Minutes
Portage County Regional Planning Commission
January 11, 2012
Portage County Regional Planning Commission dated January 11, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. The meeting was held in the Portage County Regional Planning Commission Meeting Room, 124 North Prospect Street, Ravenna.
Members
Present: Brimfield Twp., Dick Messner Ravenna Twp., Jim DiPaola
Hiram Twp., Steve Pancost Hiram Vill., Alan Donley
Atwater Twp., Danny Derreberry Shalersville Twp., Nancy Vines
Randolph Twp., Susan White Nelson Twp., Jeanne Harkai
Mantua Village, Paul Janson Portage Park District, Alan Orashan
Freedom Twp., Jim Hammar P.C. Commissioner, Maureen Frederick
Franklin Twp., Sam Abell P.C. Commissioner Marsilio Alternate, Gino Calcei
Suffield Twp. Mark Frisone P.C. Commissioner, Chris Smeiles
Garrettsville,Vill., Rick Patrick P.C. County Engineer Alternate, Dan Jendrisak
Ravenna City, Kerry Macomber P.C. Water Resources, Jeff Lonzrick
Paris Twp., Tom Smith
Staff
Present: T. Peetz C. James S. Walker E. Beeman L. Reeves
Visitors: Ron Biroschak, Warren Drescher, Mike Sever, David Butz, Tami Scott, Bruce May, Brad Whitman, and Anthony Zumbo.
Alternates
Present: Suffield Twp., James Demboski; Randolph Twp., Dan Kolasky;
P.C. Commissioner Frederick Alternate, John Epling.
Members
Absent: Windham Twp., Brian Miller
Rootstown Twp., Brett Housley
Soil & Water, James Bierlair
Deerfield Twp., Ed Dean
Palmyra Twp., Sandy Nutter
Mantua Twp., Jason Carlton
PARTA, Bryan Smith
Edinburg Twp., Terry Montz
The Regional Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman, Tom Smith.
Approval of Minutes of December 14, 2011
The December 14, 2011 minutes were presented. D. Derreberry made a motion to approve the December 14, 2011 minutes as presented. Motion seconded by J. Hammar. Motion carried with 21 Yeas.
Subdivisions
Plat of “Whispering Woods Subdivision—Phase 1A” on Tallmadge Road, Lot 43 in Brimfield Township, L & C Excavating and Paving, LLC, c/o Charles Whitman, Applicant. (Report presented by Claudia James)
Phase 1 of Whispering Woods was approved in December of 2010. 17 single-family lots and the first portion of the access road, Willow Way were platted. Phase 1A is 2.19 acres and will contain six additional lots.
Following Tax Map’s disapproval, several corrections were made. Brimfield Township required a 35-foot building separation for fire safety, and commented that there were several wetland setbacks that needed to be observed. As of the mailout, there were still several items that had not yet been addressed. Since then, Tax Map has approved the revised plat of Block BR, which was originally designated as open space and is now correctly labeled as “future phases.” The general sewer agreement and financial guarantee for the roads and storm water facilities have received approval from the Portage County Commissioners. Also, the Soil and Water Conservation District has indicated that erosion control is now acceptable.
All items that were found to be in noncompliance with the Portage County Subdivision Regulations have been corrected, therefore staff recommends approval. D. Messner made a motion to follow staff recommendation. Motion seconded by J. DiPaola. Motion carried with 21 Yeas.
Variance to Section 411 (Private Streets) and Section 412 (Minimum Road and Alley Widths) of the Portage County Subdivision Regulations for the Highlands of Edinburg Subdivision on State Route 14 in Edinburg Township, Schumacher Homes, LLC., Applicant. (Report presented by Claudia James)
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “Okay, this has been an interesting round. I think I’m just going to stay seated if that’s okay. I apologize for my back being to people, but I do need to page through quite a few things on the computer here.”
[LISA REEVES]: “You have to swear her in, Tom.”
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “You have to swear me in.”
[TOM SMITH]: “Do you swear that all of the information that you give on this variance is true?”
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “I do.”
[TOM SMITH]: “Proceed.”
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “Do I need to state my name?”
[LISA REEVES]: “You probably should.”
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “Claudia James.”
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “Okay, the applicant is requesting a variance from sections 411, Private Streets, and 412.3, Minimum Road and Alley Widths of the Portage County Subdivision Regulations to construct an access drive that is not built to county road standards, which will provide access to a proposed subdivision on the west side of State Route 14 in Edinburg Township. Section 411 of the Subdivision Regulations requires that any streets, lanes, or ways that provide access to a subdivision should be built to county road standards. The proposed access driveway will not have the base or the width to meet subdivision road standards. The main issue here is that this access road also right now provides access to three homes that are on proposed lot CR2, which is a 14.9 acre parcel; and access to Block C2, which will have the model homes as coming across the entrance, a 64-foot entrance here, and will curve into Block C2. The justification for the variance was provided in the mailout. In a nutshell, essentially, the applicant says, ‘Mr. Chris Messenger of ODOT desires the driveway to be constructed to commercial driveway standards, rather than county road standards to ensure that ODOT will continue to regulate and control the amount of traffic onto State Route 14 and to ensure that the driveway does not become a road in the future.’ So, that’s one of the main reasons we are looking at a variance here. Just as information for the decision-making process here, ‘a variance from Subdivision Regulations is reviewed on the basis of exceptional topographic, or other physical, conditions that makes strict compliance with Subdivision Regulations an undo or extraordinary hardship. The variance may not be detrimental to the public interest or impair the intent and the purpose of the regulations or desirable development of the neighborhood. Conditions may be required to achieve the objectives of the regulations.’ So, as I noted that this access would be across this proposed lot CR2 and one of the main motivations to not build this to county road standards is that ODOT feels that if it was built to county standards, there’s more likelihood that the interior part of the lot would develop and that would . . . as soon as it becomes a road, or if it became a road, they can no longer manage access at that point. So, that becomes an issue for the Department of Transportation. Right now, ODOT considers allowing the model home employee and customer traffic, in addition to the residential traffic from the three homes, as an acceptable increase for ingress and egress at the existing access drive. The concern arises from the potential of future development of the balance of proposed lot CR2, again which is almost 15 acres. And they are worried it will create more traffic than can safely be accommodated at that point on State Route 14. There are several notable physical conditions on the site that would warrant a relaxation of the road construction standards. This is a diagram that shows a little bit more. This is the model home, the proposed driveway, the driveway that they are proposing to put in across lot CR2’s entrance and then they are going to extend it back so it continues to serve the additional . . . the three homes that are back there now. In terms of physical conditions, we would want people to note that the existing drive is relatively close to the entrance and exit ramps on I-76, which you just see in the corner here. Additionally, there’s another driveway entrance to Wayne model homes right here and then St. Andrew’s Way comes in up here to the northwest of the existing drive for the houses. The State Highway Access Management manual says that spacing of driveways, a spacing of 360 feet between driveways on state routes with a 45 mile per hour speed limit is recommended, though it can depend on other conditions and limitations. So, one of the things we looked at here is would it be possible to actually put a driveway directly from State Route 14 into Block CR2 to avoid using this other access driveway and in general, ODOT does not consider that to be an option. They do not want that lot to have direct access to State Route 14, again because of the spacing of the driveways. Additionally, adding additional driveways along here, there are some pretty steep slopes in some of these places and the management of storm water is also an issue along State Route 14 in this area. So, these are some of the physical conditions on the site that would make it difficult for the applicant to actually build it to county road standards. We did request comments from the County Engineer, ODOT, and Edinburg Township, and if you will bear with me, the one from the County Engineer’s Office did not come out in the mailout because we received it . . . well, we received one on December 29th and then we received a second one on January 6th. So, I’m going to read that just so that everybody understands the County Engineer’s comments. And then you did get ODOT’s in the mailout. I might read portions of that and again, I just want to make sure everybody’s getting equal time here. I don’t want to let anybody be not heard in terms of this variance. As far as the County Engineer’s comments, after discussing the matter internally, the County Engineer’s Office is offering additional comments to this matter and that would be in addition to the December 29th, which are in the mailout.
[CLAUDIA JAMES READS FROM THE COUNTY ENGINEER’S COMMENTS]: “Before the County Engineer’s Office comments on the proposed plat and variance, PCRPC needs to establish that Mr. May/Schumacher Homes are willing to reconfigure lots C2 to include the existing driveway and to reconfigure lots CR1 and CR2 in such a manner as to allow all future ingress and egress to be from St. Andrew’s Way. If this is acceptable to them, then a revised plat will need to be provided. Additionally, this office feels that a revised plat as indicated above precludes the need for a variance. If this is not acceptable to them, then the County Engineer does not approve of the variance based on our comments stated December 29, 2011. In this case, the County Engineer emphatically holds the position that no access or private drive be built to subdivision regulations standards be constructed, which could, at a later date, become a township road. The report I saw regarding the replat indicated that the County Engineer had a conditional approval based on the outcome of the variance. Given the position outlined above, I don’t believe those comments hold true. Please let me know if you have any questions.”
[CLAUDIA JAMES]: “And that’s signed Anthony Zumbo, who is here at this moment, so he may be able to answer questions if there are any. Again, ODOT had a pretty lengthy, two-page letter here. I’m going to skip the first page. It’s largely the history of how we got to where we are with this particular variance and subdivision. At any rate, I’m just going to start on the back page and go from where ODOT denied direct access to State Route 14 for what I’m assuming they’re talking about is Block C2. And he goes on to say—this is Chris Messenger—goes on to say, ‘Subsequently, Mr. Wince proposed that an existing access to a property along S.R. 14 that Malawi owned could be used jointly for access to the existing property and for a new parcel for the use of constructing two more model homes.’ So, I believe that is what we are talking about here, constructing it and using this access that we see on the aerial photo. ‘As part of ODOT’S review and consideration for this proposal, aerial photographs and sketches were submitted showing the proposed new parcel; its relationship to the parcel with existing access; and its proximity to the residual commercial property. Assurances were required and provided by Bruce May and the Edinburg Township Zoning Office regarding ODOT’s review and approval of future development on the residual commercial property and/or properties. Additional assurances were provided by Mr. May, stating that any future development of the residual property and/or properties would acquire access via St. Andrew’s way, and that no other traffic besides the two model homes and existing rental homes can use the driveway.’ So, he goes on to say that ‘ODOT’s approval of the replat and variance are contingent upon the existing access to be constructed to ODOT commercial driveway specifications and that a cross-property easement with accompanying maintenance agreement between the two properties be established for the driveway.’ Again, that is just in part. And then Edinburg Township . . . again I think I paraphrased it in the report. This is the letter in its entirety: ‘Dear Regional Planning Commission, per your request of your letter dated December 15, 2011, the Edinburg Township Trustees must first state that at this time, nor at any time, have they approved variances. This matter is handled by our Board of Zoning Appeals. On August 28, 2011, our Board of Zoning Appeals held a variance meeting with Schumacher Homes for the application they had filed with our zoning. Schumacher Homes met all the standards of our zoning and have approval from our board upon the drive staying a private drive as stated in the information provided to your office on December 13, 2011 by our zoning inspector, Tami Scott.’ So, those are the comments I received for this variance.
In general, I’m pretty safe, I think, to assume that nobody wants this driveway built to county road standards. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. I think everybody believes if we build it to county road standards, even if it remains private, there’s always the potential for further subdivision or more development to occur further back on the property. However, I do want to make sure that the commission understands that the development of the rest of this piece of property that’s 14.9 acres, can occur without a road. You could put a driveway in there and you could put in some of the things that are permitted in this zoning district, like banks, service stations, hotels, restaurants, storage facilities, warehouses and sport training facilities. ODOT would have to give them access at this point, at the 64-foot frontage; however, ODOT could limit their access and they could require modifications at that point of ingress and egress. So, that is something I think we need to consider. That access could go in there no matter what, whether it’s a road or not. I do want to indicate that right now on the replat, which we’re going to consider next, there are assurances under this easement’s clause that the ‘area of private drive being on the easterly part of CR2, as shown here as having a frontage of 64.33 feet along State Route 14, is not for public use, nor is it intended to become public in the future.’ So, we do have an assurance on the plat, or replat, indicating that this will not become a public road.