-GEAUGA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Memo Redwood Memo... · 2019. 10. 7. · to the US Army Corp of Engineer’s for review. The riparian setback boundaries are noted as required,

Redwood Development Proposal, Auburn Township 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 7, 2019 TO: Planning Commission members

FROM: Linda M. Crombie, Planning Director

RE: Redwood Apartment Neighborhoods, text and map amendment proposal, Auburn Township, Agenda Items 7C and 7D As a follow-up to the October 1, 2019 introductory memo on this development proposal, the

following is offered for your consideration:

Part 1: Overview

Over the past months representatives from Redwood Apartment Neighborhoods have met with

various township, county, and ODOT officials regarding a multi-family development proposed

to the south of US Route 422 on the east side of SR 44 in Auburn Township. The proposal was

initiated by the property owner, Robert Brosnan of Six Dog Holdings LLC.

The development proposal, as depicted in Image 1 on the following page, includes nineteen (19),

one-story apartment buildings totaling 110 dwelling units. The township does not have a multi-

family zoning district, therefore, the developer is proposing a new R-3 Residential zoning district

as well as the re-zoning of seven (7) parcels containing 31.1616 acres, which are as follows:

01-014200, 01-014300, 01-014500, 01-041800*, 01-056420, 01-104700, and 01-117632

*The parcel number referenced above is the correct parcel number. Parcel number 01-014800

was incorrectly referenced on the applications and in the legal description and must be corrected.

The development would be accessed via one private access drive located six hundred twenty

(620) feet south of southernmost on and off ramps of US Route 422. The entrance is proposed

approximately 1,500 feet (1/4 mile) north of Taylor May Road and Starbush Drive intersection.

It is important to note that a left turn lane is proposed on Route 44 to access the development.

The new lane is not illustrated on the current plan, but the developer has indicated they will

provide a revised plan at the October 8 Planning Commission meeting.

The approach to this development is described by the developer as providing housing options for

Geauga County Planning Commission 470 Center Street, Building 1C, Chardon, Ohio 44024

Phone (440) 279-1740 Fax (440) 285-7069 www.co.geauga.oh.us/Departments/Planning-Commission


several age groups but aging residents who no longer desire the upkeep of a larger residential

property, and who desire to remain in Auburn Township, are a target population group.

The buildings will generally contain two and three bedroom units, with one thousand fifty

(1,050) square feet established as the minimum floor area. Rent would generally range from

$1,500-$2,200 with select end-units having a higher rent, perhaps $2,400+/-, where a sunroom

can be accommodated. Standard building materials will be used including vinyl siding, cultured

stone (cement product), and dimensional shingles.

The developer, Redwood Apartment Neighborhoods, would take over ownership of the 31.16

acres and manage the development if the re-zoning were to be approved.

Image 1: Proposed Development Plan

In terms of desired housing types, it is important to note the Auburn Township Land Use Plan,

updated in 2016, contains community survey results from 2011 that indicate senior housing for

persons 55 years and older as the third most popular type of “desirable” housing. Single family

homes and in-law suites ranked #1 and #2. Apartments were the second least desirable type of

housing. However, it is likely the single story apartments Redwood proposes was not the intent

of the survey question as “apartments” are typically thought of as high density, multi-story

buildings.

The following images are provided to assist you with understanding the location and scope of the

project. In each image the limits of development area and properties to be rezoned are illustrated

with a yellow dashed line:


Image 2: Aerial photo

Image 3: Current Zoning


Image 4: Current Zoning, larger vicinity

Image 5: Topography, 2’ and 10’ contours


Image 6: Riparian Setbacks

Part 2: Proposed Text and Map Amendments The documents provided by the developer depict the proposed R-3 Residential District language

in bold text but for the Planning Commission meeting presentation, the text will be highlighted

so as to more clearly discern the proposed changes. In the following summary, comments of

particular importance are in italics and recommendations are in bold italics.

1. Article 2: Definitions

A definition of “Dwelling-Attached” is proposed and defined as “two (2) to eight (8)

dwelling units attached side-to-side…” The development proposal consist of buildings

with 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 dwelling units each. Any building with three or more dwelling units

is considered as multi-family per standard planning practice.

Recommend the wording be changed to “three (3) to eight (8) dwelling

units…”

2. Article 4, 4.01: Districts Established The establishment of the R-3 District is defined in this section and includes the provision

of a site being in proximity and adjacent to existing business districts, having frontage on

a state highway, and being served by sanitary sewer. This is narrowly defined so as to

limit the potential use of the R-3 district elsewhere in the township.


3. Article 4: Schedule 4.03(k) Residential District Schedule

The R-3 District was added to the schedule and the minimum lot area requirements, lot

width, front, side, and rear setbacks, and maximum lot coverage standards are listed. It is

important to note these are district requirements, not individual building lot requirements

as specified in the remaining schedule. Notes 5 and 6 were added for clarification.

4. Article 4: Schedule 4.03 (l) Parking and Signs in Residential Districts

Each unit will contain an attached two-car garage and the requirement of two (2)

additional visitor parking spaces in front of the dwelling units is noted as well as the

provision for additional visitor parking located elsewhere on-site.

5. Article 4: R-3 Residential District

This section contains the bulk of the regulatory language, some of which are noted

below:

Section 4.04 a-1: A minimum development area of twenty (20) contiguous acres is

established which is a reasonable minimum.

Section 4.04 a-3: The water supply will be a private community well and the developer

must verify the necessary approvals through the County or Ohio EPA.

Section 4.04 b-2: Recreational uses are permitted and examples include playgrounds,

swimming pools, and tennis courts. However, the development plan does not include

such amenities at initial build out. It would be expected a community such as this to

provide recreational facilities, given the proposed monthly rent.

Section 4.04 b-3: The maximum density is set at no more than four (4) units per acre,

which is lower density.

Section 4.04 c-7: The front yard setback is noted as a minimum of fifty (50) feet from

the public right of way, which is in conflict with Section 4.03(k) where sixty-five (65)

feet is listed.

Recommend this wording be corrected

Section 4.04 c-13: Landscape buffering adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts is proposed to

be required as required by the Zoning Inspector.

Recommend that the language also include “when adjacent to any residential

use”.

Minimum landscape standards, such as evergreen size, number, etc. should be

further developed such as minimum height at planting, mounding, etc.

Section 4.04 c-14: The proposed twenty-two (22) feet wide private drive does not meet

the minimum road specification standards required by the County. The County nor the

township would accept road maintenance responsibilities of a road not built to county

standards, if public dedication were to be pursued in the future.

Recommend the private drive be required to meet the minimum road

specifications for Geauga County as adopted by the Board of County

Commissioner’s.


Section 4.04 c-17: This section must be reviewed by the Township Fire Department for

minimum turning radius requirements.

Section 5.01 c: The minimum floor area is specified in this section. The developer

should clarify the maximum number of bedrooms permitted.

Section 5.02 f-4-a: This section permits additional parking spaces to be more than two

hundred (200) feet from the dwelling units.

Recommend a maximum distance be established, such as three hundred fifty

(350) feet, but no more than four hundred (400).

Section 6.01 b-5, 8.01, 8.02: These sections establish that review of any R-3

development plan is required by the township.

Section 8.03: Language is added to clarify development plan review is to be performed

by the Zoning Inspector, not the Zoning Commission.

Section 8.04 h: This section was added to specify six items to be required, however, the

language must be reworded:

Recommend “In R-3 residential developments, the following additional

information shall be provided:”

Section 8.04

h-2: The developer indicated a wetlands delineation has been completed and submitted

to the US Army Corp of Engineer’s for review. The riparian setback boundaries are

noted as required, however, the development plan does not illustrate those setbacks.

Recommend the riparian setbacks be added to the development plan

h-3: The private drive will connect to the service drive that is used to access the waste

water treatment plant. Emergency access for safety personnel would be provided in this

area and residents would not be permitted to enter or exit in this area.

Recommend the township officials, Auburn Fire Department, County Sheriff,

and ODOT, carefully consider the access to and from the development in the

event of an emergency in or near the development.

h-5: A traffic impact study was completed and it indicates in the AM peak hour, 19

vehicles will enter the development and 49 will exit for a total of 68 trips. In the PM

peak hour, 48 will enter the development and 33 will exit for a grand daily total of 81

trips. In general, the study indicated the development can be accommodated “without

adversely impacting the area roadway network”, but an additional AM thirty (30) second

delay will result on the westbound 422 ramp based upon a 2021 build.

h-6: Ground water capability and details on the ownership and operation of the system is

required.

Recommend the developer confirm which county or state permit approvals are

required for the potable water system.


Section 8:05: The language required eight (8) sets of plans be submitted but it now reads

as three (3) sets.

Recommend deferring to the township for their requirements.

Section 8.05 i: Sanitary Sewers: The development would be served by sanitary sewers

via the Troy Oaks Pump Station located immediately adjacent to the northeast. The

developer was made aware that the treatment plant expansion is expected to be

completed at the end of 2020 and that the expansion can accommodate the additional

waste water. Potable Water:

Recommend adding language regarding approval from Ohio EPA for potable

water supply, when applicable.

Section 8.07: This section further specifies the Zoning Inspector shall review and act on

applications for R-3 development proposals.

Section 8:07 b-1-d: Recommend adding language regarding approval from Ohio EPA

for potable water supply, when applicable.

Part 3: Items to Consider and Recommendations

A. Loss of office/industrially zoned land

A total of one hundred forty-eight (148) acres of B-4 Office/Industrial land is located near the

US Route 422/State Route 44 interchange. While the township cannot collect income taxes,

office and industrially zoned land generally brings higher paying jobs, which is beneficial to the

overall economy of the county. There is a section of I-1 General Industrial zoned land located

elsewhere in the township, but it is not near the highway, which is a key factor when businesses

consider where to locate. Additionally, according to the township land use plan, professional

offices was noted as the second highest commercial development desired at the 422/44

interchange.

The developer notes that the B-4 zoning is onerous as it is located directly adjacent to residential

uses. Industrially zoned land adjacent to residential is not desirable, however, this rezoning, if

approved, will create an undesirable zoning configuration of office-industrial land located

between multi-family and single family.

Recommend the township contact multiple local commercial real estate firms to

determine the amount of interest in office-industrial land within Auburn

Township and the surrounding area so a more informed decision can be made

regarding the viability of this proposal as well as the remaining one hundred

sixteen (116) acres of B-4 zoned land located on the east and west sides of

Route 44.

It is important to note that Six Dog Holdings LLC owns 60% of the B-4 zoned land located on

the west side of Route 44 so it is likely a development proposal of some kind will be pursued in

the future.

B. County Land Use Plan (2003): recommends “affordably priced dwelling units that are close

to shopping and services and that such housing should be within the municipalities or near areas


that may be readily serviced by infrastructure or public transit.”

With respect to rent, according to the most recent Geauga County Profile, prepared by the Ohio

Development Services Agency, the median gross rent is $813 and accounts for almost 26% of

the household income. Residents who pay $1,500 or more for rent currently in Geauga County

account for only 6.7% of renters. Additionally, the residents the Geauga County Department on

Aging serves generally seek housing with an average monthly rent between $700-$800/month.

With respect to proximity to services, it is important for multi-family developments to be near

services, including retail shopping, grocers, medical offices, senior centers, etc. The township

does have a large amount of B-1-A retail land yet to be developed along Washington Street,

which could serve this development, however, grocery shopping and medical appointments, for

example, will likely continue to take place in Bainbridge Township and other locales. The senior

centers are located in Bainbridge, Chardon, Middlefield, and Chesterland.

C. Fire Department: The development will likely cause an increase in emergency and assistance

calls to the Fire Department.

Recommend the township Fire Department’s input.

D. Schools: The developer indicated their other developments typically have one school age

child for every fifteen units. Therefore, they do not anticipate an impact on the Kenston School

District.

Recommend the Kenston Local Schools review and comment on potential

impacts of the proposed plan on the school district.

E. Miscellaneous:

Variances from the township’s riparian setback ordinance will be required, but are not

guaranteed. A lot consolidation will be required and the proposal must comply with all

applicable subdivision regulations.

F. Summary

The pool of potential renters includes most age groups, which could limit the number of dwelling

units for seniors and potentially undermine the success of providing senior housing options.

Young professionals were mentioned in the developer’s summary as potential renters, however,

people in their 20’s and 30’s desire nightlife and amenities, which the development would not

have nor be within close proximity to.

There is the desire for senior housing (55+) within the township, but there is no guarantee this

housing would solely be for township residents. More research and public input will assist the

township officials to decide if this proposal meets the needs of their residents and whether it is in

conformance with their land use plan.

Given the amount of information provided to date, the staff recommendation is

to deny the text and map amendments based, in part, on the Auburn Township

Land Use Plan, Geauga County General Plan, average monthly rent, and

potential need for office/industrial uses to support the creation of local jobs.

c: file

-GEAUGA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Memo Redwood Memo... · 2019. 10. 7. · to the US Army Corp of Engineer’s for review. The riparian setback boundaries are noted as required,

Documents