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals case which was approved in February.
Mr. Drain – Will the park south of the site be a park with the Washington-Centerville Park District?
Mr. Smith – Yes. It is being donated to the Park District.
Walt Hibner of Oberer Development, 4197 Research Boulevard – Reviewed the daycare building and stated it will be an all brick building with access to the front of the building off a private drive located west of Sheehan Road.
Mr. Drain – Will it be fenced in on all sides except for the parking lot side?
Mr. Hibner – Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Rogers – Are the mounding and large boulders along Social Row Road there to protect the playground area?
Mr. Hibner – Yes.
Mr. Drain – Stated that boulders are a good idea.
Mr. Hibner – Stated the building has more of an office design and fits in well with the surrounding areas.
Mr. Drain – Isn’t there more land to the west for this use?
Mr. Hibner – A future church use will need the remaining parcel of land.
Mr. Drain – The west side of the building would be a better place for the playground. It is visible from the parking lot and would be away from the intersection.
Mr. Hibner – They are trying to use the land efficiently. Expanding the day care center lot would limit the church development.
Mr. Drain – Suggested moving the church another 20’ to the west to accommodate the relocation of the playground.
Mr. Anderson- Asked if all the siding and moulding are wood?
Mr. Hibner – Wood or composite material. The siding is the Hardi Plank product.
Mr. Anderson – The drawings indicate cedar shingle siding; not what you just indicated.
Ken Bowerman, 8050 Hosbrook Road, Cincinnati – Stated they are using the same materials as on the clubhouse. Hardi Plank has the same look as cedar but has lower maintenance. Other materials are similar in character and look but the Hardi Plank is lower maintenance and a longer life. Stated the drawings do reflect that.
Mr. Anderson – Stated the drawings could be clearer. If the drawings are approved, then they would dictate what gets approved.
Mr. Bowerman – Indicated they can revise the drawing to reflect the use of the exact materials.
Mr. Drain – Asked if relocating the playground is an option?
Mr. Hibner – Indicated they would need to confer with the potential owner and make a decision.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Holly Channell, 9236 Clyo Road – Agrees with Mr. Drain about the playground location particularly when Austin Pike develops.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Anderson – Feels it is a nice design of the building. Indicated the playground relocation issue will be difficult with the access from the building to the relocated playground. Mr. Anderson thinks the site could be reconfigured.
Mr. Rogers – Likes the building design; however, he does have concerns about the playground location. There are significant plans for the widening of Social Row Road.
Mr. Drain – Indicated the building looks fine and is a good use. It also ties in well with the development. Would like to see the applicant look at the playground location. Suggested coming back in May after discussing this with the owner/operator of the facility.
Mr. Hibner – Stated the safety of the children at the daycare is important. Agrees to take another look at the playground location and come back with revisions in May.
Mrs. Winwood – Questioned if the daycare could be located elsewhere on the 8-acre tract?
Mr. Hibner – The other access point is on the west side near the detention area and is not a good location. Feels it would be better to stay with this location and just reconfigure the plans.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-588G to table applicant’s request for approval of a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage plan for the construction of a daycare center at the southwest corner of Sheehan Road and Social Row Road to allow applicant the opportunity to look at relocation of the playground on the site and also to update the plan with appropriate building material information.
Motion seconded by Mr. Rogers.
VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-588G tabled.
CASE Z-668C – Simms Maple Run, Ltd.
Request is for approval to modify a previously approved building elevations plan for property located in a Planned Development Residential Multi-family (PD-RM) zoning district.
Andy Ehrhart , GIS & Zoning Manager, presented the case and indicated applicant is asking to add a two-story duplex unit. The developer is seeking approval to mix units (models A, B, & H, as shown on the plans) with the understanding that a two-story duplex (H/H) would not be allowed.
Mr. Rogers – Questioned the staff comment about flexibility of different unit combinations.
Mr. Ehrhart – Attempted to describe the applicant’s request for any combinations of units except the H/H option.
Applicant represented by Charles Simms, 4880 Walther Road. Mr. Simms explained the request is for a two-story unit type. It is a larger unit but with a smaller footprint.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Tony Koesters, 8734 Scarlet Ridge – Stated the development has always been represented as single-story for empty nesters and it now seems they keep getting bigger units. The second story concept goes against the original plan and it seems to increase the density and is steering away from the original plan.
Mr. Drain – Indicated changes to the plan have to come through the Zoning Commission for the public to have the opportunity to comment. There is a process.
Mr. Koesters – Stated he is concerned how many modifications are going to be allowed. He is not opposed; however, he is concerned about the changes.
Mr. Simms – Addressed Mr. Koesters and indicated the development is still an empty nester product and the density has actually decreased. The end result is 2.7 units per acre and there are no significant future changes expected at this time.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Anderson – Doesn’t see the change as a major issue.
Mr. Drain – Feels it is a quality development and the change doesn’t detract from the site.
Mr. Rogers – Agrees with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Drain and doesn’t see a problem with giving the developer the flexibility to interchange the units.
Mrs. Winwood – Would also like to see basements included.
Mr. Simms – Indicated the site is not conducive for basements to be included.
MOTION – Mr. Rogers moved in Case Z-668C to approve applicant’s request for approval to modify a previously approved building elevations plan for property located in a Planned Development Residential Multi-family (PD-RM) zoning district, subject to: 1) combining Unit H with either Unit A or Unit B; 2) staff comments; and 3) keeping screened porches as an option as previously approved.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.
VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-668C approved with modifications.
CASE Z-681A – Joseph & Bonnie Mercuri, 2406 E. Spring Valley Pike
Request is for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) first stage to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage for the construction of a new senior independent living community.
Mr. Drain – Indicated that Mr. Rogers would be abstaining from hearing this case thus leaving 3 members to hear this case. Mr. Drain gave applicant the opportunity to table this case until 4 members were present to hear this case.
Applicant opted to proceed with the case.
Jo Postle, Development Services Director, presented the case and reviewed the various living units and amenities.
Mr. Drain – Stated his issues with the permeable space being considered open space. Asked staff to calculate the “open” space, meaning the undeveloped, unoccupied areas, within the development.
Mr. Anderson – Questioned if the 100-year flood plain had been identified.
Mrs. Postle – Applicant had not indicated that.
Mr. Drain – Asked about the spacing between buildings and setbacks.
Mrs. Postle – Showed areas where the buildings will be close to each other. Applicant indicated a minimum of 15’ setback between buildings.
Mr. Drain – Stated they did not have much information on the building materials.
Mrs. Postle – Did get some information on elevations but applicant is prepared to address this to the Commission.
Applicant represented by David Montgomery, 2700 Kettering Tower. Mr. Montgomery reviewed the plan and indicated the development has an age restriction of 62 yrs. old entering into long-term lease agreements. The facilities within the development are all private and would be used only by residents and guests. The lodge is the primary focal point. Mr. Montgomery stressed it is not a nursing home and they will not have medical staffing. It is an independent living facility with convenience uses that will be available for the residents. There will be a maximum of 15 rooms in the guest house. Mr. Montgomery addressed the street layout which has been configured to avoid cut through traffic by using a serpentine layout, raised pedestrian crossings and posted speed limit of 7.5 mph. Applicant is prepared to follow the recommendation of the traffic study which includes adding a left turn lane into the development on Clyo Road. They intend to provide group transportation by using vans and small buses for group excursions for the residents.
Mr. Montgomery also mentioned that the minutes of the Zoning Commission approval of the preliminary case detailed the discussion about using impervious/pervious with regard to 80% open space requirement.
Eric Sauer, 5600 Kentshire Drive – Explained that 11.5 acres will consist of built structures with the addition of 13.22 acres of permeable materials like brick pavers. The remainder is considered “true green space.”
Mr. Drain – Is that about 24 acres of impervious/pervious surface which is about 30% of the total acreage?
Mr. Sauer – Yes, which is why we want to explain our approach with regard to permeable surfaces.
Mr. Sauer reviewed the reason why they chose to cluster buildings together to create a sense of proximity for the residents. The shape of the lodge is designed to fit the land around it. There will be grouping of units to be occupied by residents with similar interests. The average setback is 24’ between buildings. They are asking to be allowed to reduce that to 15’ minimum between some buildings as indicated on the site plan. Mr. Sauer indicated they will revise the storm water detention for onsite irrigation.
Mr. Sauer addressed the design for limited cut through traffic. The average speed limit permitted will be around 7.5 mph. Their goal is to keep all of the parking off street. They are also limiting delivery truck sizes to 35’ in length.
Jim Alt, Suite B, 2440 Dayton-Xenia Road – Indicated they are attempting to avoid an institutional look to the project. The overall look will consist of timber frame, arts and crafts with extensive use of stone. They reviewed the different types of structures on the site and described the building materials and color palette.
Mr. Drain – Confirmed there would be vinyl siding.
Mr. Alt – Yes, it will be Hardi Plank.
Mr. Anderson – Asked for the status of the John Kirby house.
Mr. Montgomery – Indicated they have been working with Landmark Foundation to move the house. It has been studied thoroughly and they have offered to give the house away. Several individuals have evaluated the house but there are no takers and incorporating it into the development would require major renovation which would destroy any historical significance. Mr. Montgomery submitted a letter containing a summary of the evaluation of the house from Fred Mitchell who is a historical expert. They are willing to continue to explore options with regard to moving the house but there are no takers.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Mr. Drain recognized a letter the Zoning Commission received from Alice DeBell and noted it will be placed on file. Mr. Drain also provided a copy to the developer. Ms. DeBell expressed her concern about the proposed development including no option for the next level of care for senior citizens.
Dohn Roush, 9385 Woodledge Point – Lives on the east end of the creek and has erosion problems. His concern is the water flow from the development into the subject creek. Also many of the residents around him have invested in the restoration of the hillside along the creek. Mr. Roush also stated the entrance at Spring Valley Pike and Deep Forest is at the crest of a hill and can be dangerous for residents leaving the development onto Spring Valley Pike.
Holly Channell, 9236 Clyo Road – Stated she does not consider the pavers as part of the 80% green space. Pavers will heat up the atmosphere. She has a concern with the traffic on Clyo Road at Saddlecreek and the main entrance of White Oak creating a dangerous condition. Ms. Channell referenced several accidents that have occurred in that area over the last few months. She also feels the density is too much. It was her understanding that the John Kirby house was staying on the development as a mini farm. Feels the surrounding residents will get a negative impact from the development and all amenities are for the development only. The developer should allow public use of the bike and walk trails within the development.
Michael Malone, 9498 Clyo Road – Has a concern with the lighting of the residences and amenities. Stated he has not heard any specifics on the lighting for the development and feels there will be a negative impact on the surrounding residents.
Mr. Drain – Stated there is a need to ensure that there is no spillover from the lights.
Tom Crothers, 2563 Timber Brook Lane – Has great concerns with the water volume and the water flow associated with the creek on the property. Have they taken the Saddlecreek development into consideration? Mr. Crothers would like to hear about the analysis of the proposed drainage plan. Stated the creek fills up quickly when rain occurs. He is concerned with the velocity of the water.
Mr. Drain – Presented Mr. Crothers with a copy of the storm water plan/analysis which was submitted by the applicant.
Danny Allen, 2190 E. Spring Valley Pike – Questioned if the tree line will remain along the east side and maybe the addition of a berm as a buffer? Also questioned if his Agricultural zoning district will change due to this development?
Mr. Drain – No, the zoning of this new development is separate. Yours will remain as is.
Mr. Drain – Asked the applicant to address the citizens’ comments. Staff is to confirm that the entrances line up with the existing roads (Saddlecreek and Deep Forest).
Mr. Montgomery – Stated they are complying with all density requirements as outlined in the preliminary approval. They have also complied with specific requirements regarding square footage and multi-family densities.
In reference to the access concerns, Mr. Montgomery indicated the traffic study was conducted to determine the impact this development would have on the existing roadways. Staff was asked to check on the site distance issue with Montgomery County. The traffic study shows specifically less trips generated by the senior residents than the typical single family developments would generate.
The drainage concerns of the residents to the east of the development should not be impacted due to runoff restrictions imposed on the development. Mr. Sauer indicated the discharge will be equal to pre-development for rate and volume.
John Chico, 8529 Byers Road, Miamisburg – Referenced the flood plain issue and stated the creek is currently being studied. No flood plain elevations have been determined at this time. However, preliminary studies show an additional 8’ to 10’ of elevation from flood plain to proposed buildings. He added that the flood plain will be contained in the ravine.
Mr. Drain – What about the 100-year storm?
Mr. Chico – Indicated the buildings are 8’ to 10’ higher than that storm. The existing problem to the east is about convergence of 2 large drainage areas. Mr. Chico reiterated that the conditions reported are an existing problem. Applicant’s drainage plan will reduce runoff (current to what is developed) but this site is about 3% of the total volume going into the stream so this won’t solve the current problem.
Mr. Sauer – They are evaluating the tree line along the east side of the property and will probably maintain the existing tree line and also add evergreens and other landscaping to create an effective screen. He felt this area is not appropriate for mounding.
Mr. Alt – Addressed the lighting issues. He stated the majority of the lights will be bollards, decorative and ground mounted. All the lighting will be directed to the interior of the development with zero foot candles at the property line. The adjacent residents will not see any light source. There will be no pole mounted overhead lighting and the buildings will have feature lights. Mr. Alt agreed to submit a lighting plan.
Mr. Montgomery – They will explore the idea of allowing public access to trails through the site; however, it may be unlikely due to liability. The trails through the property would be difficult to accommodate since they are private roads. They are not willing to commit to this because it goes against the general concept of the development. The developer only committed to try to accommodate the John Kirby house at the preliminary approval but has not been able to achieve that to date.
Mr. Anderson – Asked if they would consider permanent deed restrictions assuring permanent open space and no further development to avoid nursing home concerns.
Mr. Montgomery – May be able to do preservation easement on the open space but would have to come to the Township for approval for any changes to the facilities. That is the mechanism they would use.
Mr. Anderson – Stated this suggested easement would provide permanent promise of no further development.
Mr. Montgomery – Indicated they would not want to restrict future options that much.
Mr. Drain – Agreed that the zoning process is the way to go.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Anderson – Indicated the intent of open space in the previous approval was meant as undeveloped space.
Mr. Drain – Felt initially the concept was unique and interesting. This plan does a good job of addressing the points of the initial approval. Thinks the Commission has addressed the residents’ concerns. Feels the plan is a good use of the property and 4 units per acre is good density. Indicated that the Commission is in the process of developing a new zoning district that would allow higher residential density when associated with open space. Thinks it is a good development and questions were well addressed by the applicant.
Mr. Anderson – Feels there are some unresolved issues that the developer has indicated they will address. Questioned if applicant needs to come back before the Commission or outline the conditions as part of the approval?
Mr. Drain – Didn’t see any serious issues. Mentioned the lighting and preservation of trees to the east for buffering. Also stated that the signage was not mentioned and questioned if staff approves of the signage.
Mr. Ehrhart – Yes, we have reviewed the signage package and approve.
Mrs. Winwood - Still concerned with the 20%/80% open space issue and not sure this has been addressed. Questioned what keeps the roads private?
Mr. Ehrhart – Stated it is more about the design of the roads and maintenance of the roads that consider them private. It is not so much about who uses the roads. That is up to the developer to monitor as they see fit.
Mrs. Postle – Explained the open space. Discussed the definition as referred to in the resolution versus their concept of open space.
Mr. Drain – Did they meet the 80%/20% requirements in the preliminary approval process? Feels they need to make that a stipulation of recommendation.
Mrs. Winwood – Would be more comfortable tabling the case.
Mr. Drain – Didn’t feel there was enough to hold up the process.
Mr. Anderson – Stated it is a well thought out proposal; however, he would like to make sure it complies with the regulations.
Hearing closed.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-681A to approve applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) first stage to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage for the construction of a new senior independent living community, subject to: 1) staff comments; 2) the development plan meeting all the conditions as set forth in Case Z-681; 3) the lighting plan be submitted prior to this case being heard before the Trustees; 4) the tree buffer on the east property line be maintained and additional evergreens added to the single-family residence area.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
Mrs. Winwood – Indicated the motion did not cover the open space requirement.
Mr. Drain – Stated that is outline in the preliminary approval; however, it is up to the Trustees to decide about the open space requirement.
AMENDED MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-681A to approve applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) first stage to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second and final stage for the construction of a new senior independent living community, subject to: 1) staff comments; 2) the development plan meeting all the conditions as set forth in Case Z-681, adding that the Zoning Commission is not convinced that this complies with the open space requirement; 3) the lighting plan be submitted prior to this case being heard before the Trustees; 4) the tree buffer on the east property line be maintained and additional evergreens added to the single-family residence area.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-681A approved with modifications.
In other business:
Staff updated the Commission on Case Z-677A, Elizabeth Diamonds. The applicant has been issued a zoning certificate to occupy the existing building since the zone change was approved. The building addition will not be completed as part of this initial use of the existing building. The applicant needed to move into the building sooner than originally anticipated. The building addition will happen sometime in the future. There was brief discussion about zone change approvals which allows use changes to occur before approved planned development is initiated. In this case, use occupancy involved mostly changes to the interior so no major issues, but the Commission needs to keep in mind that rezoning is in place allowing uses to occupy even before approved planned development is installed. Bob Surdyk, Washington Township Law Director, may be able to provide some guidance with regard to addressing this as part of the formal motions passed by the Commission. This issue to be discussed further at future meetings.
Mr. Drain mentioned he will not be attendance at the May 15, 2007 Zoning Commission Meeting and Mr. Rogers will act as Chairperson. It was established that there will be two other Commission Members present to hear Case Z-588G, which was tabled this evening.
Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.
________________________________
Harry Drain, Chairman
Washington Township Zoning Commission