Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Commission recommends rezoning 25.195‑acre Thalmann site for 55‑home Miranda Homes development with amended lift‑station condition

2526276 · March 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission unanimously recommended rezoning 25.195 acres (PUD 25‑1) to allow 55 single‑family homes by Miranda Homes, approving nine conditions with a modification to require special attention to potential impacts from relocation or operations of the Greene County lift station at the end of Bayview and on Graham access.

The Beavercreek City Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of PUD 25‑1, a rezoning request for 25.195 acres that would allow the construction of 55 single‑family homes by builder Miranda Homes.

Developer presentation and staff context: Brian Hosel, land acquisition manager for Miranda Homes, described the proposed residential community, saying the site is about 25 acres in a wooded area with planned stormwater management, natural vegetation buffers and a mix of one‑ and two‑story homes. Hosel provided sample home sizes (ranch plans roughly 1,500–2,000 sq ft; two‑story plans roughly 1,900–2,800+ sq ft), standard exterior materials (cement fiberboard siding), and a proposed product mix intended to fit the local market.

Staff review noted the request would rezoning 25.195 acres from A‑1/agriculture and R1A to a residential planned unit development (RPUD). Staff said the density is 2.25 dwelling units per acre (up slightly from a prior 2.19 after reallocating land to the existing cell tower area), which is below the land‑use plan threshold of three dwelling units per acre for the VPA‑19 area. Staff also reiterated that existing stormwater must not be made worse by development and that any costs to move a lift station would be borne by the developer.

Why it matters: The plan proposes new residential connections in the city’s northeast quadrant and raises infrastructure questions that could affect nearby neighborhoods, specifically potential impacts from the Greene County lift station sited at the end of Bayview and the Graham Drive/Bayview neighborhood accesses.

Commissioner concerns and amendment: Commissioners and staff talked at length about the lift station and neighborhood access. Several commissioners emphasized that the lift station and any relocation or impact deserve explicit attention in the conditions because Bayview and Graham currently have limited ingress/egress. One commissioner moved to add a sentence to condition 7 saying special attention will be given to resolving any possible impacts to Bayview and Graham ingress and egress by the Greene County lift station; the amendment carried on a voice/roll call vote.

The commission then voted to recommend approval of PUD 25‑1 with the modified conditions (the packet’s nine conditions including the amended condition 7). Roll call showed Mister Jones, Mister Fountain and Mister Meyer voting yes.

Technical details and next steps: The PUD includes 60‑foot lot widths, minimum front yard 30 feet, minimum rear yard 35 feet, five‑foot side yards and a minimum 15‑foot separation between principal structures. A 50‑foot buffer is required adjacent to the existing R1A uses to the north and east. Stormwater calculations and any required traffic study will be addressed at the detailed site‑plan stage; staff noted that if a lift station move is required, relocation costs are the developer’s responsibility and will be resolved during site‑plan review.

Ending: The commission’s recommendation will go to city council for final action. Staff reiterated that development is allowed unless the city purchases land to prevent it; the commission said its role is to mitigate impacts through conditions and the site‑plan review process.