Members Present:
Rodney Napier
Donna Conaway
James Bauder
David Benner
Alternate Member: David Clatterbuck
Absent Member: Aletha Magyaros
Zoning Data Coordinator: Joni Poindexter
Due to the absence of Ms. Magyaros, Mr. Clatterbuck, alternate member, participated in the hearings for this meeting.
Mr. Napier asked if the board had any comments on the minutes from September 19, 2002.
Ms. Conaway made a motion to approve the minutes from September 19, 2002.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Mr. Bauder made a motion to approve the minutes from October 17, 2002.
Mr. Benner seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
AMENDMENT #521-02 - Gus Kabbara, 6615 Knightsbridge Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Rosemarie Salimbeni, property owner, 3444 East Poinsetta Dr., Phoenix AZ 85028 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-1 (Single Family Low Density Residential District) 4.14 acres, more or less, (Parcel #1610755 & 1618022) on the east side of Lake O’Springs Ave., approx. 360 ft. south of Fairfax NW, Sect. 11SW Jackson Twp. (Legal description on file)
Mr. Napier stated that amendment #521-02 has been withdrawn by the applicant therefore will not be heard by the Zoning Commission.
The board went off record at 7:35 pm.
The board went back on record at 7:45 pm.
AMENDMENT #522-02 - Jackson Portage LLC, property owner, 6501 High Mill Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential District) to R-4 (Multi Family Residential District) 3.950 acres located on the northwest corner of Portage St. and High Mill Ave., Sect. 7SW Jackson Twp.
Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning’s recommendation for denial and the facts considered in their recommendation.
Mr. Napier asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Ms. Barb Bennett of Hammontree and Associates stated that she is representing the applicant. A lot of the information was presented earlier this year but for the sake of this zoning hearing and to get it properly in the record she would like to review the same information.
Ms. Bennett stated that there are two main components that have changed which they feel help support their request for the zone change. Ms. Bennett stated that she would review these when going through the booklet that she has presented to the board.
Ms. Bennett stated the first section of the booklet shows the zoning request in 1999, which was requested to be changed to B-2 and B-3 zoning. A traffic impact study was done at that time by Northstar Planning and Design and the conclusion was the proposed use for the zoning district would not significantly increase traffic volumes on Portage St. or High Mill, but can contribute to reducing traffic volumes on other Township streets by making generation of trips shorter for some of the residents in the area.
Ms. Bennett stated that there was a question about people’s property being devalued by rezoning. In 1999 Alan Blau, a state certified appraiser, looked at the adjoining properties with the 1999 rezoning request and stated that in his professional opinion, based on training, education and experience, the zone change would not adversely impact the neighboring and adjacent property values. He was further of the opinion that the rural residential zoning does not provide an adequate, reasonable viable use for the property.
Ms. Bennett stated that in 1999 the applicant contacted the immediate adjoining property owners and a copy of the letters that went out to the property owners is included in the booklet.
Ms. Bennett stated that she would like to remind the board that they voted four to one to rezone the property to B-1. Ms. Bennett stated that she believes this is significant because they are asking for a lesser zoning than the business use.
Ms. Bennett stated that when the business rezone request went before the trustees, the trustees had stated that the weight of the facts that were presented to the board suggests that the commercial zoning was premature. At that time the trustees wanted to see some improvements at the intersection and having sewer and water available. Ms. Bennett stated that the road has been improved and sewer and water is now available in the area. Ms. Bennett stated that the zoning request was withdrawn at that time because it appeared that the trustees were going to deny it.
Ms. Bennett stated that section two in the booklet shows the current zoning request. Of the 3.950 acres there is .631 acres in the right of way which leaves a net of 3.31 acres that they are asking to be rezoned.
Ms. Bennett stated that the colored drawing in the booklet shows the existing zoning and the building setbacks. Ms. Bennett stated that the Carnes property to the north is approximately 120 ft. from their building setback to the south edge of their property. Ms. Bennett stated that they have received information that there is a 20 ft. easement on the Carnes property to potentially serve the Gaslite Villa properties. Ms. Bennett stated that she notes this because she wants to show that there is a buffer between the proposed property and the Carnes property. Ms. Bennett stated that the houses along the south side of Portage are setback considerably from the building setback on their property.
Ms. Bennett stated that the developer is looking at an apartment complex with nice stone, brick and vinyl siding. Ms. Bennett stated that the developer has been working with an architect and has come up with something that will look residential in character.
Ms. Bennett showed the board a drawing of the proposed buildings and garages. Ms. Bennett stated that R-4 zoning requires 84% maximum coverage of buildings and parking. R-2 also requires a maximum coverage of 84% for buildings and parking. With the proposed plan they have about 30 to 40% of open space and green area. They purposely left the intersection area open and free of buildings.
Ms. Bennett stated that on the northeast corner there are plans for a church that have been approved and construction is going to begin soon.
Ms. Bennett stated that in Regional Planning’s comments they recommended that a revised PUD plan layout might be acceptable, which could include a limited business area. They also stated that some multifamily or even restrictive business uses may be acceptable in this general vicinity in the future, if initiated by the township as part of an overall rezoning plan.
Ms. Bennett stated that her opinion of regional planning is that they usually recommend denial for different zoning requests based on they are trying to get the township to look at a broader picture. Ms. Bennett stated that they have been waiting on the map review committee for Jackson Township for a least a year or two to come up with an overall recommendation in this area. To the best of her knowledge she does not think they have come up with recommendations as far as zoning issues in this area.
Ms. Bennett stated that section three in the booklet shows a list of property owners that were notified of the hearing and sample letters that went out to the adjoining property owners.
Ms. Bennett stated that section four in the booklet addresses the Portage and High Mill intersection. Ms. Bennett showed the board several before and after photos of the intersection and stated that the intersection is much safer than it was years ago.
Ms. Bennett stated that she would like to impress upon the board that this intersection has a reputation of being bad and known as the deadliest intersection in Stark County. The good fortune shows that it has been improved but thinks that the bad reputation of the intersection has stayed with the area.
Ms. Bennett stated that if looking at the
north run of High Mill and the south run of Portage Ave., there are about
14,800 cars a day. Assuming that 80% of those cars traveled between
7:00 am and 7:00 pm, it comes out to be about 14 cars per minute.
This is a significant amount of traffic and to use the property as rural
residential, it does not fit the scenario of having houses front on a newly
developed tract at this intersection.
Ms. Bennett stated that there would not
be a significant increase in traffic if built as multifamily. The
traffic impact study, using the ODOT approved ITE Manual, shows that the
percent increase in traffic along High Mill for the proposed multifamily
dwellings is 2%, which is a small impact.
Ms. Bennett stated that section five deals with existing and proposed drainage. This is a significant area that has changed since the last zoning request. Ms. Bennett stated that the natural runoff flows from the east along High Mill and goes to the west toward the duplex property. If the property were developed either rural residential, multifamily, or business it would have to have a detention basin. The logical location is at the southwest corner of the property. Ms. Bennett stated that the water would collect in the detention basin and then tie into the new storm system that is planned for Portage and High Mill.
Ms. Bennett stated that the township has authorized ME Companies to prepare plans to address the drainage issues in the area. Ms. Bennett explained the drainage plans and how the water would flow from the property. Ms. Bennett stated that the project is planned for this winter.
Ms. Bennett stated that section six of the booklet shows the comprehensive plan 2000-2002. A comparison of the 1980 and 1990 census data for ages reveals that there is a trend towards an older population in the Township. The most significant increase in age groups occurs between the ages of 60 and 79 where an 89% increase is shown. The trend of the population moving towards the suburbs is expected to continue. According to RPC’s Land Use Plan, by the year 2020 approximately 63% of Stark County’s population is projected to live in the suburbs.
Ms. Bennett stated that planned improvements to infrastructure such as sewerage treatment facilities and expansion of water lines in the northwest portion of the township will encourage increased residential development.
Ms. Bennett stated according to the Auditors Office and Regional Planning Land Use Inventory, the prevalent land use appears to be residential and agricultural. In reality, the major land uses in Jackson Township are residential and commercial.
Ms. Bennett stated that the construction of multifamily and two family dwellings have remained relatively consistent since 1980, with an average of 65 units built per year. The trend is toward condominium developments with smaller lot sizes, less maintenance, and community open space. Large lot zoning is discouraged and not considered an option since increasing lot sizes promotes the use of more land to be consumed by housing and is land consumptive.
Ms. Bennett stated section seven deals with myths and facts. Property values do not decrease if adjacent to multifamily dwellings. Multifamily does to promote over crowding in schools and does not create rush hour traffic problems. Ms. Bennett stated that the apartments will be high end apartments and will not be low income.
Ms. Bennett stated that section eight is a significant change since their previous request. This section shows the property at the southeast corner that is zoned B-3 and is for sale. It will be sold and developed under the B-3 zoning at some point in the future. Ms. Bennett stated that the map shows the Med Tran Building, and a cell tower. Ms. Bennett stated, “to ask that this property remain rural residential, looking at the cell tower and commercial building, does not seem like a viable use for the developer”.
Ms. Bennett stated that section nine is
a summary of the booklet and stated the following:
1) That the developer has been patient
and began the initial zoning request over three years ago.
2) The developer has compromised by scaling
back the zoning request and development plans.
3) The developer has made an honest and
earnest effort to meet with adjoining property owners to gather input and
address their concerns on multiple occasions.
4) The developer has made a commitment
to the adjoining neighbors to continue to keep them involved during the
development of the plans.
5) The adjoining owners on High Mill are
having difficulty selling their single family homes. The developer
expects to find similar difficult conditions if the subject property were
to remain R-R with 6 or 7 lot splits.
6) Adjoining owners are protected by Jackson
Township setback and landscaping requirements.
7) Traffic will not significantly increase
on Portage and High Mill by the development of the subject tract under
R-4.
8) The Stark County Engineer’s office
must approve the drive locations and ingress to Portage and High Mill.
9) Increased runoff will be prevented
from flowing onto adjoining properties. Stark County Subdivision
Engineer and/or Jackson Township must approve the drainage plans.
10) The northwest quarter of Jackson Township
will continue to grow at a more rapid pace than the past 5 to 10 years
due to the sanitary sewer and water extensions in this area. Housing trends
need to address an older market. The older market prefers compact
living such as condominium developments. The developer did not create
the market but is responding to the market.
11) Drainage is addressed in two manners:
1) On site detention, 2) County/Township plans to install an oversized
drainage pipe along Portage and High Mill. This will bypass the Carnes
property and will bypass the Sommer property. The drainage was the
main issue with the Carnes and Sommers at the last rezoning request and
it is now being addressed.
12) The 4.5 acres at the southeast corner
of Portage and High Mill is for sale as a B-3 zoning designation.
It is expected it will sell and be developed as a B-3 use in the near future.
Ms. Bennett stated that item twelve and thirteen are major changes since the January 2002 request. Ms. Bennett stated that the property could not be developed under an R-3 PUD because the minimum acreage requirement is four acres and they only have 3.31 acres net. Ms. Bennett stated as far as looking at an R-2 zoning, 85% of the area could be covered by parking and buildings and they have the same condition for the R-4 so they are not asking for more space to be consumed. They are preserving a lot of green space by the corner of Portage and High Mill. Mr. Benner asked if Ms. Bennett had stated that there is an existing 30 inch drainage pipe that is not adequate but they are going to add a 30 inch drain pipe. Ms. Bennett stated that there is a 30 inch pipe that runs under High Mill and points directly at the Carnes property. The new 30 inch pipe that would be installed at Portage and High Mill would have enough capacity and be at a steeper slope to carry more water. Mr. Benner asked if that pipe is intended to drain the runoff from Emerald Estates. Ms. Bennett stated yes. The developer has been working with the county and they need to get easements to be able to move forward on the construction of the storm sewer. Mr. Benner stated for everyone’s information, the map review committee has submitted their results to the trustees. No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the proposed zone change. Mr. Napier asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the proposed zone change. Ms. Cheryl Carnes, 6979 High Mill NW, stated that there is not a 20 ft. buffer between her property and the property in question. This was negotiated with the previous owners and deeded to her. At one time there was talk of possibly having a road access if they ever needed to get behind Gaslite Villa but they decided this was probably not the best place to do it. The only barrier that would be between her property and the developers would be what ever they are required to put in.
Ms. Carnes stated that the drainage improvement project was supposed to have taken place December 1st. Her husband, herself and her attorney was called to the township hall on November 5th to look at the proposed plan and to sign right away of property to use for this, which they did.
Ms. Carnes stated that she received a call from Gary Conner on November 25th stating that the project was put on hold indefinitely and hoped that it would be a winter project but the adjoining property owners did not sign right of way for the project to go forward. Ms. Carnes stated that she is surprised that the applicant presented the drainage project to the board when in fact they are the ones holding it up. Ms. Carnes stated that she was told that the reason for the delay in the project was because they refused to give right of way and this project could remedy the drainage problems.
Ms. Carnes stated that the applicant had stated that the market is non existent for R-R due to the major intersection. However the property that he owns on the northeast corner has plans for residential housing in combination with the church. Ms. Carnes stated that the applicant also claims that the adjoining use of duplexes and rental properties make it non compatible. Tell that to the residents who just built a $500,000 home on the south side of Portage and to the Sommer’s who live across the street from the duplexes in a beautiful home. The rentals were there at the time the property was purchased as rural residential.
Ms. Carnes stated that the rezoning is not in the best interest of the residents.
Mr. Gary Sommer, 9914 Portage St. NW, stated that the cell tower doesn’t bother him and he likes where he lives. Mr. Sommer stated that he does not think that anything has changed and they don’t need the R-4 zoning because it is not in character with the area.
Ms. Debbie Sommer, 9914 Portage St. NW, stated that the map review committee had submitted their proposal to the trustees on November 25, 2002.
Ms. Sommer stated that she does not feel that denying Mr. Smith’s rezone request last year was denying him reasonable use of the property. Ms. Sommer stated that she does not feel that the density in an R-4 district is appropriate in the proposed area. Ms. Sommer stated that the map review committee has recommended to down zone the B-3 Med Tran property to a B-1 property in order to provide an appropriate buffer to adjacent residents.
Mr. Napier stated that he read the map review committee’s report and took it as an endorsement of a project such as what is being proposed. Mr. Napier stated that the committee has recommended that B-1 is appropriate on the adjacent corner and if B-1 is appropriate there then theoretically B-1 would be appropriate on the adjacent corner. However they are not asking for B-1; they are asking for residential. Mr. Napier stated that the map review committee’s comments stated that “based on the adjacent rural and residential land uses and the existing commercial areas to the west, the committee recommends against the further expansion of business or commercial zoning into this area”. There was no mention of any residential or multi family in the area.
Ms. Sommer stated that they did not get that specific.
Mr. Steve Smith, 6501 High Mill Ave. NW, stated that he has been in negotiations with the township and county and they are not holding up any project. Mr. Smith stated that the detention retention basin will stop the water that is cascading across the duplex properties.
Mr. Benner asked why the project is not going forward.
Mr. Smith stated that they are waiting on easements.
Mr. Benner asked from whom.
Ms. Carnes stated from Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith stated that he has not signed the agreement yet. The county had asked him to donate part of his property. If it is donated he will loose land available for the request. As soon as the request is heard and taken care of the easement will be taken care of, but if the easement is granted before the zoning goes through he will have less land to deal with. Mr. Smith stated that he has already given easements to the township and the county for the road improvement and the lot is getting smaller. They are only asking for reasonable use of what’s left of the land.
Ms. Conaway stated that Mr. Smith had touched on why he wants to do an R-4 as opposed to an R-2 but the R-4 is the same open space and asked Mr. Smith to elaborate on that a little more.
Mr. Smith stated that at the last hearing
the committee and the people in the audience thought that an R-3 was a
better use and the committee recommended that they look at an R-3 zoning.
Mr. Smith stated that he sat down with the township on two different occasions
and reviewed this option but was told that the property is too small and
they are not eligible to apply for an R-3 zoning. Mr. Smith stated
that they would have to go to the BZA and obtain a variance and then come
back and apply for the R-3.
Mr. Smith stated that with an R-2 use
more of the land would be covered with buildings and parking then with
two buildings under an R-4 zoning. Mr. Smith stated that with the
R-4 he would have two buildings with sixteen units in each building and
their goal is to do an attractive project.
Ms. Conaway asked how many units could be put on the property under the R-2 zoning.
Mr. Smith stated they could get about 39 units under an R-2.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated even though the map review committee has made a recommendation for the property across the street, he thinks that it would probably be a china man’s chance that it will ever be reduced because there is a vehicle in law to prevent that from happening.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that he thinks the R-4 would be a good buffer and is a compromise because the board had recommended B-1 before for the property.
Mr. Bauder stated that he believes it is a good and proper use for the site.
Mr. Benner stated that he disagrees. If looking in a circle around the area there are 500 single family homes being constructed and for miles there are single family homes with no encroachment of multifamily homes in that section of the township. Mr. Benner stated that this is not an area that requires any businesses and the only reason the B-3 is in that area is because it was zoned for what was there at the time and overall plan was done.
Mr. Benner stated that the property owner bought the property when it was zoned R-R and he knew it was zoned R-R. His opinion is that speculatively purchasing the property with the thought that it would be rezoned is not in the best interest of the residents of Jackson Township.
Ms. Conaway stated that what bothers her most is that the easement has not been signed and it was presented as though it had been. Ms. Conaway stated that she thinks in all fairness to the people that should be taken care of prior to the board approving the request or even considering it because she thinks there is a problem that was present from an existing development that needs to be taken care of before they allow even more.
Mr. Clatterbuck asked Ms. Conaway if she is saying that she would approve the zoning based on the fact if Mr. Smith were to sign the easement because he thinks otherwise that they are holding Mr. Smith hostage.
Ms. Conaway stated that she did not say that at all. She is saying for her to even consider it, without that easement taken care of she has a hard time even considering a zone change.
Mr. Smith stated that the easement that was proposed to him was that he was to give it and he would actually be handing over half an acre of land or whatever the amount of area is for free. Mr. Smith stated that all he is asking for is a fair market value for the easement. Mr. Smith stated that he did not create the drainage that is a problem and does not think that he should be held hostage and asked to give the land away.
Ms. Conaway stated that she does not see anyone being held hostage and is here in the best interest of Jackson Township and the residents. She wants to see the steps taken in the right order and until the problem is resolved, for Mr. Smith to come to the board and ask them to rezone and possibly add to the problem, she thinks they are getting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Smith stated that he is concerned that he is being asked to give property away with no imbursement to him when he paid for it. Mr. Smith stated that he believes this is unfair.
Mr. Bauder stated that his understanding of the proposed storm sewer is to divert water from the natural drainage direction.
Mr. Benner stated that the drainage problem that is there today was not there until Emerald Estates was built.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that the County Engineers will not approve this project until the drainage is taken care of. It is not the responsibility of the commission to legislate something conditioned on a sewer pipe being put in.
Ms. Conaway stated that it was presented to them that it was already taken care of and then they found out that it really wasn’t.
Mr. Clatterbuck stated that this is not what the board makes their decision on.
The board had no further comments.
Mr. Napier stated that he would make a motion to vote on amendment #522-02 as submitted.
Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-no, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-no, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Mr. Napier stated that the commission has recommended approval for amendment 522-02.
Mr. Bauder made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary