The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on May 17, 2005 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Rogers, Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, Mrs. Zobrist, and Mr. Anderson.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

All in attendance were duly sworn in.

MOTION - Mr. Rogers moved the minutes of April 19, 2005 be approved with modifications.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

MOTION - Mr. Anderson moved the minutes of April 28, 2005 be approved with modifications.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.
VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

CASES Z-668 & Z-668A - Opal Ream (Charles Simms Development-Maple Run)

Request in Case Z-668 is for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) to Planned Development Multi-family (PD-RM) two stage. The proposed Planned Development requests first stage approval for 41 dwelling units on approximately 10.81 acres.

Request in Case Z-668A approval of a second and final stage plan in a Planned Development Multi-family (PD-RM) zoning district for 41 dwelling units on approximately 10.81 acres.

This property is located on the north side of Spring Valley Pike east of Yankee Street.

This case was tabled at the April 28, 2005 Zoning Commission meeting.

Mrs. Zobrist was excused from the April 28, 2005 meeting and, therefore, Mrs. Zobrist is unable to hear this case.

Mr. Rogers was excused from hearing this case due to a conflict of interest.

Andy Ehrhart, GIS & Zoning Manager, presented the case.

Applicant represented by Charles Simms, 571 Eagle Circle, Dayton. Mr. Simms submitted revised plans to address staff comments and also reviewed the changes in the plan since the two previous submittals. Mr. Simms stated that he met with the residents who did not want the walking trail to connect to the sidewalk along Spring Valley Pike.

Mr. Drain - Stated that one of the items brought up at the last meeting was that the plan did not meet the density as put forth in the Create the Vision Master Plan. Does not feel that this plan is there yet.
Mr. Simms - Looked at doing the single family but it is a question of economics. For each lot to be single family would be too expensive.

Mr. Drain - Stated there could be a combination of products. Asked how many doubles would meet the 2.5 units per acre?
Mr. Ehrhart. - 27 units would include 13 doubles and 1 single family.
Mr. Simms - Feels that the current plan would fit better.

Mr. Anderson - Feels this is a big improvement, but questioned how high the landscaping berm will be and what would be planted on this.
Mr. Simms - Stated that it would be between 2' and 4' high and consist of trees.

Mr. Anderson - Would request that Units 15 & 17 be similar to the rest of the units and make Units 1 & 2 all stone. This would provide a gateway and the others would be screened.

Mrs. Winwood - Agrees that Units 15 & 17 would appear out of the ordinary. Asked applicant to explain the gazebo.
Mr. Simms - Stated that the gazebo would be of quality construction and include benches.

Mrs. Winwood - Asked if all of the driveways are at least 20'?
Mr. Simms - Yes.

Mr. Drain - Stated that it looks as if there are two different types of units. Mr. Drain reviewed the elevations. He also noted there is very little brick on them.
Mr. Simms- Asked the commission members if they had a percentage of brick in mind. Stated they could add a little.
Mr. Drain - Would like to see more.

Mr. Anderson - Concerned with the elevations and would like to see additional brick or stone.
Mr. Simms - Stated that the elevations that do not have full stone will have stone added up to 42" in height.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:

Tony Koesters, 8734 Scarlet Ridge - Stated that his home is full brick and there is a variety of building materials in his plat. The drainage is a big issue in his neighborhood. He does like the effort to reduce density. He also likes the "no cut zone". However, he does have concerns with Building 8 being very close. He also does not want the walking trail connected to the sidewalk on Spring Valley Pike. Mr. Koesters is concerned with the Planned Development and the new legislation from the State.

Mr. Drain - Planned Development reviews not only the zoning but the overall plan.
Mr. Simms - The materials should suffice. Reviewed how to eliminate the path by connecting the path between Buildings 3 & 4 and Buildings 16 & 17. A 30' buffer is fine. Mr. Simms addressed the drainage. They would add some permanent landscaping behind Building 8 with evergreens.

Mr. Anderson - Asked if there will be piping between the ponds.
Mr. Simms- There will be pipes between the 2 detention areas. There is a channel that the pipes will outlet into.

Mr. Drain - Still has a concern with the density. Would like to see Buildings 8 & 12 eliminated.
Mr. Simms - Stated that this would be very difficult. Feels that the neighbors are satisfied. They have met all the requirements with the exception of the Create the Vision recommendations.

Public hearing closed.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Drain - Stated that the changes and improvements are good, but still feels it is too dense and out of line with the master development plan. Feels it would be better if two of the doubles were removed.

Mr. Anderson - Feels it is a good layout the way that it is. He would like to see a compromise by eliminating Unit 8.

Mrs. Winwood - Thinks this plan is greatly improved from the previous plan. Appreciates the meeting the applicant had with the neighbors. Mrs. Winwood also feels that eliminating Unit 8 would be a good idea.

Mr. Drain - Asked applicant if they would like to table this case.
Mr. Simms - Yes.

MOTION - Mr. Drain moved to table Cases Z-668 and Z-668A.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

Cases Z-668 and Z-668A tabled.

The public was informed that Cases Z-668 & Z-668A would be heard at a special meeting on a day yet to be determined.

CASE Z-588B - Divided Ridge Associates, Ltd.

Request is for a change in zoning to a new Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan zoning district and for approval of a development plan for 460 single family homes, 150 multi-family dwelling units, church and daycare uses.

Andy Ehrhart, GIS & Zoning Manager, presented the case.

Applicant represented by George Oberer, Jr., Developer; and Pete Schwiegeraht, Senior Project Manager. Mr. Schwiegeraht reviewed the evolution of the plan. They have worked with the neighbors and have tried to base the plan on the recommendations of Create the Vision. Reviewed changes to the plan as well as the PowerPoint program showing how the plan has evolved.

Mr. Rogers - Concerned with the density in the middle of the project as well as the overall density.

Mr. Drain - Has a problem with approving a plan that is not good. Feels that if things were more openly spread out it would be a dynamic plan.
Mr. Oberer - Stated that they already have a plan approved and would build according to that plan if this one is denied. The density would remain.

Mrs. Zobrist - Questioned if irrigation has been installed for the new landscaping?

It was determined that the Washington Township Visual Improvement Program Committee would review the landscaping plan.

Mr. Anderson - Questioned if the lakes shown on the plan would retain water?
Mr. Schwiegeraht - Noted that the lake in the northwest corner of the project is the only one that may be dry.
Mr. Oberer - Added that the one in open space #2 may be dry as well.

Mr. Anderson - Will there be precautions taken into consideration to keep children away from the ponds?
Mr. Oberer - The ponds will be designed to standards to be safe for children. They will also plant vegetation surrounding the ponds.

Mr. Anderson - Noted that the entrance at the northeast corner does not match the amenity plan.
Mr. Schwiegeraht - The amenity plan is actually inaccurate.

Mr. Anderson - Is there anything illustrated to describe what has been discussed?
Mrs. Zobrist - Added it would help if the applicant could put together a streetscape plan?
Mr. Oberer - Yes. He would present it for the next meeting.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:

Rob Easterling, 10500 Watch Hill Lane - Feels that this plan has a very significant change which makes it look as though there are two developments.
Mr. Drain - Clarified that Mr. Easterling was wanting the east side of Sheehan Road to look like the west side of Sheehan Road.

Joe Harmon, 531 Willowhurst Drive - Noted that the storm water detention is within the definition of open space. Asked if that is within the definition of open space.
Mr. Drain - Currently we allow them to count detention as open space.
Mr. Harmon - Would like to see more information with the presentation. He also agrees with clustering.

Sue Love, 10605 Falls Creek Lane - Does like the new plan better than the previous plan. Does see why the east side is still a problem. Still not sure why multi-family is permitted.
Mr. Drain - Explained that Planned Development Residential zoning district can include multi-family. Also discussed the church and daycare as well as the multi-family.

David Shie, 10744 Falls Creek Lane - Would like to clarify for the record the 30' no cut zone.
Mr. Drain - Will try to get clarification.

Skip Schafer, 1008 Whispering Pines - Stated that the detention has not been constructed first. One of the required conditions was that this was to be constructed first. Mr. Schafer noted that this is a major issue with the runoff. He discussed the multi-family and church and daycare.
Mr. Drain - Did review the approval of this case by the trustees.

Dave Kelso, 10616 Sheehan Road - Would like to see some of the lots behind his house removed or at least landscaped.
Mr. Oberer - Commented on the comment of the plan appearing to be two separate developments. He indicated that the landscaping and features will all tie into each other and share similar amenities. All of the sub-communities will have a name.
Mr. Drain - Asked why they couldn't take the lots on the eastern side and move them to the center of the development?
Mr. Oberer - The 30' no cut zone was established and has been adhered to. The original approval was for 8" caliper or larger trees to be preserved.

Public hearing closed.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Anderson - Would like to see the information in plan form before they move forward.

Mr. Rogers - Would like to see this case tabled until the information is provided.

Mrs. Winwood - Agrees with what has been said but feels that this is a big improvement.

Mrs. Zobrist - Would like to see a streetscape plan. Agreed that this plan is much better than the previous plan.

MOTION - Mr. Drain moved to table Case Z-588B.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

VOTE - Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

Case Z-588B tabled.

Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.

________________________________
Harry Drain, Chairman
Washington Township Zoning Commission

ZC\Minutes\May 17, 2005