Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Absent Members:
Jim Giulitto
Eric Oldroyd
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Data Coordinator:
Andrea Paumier
APPEAL # 2095 – Darrell Young, 4925 Galaxy Parkway; Suite O, Warrensville Hts., OH 44128 agent for, K & Y Properties, LLC, 4925 Galaxy Parkway; Suite O, Warrensville Hts., OH 44128 property owner requests a variance for a 10 ft. west building setback where 16 ft. is required, zero (0) ft. north parking setback where 20 ft. is required, zero (0) ft. east parking setback and 2 ft. south parking setback where 5 ft. is required, 3.9% interior landscaping islands where 5% is required and 56 parking spaces where 72 are required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.5, 411.8, 411.9 & 601.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4550 Belden Village Ave. Sect. 24NW, Jackson Two., area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Darrell Young, 4925 Galaxy Parkway, Warrensville Hts., OH 44128 and Brian Fabo, 419 University Rd. Canton.
Mr. Young stated that he is with K & Y Properties and that they purchased the building that is formally known as the Belden Village Lighting Center at 4550 Belden Village Dr. At the corner of Belden Village Dr. and Dressler. The variance that are being requested this evening is largely a result of an existing condition. Looking at the booklet that has been passed out to the Board members, at Tab #2 is a layout of the structure and how it exists today. The building is approximately 20,000 sq. ft. on .99 acres and has 20 parking spaces, which apparently was an adequate amount of parking 30 years about when the building was first constructed. K & Y Properties proposal is to modify the building to remove approximately 30 ft. of the building on the Dressler Ave. side and approximately 16 ft. of the building on the Belden Village side, which is represented in Tab #3 of the booklet. By reducing the building itself, what we will have accomplished is number one, we remove approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of the building and we add almost 40 parking spaces to the site, making it a more contemporary building and addition to which, by removing the north and the east sides of the building, will modernize the building. The variance that are asked for exist on the site today. No modifications of the ingress or egress with be made, no parking will be added to the frontage of Belden Village or Dressler, landscaping will be added as opposed to taking some away. The improved site plan does not change the existing conditions, other than to reduce the size of the building.
Mr. Young explained the site plan, which is also laid out in the booklets provided for the Board members.
Mr. Young stated that by removing portions of the building, K & Y Properties has obviously reduced the square footage of the building and added parking that didn’t exist. The parking is ninety degree parking as opposed to the angle parking along the frontage. The south and the west walls, which the south wall faces the Orthodontics clinic and the west wall faces Red Lobster, those walls will remain. The south and west walls will be improved and painted so that the whole building will virtually look brand new upon completion.
Mr. Deremer asked if the pictures on the display boards are the same pictures that are provided in the booklets.
Mr. Young stated yes. The property as it current exists is, in his opinion outdated with very little improvement over the thirty-some years that it has been there and he sees the approach as positive and he hopes that the Board members can see that this is an improvement to the property.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Young to walk through the variance that are being requested this evening.
Mr. Young stated item number one, the side yard, west is currently 10 ft. that is what exists. The current code required 16 ft. Item number two, the current front parking setback, north, is currently zero (0) ft. and we are not requesting a change. The current code required 20 ft. Item number three is a zero (0) ft. east parking setback and 2 ft. south parking setback. The current code requires 5 ft. setback. Item number four, 3.9% interior landscaping islands where 5% is required. Item number five, requesting 56 parking spaces where 72 are required. Mr. Young stated that the only comment he would make about the parking is that although he is looking for a variance of 16 parking spaces, as the building is leased, the code allows a credit for storage space and nonpublic space and things of that nature. So in terms of the 16 parking space variance, they have not accounted for that reduction at this point.
Mr. Deremer asked what the use of the structure would be.
Mr. Young stated general retail use, coffee shops, small business, etc. We do not have any lease agreements at this time, but we are marketing to the general retail community.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he noticed on a number of the pictures and site plans prepared in the booklet, proposed site analysis, what does the dotted red line represent.
Mr. Fabo stated that it is approximately the property line.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the green line that is outside the property line is.
Mr. Fabo stated that it is the existing tree line.
Mr. Young stated that there is a survey in the booklet presented in Tab #5, that came off of a recent survey that has been done.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he was correct in stating that they are proposing to reduce the actual building size by about 6,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Young stated that is correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked if they had to meet the requirements, has K & Y properties figured out what size building structure can be put there.
Mr. Young stated that no they have not discussed what size building could be constructed there. They would have to tear down the building.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he was correct in stating that they aren’t tearing down the existing building, they are taking pieces and parts to modify the existing structure.
Mr. Young stated that is correct.
Mr. Fabo stated that currently there is a parking variance on the site and they are basically reducing that parking variance. So we are actually improving the parking scenario without affecting the existing variance items.
Mr. McDonnell stated that all of these variances are non conforming, which means the code changed after the structure was built.
Mr. Young stated that his understanding is, if they left this building as is, and leased it out as is, they would be within the non conforming use regulations of the Township.
Mr. McDonnell stated that is correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked in regards to the interior landscaping, what is the practical difficulty in providing additional interior landscaping.
Mr. Fabo stated that adding anymore interior landscaping would eliminate more parking spaces. So it is balancing one variance with another variance.
Mr. McDonnell asked where the entrances and exits are on this property.
Mr. Fabo showed Mr. McDonnell the sketches provided, and stated that they are existing.
Mr. McDonnell asked about the area to the south, which is currently blacktop.
Mr. Fabo stated that that area would act as a service drive, delivery access and trash enclosure.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he were correct in stating that is the side that faces the Orthodontic Center.
Mr. Fabo stated that is correct.
Mr. Deremer asked where the employees would park.
Mr. Young stated that they would also park in the parking facility.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Young to elaborate on the parking. Mr. Deremer stated that this is going to be multiple retail stores as opposed to one big store.
Mr. Young stated that the building, in the end, will be about 14,000 sq. ft. A portion of that will be lost to what we call and landlords room, which will be for meters and things of that nature. When the square footage is further adjusted for nonpublic space, the code of 1 parking space for every 200 sq. ft. should pretty much cover employee and customer parking.
Mr. Young stated that they are showing 14,396 sq. ft of gross floor area. This landlord room is approximately 37’ x 25’, 750 sq. ft. It takes the building down to a little more than 13,000 sq. ft. When figuring the parking we based it on the 14,396 sq. ft. and we know that we are going to loose 750-some sq. ft. to the landlord room. So of the 13,000 sq. ft. it wouldn’t surprise him if they lost about 20% to nonpublic areas and storage space. Mr. Young stated that is why he is confident that the parking won’t be an issue.
Mr. McDonnell stated that upon going through the parking requirements, using the 1 parking space for every 200 sq. ft., you’re good to go on a lot of the different things that could go there, but restaurants, taverns, lounges and bars, laundromats and funeral homes, some are a tad more restrictive and would require more parking. If the Board were so inclined to grant the parking variances, would you have any problem with a condition be made that as long as the use of the property falls under Section 601.2(A), paragraph 4-A, and any other category would have to come back before the board.
Mr. Young stated that he doesn’t believe he would have a problem with that, but would like to restate that condition just to be sure he fully understands. Mr. Young stated that in the other communities they have other structures like this scenario, if we fall into the 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. then we would fall in with the variance granted. Anything that was beyond that we would have to come back to the Board and ask for their permission to do that.
Mr. McDonnell stated that makes sense.
Mr. Young stated that if the stipulation is that the Board is willing to approve the variance based upon 1 space for every 200 sq. ft. is respective to what section that is in, as long as it falls within the appropriate code that is perfectly fine. Anything beyond that he is acutely aware of the fact that we are would not be approved for that and we would have to come back before the Board again.
No one in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or opposition of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Dodson stated that unless he is mistaken, most of the conditions that are being requested are existing. Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t see a down side, he has no problem with this appeal.
Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson. It is non conforming now. The only reason they have to come before the Board with regards to the setback variance is because the change of the building. They are taking the 20,000 sq. ft. to basically 14,400 sq. ft. Mr. McDonnell stated that when he takes a look at the parking the currently building, 20,000 sq. ft. should have had 100 parking spaces at 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. Mr. McDonnell stated that this building currently has 20% of the required parking, the applicant would be taking that to 56 parking spaces and the building would then be at 78% of the required parking. Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not have a problem with this appeal request. While they don’t have the number of spaces that the resolution requires, they are substantially adding to the number that is currently existing. If the Board were so inclined to grant specifically the parking variance, he thinks there should be a condition that at anytime a tenant of the building has an operation of such that requires more parking space then 1 space per 200 sq. ft. that that will require them to come back before the Board to review and request addition variances.
Mr. Deremer concurred with Mr. Dodson and Mr. McDonnell and agrees with the condition request.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the parking variances would be separated from the setback variances.
Mr. Deremer stated that the plan is as presented.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2095 with the condition specifically for that in which deals with the parking variance, any use of the property or portion there of that requires more than 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. shall require additional parking variances.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. McDonnell – Yes, and Mr. Deremer – Yes.
APPEAL #2096 – Adam Bricker, 5426 Chianti St. NW, N. Canton, OH 44720 property owner requests a variance for a 3-1/2 ft. rear (west) yard setback and an existing 10 x 12 accessory building where 5 ft. is required per Art. IV, Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution, condition existing. Property located at: 5426 Chianti St. NW, Sect.11SE, Jackson Twp., area zonedR-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Adam Bricker, 5426 Chianti St. NW, N. Canton, OH 44720.
Mr. Bricker stated that essentially there is a shed that is currently existing in his back yard. Mr. Bricker stated that he had just purchased this house about a month and a half ago and in the purchase agreement there was nothing about the shed being out of compliance. It was brought to his attention at closing when he was signing the papers. Mr. Bricker stated that he would like to keep the shed where it is since that was part of the purchase.
Mr. Deremer asked what size the shed is.
Mr. Bricker stated that it is a 10 x 12.
Mr. Deremer asked if the shed is moveable.
Mr. Bricker stated that it is moveable, how easy it would be to move he is not sure. Mr. Bricker stated that he believes that it would require some kind of heavy equipment to move it.
Mr. Deremer asked if there is something particular about this property to why the shed was placed the.
Mr. Bricker stated that he knows where the shed currently is, is in the rear corner. The four lands that share that corner is all over grown brush, whether that is because of the shed, he is unsure. That portion isn’t being used for anything, he believes that one neighbor is using the land to store some fire wood. Mr. Bricker stated that to his knowledge there is no use of the land where the shed is currently positioned. Mr. Bricker stated that the shed was probably constructed because there is limited storage in the house and the garage is very small.
Mr. Juergensen asked who brought this to his attention.
Mr. Bricker stated that it was the selling real estate agent who received a call while he was signing the closing cost papers.
Mr. Juergensen asked how the real estate agent received the call from.
Mr. Bricker stated that he thinks Jackson Township Zoning Department but he wasn’t positive.
Ms. Paumier stated that a neighbor had called complaining that the shed was too close to the property line.
Mr. Juergensen asked if he were correct in stating that the shed is made out of wood.
Mr. Bricker stated that is correct.
Mr. Juergensen asked if there were a foundation and if so what kind.
Mr. Bricker stated that there is a plywood base to it and it looks like it is sitting on rail road ties and there is some gravel as well. There isn’t concrete and the shed is not fixed to the ground but he is unsure how easy it could be moved, but it does appear to me moveable.
Mr. Deremer asked where the entrance to the shed is.
Mr. Bricker stated that the entrance is to the north.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Bricker if he stated that the shed is sitting on a gravel pad.
Mr. Bricker stated to the best of his knowledge. There is gravel underneath it. Mr. Bricker stated that it looks like there is gravel then some sort of wood support, he isn’t sure what is under the shed.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he was correct in stating that Mr. Bricker found out about the shed as he was sitting down to sign the finishing paper work.
Mr. Bricker stated that is correct.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Dennis Bricker, 5459 Queensway St. NW.
Mr. Bricker stated that Adam Bricker is his son. Mr. Bricker stated that whether he would have to move the shed 1-1/2 ft. or 50 ft. it would required heavy equipment to come onto the property and move the shed, with the possibility of the heavy equipment tearing up his land. Mr. Bricker stated that the shed has been there for six year without an issue and now all of a sudden it is an issue.
Mr. Dodson asked how Mr. Bricker knows the shed has been there for six years.
Mr. Bricker stated that the selling real estate agent contacted the previous owner and he had stated that he constructed the shed about five to six years ago.
No one else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or opposition of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Dodson stated that looking about the map of the property in question, Mr. Bricker has an irregular lot and he doesn’t believe that the applicant contributed to this problem. Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t see any reason to make Mr. Bricker move the shed.
Mr. Juergensen concurred with Mr. Dodson and stated that he was wondering why the compliant isn’t here now to ask him/her why a report was made now after five or six years of the shed being there. Mr. Juergensen stated that he doesn’t believe that the spirit and intent of the resolution would be offended.
Mr. McDonnell concurred with Mr. Dodson and Mr. Juergensen and stated that this is of no fault of the applicant. Mr. McDonnell stated that he would recommend adding a condition that this variance is only in effect for this shed and if the shed were to burn down and a new one constructed or whatever the situation that Mr. Bricker would have to comply with the currently zoning requirements.
Mr. Deremer stated that he concurred with the other Board members.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #2096 with the condition that this variance applies only to the existing shed and any replacement sheds shall meet zoning requirements.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. McDonnell – Yes, and Mr. Deremer – Yes.
APPEAL #2097 – CKM Carpet Cleaning, Inc, 76 Hanna Parkway, Akron, OH 44319, agent for property owner, Eastlin Wales Company, LLC, 6946 Chippewa Ave. NW, N. Canton, OH 44720 requests a conditional use permit for a vehicular storage in a B-3 (Commercial Business District) where a conditional use permit is required per Art. IV, Sect. 411.3 (4) (A) of the zoning resolution. Property located at 7995 Hills & Dales Rd. NW, Sect. 33SW, Jackson Twp., area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application and the contents of the file.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Craig Pucci, 76 Hanna Parkway, Akron, OH 44319.
Mr. Pucci stated that he received a letter on October 12th, 2007. The letter stated that the use of truck storage, only is not a permitted use in a B-3 district.
Mr. Deremer read the letter into the record.
Mr. Deremer stated that because there are trucks stored on the property, that is why a conditional use permit is required.
Mr. Pucci stated that after he received the letter he called the Zoning Department and stated that he was unaware that he was in violation. Mr. Pucci stated that he wasn’t aware of anything when he signed the lease with the Eastlin Wales Company that there was anything required of Stanley Steamer.
Mr. Deremer asked if they are renting storage units.
Mr. Pucci stated that actually they are renting a 2,100 sq. ft. building. Stanley Steamer is trying a satellite operation. Stanley Steamer is actually growing out of there Akron facility. Mr. Pucci stated that the crews are coming in, in the morning, they check in their trucks and then they are dispatched to customers in the Jackson, Massillon, Canton area.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he was correct in stating that they are renting a portion of a building.
Mr. Pucci stated yes, this is part of the Eastlin Wales building. They are located on the very end. All it basically is, is storage space.
Mr. McDonnell asked if this connected to any other building or if it is a stand alone building.
Mr. Pucci stated that it is connected.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there are any offices located in the building space they are renting.
Mr. Pucci stated no.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he would now like to go through the criteria for the conditional use permit.
General Criteria for all Conditional Uses:
A. Will not be detrimental to property vales in the immediate vicinity.
Response: Yes
B. Will not restrict to adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.
Response: Yes
C. Will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to the public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or county or state agencies where applicable.
Response: Yes
D. Will meet the requirements of EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable.
Response: Yes
E. Will be properly landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable.
Response: Yes
F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition.
Response: Yes.
Specific Development Standards:
Mr. Juergensen asked what the hours of operation of the business are.
Mr. Pucci stated they vary somewhat because of the service end of it, we cannot control when the crews finish up their last jobs. Normally 8am to 6pm.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the parcel is over one acre.
Mr. Pucci stated that he cannot answer that.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he assumes that it is.
Mr. Juergensen asked if all the points of vehicular entrance or exits be located no closer than 100 ft. from the intersection of two arterial streets, or no closer than 50 ft. from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.
Mr. Pucci stated yes.
Mr. Juergensen stated just so we are all clear, what is the closest arterial street.
Mr. Pucci stated that it would Wales and Hills & Dales.
Mr. Juergensen asked if he knew who far the building is located from those streets.
Mr. Pucci stated that he would be guessing but 500 to 1,000 ft.
Mr. Juergensen asked if Mr. Pucci is sure that it is more then 150 ft.
Mr. Pucci stated absolutely.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the lighting will constitute a nuisance or will it in any way impair the safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
Mr. Pucci stated no.
Mr. Juergensen asked if there would be any floodlights, searchlights or loudspeakers located on the property.
Mr. Pucci stated no.
Mr. Juergensen asked if there will be trash receptacles and be adequately screened
Mr. Pucci stated yes.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the grading and surface drainage provisions of the Stark County Engineer being met.
Mr. Pucci stated that he is not sure. He stated he hasn’t seen any problems and there won’t be any changes.
Supplemental Regulations for Certain Uses:
Mr. Juergensen stated that all activities except those performed at fuel pumps shall be carried on inside the building; if work is performed on a vehicle, the said vehicle shall be entirely within a building.
Mr. Pucci stated yes.
Mr. Juergensen asked if they do work on any of the vehicles.
Mr. Pucci stated yes but only at the Akron location.
Mr. Deremer stated that normally when you are in agreement with all the variances as requested and all the conditions are met, then the Board is bound by the resolution to grant the conditional use permit.
No one in the audience wanted to speak in favor of or opposition of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Juergensen stated that usually when all the criteria is met for a conditional use permit then the Board approves the permit. Mr. Juergensen stated that he has no problem with this appeal as requested.
Mr. Dodson concurred with Mr. Juergensen.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion that appeal #2097 be approved as requested.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes, Mr. McDonnell – Yes and Mr. Deremer – Yes.
Mr. Deremer stated that there are meeting minutes from Thursday, September 27th, 2007. All members were present except for Mr. McDonnell, Mr. Oldroyd, and Mr. Giulitto.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to accept September 27th, 2007 meeting minutes.
Mr. Deremer seconded.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen – Yes, Mr. Dodson – Yes and Mr. Deremer – Yes.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
All were in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea Paumier
Zoning Data Coordinator