Minutes of the Meeting of the Rootstown Township Zoning Commission
August 21, 2006

The Rootstown Township Zoning Commission held its regular meeting on August 21, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

Present:
Bob Baumgardner
William Billock
Paul Galido

Also present:
Van-Note Black, Assistant Zoning Inspector
Judy Adamson, secretary
Bob Harris, Portage County Regional Planning Commission

Absent:
Dorothy Filing
David Benedict
Robert Swauger

Vice Chair, Bob Baumgardner, called the meeting to order. Everyone stood to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Paul Galido made a motion to approve the July 2006 Zoning Commission minutes as presented. Bob Baumgardner seconded the motion and all ayes were heard.

Due to the absence of Jim Mahood, Zoning Inspector, there was no formal report; however Van-Note Black indicated things were rather calm at this time.

The floor was given to Bob Harris of Portage Regional Planning Commission to begin the discussion of the possible re-zoning of S.R. 44 north of Lynn Road. The Zoning Commission had asked for his suggestions regarding the possibility of creating a C-2 corridor along this section of highway. Some of this area already includes industrial sections. Mr. Harris suggested the west side should stay as it is currently. However, the east side which already has mixed uses may be a consideration for change. Even the northern portion which is now light industrial is mostly residential use. Also, north of Sandy Lake Road, the east side is a limited access area. The west side near Wendy’s is residential currently with a couple of exceptions per court action. Making it commercial would no doubt create traffic problems for S.R. 44.

Mr. Harris stated that the Portage Regional Planning Commission discourages corridor commercial zoning. He feels the Planned Commercial Overlay District could be utilized there by extending the boundaries to the industrial park. Upon reviewing those regulations, it shows that 10 acres are required for a commercial overlay district. Some current properties are less than 10 acres, though.

The section north of Sandy Lake Road on the east side which is now L-I could be a possible C-2 district. Or, the permitted uses of L-I could be reviewed to see if they could take advantage of the Industrial Park across the street. This L-I area now has uses as residential/commercial.

Mr. Billock feels there are too few 10-acre parcels for the overlay district to be effective at this time in that area. More discussion on Planned Commercial Overlay Districts followed. If 10 acres are required and some of the properties are less than that, the zoning commission could change the minimum requirement and also the boundaries of a PCOD could be extended. It is felt that reducing it to 5 acres for the area north of Sandy Lake Road would be more feasible. Mr. Harris feels it could also be left at the 10-acre minimum for S.R. 44 south of Tallmadge Road which has no central sewer. The areas considered for PCODs will be reviewed because of wording conflicts/typos which are incorrect.

Commercial and Industrial districts are taxed at the same rate, per Mr. Harris.

This whole discussion will be continued when more zoning commission members are present prior to pursuing any proposed amendments.

Next on the agenda was the Planned Residential Development review with Mr. Harris. The Zoning Commission had worked diligently for several months and asked him to be present to give his opinions and suggestions as to their potential changes on the final draft.

Mr. Harris questioned 320.04B & Schedule E regarding maximum density based on acreage. He feels this prevents clustering homes and goes against the purpose of open space. The zoning commission wants to stop postage stamp-size lots and feels the community agrees. Some other townships have changed their regulations to include open space in-between homes as well as around developments. If incorporated into the development’s residential component, it would enhance the living environment for residents and break it up to alleviate the urbanized look. This may help achieve the open space look as well.

Setback perimeters sometime require a minimum width/depth for open space, but could be put elsewhere in the development also.

He suggested that in Schedule 320.05 -# 2 be removed and 320.05B be changed to indicate density per net acre. He made notes in the margins of the final draft of how we could also insert open space requirements and get the figures needed to satisfy zoning commission members. Net acreage equals total acreage, minus 10% used for roads, then the 5% county requirements for open space gives the developable acreage. Lands not able to be developed need to be subtracted also. Wording for fire safety needs to be included if dwellings are close.

Regarding minimum standards of setbacks, Mr. Harris feels the suggested change of 70 feet is not enough. To preserve the rural character of the neighborhoods the greater numbers are better. Also, the range or criteria to establish lesser or greater depth for open space needs to be determined in 3a of 320.07. Allowing less footage of setbacks of homes to the interior streets affords developers to save money; however it shouldn’t be too shallow and 320.06, number 3 could be compromised somewhere in-between 20 and 70 feet.

Mr. Harris suggested a few other wording changes for clarification also. He feels adding “non-recreational” in reference to parking spaces under areas not to be included in open space requirements would help.

Common open space is part of the restricted open space. The Portage County Regional Planning Commission requires 5% open space for subdivisions. Access drives need to be further clarified. The PCRPC is not involved in regulations of condominium roads; the zoning regulations would be in effect.

Mr. Harris also feels we need to make reference to sign regulations in the supplemental requirements in the use section. It needs to be listed as whether signs are permitted, or conditionally permitted, etc. Home occupations should also match what is in the regular district requirements as well. The zoning commission might want to re-consider whether to keep in letter “c” regarding additional development requirements, too. This should not refer to allowing non-permitted uses.

Mr. Harris will send the secretary the language for open space requirements being part of the design of PRDs for consideration at next month’s ongoing review of the edited draft of the PRD section. The units able to be built conventionally should be calculated first and then work open space into it. The members of the zoning commission thanked Mr. Harris for his time and efforts. Next month’s meeting will be a continuation of the ongoing revamping of the PRD section of the zoning resolution to give this month’s absent members a chance to review the information they missed.

Paul Galido made a motion to table the review of Section 350.03 regarding permitted uses until the September 18th 2006 meeting which will be a public hearing. Bill Billock seconded the motion and all ayes were heard.

Also, it was agreed that next month’s agenda should include a discussion of Section 330.01 which needs reviewed for clarification of the wording for the boundaries and .03 regarding minimum project area.

Paul Galido made a motion to adjourn and Bob Baumgardner seconded the motion. All ayes were heard.

________________________________
Dorothy Filing, Chair
Rootstown Township Zoning Commission

Judy Adamson, secretary