WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES

August 15, 2006

The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on August 15, 2006 in the Meeting Room of Washington Township Government Center. Members of the Commission present were Mr. Drain, Mrs. Winwood, Mrs. Zobrist, and Mr. Anderson. Mr. Rogers was excused.

Call to order at 7:00 p.m.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved the minutes of July 18, 2006 be approved with modifications.

Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.

VOTE - Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes (abstained from approving minutes of Cases Z-674 & Z-674A); Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.

All in attendance were duly sworn in.

CASE Z-588F – Divided Ridge Associates, Ltd.

Request is for a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan approval for signage, landscaping and site amenities for the clubhouse at the Washington Trace Development located on approximately 4.9178 acres along the east side of Sheehan Road south of W. Social Row Road.

Greg DeLong , Senior Planner, presented the case.

Mr. Drain – Questions the off-street parking for the clubhouse and when the plan was previously approved there was an area for additional parking to be placed in the future if needed. Does that still exist with the new plan?

Mr. DeLong – Yes, the area will remain greenspace with grass until it is determined that the parking is needed, which then the greenspace will be removed and the parking added.

Mrs. Zobrist – Questioned why landscaping plans are so detailed? What happens if the applicant can’t meet the approved landscaping plan for the number of plants and plant type?

Mr. DeLong – We would have to cite them for not being in compliance with the approved landscaping plan.

Mrs. Zobrist – Would it be easier to enforce if the plans are more generic?

Mr. DeLong – Yes, it would make enforcement much easier.

Mrs. Zobrist – Indicated there are so many things happening with these submitted landscaping plans. We don’t have one person to go out and enforce them or have the knowledge of all the plant types being proposed.

Mr. DeLong – It would be best if the plans were simpler. Instead of stating a plant type or tree type, we could request the plans to identify where planting beds are to be located and have them note on the plans that the beds will be planted and maintained yearly. With trees the plans could state just shade, ornamental or coniferous trees and their sizes. That way the plans allow species flexibility and if we do get an infestation of a tree or plant disease, property owners can easily replace their dead and/or dying plants with a new species without having to come back and modify their landscaping plans. Sandy Spees, Washington Township VIP Consultant, even with simplified plans has still submitted comments and does tell the applicants what plants to avoid.

Mrs. Winwood – Should Ms. Spees tell people what type of plants to plant?

Mr. DeLong – It would be best to tell people what to avoid planting.

Mrs. Winwood – Should we give people a list of recommended plants to plant?

Mr. DeLong – That is something staff and the VIP Committee could work on doing to assist developers. The ODNR website is also a great place to learn what types of trees are appropriate in this area and in certain environments.

Mr. Drain – Suggested discussing this at the Zoning Review meetings and to try to implement a plant list into the code.

Mrs. Zobrist – We really shouldn’t control plantings and landscaping plans on private properties.

Mr. DeLong – Agrees, but feels we should still have some control over landscaping plans in public areas.

Mrs. Winwood – Feels we need to work on some sort of guidelines.

Mr. Drain – Agreed and feels we need to work with the VIP Consultant with that.

Applicant represented by Greg Smith, Oberer Development, 2800 E. River Road, Dayton. Mr. Smith gave his presentation to the Commission.

Mr. Drain – Asked if they had a sign on the original plan identifying the clubhouse?

Mr. Smith – No, and that is something we should have had.

Mr. Drain – Can they have a sign for the clubhouse?

Mr. DeLong – Yes, through the Planned Development zoning, they can have a sign.

Mrs. Winwood – Are there bike paths that lead to the bike rack?

Mr. Smith – Yes, there are sidewalks that lead to the location of the bike rack.

Mr. Drain – What is proposed under the electrical lines that cross the development? A possible bike path?

Mr. Smith – It was explored with the Park District in the past to put a bike path under the electrical lines but instead it was determined to put the bike path up along Social Row Road.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included: None.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Anderson – It is fine what they submitted. Gives people more options for recreation.

Mrs. Winwood – Likes the proposed sign for identification.

Mrs. Zobrist – Agrees with the other Commission members comments.

MOTION – Mr. Anderson moved in Case Z-588F to approve applicant’s request for a Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan approval for signage, landscaping and site amenities for the clubhouse at the Washington Trace Development, subject to: 1) staff comments; and 2) staff comments and conditions from Case Z-588C.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.

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

Case Z-588F approved with modifications.

CASE Z-671A – Divided Ridge Associates, Ltd.

Request is for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan and for approval of a development containing 42 single family lots on approximately 24.0041 acres.

Greg DeLong , Senior Planner, presented the case.

Mrs. Winwood – Questions where Sections I and II are and where Woodburn at Washington Trace is located.

Mr. DeLong – It is the location where the 2005 Homearama was located.

Mr. Drain – Why is this being asked?

Mrs. Winwood – There are documents in the packet referring to these areas, which identify setbacks. She requested clarification to their locations.

Mrs. Winwood – Why was Exhibit “D” put in the packet? It discusses setbacks and it doesn’t match what the drawings being presented show.

Mr. Drain – We will let the applicant address the issue during his presentation.

Mr. DeLong continued with the staff presentation.

Mrs. Zobrist – With the trees being proposed in the front yard of the lots, what does that do to the landscaping enforcement?

Mr. DeLong – Instead of making it a zoning issue, it would be best to request the applicant to put in the deed and covenants that trees should be placed in the front yards and let the Homeowners Association monitor and enforce it.

Mr. Anderson – What should we do with existing trees to be preserved on private property?

Mr. DeLong – That is a good question. I would say we should encourage them to keep the existing trees, but complete enforcement of the trees should probably come through the deed and covenants.

Mr. Drain – We can put it in our zoning approval to preserve the existing trees and they can put it in their covenants.

Mr. DeLong – Continued with staff presentation.

Mr. Anderson – Is the depiction of home styles submitted going to be what is built?

Mr. DeLong – It shows the variety of housing styles and options that can be built.

Applicant represented by Greg Smith and Pete Schwiegeraht , Oberer Development, Ltd., 2800 E. River Road, Dayton. Mr. Smith gave his presentation to the Commission.

Mr. Drain – Where are the unit “D” structures in Washington Trace located in relation to this development?

Mr. Smith – They are adjacent and to the west of this development.

Mr. Smith – To answer the previous question about what is Woodburn at Washington Trace and the restrictions set forth in that section of the development. That section is a custom build area and Oberer does not build in that area and we placed a covenant on that area in order to meet our standards and the Townships standards.

Mr. Smith – The homes that we displayed tonight are part of our Gold Key Home package in which the buyer can select the home they want to build.

Mr. Drain - What materials are you going to use on the structures and can we restrict the materials and place a percentage of brick or stone on the structures? Will these structures maintain the high standard of construction the township desires?

Mr. Smith – Directed Mr. Schwiegeraht to answer that question.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – The “D” lots adjacent to this development do have a requirement put in place on the percentage of natural materials to be used. We are planning on putting product “D” lots on the lots in this development.

Mr. Drain – What is the percentage of natural materials approved for the development at Washington Trace?

Mr. Schwiegeraht – I believe it was 50%.

Mrs. Winwood – Can you explain the covenants and restrictions submitted?

Mr. Schwiegeraht – What you have is a sample covenant. Once we get final approval, the setbacks and all the requirements will be implemented based on the approval.

Mr. Drain – I believe there is a requirement for the natural materials on the structures.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – You can put a condition on this development that it matches the structures on the “D” lots in Washington Trace. You can also put a condition on the landscaping that the Homeowners Association monitor and enforce the street and yard trees. We have already implemented a street tree program for the entire Washington Trace development that we will enforce.

Mrs. Zobrist – Will the 50% be used up on one to three sides of the structures and the rest be siding?

Mr. Schwiegeraht – Did not remember what was approved with Washington Trace. We do want to maintain a consistency with this development and Washington Trace.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – It does need to be noted that the products you see is just an example. Our product line is very expansive to meet the needs of the consumers.

Mrs. Zobrist – Doesn’t like that all of the examples we have seen tonight has all the units with front entry garages.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – We do offer side entry garages and our product line is constantly being revamped to meet the needs and desires of our customers. We can encourage side entry garages when we try to sell the homes.

Mrs. Zobrist – We need to put something about side entry garages in our motion. With as many homes as you are proposing we shouldn’t have them all front entry.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – Just take into consideration a consistency. This is still part of Washington Trace and not a totally separate development.

Mrs. Zobrist – Just remember you are backing up to Weatherstone and they have side entry garages.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – Yes they do, but it isn’t a requirement.

Mr. Smith – You need to remember that some of the models will not work with a side entry garage because the homes will not fit on the lots.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – We need to maintain consistency with this development. Neither adjacent development requires side entry garages but they still have them.

Mrs. Zobrist – I just want to make sure that side entry garages are an option.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – Would like the Commission to place a condition on the case that the buyers at least have the option for side entry garages.

Mr. Anderson – If you weren’t planning on using the submitted covenants, why did you submit them?

Mr. Schwiegeraht – We should have stamped it draft and stated that it was an example. We can go back and update it before we go to the Trustees.

Mr. Anderson – There are extensive design guidelines in the submitted covenants which I like.

Mr. Smith – These are active guidelines, but not for this section. Remember what you have as an example is the one for Woodburn at Washington Trace which is a totally different area and has totally different builders.

Mr. Drain – Does the setbacks on this development match the setbacks of the “D” lots in Washington Trace?

Mr. Smith – Yes they do.

Mrs. Winwood – In the Woodburn area, it states side entry garages. I was confused when I read that and saw the plans for this development showing front entry garages.

Mr. Smith – They are examples and we apologize for the confusion.

Mrs. Winwood – So the covenants we have in front of us do not apply to this section?

Mr. Schwiegeraht – Yes, you are correct. These are examples of covenants.

Mr. Drain – Where is Woodburn?

Mr. DeLong – The location of Homearama 2005.

Mr. Schwiegeraht – We do apologize for the confusion by submitting example covenants.

Mr. Smith – We are not going to place covenants on this development because we control it and are building it unlike the Woodburn area, which is a custom build area.

Mr. Drain – So the covenants you submitted are only for the Woodburn area?

Mr. Smith – Yes.

Mrs. Winwood – This doesn’t sound fair because people can enforce the restrictions on the Woodburn area, but the Woodburn residents can’t enforce rules on the other sections of the development. You are holding one group to high standards and the others not.

Mr. Smith – Yes, that is the way it is set up.

Mr. Anderson – Will the various depictions of the homes be submitted?

Mr. Smith – We will abide by the rules that were applied to the “D” lots in Washington Trace.

Mr. Drain – So you are willing to do the 50% but allow for it to have the flexibility and not be required to do it as a wrap.

Mr. Smith – Yes. We want to break up the elevations some. We would appreciate flexibility for the architects.

Mr. Drain – We prefer a brick wrap as it gives a more quality appearance. Most developers seem to want to put all the brick on one side and use siding on the rest.

Mrs. Winwood – What are the other requirements of the “D” lots?

Mr. Smith – Setbacks, 50% natural materials.

Mr. Drain – It should be stated for the record that the Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the Washington Trace development basically due to the development of the plan on the east side of Sheehan Road. We didn’t care of the high density and the setbacks.

Mrs. Zobrist – Also the building materials that were proposed.

Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included: None.

Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:

Mr. Anderson – Believes we should table the case because we have a lot of questions that were raised and we have a lot of information that is not applicable to the case. Wants to see a complete package of what the developer is going to build on the site.

Mrs. Zobrist – Agrees with Mr. Anderson. Even though I did not participate in the original case because I lived within 500’ of the case, I remember George Oberer, Jr. standing up here and you pleading with him not to do full siding on the structures. There were just a lot of uncertainties and back and forth promises to what the buildings were going to be built like.

Mrs. Winwood – Feels we do not have enough information to make a decision. It was confusing talking about “D” lots and looking at the covenants that were submitted. Has a problem with 5’ side yard setbacks.

Mrs. Zobrist – There still has to be a total of 15’ for the side yards.

Mrs. Winwood – I do agree that we need to allow for artistic ability for the architects. Maybe we need to stager setbacks to accommodate side load entry garages. We need to keep a certain aesthetics going for the development.

Mr. Drain – If we are to table this case we need to give the developer a clear direction for when they come back.

Mrs. Winwood – Doesn’t like the front load garages. We need to create a balance with this development. Maybe incorporate some of the standards of Woodburn into this development.

Mr. Drain – We need to give you a list of things we need for when you come back. We need a correct set of guidelines for this section. Same restrictions on building materials as we have in Washington Trace. Would like to see 50% brick or stone with a wrap.

Mrs. Zobrist – Asked Mr. DeLong to check the Washington Trace requirements for materials and whether they are required to be wrapped.

Mr. Drain – Preserve the natural trees on the site. Trees on the property of the homes be placed under the Homeowners Association. Have a flexibility of having a product that has side entry garages. Maybe a certain percentage can be side loaded.

Mr. Drain – Reiterated that we were not in support of the original plan especially the area east of Sheehan Road. The plan had in our opinion no creativity. We don’t want to have the same thing here that we turned down.

MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-671A to table applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Planned Development Residential (PD-R) to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) second stage and final plan and for approval of a development containing 42 single family lots on approximately 24.0041 acres.

Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.

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

Case Z-671A tabled.

Meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.

________________________________

Harry Drain, Chairman

Washington Township Zoning Commission