DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER: John Richardson, Chairman
MINUTES:........................... Minutes DT Zoning Commission July 14, 2003
............................................... There was a motion by Scott Evans to approve the minutes of July 14, 2003, with 2 corrections on Page 3. There was a second by Robert Giesse.
Roll Call S. Evans-yes, L. Speidel-yes, J. Richardson-yes, R. Giesse-yes
The motion was approved.
CASE 2003-329 1712 King Avenue, 20.2790 Acres, Requesting to change zoning from
Office Warehouse to Residential Single Family
Mr. Richardson said the above case has been withdrawn and will not be heard tonight.
Discussion/ Tim Hershner said this case should be continued tonight because there are Recommendation plans to “dove tail” these changes into the overall Zoning Code updates by Poggemeyer Design Group. He said the same should apply to the text amendments.
There was a motion by Lee Speidel to table the map changes until the next regularly scheduled meeting. 2nd _by John Richardson
Roll Call R. Giesse-yes, S. Evans-yes, L. Speidel-yes, J. Richardson-yes
The motion was approved.
1. Existing PUD Regulations need to be modified to streamline the process providing for clustering of residential density.
2. A Corridor Overlay District is needed to address planning and design issues along Montgomery Road, Mason-Montgomery Road, Kings Mills Development Area, and Loveland Park.
3. A Steep Slopes Ordinance
4. SOB Regulations need to meet constitutional requirements and effectively regulate land uses in a way that makes sense for the community.
Existing PUD Regulations Mr. Mielnik said he hoped to have some discussion on stream lining the PUD regulations. Mr. Giesse said the PUD process just takes more time. He said some things are cumbersome. Tim said for example, the Zicka zone change. They did not want to do a PUD because of the time involved. Tim said we hope to formalize the procedure in the code. Tim said there is an investment in plans for the applicant. On the Stage 3, originally the zoning board made the final decision. Now the trustees chose to take that on. The trustees have the final say. Tim believes the Stage 3 should become a staff decision and have the Stage 1 & 2 come before the board and the trustees. Tim said that Stage 3 should not be a stage where decisions are made but Stage 3 would be saying “Are they in compliance with Stage 2 approval?” Tim said we need to clarify in our code what needs to be in place at Stage 2. Lee Speidel said the zoning commission recommended that the Stage 2 and Stage 3 be combined. Lee asked if the trustees ever acted on that, and if that was ever put into place. Tim said not formally. Tim said the trustees have talked about the staff passing plans around to them and getting their informal review. Tim said we need to develop some standards for Stage 2 that encompasses more of the final development plans. The Stage 3 could really be a construction drawing review. John Richardson said maybe our current code is too vague. John said the steps should be well designed in the code book so the developer can follow the steps. Tim said the PUD for single family have not been used as much as they could have. It appears we go from a R-SF to a R-TF to allow a little bit smaller lot. For the most part the township is experiencing straight letter district zoning because most developers don’t want to get into the PUD process. Tim said earlier in the year we were looking at 20,000 square foot lots instead of the 14,000 square feet lots. The county bumped up the size of lots and will allow some cluster zoning. Lee said in residential PUD’s you usually have smaller lots as in Landen, where the lots are 11,000 square feet. Lee Speidel said most of the township PUD’s are just the same as R-SF only with smaller lots, with the exception of Landen which has the green space. Bob Giesse said with PUD’s you are in a negotiating position and you can make sure that what they come up with is something that benefits the community, not just the developer. Mr. Giesse said it may be more difficult but the good developers will figure out how to work the system and get something that will be approved. Mr. Mielnik said you could have some trade offs. Mr. Mielnik said you could give 20% or 10% bonus to the developer just because you like PUD’s. Mr. Mielnik said the public benefits when you have better subdivision design. John Richardson said you could spell it out that it is not a fixed 20%. Bob Giesse said some sites are on hillsides and the developer can use imagination. Tim said that we should make it clear in the code what we are looking for in exchange for that whether it is community facilities or open space. Tim said Warren County said it could include detention ponds but only a certain percentage. The intent of bigger PUD’s is that you are creating more of a neighborhood than a cul-de-sac street. Tim said the pedestrian pathways are put in and we should make sure whether they are private or public. Tim said as we go through each one of these items we should allow public comments.
Public Comments John Lateulere III, Fischer Development Company, Ohio Valley
Development Council, wanted to comment on PUD’s. The development council likes PUD’s because it gives the development community more of an opportunity to do something different. He said they would like to review the final draft of the township’s zoning code and comment on it. Mr. Lateaulere said according to the Ohio Revised Code the township needs one legislative approval and the rest could be administrative approval. He said the process needs to be streamlined. Tim Hershner said he did raise an interesting point that on Stage 1, we should come up with some additional standards that help clarify the level of conditions we really want to set. Stage 1 is where you want to set your benchmarks, so that when the developer goes away and comes back with a Stage 2, they know what plateau they need to reach. Tim said if you don’t establish that in Stage 1, the developer might question where are we coming up with these new requirements. Doug Miller said that is the site plan review process and obviously, you need to give them all that information “coming in.” Doug said that would make it easier on the staff and everybody. Doug said sometimes the developer doesn’t want to go to that level of detail until they get the zone change or whatever.
Elaine Elko, 8622 Charleston Valley Court, Mason, asked if R-SF would get changed to a PUD what would be the process. Tim Hershner said that it would be handled the same as any zone change. There would be a Stage 1 process and public meeting. Ms. Elko asked if R-SF would not have to go public hearing if it would be straight R-SF, not PUD. Tim said that is correct.
Diana Halligen, 4071 Brookside Court, Mason, wondered why subdivisions must get approved at the county level and never even come through the township zoning department. Doug Miller said that is a state law. Tim said there is a county function where the subdivisions must get reviewed. Tim said the township signs off on the plats when they comply with our zoning code but we don’t have any say so on those. Tim asked the board if they want to look at subdivisions in a site plan review. Doug Miller said by law the county must review the subdivision. Doug said the township has no authority to regulate them. Lee Speidel said the only time it attracts notice is when they completely comply with our zoning and don’t have to ask for any thing at the township. Lee said everyone goes to the county for subdivision review. Tim said if the subdivision is a PUD they will accept our review. Ms. Halligen was also concerned about drainage and didn’t want “stream lining the zoning process” to cause the township zoning to overlook the drainage situations of future plans. She asked at what stage do the developer show where it drains, the amount that it drains, and show the engineer’s calculations, etc. Tim said that is the challenge on the final plans because sometimes you don’t have the topography. Tim said for example, Nantucket where the grade level of the property ended up so much higher than the surrounding homes. The grade level didn’t show up and it was too late to correct that.
Tim said now on the code the buffer yards are twice the height of the building. Tim said when elevations increase, that should be calculated into the plan. Tim said all this information should be shown in the code. Lee said the code needs to be very specific and very complete. Lee said it was issues like that caused the trustees to step into Stage 3 a few years ago. Lee said some of the developers will be surprised at what requirements they have to meet and what information we need. Scott Evans commented about Nantucket on Stage 1, 2, and 3. Scott said Nantucket is not built to Stage 3 because the elevation is now increased by 6 feet. Tim said Stage 3 plans did in fact show the elevations but it was after all the conditions of Stage 2 was put in and it may have been an over site. Tim thinks we should itemize all the design issues we want to review. Tim said that way we would steer the applications to a better understanding of what we are looking for or at least what we are looking at. John Richardson said that is the key, that the more information they have, they will know each step of the process. Scott Evans asked Tim if Warren County has passed “as built” inspection now. Scott said no one comes back and inspects. Tim said Warren County is coming back and doing “as built” on their detentions. Tim said that is why we had some problems for Simpson Creek Farms. Tim said the county is wrestling with MBO’s, minimum openings. Tim said when there is a heavy rain the house won’t have water in the basement. Tim said in The Greens of Crooked Tree, the flood waters went above the road ways and through the yards. Water was in one cul-de-sac, and went into some basements. It was a matter of grading. Tim said here is a gap, it appears, between the building department at the county which looks at just the house and the finished product. Tim said at the township level we are not staffed to go out and check grades. Tim said we’d like to be able to address every issue of our residents but we can’t come in and control the the squabbles between the builder and the home buyers.
Corridor Overlay District Randy Mielnik said there is some potential improvement for commercial areas along the corridors in the township. He said this is a way to set uniform setback along the whole corridor no matter what the original zoning was. He said even areas which are “built out” can change over time. Tim said there are some areas of the township where our current zoning doesn’t apply. Examples were Loveland Park and Kings Mills. Even though we may have an overlay district, we may not need it until a few years down the road. Dr. Harvey’s property and the Twenty Mile House will be right on the road with the widening of Montgomery Road. Tim said we should update our Land Use Plan and look for specific districts which would be better used for an overlay district.
Tim thinks we should develop these overlay districts, whether it is Kings Mills or a corridor, if we have the frame work there. .Doug Miller said we have a requirement that the districts be uniform across the board. How can we get away with R-SF on the Montgomery Road corridor verses the Mason-Montgomery Road corridor? Would those be separate zoning classifications, so that it is uniform within that zone. Mr. Mielnik said with townships that issue has come up a lot. Tim said is it hard to establish additional standards where there are unique conditions? Doug Miller said it could easily be done with a PUD. Doug said in other areas, we must treat each overlay district as an individual zoning district, such as R-SF Mason Montgomery Road , R-SF Montgomery Road. As Randy Mielnik was saying it is uniform across the district. Tim said overlay zones and districts are a special zoning.
Public Comments Diana Halligen, 4071 Brookside Court, Mason, said maybe if we can start now we can prevent some negative things from happening. She said this would be a good zoning for Kings Mills and this would maybe be better for the environment.
John Richardson said Kings Mills is an exception. Tim asked Randy if they could look at Kings Mills and Loveland Park and try to understand the fabric there and come up with proposed districts which would allow those property owners there to enjoy what they enjoy and not have to seek variances for things they want to do on the property. Randy gave an example where they made some allowances and came up with zoning for a specific area. John Richardson asked him if they came up with special zoning for that area. Randy said they did. Tim asked Doug in the normal subdivision of the day, as the house is being built sidewalks are put in as the house is constructed. In Loveland Park we would not consider making sidewalks a requirement there. Tim said if this was required then there would be more walking paths throughout the township. Doug said if they want to pay for it or assess it on the property owners, it could be done if it were required. Tim said Loveland Park could take a long time to be built out. Tim said sidewalks have been a subdivision requirement, not a zoning requirement. Tim said that is just an example and we don’t necessarily need sidewalks everywhere in Loveland Park.
A Steep Slopes Ordinance Randy said there are a number of sites in the township with steep slopes. He said with these steep slopes often times there is off site impact. Randy said when vegetation is removed, there can be erosion problems. Randy said this zoning is best covered by conditional use. John Richardson asked if a “stamped foundation plan” could be required by the township in order to insure these foundations are able to withstand the problems associated with this type of terrain. Tim said we could require that there be a geotechnical report on these properties. Tim said some of the hillsides along the Little Miami River and in Loveland Park may become desirable for people to build on. Tim said we did have the situation where the two houses slid down the hill and one was a total loss. If we had these type of requirements in place that would help. Tim said we are not qualified to pass any judgment but we could make the requirements. John Richardson asked if site plan reviews require any topos. Tim said yes they do. Tim said we could have a topo map and if something comes in and the grade is over a certain per cent such as 18%, we would be assured that certain requirements would be in place. Tim said this should be a qualified number and not a guess. John said if you put that as a conditional use, and if it is over 18% that automatically puts it in the category (its own zone) that it would need these qualifications. Bob Giesse said this would be almost like our requirement of suggesting the Simpson Creek Water Study be utilized in developments in the township which are near the Simpson Creek. Lee Speidel has anybody ever suggested the density requirement in regards to steep slopes? Randy Mielnik said that is a good thing to remember. Tim said some codes are written so that steep slopes would be covered. Ours isn’t. Randy said we also don’t want the “conditional use” label to cause any problems with financing of the development of the property. Doug said sometimes the public thinks “you don’t have to allow this” and they don’t realize this is a conditionally permitted use. John said maybe we need a better definition of “conditional use.” Lee said there are a lot of new people in the mortgage business today who don’t know that much about zoning, development, conditional use and what it means. Randy Mielnik said he has a suggestion for the county that they approve a lot split and their subdivision regulations allow for maximizing the number of lots. Tim said we have run into situations where subdivisions conform to the lot size minimums but because of the shape of the lot, you can’t put the “mini mansion” on that lot with our setbacks. Now we are adding another layer that if you have steep slopes you must have a P.E. sign off on it. Tim said just because it meets the subdivision regulations and on the surface it meets the zoning code minimums as far as lot size, it doesn’t necessarily meet our setback requirements.
Public Comments Diana Halligen, 4071 Brookside Court, Mason, said she is beginning to understand. She said she likes the regulations regarding the steep slopes. She said she thinks this will prevent any other homes from sliding down th hill. Lee said a conditional use such as behind the GE Credit site and they have a very rough topography and need the steep slope treatment. Tim said from a policy perspective, would this go before the BZA or Zoning Commission. Doug Miller said it wouldn’t be good to turn down commercial since you have already turned down apartments.Diana asked about the time line on these zone code changes. Tim said January 1st, 2004.
Sexually Oriented Business Randy said that one of the things that are important here is separating these types of uses from schools and churches but having areas set aside where this type of business is allowed. Randy said these can be conditional uses. Doug Miller said that he has always had a problem with making SOB’s conditional uses. Doug said that immediately makes that suspect if it gets turned down. Doug said if they meet the restrictions they would be able to go in because there are so few places where they are permitted to go in. Lee said he heard a few years ago from PKG or Doug that we could get into trouble making it a conditional use. Doug said it also can put the BZA board in a bad position and they think they can turn this down. Doug said first we should determine where is the area, and then figure out if there are conditions, such as not being able to see through the windows and the sign should be tasteful. Scott Evans said PKG had one more thing andthat was nude car washes. Randy said in the current code it is a conditional use. John said it probably falls under public display. Doug Miller said we can do the same thing but not set ourselves up to fail. Doug said make it a permitted use. Tim said presently it could go into Arbor Square but as soon as a liquor license goes in, this use would not be allowed. Tim asked Randy if they’ll take the distances in the code and work with that.
Public Comments Diana Halligen, 4071 Brookside Court, Mason, said she had concerns with Item #7, “Division (1) through (5) above, may be waived by the Board of Zoning appeals provided that the applicant provides affidavits of fifty-one (51) percent of the property owners and resident free holders within the above described radii, giving their consent to the establishment of a SOB, and if the board determines: Diana was concerned that the owner of 72 apartments used those 72 votes to influence an outcome. Tim said what she if referring to is that they used 72 condominium units owned by one party and they got 72 votes which was illegal. Lee said the adjoining property owners could be a business and they may not care about this business. Tim said how would this apply if this is no longer a conditionally permitted use how will we apply conditions. Doug Miller said it wouldn’t go to the BZA. Doug Miller said if it is not a conditional use #7 can be deleted. Per Tim, #7 should be stricken. John Richardson said the next meeting with Randy Mielnik is November. Tim said the question is if Poggemeyer is interested in coming back to a second or final grouping with the Zoning Commission before coming up with a tentative “draft” of the code. Tim said we need to continue this case. Randy Mielnik said he would do whatever the township needs. Lee asked if there are 2 major issues. John Richardson said we need a good zoning map. Tim asked that Poggemeyer come back again next month, September 8, for the next Zoning Commission Meeting. John Richardson said we will continue this open forum until next month on September 8th.
NEW BUSINESS Tim said he received the final plat for the 20 Mile Green Condominiums on the old Peter “D’s” property. It shows 3 lots, #1 retail, #2 daycare, and #3 the condominium portion. Tim asked Doug Miller if the easements on the plat if they should be access easements or public use easements? Doug Miller said there should be some type of statement on there that says whether they are for ingress or egress. Tim asked Doug if Doug should prepare something to put on the plat or should Warren County be putting that on there. Tim said he wants to make sure we don’t get into the same problem this property as we had with the Smyth property. John Richardson asked Tim if the plan shows it the way we approved it? Tim said he must sign off stating that this plan is what the board decided on. Doug Miller said there should be a statement on there. Tim said there is a final plat of Nantucket and they are subdividing the property into 3 parcels for financing of the property. Tim said there is not change to the layout. Tim asked Doug Miller if the apartments were changed to condos would they have to come back in for any PUD change. Doug Miller said no. Doug said that is just a form of ownership.
OLD BUSINESS
9:30 PM ADJOURNMENT Motion by Scott Evans to adjourn._ 2nd by Robert Giesse. Roll Call S. Evans-yes, L. Speidel-yes, J. Richardson-yes, R. Giesse-yes
The motion was approved.