Members present
David Benner
Nancy Detwiler
Alternate member:
James Conley
Absent Member:
James Bauder
Stephen Bergman
Donna Conaway
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
AMENDMENT #554-06 – Herbert & Donald Schalmo, Trustees, 8676 Portage Rd NW, Massillon, OH 44646, property owners, Gerald Mosley, Mosley Companies, Karl Balla, Concept Communities, 190 East Ave, Tallmadge, OH 44278, applicants, proposes to rezone R-R (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Residential Planned Unit Development), 28.431 acres, more or less, parcel 1623157, located at northeast corner of Portage & Lutz Ave NW, Section 8SW Jackson Twp.
Mr. Benner read into file the recommendation for approval from Stark County Regional Planning Commission. The following facts were considered by the Commission in its decision.
1. The acreage proposed for rezoning has
frontage on both Portage Street and Lutz Avenue and is surrounded by single-family
homes, agricultural uses and a wooded area. With the exception of
a small commercially zoned area on the southeast corner of the intersection
of Portage and Highmill, and some office and multifamily zoning near Lorraine,
the remainder of the Portage corridor is zoned Rural Residential which
is characterized with single-family homes on large lots with greater setbacks,
contributing to the rural character of the area.
2. While this area of the township has
experienced some development over the years, the extension of the sanitary
sewer to serve Strausser Elementary School, northeast of said tract, and
Emerald Estates, to the northwest, has created opportunities for additional
development. Two small subdivisions at Lord’s Lake, south of Portage,
and Hunters Chase, on the west side of Lutz, have developed since then;
however, both were developed within the existing Rural Residential zoning.
3. Previous zone change requests for B-1
Neighborhood Business, B-3 Commercial Business, R-4 Multifamily and a PUD
district near the intersection of Portage and Highmill were reviewed, and
either denied or withdrawn by the applicant before final action by township
trustees. Other than a small tract on the south side of Strausser,
rezoned to R-1 Single-Family Low Density Residential by township officials
in 2002, the majority of the land in the northwest quadrant of the township
remains zoned Rural Residential for single-family development.
4. When Jackson completely revised their
zoning resolution in 2000, a ‘planned residential development’ (PRD) was
added as a permitted use in the R-R Rural Residential District. The
PRD was similar to a PUD, but was restricted to a single-family dwellings
only, and did not require a zone change. Several PRD’s were developed
in the township, including Emerald Estates, with varying lot sizes, common
open space and public dedicated streets. Revisions to the township’s
zoning resolution over the last several years have eliminated the PRD within
the R-R Rural Residential District.
5. The regulations now include and R-3
Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) District to provide for the
flexible development of attached and detached single-family dwellings,
which requires a zone change in accordance with an approved development
plan. Maximum density in the R-3 PUD district is six (6) dwelling
units per acre for attached single-family dwellings (only 4 attached in
one unit) and 2.2 units per acre for detached single-family dwellings.
While there is a required percentage of open space for detached single-family
PUD developments or a combined detached and attached development, there
is no required open space set aside for a development of all attached single-family
dwellings. There is, however, a 70% maximum building and paving coverage
for all R-3 PUD’s. A gross minimum area of four acres and 100 feet
of street frontage is also required.
6. According to Section 401.1 of the zoning
resolution, the R-3 PUD “may occur 1) between residential and multifamily
zoning classifications, or 2) between residential and commercial zoning
classifications, and 3) shall have access onto an arterial, collector or
local street according to SCATS street classification, and 4) as determined
to be compatible with surrounding land uses and appropriate for the area
when considered within the context of an integrated development plan consistent
with the PUD concept.”
7. The general development plan submitted
with this zoning amendment indicates that the proposed R-3 PUD would consist
of 104 single-family attached condominium units, comprised of 12 duplex
buildings and 20 four-unit buildings. Proposed density is 4.089 dwelling
units per acre, with 12.82 acres of open space.
8. Minimum lot size in the existing R-R
district is 20,000 square feet, and would permit a density of approximately
2.2 single-family dwelling units per acre, which would be the same as a
single-family detached complex. However, the single-family attached
homes in the proposed condominium community result in a density of 4.089
dwelling units per acre.
9. According the Jackson Township Fire
Chief, the undeveloped tract on the northwest corner of the intersection
of Portage and Lutz has been purchased by the township for a future fire
station. It has also been reported that the intersection of Portage
and Lutz may be signalized in 2007.
10. SCRPC’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive/Transportation
Plan indicates this area to be developed and developing suburban.
11. The proposed R-3 district does not
meet the requirements as outlined in Section 401.1 of the zoning resolution
and as noted above. It is not proposed to be located “between residential
and multifamily zoning classifications” or “between residential or commercial
zoning classifications”.
12. The proposed rezoning to R-3 Residential
Planned Unit Development could be considered “spot” zoning, generally found
by the courts to be illegal.
Staff Recommendation: After considering the above facts, staff recommends denial to the proposed spot zoning to R-3 Residential Planned Unit Development.
Mr. Karl Balla, 190 East Avenue, Tallmadge, OH 44278, spoke in favor of the amendment. Mr. Balla stated he has a legal letter from an attorney they contacted stating they do not agree this is spot zoning or that it is illegal. He stated this development is primarily to attract the 55+ age group. He stated that when current zoning was written the housing of this age group was not taken into consideration. They have approached communities they wanted to build in for zoning change. He stated if this age group would like to live in this type of development, where could they do this since zoning does not allow for it. This would be there first community in the Stark County Area. There was another condo unit built in Jackson Township on Beatty. He played a DVD presentation of an existing condominium unit that was built by the same developer. He stated if this same property would be developed with single family homes, it would generate 56 lots. National averages for population state the average home has 2.58 residents per unit. In a single family development with 56 lots, that would total approximately 144.5 residents on this parcel of land. The average in the condominium unit is 1.6 residents with a total of 166 residents residing on this parcel of land which is a 20 residence difference. He also stated he does not feel traffic will be an issue. The average age is 61 years old in this development and the amount of trip traffic is less. The Traffic Engineer’s Manual states the average trip per home is 10.1 trips. For a single family development with 56 units there would be 565.6 trips per day. They have conducted traffic studies on there other units and the figures show 4.9 trips per home. Since they will have 104 units the total trips per day would be approximately 509. This will be 60 fewer trips per day with the condominium community. He stated if you compare total gross building count, they would have 32 buildings that appear to be larger single family homes versus actual 56 homes. He also stated they construct the streets in a narrow configuration to slow down traffic. Most of the residence walk on the streets so speed limit signs are posted that read 14 miles per hour.
Mr. Jerry Mosley, 2874 Steelwood Circle, Green, OH, spoke in favor of the amendment. Mr. Mosley passed out zoning maps to each board member and the audience. He reviewed the map with the board and showed which area they would like to have rezoned and feels it blends in with zoning.
Mr. Benner stated the map has been colored from what the comprehensive plans shows.
Mr. Mosley stated it has been blended in with the comprehensive plan and existing residential.
Mr. Benner clarified this map itself is a future land use map.
Mr. Mosley stated that is correct. All the small parcels did not have zoning on the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Benner stated those properties were still zoned R-R that were colored in. He clarified they took a few liberties with coloring in some as different zoning. These are rural residential properties.
Mr. Mosley stated it you merge the current use map with the residential map in the comprehensive plan this is what you come up with. He stated you used to be able to use PUD in a Rural Residential is why they are asking for a R-3 rezone. He stated he was not able to speak at the Regional Planning meeting.
Mr. Benner clarified the PRD zoning option is no longer an option. There were reasons it was taken out of zoning.
Mr. Mosley stated they do not agree with the statement from Regional Planning that this is spot zoning. He mentioned property on Amherst and Beatty that a rezone was denied by Regional Planning and the Board of Commission and Trustees approved. He stated they held a neighborhood meeting and wanted to share some of the concerns the surrounding neighbors had with the proposed rezone. The big concern was traffic. They discussed the future signalized light at the intersection and went over the traffic figures discussed earlier by Mr. Balla. The neighbors were also concerned if this property got rezoned to an R-3 and sold the property, someone could build apartments on this parcel. They advised them this could not happen. Mr. Mosley stated they also discussed how this development would keep the grandma’s and grandpas in the community.
Mr. Balla distributed a colored map showing community of condominiums. He reviewed what each color represented on the map. His focus was on green space and storm water run off. The retention area will need to be finalized in a storm water management program. That will have to be developed so storm water leaving the site can not be any greater or faster then it is in its current state. They need to control water within the provisions of storm water management. Their engineer will design with current guidelines. The water will be held on site and then sent off later.
Mr. Benner asked where it will eventually drain to.
Mr. Balla stated it drains down and crosses Lutz to a stream bed that is 200 ft west of Lutz and parallels Lutz going in a southward direction.
Mr. Benner asked how they will carry the water.
Mr. Balla states there will be underground storm water piping from the relief system from the upper pond to the lower pond. Then it will flow from the lower pond down into culverts along Portage or under Lutz and to the other side. He stated there may be some adjustments to that based on the engineer and the proposed fire station. There is also water runoff from the upper northeast corner that is a lower area. They will evaluate to see if there is a natural water runoff to accept this. This will be addressed in a storm water management plan and must be approved first. He referred to the green color on the map and stated this is the open/green space in the unit. They will also provide a landscaping plan that will include large trees. There is a secondary entrance from the community off to Lutz. The Jackson Township Fire Chief advised them they will need two access points into the development for emergency vehicles. The map also shows the statistics that is required by the zoning code.
Mr. Conley asked what the square footage of the units would be.
Mr. Balla stated they are between 1343 and 1964 square feet. They build a classic series and a cathedral series. There are actually 4 different sizes to choose from. Some of the units have 3 bedrooms. They place the largest unit they have in the print to make sure they have enough room. All of the units shown on the map are 1964 square feet.
Mr. Conley asked the cost of each unit.
Mr. Balla stated the cost will be between $180,000 to $260,000. The total will depend on upgrades from the buyers. Upgrades could be counter tops, tile floors, or to upscale the appliances.
Mr. Conley asked what the exterior building materials would be.
Mr. Balla stated they use cultured stone and vinyl siding. They can use a wood siding if that would be the requirement. They try to blend into the community. The roof is a dimensional 30 year shingle.
Mr. Conley asked if there will be sidewalks.
Mr. Balla stated there will be no sidewalks. They may put in a walking path if possible.
Mr. Benner asked how many condos’ are currently on the market and the price.
Mr. Balla stated he does not know this for Jackson Township.
Mr. Benner stated basically you are planning to put in 104 units without knowing how many will sell. He asked how long the project will take.
Mr. Balla stated it will take 2 years to complete the project. He stated they paid a company in Columbus to do a marketing study for this type of community. The preliminary study showed a good grade for this community, but he does not have the specific numbers in front of him.
Ms. Detwiler asked what the density is.
Mr. Balla stated it is 5 units per acre. This development is just under 4 units per acre.
Ms. Detwiler asked what there landscaping plans are for the water retention area.
Mr. Balla stated they may add a fountain and stock with fish. They hire a company to maintain the fish and fountain. They will need to feed them the first year, and after that it maintains itself.
Mr. Detwiler asked how long they control the development versus the home owners.
Mr. Balla stated Ohio law states after 25% of the units are occupied the residents elect a representative for the Board of Trustees. After 75% of the units are occupied the association is fully controlled by the association. The State has strict guidelines stating the developer can not contract with anyone from the association for longer than one year. They hire a management company to run the development from the time the first resident moves in.
Mr. Conley asked what the condo fees are a month.
Mr. Balla stated they are $149 a month not including water and sewer and $180 a month including water and sewer. The fee includes the fire insurance for the building, trash pickup, snow removal, exterior maintenance, landscaping, maintaining the clubhouse and swimming pool. It also covers the street lightning
Mr. Conley asked where the water comes into the development.
Mr. Balla referred to the map and showed on Lutz where it states existing water.
Mr. Conley asked if the residents on Lutz are on city water.
Mr. Balla stated he does not believe so, he believes they have well water.
Mr. Conley asked if each unit would be separately metered for water.
Mr. Balla stated they typically try not to do that. They tend to set it up that water is included.
Mr. Conley clarified who the current owner of the parcel is.
Mr. Balla stated Schalmo currently owns the property. Nathan Glick has the current contract to buy the property.
Mr. Nathan Glick, 1258 East Street, Canal Fulton, spoke in favor of the appeal. He secured the contract on the parcel. His business normally builds single family homes. This type of product is much more common in southern states. He stated they are seeing a slow down in single family homes in the current markets. He feels the reason is retires like this type of concept and it is offered in southern states. His point is 1500 people move to Florida to retire and not stay in Ohio. He believes they need to figure a way to keep the grandparents and parents in Ohio and this product is a perfect product for them. He feels it will keep the retirees here and it is our future. Mr. Glick stated that he feels it is a series problem that needs addressed.
Mr. Conley clarified the Schalmo owns the property.
Mr. Glick stated he put down 15% and have signed some extensions to buy the property. He is in the process of purchasing but has not closed. If this is not approved, he will still buy the property and put in single family homes. He stated the land will be developed either in single family or the condominium unit.
Mr. Conley clarified they have not closed yet. He also asked if there are any conditions on the closing.
Mr. Glick stated it is scheduled to close the end of this month and there are not any conditions on the contract.
Ms. Nancy Deierling, 9302 Paulding St, Massillon, spoke in favor of the amendment. She is in favor of this development because she feels there is a lack of housing in this community like this. She likes the secure community it provides. There are many single family houses for sale and not selling because the economy is not where is should be. She feels this would be creating a community that will help your tax dollar and not crowd the schools. She has seen their product and feels they are beautiful.
Mr. Rocky Halter, 8922 Portage St, spoke in favor of the amendment. He lives across from the property in question and knows the property well. He does not like the allotments that have been going up and does not feel they are helping his property. He likes this plan because there will be more green space. He stated he feels they are going to build something on this property and he likes this idea better than an allotment.
Mr. Scott Durkin, 6956 Lutz Avenue, spoke in favor of the amendment. He also feels the land will be developed in some way. This type of development as presented that will attract the empty nesters they will be able to maintain the solitude in the area. He feels it will change if single family residence go in this area.
Ms. Dorothy Schalmo, 9025 Portage, spoke in favor of the amendment. She lives right in the center of the piece of land. She likes the idea of the green space.
Mr. Jon Markle, 9160 Portage St, spoke in opposition of the amendment. He stated he is present to stand beside his neighbors to preserve the rural character of the land. He reflected some past requests for zoning changes that were turned downed due to the majority of the residence did not want. He referred to the Comprehensive Plan and stated it took hundreds of hours to formulate and it serves as a policy guide for the township. He feels deviating from it will only lessen the importance of the document. He stated Regional Planning agrees and denied the zone change referring to it as spot zoning. He stated the Comprehensive Plan states one of the top 3 visions in the township by importance is to preserve open space. The fact is the R-3 zoning classification does not fit into this area nor does it follow the Comprehensive Plan. The plans states rural residential preferred uses are for single family detached residences and the underlining density should be low and the developer should be encouraged to utilize open space design. In this plan the only open space is a proposed one acre retention basin that will increase water flow into Mudbrook Creek. This creek already flows at capacity and causes problems along Portage Street now for some of the neighbors. He feels allowing this rezone will also open future rezone request changes in this area to business or multi family requests. He feels this is the last true rural area left in Jackson. His concern is if they allow this, the argument for future changes will be they approved the rezone on Portage and Lutz so why not allow additional zoning changes along Portage, Arlington, and Lutz. He stated once it begins, stopping it is almost impossible.
Ms. Julie Aneshansel, 9145 Portage St, spoke in opposition of the amendment. She stated she agrees with Jon Markle, especially that it will be a mushroom effect. She stated if you allow this it will double the impact on water, fire, etc. She stated if she moves to Florida it will be because of the weather in Ohio not because of the housing. She feels you can take that maintenance fee and hire a lot of work done around your house. She feels the economy is due to the lack of jobs.
Mr. James Gardell, 7067 Wild Fox Run, also spoke in opposition of the amendment. He stated do not get emotionally involved with the DVD presentation and the comments about grandparents. He stated the real issue is traffic. There have been many accidents at Portage and Lutz and how many involved fatalities and injuries. He stated if the development goes in before the signalized light there will be an issue. He stated you still have rural roads. He does not see how 104 condominiums will not affect traffic. He urges the board to stay the course of the plan.
Mr. Eric Wells, 9185 Hunters Chase, spoke in opposition of the amendment. He stated he moved here from California and chose this area because it was rural residential. He stated he feels it is important to stick to the master plan because of what he witnessed in California. He stated everything was about money and when it went to zoning it was approved. He said you had strip malls and multi family all over and no rural areas were left. He stated the builder here stated if the rezone is not approved he will follow what the area is zoned, so stick to the plan and let him do it. He stated he does not agree it will not affect traffic. You can make numbers do a lot of things. He stated people are leaving because we are losing jobs, not because of housing.
Ms. Ellen Payne, 7076 Willowlane Avenue, spoke in opposition of the amendment. She built her house over 2 years ago. She built there because there were no condo’s in the area. She is in the senior citizens generation and did not want a condo. She can do her work or hire it out. She would like to see it stay as single family homes. She feels it will make traffic problems worse then it is now.
Mr. Jim Bennett, 7275 HighMill, spoke in opposition of the amendment. He stated as recent as 2003 there has been a zoning review study that included this area. The recommendation from this group was there should be no zoning changes in this area. This plan followed the opinion that green space not be lost.
Mr. Terry Renner spoke in opposition to the amendment.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the request. Ms. Benner asked the board for their comments.
The board had no discussion.
Ms. Detwiler made a motion to deny amendment #554-06.
Mr. Conley seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Benner–yes, Ms. Detwiler–yes, and Mr. Conley–yes.
Mr. Benner explained the amendment will go before the trustees at their December 11th meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator