This meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Edwin Humphrey, Chairperson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was given.
Upon roll call the following members were present: Mary Makley Wolff, Joseph Uecker and Edwin Humphrey.
Case #468, Parrott & Strawser, Inc., was called. The notice of public hearing, the Clermont County Department of Community Development recommendation and the Miami Township Rural Zoning Commission's recommendation were read into the record. The proponent, Mr. Jim Watson of McGill Smith Punshon, came forward to explain the request. Mr. Watson showed the Board a plan that was approved in November of 1999 under the "B" Conditional Use and is something they can proceed with immediately. The plan proposes 181 lots and is consistent with the "B" zoning, the lots are 80 x 160 and eight acres of open space. The new proposal asks for 185 lots which will be 70 x 120, there will be a buffer completely around the subdivision, two lakes, grading work so the property will drain properly into the lakes, a pathway system, open space will be approximately 31% not including the area under the power lines, a street lighting district, there will be turn lanes on Branch Hill Guinea Pike for both the proposed development and the existing Heritage Ridge Subdivision and there will be a connector street to Deerhaven Subdivision. Mr. Watson stated it would not be likely that people would use Deerhaven Subdivision as a cut through because of the length of the streets. Mr. Watson also stated the traffic impact study is done and Mr. Fronk has a copy. The board asked what the density and lot size is of the conditional use, if the Fire Department has reviewed the entrance island, and where the roof-top water will drain. Mr. Watson stated the density is 181 lots and the lot size is 80 x 160 for the conditional use. Mr. Fronk stated when the applicant comes in with their preliminary subdivision plan, is when the Fire Department will look at the entrance island. Mr. Watson stated the homeowners association will be responsible for the open space, lakes and entrance island.
Mr. Roger Murphy, of MI Homes came forward and gave handouts, about MI Homes, to the Trustees. Mr. Murhpy stated MI Homes is a very reputable company and they will be staying with this project until it is finished and will make sure the project is done right. Mr. Murphy explained that MI Homes plans to establish curb appeal by having street trees, ranch and two story homes, no two homes alike will be next to each other, the average cost will be approximately $190,000, a very nice well maintained entrance and quality construction.
Mr. Humphrey asked for adjoining property owners, who wished to speak, to come forward. The following adjoining property owner came forward. Mr. Roger Fangman, of 6266 Deerhaven Lane, came forward with concerns of the traffic on Branch Hill Guinea Pike and the street that will connect the two subdivisions.
There was no correspondence regarding this case. Mr. Humphrey asked for any concerned citizens, who wished to speak, to come forward. Mr. Mike Budzynski, of North Shadowhill Way, came forward to express his concerns of increased traffic on Branch Hill Guinea Pike and people cutting through subdivisions to escape that traffic and to keep the connector street from happening if possible.
Ms. Shelly Higgins, of 6253 Forest Crest Ct., came forward and asked how much road frontage was available along Branch Hill in case the road were ever increased to a multi lane road. Mr. Watson and the Trustees stated it is a 40 foot right of way and there is enough for the road improvements. Ms. Higgins also has a concern of increasing density because of county or state promised improvements that don't come, therefore causing worse traffic. Ms. Higgins asked when, as a Township are we going to say enough is enough? Ms. Higgins feels the added schools will help the roads by forcing the state and county to make the improvements.
Ms. Wolff made a motion to close the open portion of Case #468 seconded by Mr. Uecker with all board members voting "AYE"
The Board discussed differences in the density between the two plans, what gives a better quality overall development, preserving natural resources, the connecting street, and safety issues. The board discussed continuing this hearing so they could look more closely at this case.
Mr. Uecker made a motion to continue this hearing until the September 4, 2001 meeting, seconded by Ms. Wolff with all board members voting "AYE". Mr. Humphrey advised the public that they have closed the public portion of Case #468 and will not be taking any other public comments at the next meeting.
The board took a brief recess before Case #469.
Case #469 was called. The notice of public hearing, County reports and the Miami Township Rural Zoning Commission recommendation were read aloud. The proponent, Mr. Larry Fronk Miami Township Director of Community Development, explained to the board that this text amendment was a request of the Township Rural Zoning Commission as they have expressed concern over our PUD regulations over the past year or so. The issues have been discussed by the Zoning Commission and all of the concerns have not been resolved therefore, the Zoning Commission is requesting the deletion of the PUD. The Commission's major concerns are gross density versus net density of project and quality of open space. Another concern is design of developments. The position of the Commission is that they do want the PUD, they want one that is going to work and address their issues. Mr. Fronk stated the Commission does not want any more PUD application while this is being re-written. Mr. Fronk feels the PUD is a very important tool, he does share some of the Zoning Commission's concerns and does feel the PUD need to be re-written. The Board asked what changes should be made to the PUD and could the changes be made to satisfy the Zoning Commission. Mr. Fronk stated he has done research and continues to look. The board asked how Mr. Fronk envisions the process of re-writing the amendment. Mr. Fronk stated the process is to get input from the development community and the residents. Mr. Fronk feels this is important so both sides can have an opportunity to understand one another's concerns. Mr. Fronk feels the most important issues are how the density is calculated and the recreational open space. The Board feels what goes in the PUD development is also important. The Board asked how long revisions would take and could modifications be made to make the PUD livable for six months, until the revisions are made or do we need to get rid of it. Mr. Fronk stated the revisions would take a minimum of six months and Mr. Fronk stated he would look at language for modifications for temporary means.
Mr. Humphrey asked for concerned citizens to come forward. Ms. Shelly Higgins, of Forest Crest Ct., came forward in favor of getting rid of the PUD until a new one that works can be written.
Mr. Jim Watson stated without a PUD, developments will be far less attractive and would be a mistake to not have the PUD regulations for a piece of property that is made for the PUD use. Mr. Watson feels the White Farm Bear Creek application was a perfect example of how the PUD worked. The open space issue causes him a great deal of concern because he has seen a draft that says take all of the natural resource protection areas, the wetlands, steep slopes, and utility easements out of the density calculations. Mr. Watson feels the utility easements are easy to take care of by taking them out, and as far as making the developer commit a large percentage of flat developable property to open space, it probably won't be done. The land will be developed as zoned and will raise the price of homes that would have to be built. Mr. Watson asked what is wrong with the Weber Oaks development. He has heard that when you drive down the street all you see is garages. Someone from the audience stated there was no place for kids to play. Mr. Watson stated he takes serious issue with that because there is 20 or 30 acres of flat ground for the children to play on and that does not include the 20 acres in the wooded valley area. The Board asked Mr. Watson if he felt that Weber Oaks was a creative use of the topography of that space. Mr. Watson said absolutely and he feels they did precisely what you are supposed to do in a PUD. The Board said when you have a 60 foot wide lot as opposed to an 80 foot wide lot you will see more garage doors facing the front. Mr. Watson addressed usable open space. Mr. Watson asked exactly what is usable open space, how do you put a percentage on it and it would not make sense to use this idea on the small PUD's. The board stated the PUD should be a tool for the creative and unique development of land. Mr. Watson feels net density is something the Board should do and would like the Trustees to find against this proposal and instruct the Zoning Commission to take a more thoughtful and productive approach and deal directly with those few issues where current regulations fall short.
Ms. Higgins asked what is wrong with taking out the PUD for six months to re-evaluate it and see what works best. Mr. Watson stated he has a concern with just how strong an effort there will be to get it re-written. There was a discussion on the difference between gross density and net density.
Mr. Humphrey proposed that the decision on this matter be made at the regularly scheduled September 18th meeting so that the Trustees and Mr. Fronk can do some research.
Mr. Uecker made a motion to close the public portion of Case #469, seconded by Mrs. Wolff with all board members voting "AYE". Mr. Humphrey stated it would be open for discussion among the Trustees if they feel the need to discuss it more.
The Board asked Mr. Fronk for a copy of the "wish list" and to try to make some progress in the next 20 days to satisfy the needs. Mr. Fronk stated he would make it a priority.
Mr. Uecker made a motion to continue Case #469 to the regularly scheduled Tuesday, September 18th meeting, seconded by Ms. Wolff with all board members voting "AYE".
With no further business to come before the board the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
ATTEST: _________________________________________________________ Eric C. Ferry, Clerk
__________________________________________________________ Edwin H. Humphrey, Chairperson