WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSIONMINUTES
July 18, 2006
The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on July 18, 2006 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood (belated), Mrs. Zobrist, and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Rogers was excused.
Call to order at 7:05 p.m.
Mr. Drain – Questioned the attendance of Mr. Rogers and Mrs. Winwood.
Mr. DeLong, Senior Planner – Stated Mr. Rogers will not be in attendance and Mrs. Winwood will be late since she has a conflict of interest with the first case on the agenda.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved the minutes of June 27, 2006 be approved as submitted.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
All in attendance were duly sworn in.
CASES Z-674 & Z-674A – Crosstowne Properties ( Scarborough Village)
In Case Z-674, the request is for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) zoning district to Planned Development Residential Multi-Family (PD-RM) two stage to allow for construction of a new condominium project and to maintain an existing single-family residence.
In Case Z-674A, the request is for approval of a change in zoning to Planned Development Residential Multi-Family (PD-RM) second stage and final plan and approval of a proposed development containing 12 new 4-unit and 4, 2-unit ranch style condominiums and also maintain an existing single-family residence on approximately 15 acres of land.
These cases were tabled at the May 16, 2006 Zoning Commission Meeting.
Greg DeLong , Senior Planner, presented the case.
Mr. Anderson – Asked if the set back from SR48 was increased?
Mr. DeLong – No.
Mr. Drain – Asked if natural amenities such as trees would be saved?
Mr. DeLong – It appears that they are trying to preserve what they can, although there isn’t much in the way of mature trees on the property.
Mr. Drain – Asked if the ponds were being maintained and used as detention ponds?
Mr. DeLong – No, the existing pond will be removed and detention ponds will be added to the property.
Applicant represented by George Reinke, Sr., Reinke Group, 959 Congress Park Drive. Mr. Reinke made his presentation to the Commission.
Mr. Drain – Asked if mounding could be placed along SR48 as a buffer?
Mr. Reinke – Stated they could do a 3’ mound with landscaping on top, even though the property already sits below the grade of SR48.
Mr. Drain – Could you do a second entry to the property?
Mr. Reinke – We could possibly have access from the property where the remaining single family residence is located. We will do it if required.
Mr. Drain – What about the setbacks from SR48?
Mr. Reinke – The structures meet the code and the closest corner of the buildings to SR48 are 51’ away from the right of way. He pointed out that the buildings also do not sit parallel to SR48.
Mr. Drain – Asked if they could keep the existing pond and use it as detention?
Mr. DeLong – It isn’t a pristine pond. We already have reduced density at your request and to remove more units is not feasible for this project. In addition, the new detention areas will greatly improve site runoff.
Mr. Drain – You are saying there will be less storm runoff after development is complete compared to now?
Mr. Reinke – Yes, the detention ponds will improve the runoff, just as our presentation shows.
Mr. Drain – What is the percentage of brick or stone on the structures?
Mr. Reinke – Around 75% and it is stone.
Mr. Drain – Is the rear of the structures vinyl siding?
Mr. Reinke – No, stone and wood siding.
Mrs. Zobrist – Is it wood or hardiplank?
Mr. Reinke – Wood composite siding.
Mr. Anderson – Stated he wants to see a buffer along SR48, plus mounding and more landscaping.
Mr. DeLong – Reinke Group is working with the Township VIP Consultant Sandy Spees and Ms. Spees’ comments are in your packet.
Mr. Drain – We want to see extensive landscaping along SR48.
Mr. Drain – What type of meetings have occurred with the neighbors?
Mr. Reinke – Met with Bill Horst who owns property across SR48. Mr. Horst plans to relocate his gravel drive to line it up with the entrance to the development. I Sent Gregg Sisson a copy of the site plan and I have heard nothing back. I also continue to work with the neighboring church.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Gregg Sisson, 7658 E. VonDette Circle – Feels the rural character of the area will be ruined. The previous master plan calls for single family residential at the site. Applicant should buffer the development with single family residence. All the proposed plantings will not hide the development as people know it is there. Feels the siding on the 2-unit buildings is too much. He also stated all other multi-family developments are north of Nutt Road. Stated the new plan is somewhat of an improvement over the previous submission.
Mr. Reinke - Addressed the citizen’s concerns. All building walls will be a minimum of 65% stone. He pointed out the adjacent land uses and how there is a variety of uses, including offices and churches. Pointed out that Create the Vision talks about providing a variety of housing stock in the community to maintain and keep residents here as their housing needs change.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Anderson – The plan has been substantially improved and it creates more character. He would still like to see an extensive buffer along SR48 to help with the acoustics. He is in favor of the development.
Mrs. Zobrist – Is in favor of the project. Applicant has met the changes we asked for. We need to recognize there is a need for these types of developments. The 3 developments we have that are similar to this filled up fast. Residents want housing choices and ask for it.
Mr. Drain – Stated it is a very nice plan. Reminds one of Edinburgh Village. Would like to still see mounding and extensive landscaping along SR48.
Hearing closed.
MOTION – Mr. Anderson moved in Case Z-674 to approve applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) zoning district to Planned Development Residential Multi-Family (PD-RM) two stage to allow for construction of a new condominium project and to maintain an existing single-family residence.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Zobrist.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-674 approved as submitted.
MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved in Case Z-674A to approve applicant’s request for approval of a change in zoning to Planned Development Residential Multi-Family (PD-RM) second stage and final plan and approval of a proposed development containing 12 new 4-unit and 4, 2-unit ranch style condominiums and will maintain an existing single-family residence on approximately 15 acres of land, subject to: 1) staff comments; 2) installing mounding along SR48 with extensive landscaping; 3) sides of the 2-unit buildings to meet the 65% brick/stone requirement; and 4) work with the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office about a stop sign at the entrance/exit location and SR48.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-674A approved with modifications.
Mrs. Winwood joined the meeting for the next two cases.
CASE Z-568C – Versant Group, LLC (Maderas Creek)
Request is for a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan approval to change the previously approved condominium elevation plans to allow for the incorporation of various design elements.
Greg DeLong, Senior Planner, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Kip Deaton, Versant Group, 55 Hillside Court. Mr. Deaton did not have anything to add to the case presentation. Stated the request is fairly cut and dry. Mr. DeLong covered all items.
Mr. Drain – When do you plan to break ground?
Mr. Deaton – In a month or two.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Joe Harmon, 531 Willowhurst – Has been watching the wetland, stream, water course process for this property and nothing has been approved.
Mr. Deaton – We have recently submitted to the EPA. When doing stream location, we had to find another off-site stream to mitigate and that has taken longer than expected.
Mrs. Winwood – Does your alterations change the floorplans?
Mr. Deaton – Very minor changes.
Mrs. Winwood – Will Building #10 be a spec/model home?
Mr. Deaton – Yes, and as the market controls, we will continue to build.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Anderson – Likes the building options, which gives more character to the development.
Mrs. Zobrist – Agrees with Mr. Anderson. It really individualizes the units.
Mrs. Winwood – Likes how the buildings can be adapted to people’s needs and wants.
Hearing closed.
MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved in Case Z-568C to approve applicant’s request for a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan approval to change the previously approved condominium elevation plans to allow for the incorporation of various design elements, subject to: 1) all staff comments and conditions from Case Z-568B be applied.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-568C approved with modifications.
CASE Z-678 – Matthew A. Holten
Request is for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) to Planned Development Office 2 (PD-O2) two stage to allow for a proposed medical office building on property located on the southeast corner of Alexandersville-Bellbrook Road and Paragon Road.
Greg DeLong, Senior Planner, presented the case.
Applicant represented by Ron Hill, Construction Managers, 9480 Yankee Street. Mr. Hill gave presentation to the Commission and included such items as the proposed use fitting into the residential character of the area. Also he included that County Engineer Gary Shoup states there is presently an ingress/egress approved to the site through the Bluffs at Normandy.
Mr. Drain – Have you met with the residents?
Mr. Hill – No, we have not.
Mr. Drain – Create the Vision states this area should be residential. Do you have a response to that?
Mr. Hill – Office is the ideal use of the property and would not hurt the neighborhood.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Ethel Wanamaker, 6999 Bluffs Drive – Stated that 2 ingress/egress locations to the site is a concern. She is also concerned about shared easement to the property as it is only 3 feet from her garage. She stated people already doing u-turns in the Bluffs is a problem as they think they can short-cut through the site. The previous planner said this property cannot be commercial as the demarcation of commercial is I-675 and Alex-Bell Road. She asked if there is a difference in easement types.
Mr. Drain – Yes, but this easement is already approved.
Philip Kingrey, 6915 Paragon Road – Concerned about the area losing its residential character and the long term effects of rezoning. Likes the Holtens and isn’t concerned about them, but is concerned about the future.
Joe Brittelli, 306 Trebor Lane – Mr. Brittelli is the Treasurer of the Bluffs. He is not representing the association but speaking as a resident. Mr. Hill is a friend and will work with the developer (Ron Hill) should the zoning be approved. He is concerned about a curb cut on Paragon Road. Feels it will be a cut through. Stated it is already difficult to get out of the Bluffs. Mentioned that when the light was installed at Paragon and Alex Bell, they asked the County Engineer to put a “no right turn” sign to help alleviate congestion and to give the Bluffs residents time to exit their properties. County Engineer declined the request. He is concerned with the traffic study. Stated that if zoning is approved, he agreed to work with the developer in a positive manner to make the site work.
Dan Fleischman, 300 Trebor Lane – Against the zoning change as there are already vacant buildings for lease and for sale on Paragon Road.
Adam Zengel – 6759 Green Park Drive – Has no problem with the zoning request as it is a small piece of land. Feels it is a good use of the land and does not believe people will use it as a cut through. Believes more people will exit the site (Bluffs curb cut) by turning right. Puzzled as to why the Bluffs development was never completed. Feels the zoning will be a benefit to the area.
Nancy Hendrickson, 7167 Bluffs – Indicated that the front door of her residence faces the woods. People already believe they can cut through the site causing safety issues for the children and residents. Has waited for up to 10 minutes to leave the Bluffs site by turning left.
Alice Bush, 7035 Bluffs – Stated Mr. Zengel is being speculative of what people will do and we have to live with it. The site should be multi-family.
Hugh Thornburg, 7161 Bluffs – His mother lives in the Bluffs and he owns the property. Stated there is a broad consensus of the community for residential. Suggested to possibly encourage it to be part of Maderas Creek.
Andrew Stimson, 7009 Bluffs Drive – Concerned with property values. Would not purchase a home next to commercial uses. Feels they will lose property values.
Kelly Phelps, 6975 Paragon Road – Recently moved to Paragon Road. Finds all the green space on Paragon Road to be attractive.
Matthew Holten, property owner – Likes the lot and that is the reason why he purchased it. Thinks his use will benefit the residents. A traffic study was done during peak hours for his use. He stated he will share and be cooperative in the maintenance of the drives. Feels an additional curb cut on Paragon Road (if approved) will help the residents of the Bluffs. He also stated a new building will enhance the area and have a residential appearance.
Mr. Drain – Montgomery County Planning Commission recommended denial because the use is not compatible. Would you care to comment on their decision?
Mr. Holten – Not sure why they turned it down. It is hard to understand.
Mr. Hill – I take responsibility for not going to the Montgomery County Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Hill – Stated Richard Oakes and Jeff Smith (traffic engineer) stated in an email that this is the time for the Bluffs to get a second curb cut. We did the office at Yankee Street and Lyons Road and curb cuts are not used as cut throughs at this location.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mrs. Winwood – The site is very maze-like. The area is like a driveway and not a thoroughfare.
Mr. Drain – Feels it is inappropriate to have traffic so close to the garage.
Mrs. Winwood – Stated she was able to make a left-hand turn at 4:10 p.m.
Mr. Anderson – Visited the site because of the concern of traffic issues. Concerned about a commercial building being surrounded by residential.
Mrs. Zobrist – Very concerned about the traffic driving by the garage. Concerned about resale values. The area is surrounded by residential.
Mr. Drain – The master plan calls for residential. Doesn’t see a compelling reason to change it. Have a lot of issues and potential problems. Disappointed they did not meet with the residents.
Hearing closed.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-678 to deny applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) to Planned Development Office 2 (PD-O2) two stage to allow for a proposed medical office building.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-678 denied.
Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.
________________________________
Harry Drain, Chairman
Washington Township Zoning Commission