Members present:                                                             Ted Deremer
                                                                                            Edward McDonnell
                                                                                            Richard Dodson
                                                                                            Jim Giulitto
Alternate Member:                                                           John Juergensen

Absent Member:                                                               Gerald Werner

Zoning Data Coordinator:                                                Joni Poindexter

APPEAL #1888 – Rudy Vuksanovich, LDV Properties, property owner, 3656 Dressler Rd. NW and One Dressler Co. LLC, property owner, 4835 Munson St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a (0 ft.) zero ft. parking and landscaping setback along the north property line of 3656 Dressler Rd. NW, and the south property line of 3688 Dressler Rd. where a 5 ft. parking and landscaping setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.8 of the zoning resolution.  Properties located in Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Rudy Vuksanovich with reasons being for cross access parking.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, a site plan by Hoover & Associates dated March 2003, and a sheet that contained two photos showing the properties in question.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Rudy Vuksanovich, 3656 Dressler Rd. NW.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated that they would like to tie the two parking lots together for easier egress and ingress and would gain 25 to 30 parking spaces for both buildings.  Mr. Vuksanovich stated that the owners have agreed to allow each other to use their parking spaces if needed.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is currently a landscaping separation between the lots.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Vuksanovich to explain the photos.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated that the photos show the line looking from the west side directly east between One Dressler Company and LDV Properties.  The hash marks on the drawing from Hoover & Associates show the pavement that would tie in both properties.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is a need for the additional parking spaces between the two properties.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes, more so for the Pizzeria.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Vuksanovich is the agent for both property owners.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes Mr. Vuksanovich testified that there is currently a 5 ft. parking and landscaping setback and asked if this is correct.
Mr. Vuksanovich stated no.  They already put in the rough grading to try and beat the weather.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the 5 ft. parking and landscaping setback was currently in place for the Pizzeria at 3656 Dressler.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes, but it was removed within the past two weeks.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there is a 5 ft. landscaping setback for the proposed building at 3688 Dressler.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated no.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the Pizzeria parking meets the requirements of zoning.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the building at 3688 Dressler would have the required parking spaces per zoning if the variance is not granted.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that one of the things the board has to determine is a practical difficulty for variances which typically involves not the use of the land but the land itself and asked if there is a practical difficulty to allow the granting of the variance.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated that there are no difficulties.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he gets the impression that the request is based on it would be nice to have the additional parking as opposed to being necessary.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated that would be a fair statement.  Mr. Vuksanovich stated that there was a ditch line established by the instillation of the Dressler One building that was about 138 ft. from the middle of the Pizzeria west to east.  With the paving the open ditch would be eliminated and it would be easier to maintain the parking area.

Mr. Deremer asked if additional catch basins were installed.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes, and they also installed approximately 130 ft. of 12 inch storm line.

Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Vuksanovich if there is an arrangement with Bally’s to the south as far as shared parking.

Mr. Vuksanovich stated yes, but it is unwritten because there is a consistent road on the south and there is an easement in the agreement that whoever purchased Bally’s would share the common drive although it is owned by LDV Properties.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that they both may want more parking and be able to use each others parking lot and the easiest way to do that is to wipe out the landscaping buffer, but he has a problem seeing a practical difficulty in connection with the use of the land itself.  Mr. Dodson stated if this were granted then he doesn’t see what would prevent them from wiping out the side setback, buffer, and landscaping anytime this situation pops up.  To him it is contrary to the zoning resolution.

Mr. Juergensen seconded Mr. Dodson’s comments and stated that he would have a problem approving the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with the other board members and stated that he doesn’t think the practical difficulty has been met.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to deny appeal #1888 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1890 – Carol Harmon, 3969 Hyatt Ave. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Prudential DeHoff Realtors, property owner, 821 S. Main St., North Canton, Ohio 44720 requests a variance for an off-premises temporary civic sign from December 5, 2003 until March 30, 2004 where a civic temporary sign is permitted for a period not to exceed 30 days within a six month period per Art. V Sect. 504.2 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at the southeast corner of Fulton and Wales, Sect. 21NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Carol Harmon with reasons being to encourage community support of the Jackson Basketball program and to inform residents of the game schedule.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, a drawing showing what the sign would look like and the size, a drawing showing the proposed location of the sign, a letter to the trustees asking for a waiver of the variance fee, and a letter from Catherine Franklin, Agent Property Manager Administrative Assistant to Robert DeHoff giving permission to display the sign.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Carol Harmon, 3969 Hyatt Ave. NW.

Ms. Harmon stated that last year they were granted a variance to erect a sign on Fulton Rd. to display the schedule for the round ball club and boys basketball.  They would like to display the exact same sign again this year.  The sign is made of plywood that is 4 x 8 ft. with insert slots for the schedule.

Mr. Deremer stated if he recalls right, last year there was some discussion with the school board about finding a place for a permanent sign.

Ms. Harmon stated that the school board is looking at a levy to expand the school and they may look into a permanent sign at that time.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the appeal is a minor request for a certain period of time.  The board has a history of granting these types of variances for temporary signs to support the local athletic organizations, so he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1890 as requested.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1891 – Leo Karatjas, property owner, 5511 Island Dr. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a (0 ft.) zero ft. front yard setback for a freestanding sign where a 5 ft. setback is required in Art. V Sect. 501.5G of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 5638 Fulton Rd. NW, Sect. 23NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Leo Karatjas with reasons being there is currently no sign identifying their place of business.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the proposed location of the sign and a drawing showing the sign and dimensions.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Leo Karatjas Jr., 5638 Fulton Rd. NW.

Mr. Karatjas presented the board with a binder, exhibit #1, which contained several photos.  Mr. Karatjas stated that he would like to reinstall his old sign that was taken down due the widening of Fulton Rd.  The last page of the binder contains a diagram and shows that the pole meets the 5 ft. setback, but the edge of the sign itself protrudes into the 5 ft. setback.  When the road was widened he lost about one-half of his parking lot.  The frontage along Fulton Rd. is about 110 ft. and he lost about 28 ft. of depth.  The first set of photos show what the parking lot was compared to what it currently is.

Mr. Karatjas stated that without a sign he lacks visibility because his building sits lower than the road and cannot be seen from either direction until right upon it.  Mr. Karatjas stated that the parking lot is very congested because of the lack of parking.  Once there are eight cars in the parking lot it is full.  There is a telephone pole that can’t be removed, so he needs a sign that is close to the road for visibility so people where know where the business is located before coming upon it.  Mr. Karatjas stated that the only logical place to put the sign is next to the telephone pole.

Mr. Deremer asked why the sign could not be put back in the same spot it was before.

Mr. Karatjas stated because it would be in the middle of the road.

Mr. Deremer asked if the State is responsible to put the sign back up.

Mr. Karatjas stated no because they compensated him for the sign when it was taken down.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is a grass strip between the curb and the road and asked how many feet are between the pole and the curb.

Mr. Karatjas stated that there is about 10 ft.  The sign would be adjacent to the curb, but the pole itself would be about 5 ft. from back from the curb.

Mr. Deremer asked what the height of the sign is.

Mr. Karatjas stated that they are proposing to have the bottom of the sign 6 ft. off the ground and the top of the sign 25 ft. from the ground.  They wanted it a little bit higher than normal so it wouldn’t obstruct the view of traffic.

Mr. Deremer asked if there would be enough clearance for someone pulling out of the parking lot.

Mr. Karatjas stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked where the sign would be located in relationship to the telephone pole.

Mr. Karatjas stated that he thinks the telephone pole is 10 ft. back from the curb and the sign pole would be 5 ft. from the curb.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the top of the sign would be even with the telephone pole.

Mr. Karatjas stated yes.  If the sign were moved back any further then it would be in the parking lot and he can’t afford to lose anymore parking.

Mr. Deremer asked if a new pole would be needed to reset the sign.

Mr. Karatjas stated no.  He wants to reinstall the old pole and sign.  The only change would be moving the sign up a little so people can see underneath it.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. Dodson stated that he sees a practical difficulty that was not self inflicted.  It was inflicted by the widening of the road and he thinks the sign is high enough, so it will not be a danger to traffic.  Mr. Dodson stated that he does not have a problem with the request.

Mr. McDonnell agreed with Mr. Dodson and stated that the practical difficulty is loosing one-half of the parking lot due to the widening of Fulton Rd. and the location of the sign.  It would not make sense to put the sign any closer to the building because it would make it difficult to navigate around the parking lot.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with the request, and the applicant has attempted to utilize the sign without being detrimental to traffic.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the other board members, but he would rather see a few more feet under the bottom of the sign if possible because 6 ft. may be good for a car but a truck may not be able to see.  Mr. Deremer suggested the sign be 8 ft. off the ground.

Mr. Karatjas stated the only concern he has about the sign being 8 ft. off the ground is there is overhead wires that run along the property and he would not want the sign to interfere with the wires.

Mr. Deremer stated that 8 ft. off the ground would be his stipulation for the sign if possible.  Otherwise, he believes it is a good application.

Mr. Deremer made a motion to approve appeal #1891 with the condition that the bottom of the sign be 8 ft. from the ground verses 6 ft. off the ground as indicated on the application, if possible, without endangering the top of the sign with the existing electrical wires.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

APPEAL #1889 – McDonald Development Corp., 4901 Spruce Hill Dr. NW #800, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Stark Community Foundation, 220 Market Ave. S., Canton, Ohio 44707 requests a conditional use permit for one-multi-family building with more than six units per acre where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.3 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is 3.4 acres of a 4.6 acre tract located on the north side of Hills & Dales, 446 ft. more or less, east of Dressler Rd., Parcel #1702347, Sect. 25SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-4.

Mr. Juergensen recused himself from appeal #1889.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Charles McDonald with reasons being a conditional use permit is required under a group development multi family building with more than six units per acre.  The file contained a tax map of the property in question and surrounding properties, the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit, comments from the Jackson Township Fire Department dated December 1, 2003, and a site plan by GBC Design dated November 2003.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.

Mr. Deremer swore in Brian Cich, 220 Market Ave. S. Canton, Ohio.

Mr. Chic stated that the plan meets the density requirements under section 401.5.  Mr. Chic stated that the project is 3.4 acres located just behind and to the east of Bally’s.  The project will be on the back piece of the parcel because there is an area in front of the parcel that is zoned for commercial purposes.  There is 100 ft. of lot frontage on Hills & Dales Rd.  The condo development will be one building with 34 units and will have three stories.  There is an accessory garage that will contain one parking space per unit within the building.  The project is surrounded to the west with commercial business uses, to the north it is bounded by vacant property, to the northeast it is bounded by some residential vacant property, and some commercial property is on the southeast side.

Mr. Chic stated that there is a natural vegetation boundary along the east side of the property behind the proposed garage building.  The site plan proposes buffers and screening from the property on the north and west with 4 ft. pine trees in 15 to 20 ft. increments, and also a boundary on the land that will be coming off of Hills & Dales Rd. from the parcel that is currently zoned for commercial business purposes.

Mr. Chic stated that the condo is proposed as a senior living condominium which means that it will have a restriction of 55 years or older for occupancy.

Mr. Chic stated that there is a little under 50 parking spaces surrounding the condominium development with most of the spaces being on the western side and 34 garage spaces on the eastern side.  There will be a 30 ft. setback from the eastern property line to the garage building and 45 ft. between the garage building and the main building that will house the condominium units.

Mr. Deremer asked if the only entrance would be from Hills & Dales Rd.

Mr. Chic stated no.  There is an easement between Bally’s and the Pizzeria to enter from Dressler Rd., but the main access point would be from Hills & Dales Rd.

Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Section 431.2
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Chic’s testimony that it will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Chic’s testimony that it will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Chic’s testimony that it 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 county or stated agencies where applicable.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Chic’s testimony that it will meet the requirements of EPA for stormwater runoff, when applicable.
Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they are required to have a stormwater runoff plan.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not believe that section 431.2E is applicable because it applies to commercial property verses residential property.

Mr. Chic stated that they will landscape anyway.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the landscaping that is shown on the plan is what they will comply with.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell asked if it will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Section 431.3(C)
Mr. McDonnell stated that he assumes it will operate 24 hours a day.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the property is more than one acre, so the points of vehicular entrance or exit areas are required to be no closer than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets and asked how far the entrance and exits are on Hills & Dales Rd. from the intersection of Dressler Rd.

Mr. Chic stated that it is well in excess of 100 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far the access points would be along Dressler Rd.

Mr. Chic stated that he does not know but it would be the entire length of Bally’s property which is well in excess of 100 ft.

Mr. McDonnell asked what type of lighting would be used.

Mr. Chic stated that the parking lot would be lit with some spot lights around the garage area, but he does not have the specifications.  The lights would be non-intrusive low lighting.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights, searchlights or loudspeakers.

Mr. Chic stated that there would not be any loudspeakers, but there may be some floodlights around the garage area that would be directed toward the building unless pole lighting is sufficient on the east side of the building.

Mr. McDonnell asked if all trash receptacles would be adequately screened.

Mr. Chic stated that there is a trash receptacle pad on the northern end of the property that will be screened with a six foot fence batten board enclosure.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the grading and surface drainage provision shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed and approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.

Mr. Chic stated they would comply.

Section 431.6J
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be only one building.

Mr. Chic stated yes.  There is one principal building and one garage that is an accessory building.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there is a letter in the file from Mr. Phillippi indicating that all the setbacks have been met.

Mr. McDonnell asked what type of material the paving of off street parking and service areas would have.

Mr. Chic stated that it would be asphalt.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the vehicular approaches to the property shall be designed to not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads.

Mr. Chic stated that they would comply.

Mr. McDonnell asked if there are any dead-ends or turnarounds.

Mr. Chic stated no.

Mr. McDonnell stated that item J(2)(d) is non applicable.

Mr. McDonnell asked how far the dumpster is from the corner of the garage because it appears on the drawing that the trash dumpster is 4.26 ft. from the garage, and the regulation states that trash dumpsters shall not be placed between garages causing a separation of less than twenty (20) feet spacing.  Mr. McDonnell stated that there could be an argument that the dumpster is not between the garage and the building.

Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks they are ok because it says between and it is not between the garage and building.

Mr. Chic stated that the answer in the written criteria was submitted based on the interpretation that there was one garage building and it is not applicable.

Mr. McDonnell agreed.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Chic indicated that they will be screening the parking area on the west side with trees as indicated on the plan and on the east side the natural vegetation will remain.

Mr. Chic stated this is correct.  The parking area will also be screened.

Mr. McDonnell stated that they are required to have a buffer yard with a minimum of 10 ft. around the perimeter of the property that abuts R-R, R-1, R-1A, or an R-2 district.

Mr. McDonnell stated along the west side visual relief shall be provided through the use of trees or shrubs planted along the perimeter of the parking areas.  Mr. McDonnell stated that it appears the site plan provides that with the landscaping along the west side of the parking lot.

Mr. Chic stated that is correct.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there is landscaping on the south and northwest side.

Mr. Chic stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that item #7 indicates that what they see is what they are going to do.

Mr. Chic stated that is correct.

This concluded reviewing the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Mr. Deremer asked how high the building would be because the maximum permitted height is 40 ft.

Mr. Chic stated that it would be 37 to 38 ft. in height.

Mr. McDonnell stated that there is a letter in the file from the Jackson Fire Department and one of the requirements is that addresses need to be posted for all residence.

Mr. Chic stated the building would have one address and there would be numbers or letters on each unit that would be entered from an inside hallway.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the driveway around the building meets the requirements for a fire lane.

Mr. Chic stated that he does not know, but he does know that there is adequate space in the parking areas.

Mr. Deremer stated that there is a 24 ft. lane all the way around the property.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the fire department mentioned in their letter that a hydrant shall be located at the propose entrance and shall be capable of 1,000 gallons per minute.

Mr. Chic stated that hydrants are not indicated on the site plan and asked if it is suppose to be at the entrance on Hills & Dales or further back at the actual entrance to the building.

Mr. Deremer stated that he believes it is the entrance to Hills & Dales because this is where the water main is.

Mr. McDonnell asked if Mr. Chic knows if a hydrant is there or proposed to be there.

Mr. Chic stated that he did not know.  However, there is a hydrant on Miles Ave. and one the south side of Hills & Dales.

Mr. Deremer stated that the board may want to put a condition on the approval for the fire hydrant.

Mr. Chic stated that he had mentioned earlier that the project was proposed for pole lighting.  This was proposed and if there is an additional lighting it would be less intrusive than pole lighting, but he is not sure if pole lighting is still in the plan.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal.

Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he believes the conditions for the conditional use permit have been met.  There are three items that need to be addressed.  One is the fire hydrant and it should be a condition that it be installed.  The second item is the height of the building and the testimony was that it would be 37 or 38 ft.  The third item is the lighting between the garage and the condo and he thinks it should be down lighting.

Mr. Deremer agreed with the conditions and stated that he believes the conditions have met per the resolution.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1889 with the condition that the requirements of the fire department are met, the building height does not exceed 40 ft. and the lighting between the garage and condos will be down lighting to be less intensive.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was:  Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting held November 6, 2003.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held November 6, 2003.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-abstain, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments or a motion for the minutes from the meeting held November 12, 2003.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting held November 12, 2003.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-abstain, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator
Clerk/Secretary