Members present:
David Benner
Donna Conaway
James Bauder
Stephen Bergman
Nancy Detwiler
Alternate member:
James Conley
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Mr. Benner stated the Board would like to consider withdrawing Amendment 559-07 which was originally initiated by them on February 15, 2007.
Mr. Bergman made a motion to withdraw amendment 559-07.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
All was in favor.
Ms. Detwiler made a motion to approve the minutes from March 15, 2007.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
All was in favor.
The board reviewed the proposed text changes that were originally discussed at the last two meetings.
Mr. Bergman stated the initiation of the text changes was postponed at the last meeting due to a fencing issue that was brought before the board by a few residents. Mr. Bergman stated the he is not in favor of allowing fences at a height of 6 ft. all the way to the front property line.
Mr. Bauder and Ms. Detwiler agreed. The board agreed not to change the fence height regulation for the front yard.
Ms. Poindexter stated that she was asked by a commercial retailer to have the board look at the square footage permitted for a retail building in the B-2 district as to if the board would like to consider raising it from 5,000 sq. ft. to a larger square footage.
Ms. Poindexter explained the reason they changed the maximum square footage to 5, 000 was to prevent larger retailers from building in a neighborhood district.
After discussions the board stated they would like to leave the permitted square footage at 5,000.
Mr. Bergman made a motion to initiate the proposed text changes into the form of an amendment.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion. All was in favor.
Mr. Bergman stated, for the record, he would like to thank the trustees for requesting amendment 559-07 to be withdrawn.
Amendment 556-07 – David Hart, Quest Development, 470 White Pond, Akron, Ohio 44320 agent for Herbert Schalmo, 8676 Portage NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 & Donald Schalmo, 6717 Millfield, Canal Fulton, Ohio 44614, Trustees, propose to rezone R-R Rural Residential District to R-3 Residential Planned Unit Development District, 28.431 acres, more or less, on the northeast corner of Portage and Lutz, Sect. 8SW Jackson Twp.
Mr. Benner read the file application signed by David Hart and Stark County Regional Planning Commissions recommendation for denial and facts considered in determining their recommendation.
Mr. Benner asked who would like to speak in favor of the amendment.
Mr. David Hart, 41 Earnest Dr., Tallmadge, Ohio stated that he held two neighborhood meetings to address concerns the residents may have had. They are requesting a rezone from the R-R to the R-3 and some unique characteristics of the plan is a community park that would be opposite of the planned fire station. It also will have open space that surrounds the entire property. All the open space has its own street frontage.
Mr. Hart stated originally a plan was submitted for 109 condo units which he felt was an overuse of the land. In researching the comprehensive plan this property is called out as an opportunity area which states one must protect the open space as much as possible; however, if development is eminent green space is recommended. The comprehensive plan shows a model of how to do that. In an R-R District is an opportunity area and if development is eminent one can develop the lots but make them smaller in size and preserve the green space.
Mr. Hart stated the R-R district permits 2.2 units per acre. When doing the math under an R-R, fifty-three units could be constructed on the property so in theory this plan is no more populated than what an R-R project would be. They are not using every square inch of the property for a house and a lot and there will be a community park and trails around the project.
Mr. Hart stated residential single family homes are not moving very well at this time. At the present time they have about 24,000 units of existing homes from Lake to Stark County for resale. They market an empty nester product which is targeted to the age of forty and above. Every unit has a first floor master bedroom and no second floor is offered unless someone wants an optional loft. It is a ranch or could be thought of as an expandable cape if someone really wanted the second floor loft option.
Mr. Hart stated all homes would be ADA compliant. They don’t put the grab bars in the bathrooms but they do put in 3 ft. doors and the carpet is wheelchair accessible.
Mr. Hart stated that the streets will be public with simple fee lots. The development is geared toward people who are retired or close to retirement and don’t want the large lots. Maintenance service will be provided and there are on site supervisors. They are not trying to put any more lots than what is permitted in the R-R district.
Mr. Hart stated that Mr. John’s and Ms. Smith are in the audience and had a concern about the street connection onto Lutz. Mr. Hart stated that he met with Ms. Poindexter, Chief Heck and a representative from the Highway Department and came up with an alternative where the street onto Lutz would be for emergency access only but Reva Butera from Regional Planning told him that she would not support the change and felt that there needed to be permitted ingress and egress onto Lutz. Mr. Hart stated that Ms. Butera was very adamant in having the street at the proposed location due to block width and the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Hart stated that they could put a boulevard type road off of Portage but that doesn’t solve the road issued onto Lutz.
Mr. Benner asked why the road onto Lutz couldn’t be located next to the community park.
Mr. Hart stated there could be an issue with the distance from the intersection.
Ms. Detwiler asked if the walking trail would be an easement behind the properties.
Mr. Hart stated yes. The easement would be quality asphalt and maintained by the association.
Ms. Detwiler asked who would be responsible for the park area and who would maintain the walking path.
Mr. Hart stated it would be turned over to the homeowners association after the all the units are sold; however, at 50% the homeowners are involved but the developer would manage everything. Mr. Hart stated that they try to keep the dues under $100.00 per month. There will be some restrictions such as no sheds and fences and no one will be permitted to park in the driveway overnight unless they have a visitors pass.
Mr. John Markel, 9160 Portage NW stated that he spoke with Mr. Hart and found that he is an up front open minded person. Mr. Markel stated that he likes what has been done with the open space especially at the corner of Portage and Lutz. His concerns are the lot size and that in the future someone may come along and want to do the same thing.
Mr. Markel stated that this is an unusual piece of land due to gas lines running everywhere though out the property. He is concerned that in the future a developer may come along with a plan with the same lot sizes but with less open space. If this plan is allow with the small lot sizes he doesn’t know how we can control future requests with similar lot sizes.
Mr. Markel stated lot sizes and future development are his main concerns.
Mr. William Johns, 7040 Lutz stated that he has lived in his home for 45 years and is concerned about the access road to Lutz. The road will sit within eleven feet of Ms. Smith’s property. Mr. Johns stated he thinks the plan is better than the one submitted earlier with condos but the road is his main concern.
Ms. Rana Smith, 7080 Lutz stated that she is concerned with the road onto Lutz. She has two small children who play in the yard. The road will be close to her house and well. There is a hill along Lutz to the north of her driveway and people drive 60 MPH coming over the hill. She is not opposed to development or the road being an access for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Tim Bishman, 7468 Hawksfield NW stated that he is in favor of the development. He works for a large landscaping firm in Hudson, Ohio and his job is to attract new clients for landscaping. He works for a former development of Mr. Harts and the quality of work that goes into the development are great. The quality of homes, landscaping and environment is top notch. It is his opinion that this development will be a welcome addition to Jackson Township.
Mr. Dave Hart stated the right of way of the street is within eleven feet of Ms. Smiths home; however, the pavement is a lot further away. Mr. Hart stated if the road has to be there he would like to offer to Ms. Smith and Mr. Lipinski, who lives across the street, some plantings to screen the property but they are not permitted to put fencing in the road right of way. Mr. Hart stated that he would work with Ms. Smith to possibly get a fence on her property.
Mr. Benner stated that it was mentioned that the other plan showed a road more toward the corner of Lutz and Portage and asked why the road couldn’t be moved.
Mr. Hart stated that there was a block length issue. The previous plan that he submitted did not meet the county engineer’s specification so it was pulled off the meeting. Since that time two stub street were added to the development. Mr. Hart stated that street issue will not go away and if he could upgrade the entrance on Portage to a boulevard he don’t know why he couldn’t eliminate the road onto Lutz, but Reva from Regional Planning said that he would have to go back to the planning commission and Reva stated that she didn’t think it would get approved.
Mr. Hart stated that he worked hard to meet the residents concerns and feels not having houses at the corner is good idea. Mr. Hart stated that he doesn’t have a lot of faith in the single family market but does have faith in his plan. This is a sustainable project that he feels is not a negative to the R-R district.
Mr. Hart stated that he wishes the board had the authority to say build the road but make it one lane that says do not enter but he doesn’t know that the township can override the planning commission.
Mr. John Hamilton, 6871 Hillway stated that he has property next to the property in question. He is not against the rezone but wanted to know how the homes would be built.
Mr. Hart explained the construction of the homes and the square footage as being between 1,700 and 2,000 sq. ft. Mr. Hart stated all units will have a poured foundation with 3 ft. windows.
Mr. Hamilton stated that his biggest concern is his property values because he just got pounded by Stark County in taxes. He has 3.75 acres, which is vacant, and paid $650 per year in taxes. He just got his bill this year and it was $2,100 for vacant land. This is why property values are his biggest concern.
Mr. Don Schalmo stated that he has been a land developer for 49 years. He thinks this is a beautiful plan and the open space is fantastic. Mr. Schalmo stated that there is a great need for this type of project.
Ms. Julie Aneshansel, 9145 Portage stated that she agrees with Mr. Markel. The plan sounds nice but thinks the lot sizes should be bigger. They have been fighting this for years.
Mr. Hart stated the density is the same as if built under the R-R which is 2.2 units per acre.
Mr. Aneshansel, 9145 Portage stated that he agrees with everything Ms. Aneshansel said. Mr. Aneshansel stated that the corner is a community park because there is a 60 ft. wide gas easement at the corner and it would be tuff to put in homes. His main concern is that his driveway and garage has had 2 to 3 inches of water sometimes. He has seen 6 to 8 inches of water on Portage St. and the county has almost no responsibility for storm water. The more homes you have with pavement the more you are prone to flooding.
No one else spoke in favor or in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Benner closed to public input.
Ms. Detwiler stated that she believes Mr. Hart is sincere and concerned about the residents but she is very concerned with the idea of spot zoning, which to her is amplified with the big area there that won’t…..
Mr. Hart stated that the township’s Law Director made a ruling on that and Joni and I were in the meeting and he absolutely said that’s impulsive of the county. Spot zoning is to take piece of property and make it an I or a C.
Ms. Detwiler stated that it is still changing the land all around the small area there that’s remaining.
Ms. Poindexter stated that she was in the meeting and the township does not look at this as spot zoning.
Ms. Detwiler stated that it is still taking an area and changing it.
Ms. Poindexter stated that spot zoning is a misconception. Ms. Poindexter stated she sent all the board member a sheet on spot zoning which states, “People think that a rezoning of a single parcel of land constitutes spot zoning and is unconstitutional. This is incorrect. Spot zoning is simply a phrase used to conclude that a rezoning is unconstitutional for specified reasons.” It isn’t because you are taking a zoning and putting it where there is no zoning.
Ms. Detwiler stated maybe not technical terminology but isn’t that going to make the area that doesn’t a lot harder to develop with bigger lots.
Ms. Poindexter stated that anytime something is rezone you take the chance of the next person coming in and asking for that zoning also.
Mr. Bergman stated that he travels Lutz almost every day and with what Ms. Smith said, that hill is a disaster waiting to happen. With the road there, there is absolutely no way he can approve this plan. From a density standpoint if what Mr. Aneshansel said is accurate about the corner portion of the property being not being developable because of the right of way, if he excludes that from the acreage he gets about 15 acres of useable property which is about 33 sites. Mr. Bergman stated the corner has been a disaster zone for 30 years and by putting more houses in would create a safety zone that is out of site and he doesn’t care if it R-R or R-3.
Mr. Bergman stated it’s correct if the property is developed as R-R it does not come before the board but the road is a safety issue. The nature of the property is very rural and open, the whole area of the northwest quadrant. He likes the design but he doesn’t like the rules of what people can and can’t do. As one of those that might be interested in that kind of property he wouldn’t want those restrictions. The biggest thing to him is the road because it is a safety zone.
Mr. Bauder stated that the block length is for safety issues. He likes the layout.
Ms. Conaway stated that she likes the plan a lot. She does worry about the road coming onto Lutz and the safety issue and thinks if the road was moved closer to the intersection it would be safer but she doesn’t know if the road could be moved.
Mr. Benner stated from what he understands the county is telling him the proposed location is where the road needs to be located.
Ms. Conaway stated that she wonders if moving the road to the southeast was ever considered.
Mr. Benner stated that they would open the meeting back up for the applicant to answer questions.
Mr. Hart stated it was considered but that is a low area. Mr. Hart stated that most people going north on Lutz will come out onto Lutz but people that want to go south will probably go out onto Portage, make a right and the a left onto Lutz. Mr. Hart stated that he wanted to make the street onto Lutz an emergency access only. The Fire Chief said he wanted to see 20 ft. paved like a city street with drop down barriers. The subdivision people would plow the road and maintain it. If there was fire and the main entrance was blocked the fire department could knock down the barriers and it would be used as a secondary egress.
Ms. Poindexter stated that Mr. Hart is correct because she was at the meeting and this is what was discussed. However, it was the county that did not like that idea. Ms. Poindexter stated if the property were to be developed as a regular R-R subdivision that road could be put in.
Ms. Conaway stated they need to be realistic; they could go in and put in 53 homes and put the street there anyway. Which is better for Jackson? Do we want the street there? No, but do we really have a say in it? No.
Ms. Conaway stated that she likes it. She knows Mr. Bergman was talking about restrictions but to her there are fewer restrictions than she has heard from other condo or subdivision developments.
Mr. Hart stated the restrictive nature came from an older subdivision that he worked with where they were selling to people who would have the pop up tent trailers and the RV’s but in a residential setting it didn’t fit the flavor.
Mr. Benner stated that he likes the plan and thinks it is a good plan. There is still a demand for housing in Jackson Township. He does have a concern about the way it fits in that part of the township because the northwest quadrant is still very much rural in nature and there have been a number of instances where people have tried to get property rezoned and so far they have resisted that but he thinks the property will be developed eventually. Mr. Benner stated he likes the plan and it fits better than the previous plan for condominiums.
Ms. Conaway stated that she thinks it is a plus by not having the corner developed because everything is back in the development. She likes the planning that went into the plan and the green space and trails. Ms. Conaway stated she would rather see this than 53 homes covering the entire property.
Mr. Bauder stated that he likes it better than the alternative.
Mr. Benner asked for a motion to approve
amendment 560-07.
Mr. Bauder made a motion to approve amendment
560-07.
Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.
The vote was: Ms. Detwiler-yes, Mr. Bergman-no, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Benner-yes.
Mr. Benner stated the approval will go as a recommendation to the trustees.
Ms. Poindexter stated the trustees will set the meeting date at time on Monday, April 23rd. Residents may call the office on Tuesday to find out the scheduled date and time.
Ms. Conaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Bergman seconded the motion. All was in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector