Members Present:
Rodney Napier
Donna Conaway
Alternate Member: David Clatterbuck
Absent Members:
Aletha Magyaros
David Benner
James Bauder
Zoning Administrator: John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator: Joni Poindexter
Assistant Law Director: Dave Ferrell
Mr. Napier asked if the board members had any comments on the minutes from July 18, 2002.
Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve the minutes from July 18, 2002 and Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
AMENDMENT #516-02 – The Jackson Township Board of Trustees propose text amendments to Art. II, III, IV, V, VI, & VIII including but not limited to Planned Residential Developments.
Mr. Napier stated that most changes were supplied to the board prior to the meeting, however there are some additional changes that the board had just received upon arrival at the meeting.
Mr. Napier stated that RPC’s recommendation is for approval to the general concept behind the proposed text changes providing that the township’s legal counsel concurs but also recommends modifications to be made to address the following concerns which would be on file. Mr. Napier stated that he would not read them into the record but they are available if anyone would like to read them.
Mr. Napier asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of the proposed text changes.
Ms. Stephanie Scourfield of 9501 Pondera stated that she has reviewed a draft copy of the proposed changes and was very pleased with the overall concept. Ms. Scourfield stated that she is not opposed to the idea of this type of development. But the fact is that it was put into the zoning code as a carte blanch in a rural residential area, which she felt it was not appropriate and didn’t like anything being carte blanched with out any review. Ms. Scourfield stated that she thinks this is a fair compromise in terms of keeping the concept.
Ms. Scourfield stated that she is in favor of the changes and thinks that they bring it more in line with the accountability to both the zoning commission and the board of zoning appeals and it is a fair compromise for all parties concerned.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Napier asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the amendment or make any comments.
Mr. Joe Race of 2522 Glenmont Rd. NW stated that they are having the parade of home in Jackson at this time in Aberdeen Ridge, which is a PRD, and it is a wonderful example of what a PRD could be. Mr. Race stated that he understands that what the board is doing is kind of a formality to make sure the letter of the law is followed. All they ask from the BIA’s standpoint is that when the board considers a zoning change for the PRD in the future that they use sound planning practices. Mr. Race stated that the BIA feels that the merits of the PRD will stand on its own if they continue to use sound planning practices.
Mr. Napier stated, “so you’re not saying that you’re opposed to the amendment”.
Mr. Race stated no, he thinks the PRD is a wonderful example of what could be regarding the three things that the township needs to provide for the residents. Number one, all of our parents are getting older and they prefer single story living where they don’t have to go up and down steps and they don’t want maintenance such as snow plowing or lawn care. Number two, there are a lot of young couples that move in and want to be first time home buyers or build their first home that is at an affordable level like $150,000 to $220,000. Mr. Race stated just as important, move ups need to be provided for those whose kids are getting older and they need more space.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it seems to him that the end result would be the same. If Mr. Race is thinking that the PRD is a good idea, the end result and difference is that instead of being a cart blank or part of and then it went to the BZA, now its going to be an actual zone change for the property.
Mr. Race stated that they realize through the procedure that it’s going to be a zone change. Based on its merits if you look at a PRD, especially with the one they have now with the parade of homes, there are houses that sell for $875,000. Mr. Race stated in fact there are six in the parade of homes right now with the lowest being $650,000 and the highest is $875,000 and less then a quarter of a mile away in the same development are house that are selling for $180,000. Mr. Race stated that all the homes in the $650,000 to $870,000 price ranges are sold.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Mr. Race what problems he sees with the change.
Mr. Race stated that he would refer the problems to Mr. Tobin. Mr. Race stated that he would like the commission to understand that the merits of the PRD are so strong that with proper planning he believes it will stand on its own. When it comes time to decide whether a zoning change should be granted for a PRD, if you look at the ones that are done properly, there will be no problem.
Mr. Terry Moore, Attorney, stated that he is representing Bill Day, a local developer in Stark County. Mr. Moore stated that Mr. Day’s concern and what he hopes to address is the R-3 classification.
Mr. Moore stated that upon entering the meeting he was handed an alternate proposal to the R-3 that he believes was prepared by John Phillippi. Mr. Moore stated that he believes the alternate proposal addresses the concerns that they had relating to the drafting and implementation of the R-3 classification.
Mr. Moore stated that several years ago he addressed the board relating to the R-3 classification and attempted to develop a classification for Jackson Township that would allow for condominium developments and still keep the ability of going forward with a zone change and finding out that a request had been made. The big concern was if allowed, it would also allow apartment buildings to be constructed in a significant number. The R-3 was set up to prevent this from happening and the density was seven units per acre.
Mr. Moore stated that he believes the alternate proposal meets the consistency with the prior R-3 classification. Mr. Moore stated that the only change that he can see, if it is a change, is the minimum distance between a single family attached and asked if this is a change and if it was 20 ft. before.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the 30-ft. is not a change. It has always been 20 ft. between two single family detached and 30 ft. between a single family attached and any other single family attached or multi family.
Mr. Moore stated that his quick review of the alternate proposal is that the R-3 classification has pretty much been left unchanged.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this is correct. After further discussions with Mr. Day, some of the other developer’s, and the RPC staff, and after some further consideration of some of the items Mr. Moore referred to, it was decided that it would be best in everyone’s interest to leave it intact the way it is.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the only change in the R-3 would be regarding the current setback that is 10 ft. from the pavement if on a private roadway. This would be changed to a minimum on 20 ft., which is consistent with the current PRD and the R-6 PUD district. Mr. Phillippi stated that the single family detached would not be permitted under the regulations that were just discussed, which are the current regulations for the R-3.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he is confused because in the proposal it goes to a 3.5 density and under the old it is 7 units per acre.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he was referring to the handout that was received upon entering the meeting. Mr. Phillippi stated that when he says restore, he is talking about the suggested modifications to what was originally proposed and to leave it intact.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the density for attached would remain at seven units per acre and the density for detached would be lowered to 3.5 units per acre.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes. There are two components to the R-3. One is what they have just discussed, which is the single family attached units. This would remain the same. The other component of it is the component that is designed to accommodate the PRD. In that regard, the regulations for the densities and the open space calculations have remained exactly the same for what is referred to as the R-3 Single Family Detached. This is what accommodates the PRD concept. Mr. Phillippi stated that this is the same as the current PRD. It is a maximum of 2.2 dwelling units per acre with 25 % of open space.
Mr. Moore stated that he would encourage the alternative proposal and believes there is a consistent opinion for the R-3 that currently exists for the attached single family units, that it is a good thing for the community and it has been a good development that has allowed a single story development that allows the elderly to have affordable reasonable housing.
Mr. Fred Tobin presented the development of Aberdeen Ridge to the board and explained the overall development plan. Mr. Tobin stated that there are some homes that are priced over one-half million dollars and in their back yard are homes that range from $225,000 to $300,000. Mr. Tobin stated that in one section there are 38 lots that are one-half to one acre and then there are the PRD lots that are smaller.
Mr. Tobin stated that whatever the board decides to do with the changes he wants them to remember that although there are some projects that may not have worked, there are some good ones and there are people out there that don’t want the large yards.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he agrees that Mr. Tobin’s project is probably one that he feels fulfills the intent of the PRD as the township envisioned it. Mr. Phillippi stated that he does not feel the intent is to get rid of the PRD or prevent a plan like Mr. Tobin has from being approved and implemented.
Ms. Conaway stated that she thinks the intent is to make sure they are all done as well as Mr. Tobin’s.
No one else spoke.
Mr. Napier stated that he would recommend that the board review the changes and discuss any areas that they have questions or concern on. Mr. Napier stated that he would like to look at the original proposal and then have a new packet put together with the additional changes and continue the meeting until September when they would make a final vote on the amendment. Mr. Napier stated that he thinks this would give the residents, builders, and board members time to look at the packet and see all the changes.
Mr. Phillippi stated, as the board goes through the changes they may find other areas that need addressed.
Ms. Conaway moved to go over the original changes and then take the additions and look them over and come back in September with everything together for a vote.
Mr. Napier seconded the motion.
Mr. Phillippi stated because a PRD is in essence a PUD, the township should recognize it as a PUD and not dance around with the process and treat it as a PUD. Mr. Phillippi stated that this was his position a couple years ago and believes it is now the position of the township trustees and thinks it is in tune with the input received from the residents.
Mr. Phillippi stated that often the input that he has received from the residents is that they are not opposed to any particular concept of the PRD but he thinks they see it as an end-run as far as the process. Mr. Phillippi stated that there isn’t really an essential difference between the PRD and the PUD except the PUD goes through the rezoning process and has a plan approved with public input.
Mr. Napier stated that he would like the board to go through the items that do not pertain to the new additional changes.
Mr. Napier asked if the board had any questions on page 201-20.
The board had no comments on page 201-20.
Mr. Ferrell stated that the definition states that “A PUD my consist entirely of single family detached, single family attached, two-family, and/or multi-family units and is designed as a planned residential community”, but residential community is not defined. Mr. Ferrell asked if this something that the board would liked defined or have reference to because when he first read it he thought it was a planned residential development and is wondering if there might be some confusion.
Mr. Phillippi stated that his purpose for putting it in there was to demonstrate that it was something that was approved as an overall plan and whereby the various housing types and even commercial, if it contained commercial, would be integrated in a well designed plan.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that regional planning recommended that there be a definition for single family attached as opposed to a two family and asked if this was done.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it has not been further defined at this point but there is a definition in the zoning book that was left unchanged. Mr. Phillippi stated that the definition is on page 201-12 of the current regulations. Mr. Phillippi stated that when looking at the definition it would include two family structures, three family structures and four or more family structures. However the way it is used in the regulations, it is limited to no more then four units in a building for the R-3 district.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it really doesn’t differ from what would be a duplex, triplex, or four units other then it must have entirely separate entrances and each unit must be entirely independent.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks the single family attached is looked at as having two different owners and multi family is looked at as a duplex with one owner.
Mr. Phillippi stated that they may want
to put something in to clarify that under the single family attached it
would be regardless of ownership.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he doesn’t
have a problem with the definition but was questioning what RPC had said.
Mr. Napier stated that since there has not been any issues with it then he thinks it should be left as is.
The board agreed.
The board had no comments of page 301-26.
Mr. Napier asked Mr. Phillippi if anything precipitated the change on page 303-28 Section 302.3.
Mr. Phillippi explained that this is not a substantial change; it is for further clarification. Regardless of the status of the lot, if it is a non-conforming lot then it can’t be modified in order to render it more non-conforming.
The board agreed.
Mr. Napier stated that page 303-32, section 303.3A, has an addition and asked if this was added due to the Snee property.
Mr. Phillippi stated no, but that would be a good example. Mr. Phillippi stated that it has been unclear as to whether the current regulations prevent a non-conforming use from expanding on an adjacent tract of record or whether that’s already prevented in the regulations. Mr. Phillippi stated that he know of areas where it has been done and this addition will make it clear that the non-conforming use cannot be expanded to encompass another adjacent parcel that is in conformance.
Mr. Napier asked what if the same individual owned the adjacent parcel.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it would not matter.
Mr. Ferrell stated that even if the same person owned two lots side by side and one conformed and the other did not then they couldn’t extend onto the conforming lot with a non-conforming use.
Mr. Napier stated that if they had 10 acres on one lot then they could expand on the 10 acres.
Mr. Ferrell stated that they could expand 25%.
Mr. Napier stated that page 304-35, section 304.4(A)2, is a simple change. The board had no comments.
Mr. Napier stated that page 401-40 is a simple change. The board had no comments.
Mr. Napier stated that page 401-41 is a new page so the board would not consider it. Page 401-42 is just adding the word residential. Page 401-43 would all stay based on the new proposal. The board had no comments on pages 401-44, page 401-45, 401-46 and 401-47.
Mr. Napier stated that he had a question on Page 401-48 regarding the square footage in the table for Schedule 401.11.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this was for clarification purposes because it was written as “<120 sq. ft.” and there was no provision for actually 120 sq. ft. because the other regulation stated”>120 sq. ft.”. Mr. Phillippi stated that the word depth was added for clarification purposes under the swimming pool regulation.
The board had no comments on page 401-49
but Mr. Ferrell had a question regarding (E)3. Mr. Ferrell stated
that this is temporary but it talks about annual renewal without any guidelines
for renewal.
Mr. Phillippi stated that there have been
some problems with this item and they probably need to think about it in
more detail as to whether or not they even want to keep temporary sales
office in the regulation because there is a model home provision.
Generally within the model home they will have an office but it is not
something that is a commercial use. When you get to the temporary
sales office, we don’t really know what that refers to because there is
nothing in the regulations that either defines it or in the commercial
uses that allows it. It would be within the residential classification
so if it is commercial then it is not allowed. When it is called
a sales office it throws it into the commercial building code as far as
the building department is concerned and then they have to meet all of
the commercial requirements. Mr. Phillippi stated that it may be
good to just eliminate it as a referenced use and if someone wants to have
a model home it would not be a problem.
The board agreed to remove (E)3 “Temporary sales offices may be erected within a platted subdivision.”
The board had no comments regarding page 401-50.
Mr. Phillippi stated that (F)5 & 6, regarding fences, was put in due to situations that have come up over the past few months.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked what is being done with people who already have fences on the right of way.
Mr. Phillippi stated that permits are not issued for fences so as a matter of course and since there is not a permit the zoning department does not inspect fences unless there is a complaint.
The board had no comments on page 401-51.
Mr. Napier stated that page 401-52, 401-53, & 401-54 are new pages and would not be reviewed.
The board had no comments on page 401-55.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that page 401-57 states that the minimum front yard setback shall be forty feet measured from any existing public street right of ways and the last sentence states the minimum setback from any newly constructed public right of way shall be twenty-five feet. Mr. Clatterbuck asked what they are looking at because one says 40 ft. if it’s an old one and 25 ft. if it’s a new one.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this makes it consistent with the current PRD setback regulations.
The board had no further comments on page 401-57.
Mr. Napier stated that page 401-58 & 401-59 are new pages and would not be reviewed.
Ms. Poindexter stated that 401-59 is not a new page but the way the pages are formatted the numbers changed.
The board had no comments on page 401-59.
The board had no comments on page 411-64.
Mr. Phillippi stated that a sexually oriented business would be eliminated from the B-3 district.
Mr. Napier asked if there have been any
applications for a sexually oriented business in the
B-3 district.
Mr. Phillippi stated that there have not been any applications to date but there have been several meetings with the law director, police department, and the township regarding the regulations.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if it would only be permitted in the industrial district.
Mr. Phillippi stated that it appears this was the intent when the sexually oriented regulations were put together but it has always been a permitted use in the B-3 and I-1 district.
The board agreed to remove sexually oriented business as a permitted use from the B-3 district.
The board had no comments on page 411-68 or 411-72.
The board had no comments on page 431-81 & 82.
Mr. Napier stated that page 431-83 is a new page.
The board had no comments on page 431-85.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked why is (G) 2 on page 431-86 being deleted.
Mr. Phillippi stated that for a congrete living facility; there have been a few plans that came it and the zoning department spent many hours trying to decipher what this is suppose to mean and what it is suppose to do because the more the numbers were worked and what it comes down to is that the more beds they want to put in, the more that has to be paved.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that originally this is what it was about.
Mr. Phillippi stated what it comes down to is how much pavement do you want in order to have more beds. Pavement has no relationship to how many beds are in a nursing home because it’s regulated by the state. Mr. Phillippi stated that he does not see a reason to have it in there.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it might be easier to remove it.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes. In doesn’t serve a purpose and in addition there are parking standards.
The board agreed to the change.
The board had no comments on page 431-88
Mr. Napier stated that nothing is marked for page 431-90.
Ms. Poindexter stated that this is only for reference to the next page.
Mr. Napier asked if the board had any comment s on page 431-91.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he is not sure what is meant by landscaping vehicles and asked if someone had a couple trucks and built a garage could they park the trucks in an R-R or R-1 district.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this is not permitted in the residential district. If the vehicle is a commercial vehicle and not over 9,000 lbs. one is permitted if used for transportation to and from work. This was a change that was made about a year ago. Basically if the vehicles are kept in a garage and the zoning department doesn’t receive a complaint then it’s not known that they exist.
Mr. Ferrell asked, going back to page 431-81, why public park & playground was being deleted.
Mr. Poindexter stated that public park & playground is a permitted use so it does not need to be in the conditional use section.
The board had no comments on page 431-92, 431-93, 431-94 or 431-95.
Mr. Napier stated that page 431-96 is a new page so it would not be reviewed.
Mr. Napier asked why page 501-102 has a change.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the definition of directional signs indicates that they are to be freestanding only so this is a clarification issue.
Mr. Phillippi stated that incidental/instructional signs was added for other types of signs such as one-hour photos or something indicating what type of services are being provided.
The board had no comments of page 502-104.
Mr. Phillippi stated that page 504-108 is a minor but major change. There was problem’s with the candidate’s understanding where the road right of way is located so it was felt that it would be better if this was changed to 10 ft. from the edge of pavement.
Mr. Napier stated that this should be more specific and asked if it should be from the curb of the road.
Mr. Phillippi stated that they could change it to 10 ft. from the street pavement or curb.
The board agreed.
The board had no comments on page 601-112.
Mr. Napier asked if the board had any comments on pages 801-126, 801-127, 801-128, 801-129 or 801-130.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that on page 801-130 (B)1, this is the first time it mentions the site plan review committee and/or trustees and asked if this is clear because if you read what is in the present book, most of the time it talks only about the site plan review committee.
Mr. Phillippi stated that this is something that probably needs to be held off on approving because this goes back to one of RPC’s comments with regard to the site review committee and he has not had a chance to go back through it and look at it for changes. Basically what it has to do with is that under a rezoning the site plan review committee does not have a formal role. Mr. Phillippi stated that it might be best to eliminate the site plan review committee’s function if it doesn’t preclude the fire department, Ralph Boger, or him from looking at the plans and providing comments.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that historically the site plan review committee has looked at the plans and it has worked. Many times the fire chief would come back and say maybe that there needs to be a bigger cul-de-sac and to his knowledge the board had the developer go back and redraw the plans.
Mr. Napier stated that the site plan review committee’s function would still be there.
Mr. Phillippi stated that as a practical matter every plan that is received is sent to the fire department and reviewed with the highway department.
Mr. Phillippi stated that RPC’s comments had to do with a regulatory fashion or a requirement.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he likes the idea that it is there.
Ms. Conaway asked how it happens now.
Mr. Phillippi stated that when an application or site plan is received it is sent to the fire department and they in turn send the zoning department written comments.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked if Mr. Phillippi would do some revisions to page 801-130.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he thinks that section 801-12 is the section that needs to be re-looked at so he would make some revisions and then come back to board with the changes.
The board agreed.
Mr. Ferrell stated that he would like the board to go back to page 601-112. Mr. Ferrell stated that if adding Adult Day Care Center then under minimum spaces required, it needs to be changed because it refers to 8 children.
The board agreed to change 8 children to 8 individuals under care.
The board had no comments on 801-131, 805-145, 148, or 149.
Mr. Napier stated that on page 805-150 there is a change on how the fees are set and asked if currently the fee are not set by the trustees and are set by the zoning commission.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he is not sure how it was done in the past. This is added in order to take it out of the regulatory arena and make it an administrative decision so the trustees could set the fees from time to time. Mr. Phillippi stated that this is consistent with what some of the other townships have done.
The board agreed.
Mr. Napier stated that the motion would be to continue amendment #516-02 until September 19, 2002 at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Napier stated that zoning commission has been meeting at 6:30 p.m. but starting with the October meeting the board would like to have the meetings start at 7:30 p.m.
Mr. Napier stated that they way the changes were presented was very helpful to the board.
Ms. Poindexter stated that the approved changes would be highlighted in yellow so the board will know that they have already been reviewed and the additional changes for the September meeting will be highlighted in a different color with everything in one packet.
Mr. Clatterbuck made a motion to continued amendment #516-02 until September 19, 2002 at 6:45 p.m.
Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Ms. Conaway made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary