Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen
Members absent
Richard Dodson
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2026 John & Julie Stoll, 81 Cherry Drive, NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owners, request a variance for a 15 ft. front yard setback for principal use where 40 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 81 Cherry Drive, NW, North Canton, Sect. 4NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Julie Stoll and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan reflecting the proposed addition and eighteen photos of the property. Also in the file was a map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in John & Julie Stoll, 81 Cherry Drive, to speak on behalf of the application.
Mrs. Stoll stated they would like to put an addition on 82 Cherry Drive that would be attached to their house on 81 Cherry Drive. She stated they have both lots. Willowdale Lake Association has approved the addition. The reason they would like to build it so close to the road is that if they went back the required 40 ft. it would not be attached to their home. The existing home sits 5 ft. from pavement. They can not build on 80 Cherry Drive because of the gas well. She reviewed the pictures that were in the file showing it is common for the houses to sit close to the road.
Mr. Deremer questioned the submitted site plan showing the new addition would be at a 21 ft. setback.
Mrs. Stoll stated that the new addition would be 30 ft. from the center of the street.
Mr. Deremer explained the road is considered 30 ft. wide. You need to measure 15 ft. from the center of the road to get the road right of way. From that point you measure for the setback.
Mr. Deremer and Mrs. Stoll determined the setback would be 15 ft. and the figure of 21 ft. on the site plan is incorrect.
Mr. Deremer stated it appears from the photos that the lot drops off on the side they want to add the addition.
Mrs. Stoll stated there is a hill on that side, but the builder did not think it would be a problem to put the addition there.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the addition would be 10 ft. further back from the street than the existing house.
Mr. Stoll stated that was correct.
Mr. McDonnell clarified that the new addition is further back from the street than the existing house.
Mrs. Stoll stated that was correct.
Mr. McDonnell stated it appears the ground falls away in the back of where the addition would be.
Mrs. Stoll stated that was not actually true. There is a hill but where the structure will be it is flush.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if she had any comments on the appeal.
Ms. Poindexter stated that she did not.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the application. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. McDonnell stated he feels the practical difficulty has been met due the fall off of the land. The new structure will not be any closer to the road than the existing structure. Most of the homes at Willowdale Lake are close to the street. He does not feel they should hold the applicant to a higher standard so he would be in favor of granting the variance.
Mr. Giulitto stated he concurs with Mr. McDonnell.
Mr. Deremer stated he also agrees. He also stated these lots are unrecorded. The original lot size of each lot is only 30 ft. wide. Adjoining the lots for one structure is common.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2026 as submitted.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #2027 Todd Rice, 3318 Miles NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owner, request a variance for a 22-8 front yard setback for principal use where 40 ft. front yard setback is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 5680 West Blvd, Canton, Sect. 14SW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Teree Rice and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a 11x17 and a full size site plan, prepared by SMC Architects, of the property. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Scott Clymire, 3718 Maplewood Ave, and Mr. Todd Rice, 3318 Miles NW, Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Clymire distributed a prepared document containing dimensions of property and photos to each board member. This document also reflects the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Deremer marked the 6 sheet document as Exhibit #1.
Mr. Clymire stated they have two obstacles at this property. The first was to provide enough living area for the Rice family of 5. The house was built in 1950, and in 1970 they added an addition. The total square footage of this house is 1450 sq. ft. They are proposing to add an addition of 740 sq. ft. that would make it a total of 2200 sq. ft. The second obstacle is for building a new garage structure. The existing garage is only 18 ft. wide, and it is difficult to fit 2 cars. There practical difficulty is they own two lots, and since there is a natural gas storage tank on one of the lots that prevents them from building on it. They are asking for a 228 front yard setback, however the structure will be 45 ft. from the road. In Lake Cable many homes sit closer than that. He referred to his document that they are not trying to change the character of the neighborhood or set precedence. They will have a cost savings by not tearing down and rebuilding the structure.
Mr. Deremer asked what the setback is from the gas well.
Mr. Clymire stated currently the gas company requires 100 ft. The home is 24 ft. from the gas well.
Mr. Juergensen asked what the easement is.
Mr. Clymire stated there is no record of an easement. They were told it is a 100 ft. radius.
Mr. Juergensen asked the exact size of the addition.
Mr. Clymire stated it is 24x28 ft.
Mr. Juergensen asked how far the existing house is from the gas well.
Mr. Clymire stated it is about 24 feet.
Mr. Juergensen asked how this plan differs from the other plan the Rices filed with the board.
Mr. Clymire stated originally they were asking for a 10 ft. covered courtyard that would be between the structurally attached garage. They have a 2 ft. difference in between grade and floor line of the house, so they need to add steps. They have reduced that request to 6 ft.
Mr. Juergensen clarified the existing house is higher due to the 2 ft. difference in grade.
Mr. Clymire stated that is correct. They need to create steps to get into the house.
Mr. Juergensen referred to the 3 houses to the north on the aerial map. He asked how far this addition would extend past these houses.
Mr. Clymire stated 5704, 5712 and 5720 West Blvd. are currently sitting about 10 ft. behind them. The addition would push the house about 20 ft. in front of them. He also referred to his document (Exhibit 1) and stated the next home is 5730 West Blvd. This house is roughly 48 ft. from road edge.
Mr. Deremer asked him to clarify the reason
for the court yard.
Mr. Clymire stated the true reason for
the court yard is they need an approach of the front door into the house,
which is located between the two garages. They have a 2 ft difference
between finished floor level, so they need steps. Pushing the structure
directly against the house would make it difficult. There would be
4 ft. impeded into the garage door entrance way for the car. The
second reason is it would esthetically soften the look. The current
house is 24 ft. wide and the addition is 24 ft. wide. There would
be a solid wall of almost 50 ft. The 6 ft. court yard will give the
appearance of two separate structures.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Clymire to show him on the site plan where the front door will be located.
Mr. Clymire marked the site plan.
Mr. Deremer asked if the front door will be a standard 3 ft. door.
Mr. Clymire stated it will be a 36 door. This will give better ease of getting things in and out of the door.
Mr. Rice stated another benefit of adding the courtyard is there will be room to back out of the garage and not into the traffic on West Blvd. They will be able to pull out on West Blvd, and he feels that is a safety issue.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. McDonnell stated due to the grade difference and the turn radius creates the practical difficulty. He does not have a problem with the approving the application.
Mr. Deremer stated his concern is the affect on the neighbors. He feels they are building a standard size garage, not oversized. He understands why they can not push the garage against the house and also would be in favor of the application.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #2027 as filed
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
APPEAL #2028 Hammontree & Associates, 5233 Stoneham Rd, North Canton, OH 44720, applicant, Ron T.O.P. Enterprises, 7694 Strausser St, NW, North Canton, OH 44720, property owners, request a conditional use permit for a planned office complex consisting of 5 office use buildings where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is Whipple Ave, NW, parcel #1612884, Sect. 25NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Barbara Hammontree Bennett and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained an email from Ted Heck, fire department, giving his comments on the plan. The file contained full size of drawings (A1, A2, A3) of the property prepared by Hammontree & Associates. A copy of conditional use questions from the zoning resolution book along with their answers. Also in the file was an aerial view of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Barbara Bennett, 5233 Stoneham Rd, North Canton, and Fred Tobin, 7694 Strausser, North Canton, to speak on behalf of the application.
Ms. Bennett presented into file an updated site plan. The tract is 4.17 undeveloped acres and is west of Whipple Avenue. The adjoining property to the north is owned by Power Resources, it is undeveloped and is zoned B-1. To the west is a county ditch that separates a plotted allotment zoned R-R. The property to the south is owned by AEP and zoned R-R. On the east side, across Whipple is Plain Township. There are power lines that go through the property. The footprint is 50x100 with ingress and egress doorways at all building. This is a proposed condominium project and the tenants will own there section of the building. According to the regulations, 235 maximum required parking spaces are needed. The plan shows 235 parking spaces. They will re-use the curb cut onto St. Rt. 297 that is under the jurisdiction of ODOT. They have made a preliminary submittal to ODOT. ODOT will require a right in and right out, so there is a channel island on the plan. There is an access easement through the properties. They are currently under negotiations with adjoining owners to get an additional 20 ft. easement on west property line. Any drive way going thru these properties need to be a minimum 20 ft. from the property line. There is a grading easement on north property line. They are currently negotiating with adjacent property owner to route storm water run off around their site and not thru it. There is also a short retaining wall on north side. Drainage will be handled by an above ground and combination of below ground retention system. They are able to meet county sub division regulations. There landscaping plan meets the minimum requirements. However, once a landscaper is involved there may be some variations of tree types and placement. They will buffer the adjacent R-R district with the current natural vegetation and add fencing if necessary. On Whipple Avenue there are 26,000 vehicles that travel south, and over 20,000 vehicles that travel north of this site. They are estimating this site will produce a maximum of 900 new trips on Whipple, which will increase traffic about 3-4%. They do not need RPC approval due to this is a condo unit. RPC does not have any authority over residential or commercial condo units. They will still submit drainage calculations to the Stark County Sub Division Engineer. He will only review them if the request comes from the township.
Mr. Fred Tobin stated that these 5 buildings will be made out of stone and brick. Both sides of the building will look the same, so you will not be able to tell if you are entering in the back or the front of the building. They will be able to offer clients between 2,000 and 9,000 square feet depending on their needs. Since this is a condo unit, they will own the space. He met with Chief Heck concerning the fire lane. Chief Heck would like a 20 ft. access lane to 38th Street and they will provide that. They are working with the owners of both buildings to increase the easement to 20 ft. They do not see any problems with these negotiations. They will be doing landscaping against their easement to force cars to travel west around the building to go out on 38th Street. This should help the traffic flow through the light.
Mr. Deremer asked what type of clients they expect.
Mr. Tobin stated that there have been a few that have shown interest. One client was in advertising, one was a chiropractor, and another was a builder. He feels it will be professional office space.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the access easement will be a paved road and used for emergency vehicles as well as customers entering into the complex.
Mr. Tobin stated that is correct.
Mr. Juergensen asked if there will be directional signs.
Mr. Tobin stated that there would be. He is guessing that most of the cliental will be employees of the companies opposed to customers.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the easement was a done deal.
Mr. Tobin stated they already have a recorded 20 ft. easement.
Mr. McDonnell asked Ms. Poindexter if she reviewed the plan and if it meets the parking and landscaping requirements.
Ms. Poindexter stated she did review the submitted plan and it does meet the parking requirements. She has not seen a landscaping plan as of yet. It will be need to be approved before a permit is issued.
Mr. McDonnell read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2.
A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply.
B. Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply.
C. Will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or count or state agencies where applicable. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply. They have designed the site based on the regulations and the drive permit application will be submitted to ODOT for approval.
D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable. RESPONSE: Absolutely. They will submit drainage calculations to the Stark County Sub Division Engineer. He will only review them if the request comes from the township.
E. Will be property landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply. Landscaping will be provided in front and in parking lot islands. They will also have a buffer between districts.
F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition. RESPONSE: Absolutely.
Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.3 for specific standards for conditional uses and read through the criteria that pertained to their request under paragraph C., specific development standards:
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses. RESPONSE: Hours of operation will be normal business hours ranging from 8:00 am to 5:00 6:00 pm.
2. For parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or 50 feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street. RESPONSE: They will comply. They are 550 ft. to 38th Street and 1,050 ft. to Munson Street.
3. No lighting shall constitute a nuisance
or in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.
RESPONSE: Yes, they will comply. Lighting will be in parking
areas and on buildings and will be shielded.
4. Floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers
or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will
cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants
of adjacent property. RESPONSE: Will not be used.
5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened. RESPONSE: Will comply. There will be one trash receptacle that will be screened by a wood fence.
6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply. Will submit for review.
Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.6 (S) for planned office complex and planned business complex.
1. A planned office or business complex shall contain two (2) or more principal buildings having common vehicular parking facilities, controlled access to abutting streets, and shall be developed under a unified development plan. The complex shall be considered as one (1) building for the purpose of determining front, side and rear yard setback requirements. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply.
2. Adequate circulation shall be provided
for the project:
a. Paved, off-street parking and service
areas shall be required. All parking and service areas shall be paved
with concrete, asphalt, or equivalent. RESPONSE: Yes.
b. Vehicular approaches to the property
shall be so designed to not create an interference with traffic on surrounding
public streets or roads. RESPONSE: Correct, preliminary sent
to ODOT.
Mr. Giulitto asked Ms. Poindexter if the board should add a condition to the appeal that the drainage plans be reviewed by the Stark County Engineer or will zoning take it to the trustees for their request.
Ms. Poindexter stated that zoning would make the request to review.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen stated that typically when all conditions have been met for the conditional use permit the board approves. He feels all conditions have been met and he does not have a problem approving.
Mr. McDonnell stated he concurs with Mr. Juergensen. He also commended the applicants on how well prepared the application was prepared and presented to the board.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal #2028 as submitted.
Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator