Members Present:                                                                  Rodney Napier
                                                                                                  Aletha Magyaros
                                                                                                  Donna Conaway
                                                                                                  James Bauder
                                                                                                  Dave Benner

Alternate Member:                                                                  David Clatterbuck

Zoning Administrator:                                                             John Phillippi

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                     Joni Poindexter

Assistant Law Director:                                                          Dave Ferrell

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to wait to approve the September 19, 2002 minutes until the next Zoning Commission meeting.

Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Ms. Magyaros-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. (Continued from 9/19/02)

Mr. Napier stated that amendment #516-02 is continued from September 19, 2002.  Mr. Napier stated that previously the board had reviewed most of the material.  The yellow highlighted areas were approved by the board for discussion purposes on August 15, 2002.  The board did not discuss any changes at the September meeting.  The changes being discussed at this hearing will be those highlighted in green and blue in the packet.

Mr. Napier stated that Mr. Clatterbuck originally participated at the hearing on August 15, 2002. He will not participate as a board member at this hearing but will participate as a member of the community.  Mr. Napier stated that the board would also take comments from the audience.  Not in the form of for or against, but anytime they hear something that they would like to discuss they can raise their hand and the board will hear their comments.

Mr. Napier stated, again, the board would only review what is highlighted in blue or green.

The board reviewed the proposed change in section 201.2, #41.  The board had no comments and agreed to the proposed change.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 302.8.  The board had no comments and agreed to the proposed changes.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 302.9.  The board had no comments and agreed to the proposed changes.
The board reviewed the proposed change in adding section 302.11.

Mr. Benner stated that it would be helpful if the abbreviation of NPDES was spelled out.

Mr. Napier stated agreed.

Mr. Phillippi stated that NPDES stands for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if this is because the township can’t exercise any control over this.

Mr. Phillippi stated that with regards to the topsoil removal, he didn’t feel that it is something that could be on a practical basis controlled, or should be controlled through zoning.  Over and above that with the soil and water conservation district, the township has a good relationship with them and over the last year they have taken on the administration of the Stark County regulations that were delegated by the EPA to the Stark County Commissioners.  From that standpoint they are the only authority that can really control and has the expertise to go out on these sites and implement the requirements.

The board agreed to the addition of section 302.11 with a modification to add the words, “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System”.

The board reviewed the proposed change in section 303.3.  The board agreed to the change.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 401.1.  The board had no comments and agreed to the changes.

The board reviewed the proposed change in section 401.12(D).  The board had no comments and agreed to the change.

The board reviewed the proposed deletion in section 401.12(F)(2).

Mr. Phillippi stated that currently the maximum height is 6 ft. in the side and rear yard and 4 ft. in the front yard.  There have been problems with fences in the side and rear yard because there are neighbors that will go out and measure their neighbor’s fence if there is a dispute between them.  If it’s the least bit over 6 ft. they want a zoning violation enforced.  Mr. Phillippi stated that most fences come in sections that are 6-ft. in height and the ones that are over 6 ft. are usually custom made and are very nice expensive fences.  Mr. Phillippi stated that permits are not required for fences so it is hard to regulate them.

The board agreed to the deletion of section 401.12(F)2.

Mr. Napier stated that in section 401.12(F)3 the word, “shall” is changed to, “should”.

The board agreed to the change.

The board reviewed section 401.15(B).

Mr. Benner asked if this actually meant that single family detached units could be up to four homes.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this specifically refers to the single family detached.  The four units would be for the single family attached.

The board agreed to the change.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in schedule in 401.16.

Ms. Scourfield suggested that the minimum project area for the R-3 PUD be increased from four acres to ten acres because she thinks four acres is small for a PUD.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that one of the reasons it is four acres is because throughout the township there is a number of patches of land that are only four acres, so they felt four acres was appropriate for a PUD.

The board agreed to the proposed changes for schedule 401.16 as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed change in section 401.17, the first sentence.

The board agreed to the change as proposed.

The board reviewed the proposed change to section 401.17(B).

The board agreed to the proposed change for section 401.17(B) as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed change to schedule 401.17.

Mr. Benner stated that he believes the words “or combined” should be added for the open space requirement for the R-3 Single Family Detached due to the previous added sentence in section 401.17(B).

Ms. Magyaros stated that she agrees and suggested that “Minimum common open space for R-3 Single Family Detached” should be amended to “Minimum common open space for R-3 Single Family Detached or combined Detached and Attached”.

Mr. Day asked if there were 50% of each, attached and detached, would you not have the open space requirement for the single and not for the attached.

Mr. Napier stated that even if there were 50% of each, if it is one overall mixed plan then the open space requirement would be followed.

The board agreed to the proposed changes with “Minimum common open space for R-3 Single Family Detached” amended to “Minimum common open space for R-3 Single Family Detached or combined Detached and Attached”.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 401.17(C).

Mr. Napier stated asked if the word practicable, should be practical.

Mr. Phillippi stated that practicable is a word.  The word currently is possible.

Ms. Conaway suggested changing the word practicable to the word practical.
The board amended the word “practicable” in the last sentence in 401.17(C)5, to “practical”.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 401.17(D).

Mr. Benner stated that number seven is kind of vague.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she also has a concern with this.

Mr. Phillippi stated that it was brought up before that it is very subjective and it may be difficult to administer.  Mr. Phillippi stated that someone had suggested that this item be eliminated, which the board may want to consider.  Mr. Phillippi stated that this opens it up for anyone’s determination.

Mr. Bauder stated that it’s like the detention basins being determined as open space and doesn’t think this is what they want.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that it depends on what you call a detention basin.  Mr. Clatterbuck stated that some detention basins could be used as a ball field or whatever.

Mr. Bauder stated that there might be a detention basin that is not sod.

Ms. Markel stated the under a conventional subdivision an easements cannot be built on so why should the developer get credited twice for what they use as open space.

Mr. Benner stated that he thinks number six and seven should be removed.

Mr. Napier asked, “what if it’s an over head utility easement”?  There could be baseball fields.  Mr. Napier stated that if it is oil wells, then it should not be included because you absolutely cannot use that for recreation.  Mr. Napier stated that he thinks it needs to be defined as to what would be included and what would not be included.

Mr. Bauder stated that he has a parcel that is 25% flood plain and wanted to know if this would be covered under the regulation for pre-existing drainage easements.

Mr. Phillippi stated that under the proposed regulation it would not be included unless it was actually a drainage easement at that time.

Mr. Smith asked, “when lots are density driven on an overall piece of property, why are we concerned about where the open space is or how it is used”?  In the past all easements were used in the calculation of the lots even if you couldn’t build on them.

Mr. Smith stated that he would like to the board to consider that many gas lines and easements are used in the calculation of lot requirements.

Mr. Phillippi stated that unless there is specific criteria for number six and seven, it would be hard to administer.

Mr. Napier stated that this is something that will take a lot of discussion and a definition.  He would like to propose to remove number six and seven from the text and possibly revisit it later at the request of any member of the board or public.

Mr. Benner stated that he knows the developers are arguing that they want to able to include easements, but when they are on the other side and are negotiating to buy a piece of land, the developers are not going to pay the same amount per acre if they can’t build on part of the acreage.  So they already got the benefit of paying less per acre because they couldn’t build on it.  This gives another bang per acre in being able to say, I want to include it twice.

The board agreed to the proposed changes in (D) as amended to remove the proposed change of number six and seven.

The board reviewed section 401.17(E) and agreed to the proposed change as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed changes to section 401.18(E).

Ms. Scourfield asked why the minimum lot frontage is being changed from 50 ft. to 40 ft.

Mr. Phillippi stated that this is added in because the way the current regulations are written, there is no minimum frontage requirement for a PRD.  The 50-ft. minimum frontage for a PRD currently refers to the project area.  The individual lots do not have a requirement.  Mr. Phillippi stated that the minimum is 50 ft. within the residential districts.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that if there is to much frontage, then everyone will be forced to build their home toward the back of the lot.

Mr. Napier suggested that they modify the proposal to 40 ft. for cul-de-sacs and 50 ft. for all other lots.

The board agreed to the proposed change for section 401.18(E) with the modification of 40 ft. for cul-de-sacs and 50 ft. for all other lots.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 401.19(A)&(B).  The board agreed to the proposed changes as presented.

Mr. Napier stated that he would like to continue amendment 516-02 and hear amendment #519-02 that was scheduled for 7:30 and then go back to amendment 516-02.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to continue amendment 516-02 until 8:30 pm.

Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Mr. Napier stated that Ms. Conaway would be reclused from the next amendment and Mr. Clatterbuck would sit in on the hearing as a regular member.

AMENDMENT #519-02 – James R. McKinney, 4699 Everhard Rd. NW, Canton, OH 44718 agent for Belden Park Company, 7974 Whipple Ave. NW, North Canton, OH 44720 propose to rezone R-2 (Two Family Residential District) to B-3 (Commercial Business District) 0.871 acres, more or less, located 240 ft., more or less, west of Everhard Rd., 520 ft., more or less, south of Echoglen St. NW, Parcel #16 20256, Sect. 24NW Jackson Twp.

Mr. Napier read the file application and Stark County Regional Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval and the facts considered in their recommendation.

Mr. Napier asked who would like to speak in favor of this amendment.

Mr. James McKinney, 4699 Everhard Rd. NW stated that he is the applicant.

Mr. McKinney stated that exhibit “A” is a drawing of his property and the proposed property.  Mr. McKinney stated that his office is currently located where the parcel numbers are listed on his property.

Mr. McKinney stated that exhibit “B” shows that the boxes with the addresses are part of the development of Belden Park.  Mr. McKinney stated that with property being zoned B-3, he could put parking within 20 ft. of the lot line.  Mr. McKinney stated that he went to the Board of Belden Park Condos and proposed negotiating a mutual beneficial agreement so he can maintain the integrity of all the back yards of the unit owners and at the same time improve the usability of his parking.

Mr. McKinney stated that if he puts parking in the rear and the building sits clear in the front, it would be a walk of about 250-ft.  Mr. McKinney stated that he proposed to the association that he give them the 85 x 89 ft. portion shown on exhibit “B”, as an easement for setback.  They already have a road on a portion of the proposed property so he would also give them an easement for it.  Mr. McKinney stated that he would also give them an easement shown to the south of exhibit “B”, to protect the properties on Pond Dr.  Mr. McKinney stated that there is an existing 25 ft. utility easement along the properties.

Mr. McKinney stated that the board is in agreement with the proposal but there is not an actual agreement signed at this time because the attorney’s are still working out a couple of the details.

Mr. McKinney stated that the building he is proposing to build is a two-story building, which would have parking and you could walk in the front.  But because of the topography of the land, there is a hill and walk in from the back.  Mr. McKinney stated that in order to utilize the land for parking he will have to fill in a lot of it.  This will still leave the road higher then the rest of the property so part of the agreement is that if he uses the land within ten feet of the cul-de-sac, he will put up a retaining wall and a guardrail around the cu-de-sac to protect the residents.

Mr. McKinney stated that one of the reasons that the agreement is not yet signed is because the board wanted him to have written approval for whatever it is he is going to put on the property.

Mr. Napier asked if the board had received notice of the hearing.

Mr. McKinney stated yes.  He met with them on Monday or Tuesday and they said that they are happy with the request and they were not going to attend the meeting.

Mr. Bauder asked how high the retaining wall would be.

Mr. McKinney stated that it is not designed at this time.

Mr. Bauder stated that the higher the wall is, the smaller parking lot there will be.

Mr. McKinney stated yes, but the architect has to work all of this out.
Mr. McKinney stated that they will bring a portion of the land up to the second story floor so that they have walk up from the back.

Mr. Clatterbuck asked if the drop is about 40 ft.

Mr. McKinney stated that grade change is not 40 ft. but it may be 40 ft. from the elevation of Treeline Circle.

Mr. Bauder stated that he thinks there are still a lot of unanswered questions.  Right now the cul-de-sac takes some of the land but there is a lot of trees that he thinks is a visual barrier between the condos and the commercial area.  Mr. Bauder stated that he understands that the trees will be gone.

Mr. McKinney asked Mr. Bauder if he is talking about in front of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Bauder stated yes.

Mr. McKinney stated yes, they would be gone.  But there is actually not many trees in front of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Clatterbuck stated that if at the cul-de-sac, they could take every one of the trees out, it wouldn’t bother any of the property owners because there are no homes there.

Mr. Benner stated that he noticed there was a note on exhibit “B” that states a variance would be needed for setbacks adjacent to Sunset Hills.

Mr. McKinney stated that Sunset Hills is zoned R-1 and the building setback is larger then if it were zoned commercial.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this amendment and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to vote on amendment #519-02 as requested.

Mr. Clatterbuck seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Clatterbuck-yes, Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-No, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Mr. Napier stated that the board has recommended approval, which will go to the trustees for the hearing.

The board went off record for five minutes.

The board went back on record.

(Continuation of amendment 516-02)

Mr. Clatterbuck acted as a member of the public and Ms. Conaway resumed as a member of the board.

Mr. Napier stated that the board would continue with amendment #516-02.

Ms. Magyaros stated that she would like to go back to Schedule 401.17 and make a change where they talked about the R-3 Single Family Attached.  The number of units per acre is currently seven units and she would like to propose that it be changed to six units for attached.

The board agreed to the change.

The board reviewed the proposed change for section 411.3 Schedule of Permitted Uses, which is the removal of (h) “Topsoil Removal”.  The board agreed to the proposed change and (i) would be re-lettered to (h).

The board reviewed the proposed change for the deletion of section 411.11(E).

The board agreed to the proposed change as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed deletion of section 411.2(B)3.

The board agreed to the proposed change as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 411.13(B)&(C).

The board agreed to the proposed changes as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed change in the notes to schedule 431.4.

Mr. Benner stated that the numbers needed to be changed to correspond and also the letter (C) beside “Minimum Lot Regulations” needed to be changed to the letter (B).

The board agreed to the proposed change.

The board reviewed the proposed changes to schedule 431.5.

The board agreed to the proposed changes as presented.

The board reviewed the proposed change to Notes to Schedule 431.5.

Mr. Benner stated that the word Zoning should be added and the word Appeals should be capitalized.

The board agreed.

The board reviewed the proposed deletion of section 431.5(Z), which is the removal of “Topsoil Removal shall comply with the following:”

The board agreed.

The board reviewed section 801.9, which is just a reference change.

The board agreed to the change.

The board reviewed the proposed change in section 801.11.

The board agreed to the proposed change.

The board reviewed the proposed changes in section 801.12.

The board agreed to the proposed changes with the re-lettering of the letters.

The board reviewed the proposed change in section 801.13 and agreed to the change.

Mr. Napier stated that this concludes the proposed changes.

Mr. Smith stated that he understands the PRD is being eliminated and the current zoning for R-R and R-1 has not been modified.  Mr. Smith asked the board to consider that before the PRD was available the minimum lot size for the R-R was 15,000 with sewer and 20,000 without sewer and he suggests the board look at this and possibly change the minimum lot size back to this.

Mr. Napier stated that the board would not look at any additional changes at this time.

Mr. Benner made a motion to vote on amendment 516-02 as modified.

Mr. Bauder seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Ms. Magyaros made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Ms. Conaway seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Mr. Benner-yes, Mr. Bauder-yes, Ms. Conaway-yes, Ms. Magyaros-yes, and Mr. Napier-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter,
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary