WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSIONMINUTES
June 1, 2005
The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in special session on June 1, 2005 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Zobrist were excused.
Call to order at 12:00 p.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
All in attendance were duly sworn in.
CASES Z-668 and Z-668A – Opal Ream (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 33 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 33 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 May 17, 2005 Zoning Commission meeting.
Andy Ehrhart, GIS & Zoning Manager, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Charles Simms, 571 Eagle Circle, Dayton.
Mr. Anderson – Noted that the building materials have changed from stone to brick.
Mr. Drain – Asked about the front yard setbacks.
Mr. Ehrhart – The front yard setbacks inside the project have flexibility since this is a planned development. Generally, the minimum front setback is 20 feet.
Ms. Simms – Would like to eliminate the proposed walking path inside the development for privacy reasons.
Mrs. Winwood – Why was the path proposed in the first place?
Mr. Simms – To provide an amenity for the project.
Mr. Anderson – Would agree with removing the path from the project. Would also like to see the gazebo removed and more trees planted.
Mr. Anderson – Asked if each unit would have the same color of brick and siding? Noted that using different colors would be a positive for the project.
Mr. Simms – They would like to use two different colors of brick and a variety of siding colors.
Mr. Simms – Would like to add five additional parking spaces between Buildings 8 & 9. Would also like the flexibility to add brick on the sides and rear of some of the units and the ability to mix the different unit types.
Mr. Anderson – Concerned with the closeness of Buildings 1 & 3.
Mr. Simms – Stated they can shift Building 3 to gain more separation.
Mrs. Winwood – Asked about keeping stone on the fronts of some of the units and brick around the sides and rear.
There was extensive discussion regarding the landscape review comments.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Mark Albright, 8727 Scarlet Ridge Court – Concerned with the landscape buffer along the north property line and drainage problems. Feels that getting rid of the walking path is a good idea.
Mrs. Winwood – Stated that the 30 foot no cut zone would not disturb any of the trees.
Mr. Albright – If the development gets into the 30 foot no cut zone then he would like to see better trees and landscaping to replace it.
Sandra Spees, VIP Consultant, 5620 Hugh Drive – Anything she suggests for landscaping is based on research by Ohio State University. She addressed Mr. Simms’ written comments.
Mr. Drain – Asked Ms. Spees what areas in the written comments she takes exception to?
Ms. Spees – Does not agree with the hardwood mulch. Also has a problem with the 2” caliper trees. She advised that the 3” caliper trees have a better change of survival.
Mr. Drain – Asked Mr. Simms to address the drainage, no cut zone, and the honeysuckle along the rear property line.
Mr. Simms – Would like to see the honeysuckle stay as is and keep the no cut zone. The drainage will be engineered to accommodate the situation.
John Petersen, Woolpert – Must meet the Montgomery County drainage requirements which are already over-engineered. Will reduce the overall output of the development. Mr. Petersen also stated that they cannot change the direction of the water flow. The whole site drains naturally north. There is not much else they can do with the water.
Mr. Anderson – Is there anything in place to allow restrictions for the water to be removed from ditches?
Mr. Petersen – It depends on how it is set up with the easements.
Mr. Simms – Addressed the Board and stated that the mulch is turned prior to putting on a new layer. He also stated that he has not had a problem with 2” caliper trees.
Mr. Anderson – Asked Mr. Simms to define on the plan where the no cut zone is.
Mr. Simms – Will call out on the plan, fencing to mark the area.
Mrs. Winwood – Asked how the detention in the northwest area will be excavated? Will gravel be added to help water percolate into the ground or will it just be grass?
Mr. Simms – Stated that it will be planted with grass to help with the filtration.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Drain – The plan has undergone changes and progress. Thanked the developer for his time and effort. Mr. Drain would have liked to see one more unit removed but feels it could move forward. The plan can move forward as long as the drawings are updated.
Mr. Anderson – Addressed the comments of Tom Toberen, Deputy Administrator. Feels the plan will be a fine enhancement to the area.
Mrs. Winwood – Concerned with the transition between the brick and stone and would want to make sure the turret area in the front is included.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-668 to approve applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) to Planned Development Multi-family (PD-RM) two stage for approval of 33 dwelling units on approximately 10.81 acres.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-668 approved.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-668A to approve applicant’s request for approval of a second and final stage plan in a Planned Development Multi-family (PD-RM) zoning district for 33 dwelling units on approximately 10.81 acres subject to:
1) all staff comments;
2) option to add more brick or stone to any of the units above what is shown on the plans;
3) any combination of the 3 units proposed (A, B or C) can be interchanged to compose a 2-unit building;
4) the fronts of each unit can be a mixture of brick or stone with a minimum 50% of the units having a stone front;
5) a minimum of 20’ spacing between all units, with the importance of this being met between Buildings 1 & 3;
6) the addition of 3” minimum caliper trees to the landscaping along Spring Valley Pike;
7) irrigation system to be installed for landscaping along Spring Valley Pike and the first 2 sections of the boulevard;
8) a 30’ no cut zone be established along the north property line unless approved by township staff to assist with storm water drainage;
9) removal of the walking path;
10) the addition of 5 parking spaces between Buildings 8 & 9 with additional landscaping. Layout to be coordinated with the landscaping architect and the VIP Consultant;
11) all drawings updated before this case is heard by the township trustees; and
12) the landscape review submitted by the VIP Consultant and response by the developer as landscape guidelines, except as noted elsewhere in this motion. The developer to meet with the VIP Consultant to work out the details of the landscaping as well as incorporate items agreed to by the developer.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-668A approved with modifications.
Meeting adjourned. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.
________________________________
Harry Drain, Chairman
Washington Township Zoning Commission