WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 19, 2006
The Washington Township Zoning Commission met in regular session on September 19, 2006 in the Meeting Room of the 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.
MOTION – Mrs. Zobrist moved the minutes of August 15, 2006 be approved with modifications.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Winwood.
VOTE – Mr. Rogers, abstain; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
All in attendance were duly sworn in.
CASE Z-671A – Divided Ridge Associates, Ltd. ( Washington Trace Annex)
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.
This case was tabled at the August 15, 2006 Zoning Commission Meeting.
Mr. Rogers – Excused himself from the case since he was not in attendance at the August 15, 2006 meeting.
Greg DeLong, Senior Planner presented the case.
Mr. Drain – How do the proposed setbacks compare with those in Weatherstone?
Mr. DeLong – Due to the extension of the stub street to the south, the lot sizes and setbacks meet the setbacks of the “D” lots in Washington Trace.
Mr. Anderson – Will the sewer extension to the south also serve the Warren County Development?
Tom Toberen, Deputy Administrator – Yes, it will serve a portion of the Warren County development. There is an agreement between Warren County and Montgomery County to accept this flow.
Applicant represented by Pete Schwiegeraht of Oberer Developers, 2800 E. River Road, Dayton. Mr. Schwiegeraht gave his presentation.
Mr. Anderson – Would side entry garages be an additional cost to the buyer?
Mr. Schwiegeraht – Yes, there are additional costs due to additional pavement and building materials.
Mr. Anderson – Would the front of the house cover the 50% brick requirement?
Mr. Schwiegeraht – Fronts account for approximately 30% so they would need an additional 20% on either the sides or the back.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Bob Kyvik, 2555 Goodfield Point – How many designs are there and would the buyer have the option of doing all brick?
Mr. Schwiegeraht – They would have up to two dozen floorplans.
Mrs. Zobrist – What is the price point?
Mr. Schwiegeraht - $350,000 - $450,000.
Mr. Drain – Are these semi-custom homes?
Mr. Schwiegeraht – Yes, these homes will have custom features and all the bells and whistles.
Mr. Drain – What happens if a buyer wants an all brick house?
Mr. Schwiegeraht – They can do that and we can build their home using all natural materials.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Drain – Would have liked to seen different setbacks. Does not see this development as being different than Washington Trace. Remains concerned about the setbacks and the density. Likes the accommodation of the road to the south.
Mrs. Winwood – Still has a problem with the 5’ side yard setback. Still concerned about the homes all having front entry garages.
Mr. Schwiegeraht – From the audience clarified that the total setbacks are 15’ and this does allow for flexibility for side entry garages.
MOTION – Mr. Anderson moved in Case Z-671A to approve 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, subject to: 1) commitments from Oberer Developers in the letter dated August 21, 2006; and 2) staff comments, excluding the Zoning Manager’s landscaping comments.
Motion seconded by Mrs. Zobrist.
VOTE –Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, no; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-671A approved with modifications.
CASE Z-681 – David O’Neil (White Oak Lodge)
Request is for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) two stage to allow for a new senior independent living community on approximately 85.65 acres located along the north side of Clyo Road, south of Spring Valley Pike.
Greg DeLong, Senior Planner presented the case.
Applicant represented by David Montgomery; Attorney for the applicant, 2700 Kettering Tower, Dayton; David O’Neil, Applicant, 551 Brassfield Circle; Eric Sauer, Landscape Architect from Envisionworks; Jim Alt, Architect, Suite B, 2440 Dayton-Xenia Road; and Tom McDougal, McDougall Associates, 8529 Byers Road, Miamisburg.
Mr. Montgomery distributed additional information and gave a brief presentation on the overall development.
Mr. Drain – There is an age restriction of 62 or older? Are they the only ones who can purchase into the project?
Mr. Montgomery – Yes, I believe 62 is the minimum age. Mr. O’Neil will talk about this in further detail during his presentation
Mr. O’Neil gave his presentation to the Commission and Mr. Sauer gave his presentation regarding the landscaping and site amenities of the project.
Mr. Drain – Asked what the yellow rectangles on the plan identify.
Mr. Sauer – They are organic gardens.
Mr. Drain – The stream cutting through the property is existing?
Mr. Sauer – Yes, we plan on cleaning it up and enhancing it.
Mr. O’Neil – We held a community meeting last night and the residents did state concerns about the greenspace/open space and its preservation. We are also looking at a possible conservation easement and/or deed and covenants put in place to protect these valuable areas.
Mr. Alt gave a presentation on the building types proposed for the development.
Mr. Drain – Is the lodge single story?
Mr. Alt – Yes.
Mr. Drain – Are the wings single story?
Mr. Alt – Yes and the style of the lodge and other buildings is neo-rustic.
Mr. Drain – Roofs will be pitched?
Mr. Alt – Yes.
Mr. Montgomery – Gave a brief summary of the applicants presentation identifying the following items: 1) Age restricted development; 2) Create connectivity between the older age group and an older active age group; 3) Strong details have been given to open space, screening and mounding and it should be noted that the open space is 80% of the site; 4) Buildings are residential in feel, single story, neo-rustic; 5) It will be an active senior living community; 6) Site will contain a variety of amenities; 7) Site will contain private roads; 8) Traffic concerns will be addressed to meet the county’s requirements; 9) All units will be fire suppressed; 10) Water and sewer are existing.
Mr. Anderson – Questioned the memo from Montgomery County Engineer Gary Shoup and asked if the county’s requests are being fulfilled?
Mr. McDougall – The development will address the concerns of the memo. Since submission of the application, we have done additional work and it should be noted that unlike typical peak hours of traffic, residents in this development would have different peak hours than you would typically see.
Mr. Anderson – Likes the architectural design. Is there a price range for the units?
Mr. O’Neil – These are rental lease/rental units similar to Bethany Village. Entry level units in the lodge are $100,000 and the single-family units have a fee of $250,000
Mr. Drain – Will the existing structures be removed?
Mr. O’Neil – The current property owner has plans to relocate some of the structures to a new site.
Mr. Rogers – Has had some business relations with the architect Jim Alt and feels he should excuse himself from the case at this time. Stated he was unaware at the beginning of the presentation that Mr. Alt was involved in the case.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Mary Conroy, 992 Marycrest Lane – Concerned with the additional traffic from employees that will serve the site and not just the residents there. Was employee traffic taken into consideration?
Holly Channell, 9236 Clyo Road – Who is the actual developer and is he local? Concerned with the possible widening of roads as it does not make it safer. What happens when a person becomes “in-active” in this active community? Will approval of apartments in this development set the precedent of apartments in other developments in the area? Concerned with the mounding as it only pushes the noise further away from the source. Is there security on the site? Concerned with an increase in EMT runs due to the elderly population. Concerned with the Bellbrook sewer system being able to take the additional service and if it can’t, will we have an E-coli breakout?
Mark Knapke – Rooks Road and Spring Valley Pike have site distance issues to the east. Montgomery County controls the roads and the Township seems to be taking the lead to fix issues and not the County. States the residents can only hope that things are fixed and there are no major wrecks at the intersection. “Hope is not a strategy.”
Bob Grote, 8987 Deep Forest Lane – This development is near a floodplain and this area floods a lot. Concerned that the development will hurt his property value. Stated his concern about traffic in the area. States you can’t look at this development as a single entity, but need to look at how it fits into the area. States he would like to see a study of EMT runs to St. Leonard in comparison to runs throughout the rest of the community.
Marilyn Marlin, 8947 Deep Forest Lane – Mentioned that she submitted an email to staff for the Commission to receive. Concerned with the intersection of Spring Valley and Clyo Road. States people already cut through Deep Forest and this development will only make it worse. Wants to see the main entrance to the development on Clyo Road and not on Spring Valley.
Roy Turton, 9211 Rooks Road – Is in support of the project and likes it, as it is a new concept for the Dayton area. Is concerned about the floodplain. Comments on how Create the Vision is short on solutions to traffic control. States how he feels the traffic will be less than if a single-family development was built.
Bob Kyvik, 2555 Goodfield Point – Questions how Montgomery County Planning Commission can approve something like this. States that the development does have some merit. Feels there are traffic issues and they have over-killed the site with amenities. Questions when the Township is going to say, “Enough is enough” for residential developments.
Joe Harmon, 531 Willowhurst Street – Does the developer have an existing track record with a development like this? Wants to know if the floodplain in identified. States the developer was not very clear in their presentation about relocation and work in the stream. States the Commission needs to ask if any additional permits are needed for work in the stream. Is the developer proposing a buffer zone around the stream to preserve it? A no cut zone? There was mention of a conservation easement, who has control over it? Wants to know how the open/green space was calculated, was it pervious vs. impervious?
Brian Conroy, 8980 Deep Forest Lane – Recently moved to the neighborhood because of its quietness and now fears it will be lost. Concerned with traffic and flooding. Already avoids Spring Valley Pike when travelling. Believes the cut through traffic on Deep Forest will only worsen.
Laura McCaffrey, 10480 Grand Vista – Spoke in favor of the rezoning to residential. States that the zoning is appropriate and the residents should be happy to have a residential development of this type and not something with higher intensity.
Roy Turton – Stated he has written the County Engineer Joe Litvin concerning the flooding and Mr. Litvin does not return calls or requests.
Mr. Anderson – How will you address the issue of cut through traffic?
Mr. O’Neil – The main entrance will be off Clyo Road. The cut through traffic will be an issue and we recognize that we will need to address it through possible policing, speed bumps, no trespassing signs, etc.
Mr. Montgomery – Responded to the citizens concerns: 1) Developer will improve roadways along Spring Valley and Clyo Road; 2) Drainage regulations state that we can’t discharge any more than what already exists on site; 3) Plans are to reutilize drainage water; 4) We are not clear cutting the site but are preserving; 5) With vegetation on the mounding, noise should be absorbed; 6) There are not a staggering about of residents. The focus is on the residents of the community and not the employees.
Mr. Drain – Any plans to alter the stream?
Mr. McDougall – We have no intention to relocate or alter the stream. If we culvert the stream, proper permits will be required.
Mr. Drain – Is the developer local?
Mr. O’Neil – Yes.
Mr. Drain – Do you have a track record for developments like this?
Mr. O’Neil – I work for Don Wright Realty. I have not developed a senior living community as I have primarily focussed on commercial.
Mr. Drain – Will you maintain ownership?
Mr. O’Neil – Yes.
Mr. Drain – Is the 80% open space everything except roadways and structures?
Mr. O’Neil – Yes.
Mr. O’Neil – There was a question about what happens to a resident when they don’t meet the “active” lifestyle. We do not remove residents from the development. Residents leave based on their own decision.
Mr. O’Neil – There was a question about EMT runs. We do not have calculations for EMT runs to other facilities.
Mrs. Zobrist – Will this become an assisted living facility?
Mr. O’Neil – We have no plans to convert to an assisted living facility.
Mr. Anderson – If there is a conservation easement put in place, who would control it?
Mr. O’Neil – We are looking into that and we are also looking at a deed restriction.
Mrs. Winwood – To prohibit cut through traffic, has a gate been considered?
Mr. O’Neil – We do not want to make this a gated community.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Drain – Traffic is an issue. Encouraged the residents to contact the County and the Township. States that the Fire Department likes two access points to any development. Comments how the Township, County and the developer of the Enclave are working on plans to improve the site distance at Rooks and Spring Valley. States that he likes the project and the residential character of it and feels that it blends in well with the neighborhood. Feels this development will generate less traffic than a single-family development. States he is in favor of the rezoning.
Mrs. Zobrist – In favor of the plan. We need something like this in our community. Better than a single-family development.
Mrs. Winwood – Feels this is a good use of the property. Feels the developer will partner with the residents to make it a safe development.
Mr. Drain – Makes a motion to approve
Bob Surdyk, Township Law Director – Suggested that the Zoning Commission include conditions on their first stage.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moves in Case Z-681 to approve applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) to Planned Development Residential (PD-R) two stage to allow for a new senior independent living community, subject to: 1) based on concept plan that was submitted with the application; 2) maintain 80% open space; 3) natural amenities will be left undisturbed and if any area is disturbed, it should be identified in the Second Stage application; 4) identify and protect floodplain; 5) density in single family portion to be 1.68 units per acre and 4.99 units per acre in the multiple family portion; 6) total units not to exceed 332; 7) amenities package to be included in the second stage application; and 8) staff comments.
Motion seconded by Mr. Anderson.
VOTE –Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, yes.
Case Z-681 approved with modifications.
CASE Z-680 – RLG Social Row Ltd. & GCG Social Row Ltd.
Request is for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) to Planned Development Office 2 (PD-O2), Planned Development Business 2 (PD-B2), Planned Development Residential Multi-Family (PD-RM) two stage to allow for a mixed-use development to be constructed which will contain business, office and residential. This property contains approximately 64.427 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Social Row Road and SR48.
Greg DeLong, Senior Planner presented the case.
Applicant represented by Greg Samples of R.G. Properties; and Brent Dixon of Hillandale, 8073 Tylersville Road.
Mr. Samples gave applicant presentation on the proposed development.
Mr. Dixon gave presentation about the proposed nursing home.
Mr. Drain – How did you determine that there was a market for this type of development in Washington Township?
Mr. Dixon – Market studies of the area have shown there is a need for this type of use in the community.
Mr. Drain – Comments on how he likes seeing neighborhood retail near the intersection of major roadways and not in the middle of developments.
Mr. Anderson – How are you addressing the comments from the Montgomery County Engineering Office?
Mr. Samples – The traffic study was submitted in draft form and they will be in better position to address their concerns during the second stage process.
Citizens voicing concerns, questions and comments included:
Carleen Beckermann, 10305 Virginia Lee Drive – Would like to see pedestrian connection for the residents on the north side of Social Road and east side of SR48. Also concerned with traffic and the amount of congestion that currently exists. Does not want to see businesses in the neighborhood. Also doesn’t want to see more residential development in the area.
Laura McCaffrey, 10480 Grand Vista Drive – Is concerned that the B-2 district would allow for fast food restaurants and gas stations. Uses need to be restricted and buffering should be increased.
Joe Harmon, 531 Willowhurst Street – Would like the environmental study be made part of the case file. States he can see disconnect between what is proposed and what can be done for at the site. Does not want to see business zoning at this location.
Marilee Baird, 51 Calverda Drive – Agrees with the previous comments. Questions what the time line is for development. Asks about the timeline for roadway improvements on SR 48.
Mr. Toberen – Responded that we have no idea and neither does the State of Ohio.
Ms. Baird - Stated that these improvements should be done before this development is started.
Steve McCaffrey, 10480 Grand Vista Drive – Concerned with the possibility of fast food restaurants and gas stations at the site. Concerned with the increase in traffic and cut through traffic down Calverda Drive.
Bob Kyvik, 2555 Goodfield Point – Wants an explanation about what the Study Areas are as identified in Create the Vision.
Mr. Drain – They were determined by staff and committees.
Mr. Kyvik – States the applicant should not have used the Create the Vision logo in his presentation.
Mr. Kyvik – Did the Implementation Task Force committee review this plan?
Mr. Drain – No, but they have been aware of it.
Ben Downing, 300 W. Social Row Road – Wanted the residents to understand that the widening of Social Row Road is due to the Austin Pike interchange at I-75.
Mr. Samples – Gave responses to the citizens’ comments: 1) We will do what we can to link pedestrian connections to the north and east; 2) Understands the citizens concerns of fast food restaurants and gas stations and he will look into what can be done to satisfy everyone.
Mrs. Winwood – Will your development be used as a cut through to avoid the Social Row and SR 48 intersection.
Mr. Samples – We will address this during the second stage application as there will be traffic calming measures.
Mr. Drain – Will the streets be public or private?
Mr. Samples – Residential will be private and the rest will be public.
Public hearing closed.
Commission remarks, concerns and comments included:
Mr. Drain – Good use of this property because of all the residential development in the area.
Mr. Anderson – Concept is a good idea but there are several questions that need to be addressed. Would like to study the layout of the 3 zoning districts more before making a decision on the request.
Mr. Rogers – Good project. Doesn’t feel it will increase traffic though he is concerned with some of the uses that are permitted.
Bo Gunlock, Developer and Property Owner - Approached the podium and stated that he doesn’t want to restrict the use of fast food restaurants as it is difficult to identify what in today’s market is defined as a fast food restaurant.
Mr. Anderson – Thinks the concept could be better.
Mr. Gunlock – Commented that he believes the plan couldn’t get any better.
Mrs. Winwood – Feels this development is more preferred than 500 more houses. She did comment about a moratorium on development in the Township.
MOTION – Mr. Drain moved in Case Z-680 to approve applicant’s request for a change in zoning from the current Agricultural (A) to Planned Development Office 2 (PD-O2), Planned Development Business 2 (PD-B2), Planned Development Residential Multi-Family (PD-RM) two stage to allow for a mixed-use development to be constructed which will contain business, office and residential subject to: 1) based on developer representation to restrict gas stations; 2) based on developer representation to restrict traditional fast food restaurants; 3) have pedestrian connectivity to the south and west; 4) residential density in multi-family to be 3.35 units per acre; 5) wetlands to be handled through Ohio EPA and Ohio Army Corps of Engineers; 6) square footage of buildings to be as shown on submitted concept plans; and 7) metes and bounds to be submitted identifying zoning boundaries.
Motion seconded by Mr. Rogers.
VOTE –Mr. Rogers, yes; Mr. Drain, yes; Mrs. Winwood, yes; Mrs. Zobrist, yes; Mr. Anderson, no.
Case Z-680 approved with modifications.
In other business:
Staff reminded the Commission of the next Zoning Resolution Rewrite meeting.
At the request of Beazer Homes, staff gave a brief presentation showing the relocation of zoning lines at Winding Creek that Beazer would like to do. Staff informed the Commission that this case will be on the agenda in October.
Mr. Drain – Suggested that the Zoning Commission should not comment on the requested change until the case is filed and brought before the Zoning Commission in a public meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. A tape recording of this proceeding is on file in the Zoning Office.
________________________________
Harry Drain, Chairman
Washington Township Zoning Commission