Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
Jim Giulitto
John Juergensen-Alternate
Absent member: Gerald Werner
Zoning Administrator:
John Phillippi
Zoning Data Coordinator:
Joni Poindexter
APPEAL #1834 – Cooper & Associates, LLP/Bryan Ashman, 1359 Market Ave. N., Canton, Ohio 44714 agent for Michael Homes/Todd Michael, property owner, 5445 Whipple Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44708 requests a conditional use permit for an adult day care facility where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 1.816 acres on the northwest corner of Eastlake & Frank Ave., Sect. 14NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Byran Ashman with reasons being the developer has a client who wants to operate said facility at this location. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, an 8-1/2 x 11” and full size site plan dated 1/17/03 by Cooper & Associates, the responses to the criteria for the conditional use permit, the notice of subdivision action from the Stark County Regional Planning Commission meeting on 2/4/03 and comments from John Phillippi, Zoning Administrator dated 1/29/03 regarding the proposed plan.
Mr. Deremer swore in Bryan Ashman, 1359 Market Ave. N., Canton, Ohio 44714.
Mr. Deremer stated that there are two plans with different dates. One is dated 1/17/03 and the other is dated 1/23/03 with revisions.
Mr. Ashman stated that the plan dated 1/23/03 shows revisions for the storm sewer which has been moved over so it is not in the gas easement. Everything else is the same as shown on both plans.
Mr. Ashman stated that the conditional use permit is for an adult day care facility. The building will consist of two primary wings connected by a central atrium which will have a single owner. The property was originally split into two properties and is in the process of being put back into one parcel.
Mr. Ashman presented a copy of the landscaping plan that is to be incorporated into the file. Mr. Ashman explained the plan and where the landscaping would be located and stated that he believes the landscaping plan is suitable and meets the requirements of the regulations.
Mr. Ashman stated that the adult day care facility is a daily day care facility with no residences however there will be full time staff.
Mr. Ashman stated that they will have an outdoor recreation area located at the west side of the building that will be fenced in with a locked entry gate and meets the required square footage requirements per occupant load.
Mr. Ashman stated there would be a single sign for the facility located at the northwest corner of Frank & Eastlake.
Mr. Ashman stated that there are a number of gas easements that run through the north side of the property and along Frank Ave. They are not permitted to put in substantial landscaping features such as trees in the gas easement along the entire frontage of Frank Ave. and the entire north side of the property but they are permitted to put in small bushes.
Mr. Ashman stated that the proposed facility is not located within 600 ft. of gasoline pumps, underground storage tanks, or any storage area for explosive or hazardous materials. Mr. Ashman stated that this excludes that natural gas lines which exist along Frank Ave., Eastlake, and the northern property line. Mr. Ashman stated that every site has a natural gas line in the public right of way.
Mr. Ashman stated that there would be an entrance drive along Eastlake. There is also an entrance onto Frank Ave. that could make it difficult for a left turn but it was felt that a second drive is best for incoming traffic.
Mr. Ashman gave the board an elevation view of the building and stated that it would be a single story building with a high steep sloped roof. There would be two primary entrances into the day care facility and two primary entrances into the offices.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Ashman if the storm water issues had been addressed.
Mr. Ashman stated yes. Stark County Regional Planning had two issues regarding storm water and drainage. They want them to incorporate the storm water management in accordance with the subdivision regulations. Although they have not submitted their report, this will be done. Mr. Ashman stated that the subdivision regulations in a platted portion of a development, whether commercial or residential, the storm system is pre-designed to accommodate for the proposed improvements. This is a platted lot that was part of the Quail Hill improvements. The storm system is located to the south of the JLB Oil & Gas Company building. It was designed to pick up all of the drainage. Mr. Ashman stated that there is a detention basin further down stream that is designed to accommodate the drainage and the report will be submitted to the subdivision engineer and should satisfy the requirements.
Mr. Ashman stated that the other issue had to do with some drainage coming out onto Frank Ave. They have been asked to change the man hole that is represented in the drive way at Eastlake into a catch basin. They have met with the county engineer’s office and this has been resolved.
Mr. Ashman stated that the gas line to the north is six inches and the two on Frank are six and four inch gas lines.
Mr. Deremer stated that the fenced in area is on the west side of the parcel and it appears that there may be conflict as to what they have planned and what is shown on the landscaping plan.
Mr. Ashman stated that the trees are further west then the fence however there is a conflict by the drive portion of the plan.
Mr. McDonnell stated that landscaping is required along the front, which he is considering to be Frank Ave.
Mr. Ashman stated that there would be no landscaping along Frank Ave. because Dominion East Ohio will not permit them to put substantial landscaping in the easement. They are only permitted small bushes and planters.
Mr. McDonnell asked if an adult day care facility requires licensing.
Mr. Ashman stated that he was not sure but believes it does.
Mr. Deremer asked if the frontage would
be Eastlake.
Mr. Ashman stated that he could not answer
this but the building has been established so the main entrance to the
adult day care facility is located on Eastlake. For zoning purposes
the building setback is met for either street.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Mary Saver, 5144 Eastlake NW.
Ms. Saver stated that when the covenants were signed years ago there was only suppose to be one building on the property. Mr. Ashman may say that it is one building but when she looks at it she sees two buildings, which are a day care center and an office building. He has simply joined the buildings together with a walkway. Ms. Saver stated that the street is very busy the way it is now and if there are two buildings, as she sees it, they will never be able to get out onto the road. Ms. Saver stated that the covenants were signed years ago and feels they should stick to what was signed. She does not mind the day care center but does not believe they need the office building.
Mr. Deremer swore in Jim Bauder, 6106 Armistice NW.
Mr. Bauder stated that he represents the Deacons building grounds and personnel committee of John Knox church. They feel that a day care for adults is needed in the community but they have a concern about the design and that the cut into the west side of the bank may be steep and destabilize in time. Mr. Bauder presented a letter to board that was marked as exhibit OE#1.
Mr. Deremer swore in Doug Patton, 5233 Echo Glen NW.
Mr. Patton stated that he is not so much against the request but would like to have some things clarified. Mr. Patton stated that the day care would have to be licensed. He is affiliated with John Knox Church and would like to know what kind of drop in elevation from the east end of their property line to the west end of the proposed site would be. He would like a clarification as to what has been referred to as an atrium because he has in his mind what an atrium is and also what a connecting way is. Mr. Patton asked if the applicant would consider one building because it has the appearance of two buildings and if it were one building the length could be shortened and thereby perhaps it would better fit the property.
Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Patton as well as Mr. Bauder mentioned a concern about the hillside by John Knox church and asked Mr. Patton if he had a specific concern or just don’t know what the impact is going to be.
Mr. Patton stated that he doesn’t know what the impact will be. The primary issue is that he would like to know what is proposed, the implication of what is proposed, and if there is going to be a retaining wall.
Mr. Patton stated that the property was zoned residential and the neighbors were asked to support a B-1 zoning. The proposal was if the neighbors were supportive in the changing of the zoning then they would put some restrictions on the use of the property. Mr. Patton stated that he believes this is a key word in the covenants that Ms. Saver referred to.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Patton if he thought the solution would be resolved if the building was put together.
Mr. Patton stated that he is not certain that there is a problem but there is some concern regarding boundary issues, landscaping, and lighting. Mr. Patton stated that he believes the footprint suggests that there is some encroachment of what they covenanted with in 1996 and believes if the footprint were shrunk there would be a larger buffer along the boundary line.
Mr. Juergensen asked to see a copy of the agreement.
Mr. Deremer stated that the board could look at the document but the board cannot abide by deed restrictions.
Mr. Juergensen stated that the restrictions say no more than three separate buildings shall be located on the premises.
Mr. Patton stated that this refers to the original 6.3 acres. Mr. Patton stated that presently there are two buildings on the other four acres. This would be the third lot that was originally proposed for one building. Mr. Patton stated that at the first hearing there were two buildings proposed and when the restrictions were pointed out the two buildings became one simply by a walkway or atrium as it’s been called.
Mr. Deremer swore in Joyce Teeple, 6135 Frank Ave. NW.
Ms. Teeple stated that she agrees that the covenants were signed and should be upheld as much as possible. She does not object to the day care center but has a concern about the catch basin because when there is heavy rain in the spring there is heavy flooding at the corner of Eastlake & Frank.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Ashman stated that he is not the architect for the building so he does not know if there has been any consideration of crunching the building together and eliminating the atrium. The footprint has been designed based on the requirements of the client. Mr. Ashman stated that the Stark County Building Department classifies the building as a single building. He believes it is the architect’s intention to break up the very high roof line that is created with the style of structure that is proposed and the interconnection between the two areas provides the relief in the roof line.
Mr. Ashman stated regarding the concerns with the embankment along the west side of the church, there is approximately a 10 ft. grade difference between the top of the hill and the bottom of the hill. They are proposing not to have a retaining wall but will have a 2:1 embankment. Mr. Ashman stated that this is considered a stable embankment. They have not acquired any soil determinations or done any excavation in the area to try to see what the embankment will hold but in his experience as a civil engineer he has never seen an embankment fail that is 2:1. Mr. Ashman stated that if the stability of the embankment were jeopardized they would have to step the embankment using a series of retaining walls.
Mr. Ashman stated that perhaps they would have more space if the two halves of the building were pushed together but they do have 50 ft. off of the John Knox property line and approximately 25 ft. of green space between Frank Ave. and the edge of the parking lot. Mr. Ashman stated that the concern is whether they meet all the requirement of the zoning regulations and he believes they have.
Mr. Ashman stated that the gas line along the north side is a high pressure gas line and the easement is 60 ft. in width. This is maintained and they do not encroach upon the easement.
Mr. Ashman stated that the drainage pattern works its way from the west to east down towards Frank Ave. The development will intercept all the drainage that is encumbered from the west property line plus what comes off the John Knox property all the way over to the east side of the parking lot. All of the drainage will be caught by their on site storm sewer system which discharges into a previously designed storm sewer that was built and constructed for the Quail Hill development.
Mr. Ashman stated that the atrium is a connecting panel between the office space and the day care facility. Mr. Ashman stated that the day care may have some offices in the office part, but there will also be some independent offices.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he reviewed the site plan and if it meets all the requirements regarding setbacks and driveway locations.
Mr. Phillippi yes, the requirements have been met.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he reviewed the landscaping plan.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he has not seen the landscaping plan.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for
the conditional use permit.
Section 431.2
A) Mr. Ashman stated yes.
B) Mr. Ashman stated yes.
C) Mr. Ashman stated this is what they
intended. They have met the requirements of the county and with respect
to the township, he hopes so.
D) Mr. McDonnell stated that the board
has Mr. Ashman’s testimony with regards to the requirements of the EPA
for storm water runoff where applicable. Mr. Ashman stated yes.
E) Mr. McDonnell stated that “E” needs
to be checked on regarding the proper landscaping.
F) Mr. Ashman stated yes.
Section 431.3
Mr. McDonnell asked what the hours of
operation would be.
Mr. Ashman stated that he could not address this question.
Mr. McDonnell asked how far the entrance is on Eastlake from the intersection of Frank and Eastlake.
Mr. Ashman stated that it is approximately 200 ft.
Mr. McDonnell asked how far the entrance is on Frank Ave. from the intersection of Frank and Eastlake.
Mr. Ashman stated approximately 175 ft.
Mr. McDonnell asked what type of lighting there would be.
Mr. Ashman stated that he does not have the lighting plan but the architect has told him that the lighting engineer is going to conform to both zoning and the requirements that were stipulated in the covenants and restrictions, which is lighting directed down on the parking and the facility.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it would be shielded from the adjacent properties.
Mr. Ashman stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights.
Mr. Ashman stated that he has been told no. He is not sure if there would be any exterior lights that are associated with the outside recreation area, but does not believe that incorporates floodlights because from his understanding the facility would not be open in the evening hours.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any loud speakers.
Mr. Ashman stated no.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the trash receptacles would be adequately screened.
Mr. Ashman stated yes, they are not represented on the plan but they will be properly screened.
Mr. McDonnell review section 431.6H, which was addressed per letter, dated January 23, 2003, from Bryan Ashman.
This concluded the criteria for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the offices would be related to the day care facility.
Mr. Ashman stated no, the offices would be leased.
Mr. Juergensen asked if the offices would be leased to entities unrelated to the day care facility.
Mr. Ashman stated that this could be the situation.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he was under the impression that the office space was related to the day care facility.
Mr. Ashman stated that some of the offices may be used by the day care facility but the office space at the east wing will not necessarily be used entirely by the day care facility.
Mr. McDonnell stated that subsection 431.6H(3) indicates that all activities shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted. According to this the offices need to be directly related to the day care.
Mr. Ashman stated that he cannot fully respond to this and it is not his interpretation that all the offices on the east wing would have to be associated with the day care.
Mr. Phillippi stated that the office use is a permitted use so it needs no conditional use permit. It’s the day care center only that needs a conditional use permit.
Mr. Ashman stated that it was his interpretation that the offices could be leased out independently.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Ashman if he is aware of what the covenants and restriction say.
Mr. Ashman stated yes. He forwarded a copy to his client and it is their intention to work with the neighbors.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public discussion.
Mr. McDonnell stated with regards to the landscaping requirements along the front property line and at the corner, he believes this would require a variance which was not requested therefore the board may not have the authority to make a ruling.
Mr. Dodson stated that he believes Mr. McDonnell is correct. If the requirements for the landscaping are not met then a variance would have to be requested.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with Ms. Saver that it looks like two buildings, which are in violation of the restrictions and covenants, and thinks that there may be a detrimental effect to the property owners in the vicinity. Mr. Juergensen stated that it seems like if it’s one building then it is a day care facility and all activities need to be directly related to the day care facility. If it is offices and a day care facility then its goes back to the initial concern that it would be two buildings.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Phillippi if it would be acceptable if the building were one rectangular structure and half of it was leased to a day care center and the other half was office space.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he believes it would be as long as the uses of the property fit the perimeters of the zoning. The offices themselves are permitted within the B-1 district and the conditional use that needs to come before the board is the day care center. Mr. Phillippi stated that he would look at it as both uses being permitted as long as the day care center receives approval from the board but he can see where there could be a conflict where it states that all activities need to be directly related to the day care center.
Mr. Deremer stated that he is not sure that this would be any different then a day care facility within a church, which is a mixed use in a building.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with the comments regarding the landscaping along Frank Ave. especially if this is considered the frontage of the property. The fact that it has not been addressed in the landscaping plan that was presented possibly litigates what the board can do.
Mr. Giulitto stated that he has other concerns to be address down the road and does not think the board can go forward until the landscaping issue is resolved.
Mr. McDonnell stated that in looking at the landscaping plan along Eastlake he computes that there should be 20 shade trees and he counts less than 20. Along the west property line by the John Knox church property he computes that there should be 15 trees and the plan shows significantly less than this. Mr. McDonnell stated that he does not believe the board can vote on this appeal at this time due a variance being needed. Mr. McDonnell stated that he has a problem with the office space being not directly related to the conditional use permit and to him the walkway is a convenient way to tie two separate facilities that are intended for two separate activities.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he thinks if there weren’t two buildings already on the total acreage then the walkway would not be there.
Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Ashman, because the landscaping on the front has not been addressed and the board does not have the authority to address it because it would need a variance, if he would be willing to come back to the board to address the landscaping with a revised plan or a modification to the plan so a variance could be requested.
Mr. Ashman stated that they will have to work on the landscaping because they are not permitted to put it in the gas easement. Mr. Ashman stated that if there is a concern that a variance is required then he would ask for a continuance.
Mr. Deremer made a motion to continue appeal #1834 until April 4, 2003 at 7:30 pm.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell acted as chairman for appeal #1835.
APPEAL #1835 – Then Design Architecture, Ltd., 4135 Erie St., Willoughby, Ohio 44094 agent for Fifth Third Bank, property owner, 1404 East Ninth St., Cleveland, Ohio 44114 requests a conditional use permit for a bank facility with a drive thru where a conditional use permit is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 2.03 acres on the northwest corner of Portage St. and Frank Ave. NW, Sect. 11SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1.
Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Jeffery Henderson with reasons being a conditional use permit is required. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a grading and utility plan labeled SP1, a landscaping plan labeled L1, a sketch showing the existing building on the property, a letter from Roger Deville to Jeffery Henderson dated 10/30/02, and the responses to the criteria for the conditional use permit, dated 2/11/03.
Mr. McDonnell asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Jeff Henderson, 4135 Erie St., Willoughby, Ohio 44094.
Mr. Henderson stated the property consists of two parcels. There is currently no building on the corner parcel and the adjacent parcel to the west has a house that will be demolished. The proposed bank is 4,115 sq. ft. internally with one story, wood frame, brick veneer, and a slopped shingled roof. Mr. Henderson stated that the drive thru would consist of four lanes for customer service and an outside lane with a 24-hour ATM which will be located to the west of the building. The property would be accessed from Frank Ave. and Portage St. The parking would be located on the south and east side of the building. The approach for the ATM would be located off of Frank Ave. with ample room for stacking and there would be 27 parking spaces. Mr. Henderson stated that there would be a sign on the south and east side of the building and a monument sign at the southeast corner of the property. The banking hours would be Monday thru Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Henderson stated that the entrances are respectively 175 ft. from the center line of the intersection to the center line of the drive on Frank Ave. and 235 ft. from the center line to the center line of the drive on Portage. The parking lot will be lit with cut off fixtures so not to shine light on the adjacent properties and there will be low lighting located in the landscaping around the building.
Mr. Henderson stated that they will be picking up the drainage off of the site and have an underground detention system tying into the storm sewer along Portage St.
Mr. Dodson asked how the headlights would be shielded from the adjoining property owners when using the ATM.
Mr. Henderson stated that there would be a landscaping buffer.
Mr. Juergensen asked Mr. Henderson if he knew the hours of operation for the gas station on the northeast corner or Rockne’s on the southeast corner.
Mr. Henderson stated that he is not familiar with their hours of operation.
Mr. Deremer asked if the plan was presented to the Stark County Engineer’s office.
Mr. Henderson stated yes. There are a few issues that still need resolved however they have received conditional approval from Stark County Regional Planning.
Mr. Deremer asked if the property lines as shown reflect the improvements to Portage St.
Mr. Henderson stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he reviewed the plan and if it meets all the zoning requirements per the proposed right of way, parking, and setbacks.
Mr. Phillippi stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Phillippi if he reviewed the plan regarding landscaping.
Mr. Phillippi stated that he is not sure all the requirements have been met regarding the landscaping but this would be reviewed.
Mr. McDonnell reviewed the criteria for
the conditional use permit.
Section 431.2
A) Mr. Henderson stated yes.
B) Mr. Henderson stated yes.
C) Mr. Henderson stated yes.
D) Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Henderson
indicated that they are still working with the county engineer regarding
storm water runoff. Mr. Henderson stated yes.
E) Mr. Henderson stated it is their intent
to meet the requirements.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Henderson if the
current landscaping plan presented does not meet the requirements, is it
their intent and commitment to meet the landscaping requirements per the
zoning resolution. Mr. Henderson stated yes.
F) Mr. Henderson stated yes.
Section 431.3
Mr. McDonnell stated that the board may
limit the hours of operation to ensure that the use is compatible with
the surrounding areas.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Henderson’s if it was his previous testimony that the points of vehicular entrance and exits are in excess of 100 ft. from the intersection of Portage and Frank.
Mr. Henderson stated that this is correct.
Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Henderson had said that the lighting in the parking lot would be down lighting and would not constitute a nuisance.
Mr. Henderson stated that this is correct.
Mr. McDonnell stated that all outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties and asked if it is Mr. Henderson’s intent that the landscaping will take care of this requirement.
Mr. Henderson stated yes. The buildings lighting will be on the building itself and will be shielded.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any floodlights.
Mr. Henderson stated that he doesn’t know that they would be considered floodlights but there will be lights on the ground for the building.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any searchlights.
Mr. Henderson stated no.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be any loud speakers.
Mr. Henderson stated that the drive thru units have two way communications as do all drive up situations.
Mr. McDonnell asked if there would be screening for the trash receptacles.
Mr. Henderson stated yes.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the grading and service plan was prepared by a registered engineer.
Mr. Henderson stated that the design is not complete but the plan will be prepared by a registered engineer and will be approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer.
Section 431.6(I)
1) Mr. McDonnell asked if the facility
will be located on an arterial or collector street in an area least disruptive
to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Mr. Henderson stated yes
2) Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Henderson
testimony that the only speakers that they will have are the standard speakers
used as drive thru operations. Mr. Henderson stated this is correct.
This concluded the criteria for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Henderson had nothing further to add.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak in favor of the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Daniel McDevitt, 8996 Appleknoll NW.
Mr. McDevitt stated that his experience with Fifth Third Bank is that they build fine facilities and are kept to a very high standard.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Lee Hilson, 5137 Portage St. NW.
Mr. Hilson stated that he has lived at this address for twenty years and does not want to be a buffer zone for the commercial developments. Mr. Hilson stated that he can almost read a book from his hot tub at night because of BJ’s lighting, which is a reflector light shining down but is up in the air. Mr. Hilson stated that this is not a residential area anymore which is fine if this is what the township wants, buts where does it stop.
Mr. Hilson stated that if they can tell him that he won’t have a problem changing his property down the road, then go for it, but he does not want to be the buffer for the bank. There is no way to shield the lights from his property when people pull into the drive thru area. The ATM is to the far west, which is closest to his property, and will be open 24-hours a day.
Mr. Hilson stated that his house sits on a hill and he is afraid as to how close they will come to his property when digging and how much screening will be provided to prevent the car lights and the lights shining on the building from coming into his house. Mr. Hilson stated that he appreciates what the board does regarding zoning but is not sure that they care about the people who have lived in Jackson for years.
Mr. Hilson stated that he can’t imagine getting in and out of the bank due to the traffic and is fearful as to what’s going to happen.
Mr. McDonnell stated that Board of Appeals does not make the zoning. This is a completely different board. He wants Mr. Hilson to understand that the bank is permitted in a B-1 district. The only reason for the conditional use permit is because they will have a drive thru. They could have an ATM on the bank, without a drive thru, without coming before the board.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Hilson if he has a recommendation or idea that might ease the problem that they would have.
Mr. Hilson stated that he is not sure what they are going to do with the traffic issue and possibly they could put the ATM in the first slot instead of the fifth one or on the other side of the bank which would help.
Mr. McDonnell swore in Melinda Hilson,
5137 Portage St. NW.
Ms. Hilson stated that her father built
their home over 50 years ago and she had to change her work schedule because
of the traffic. Ms. Hilson stated that putting the ATM against the
bank would help. It would also help to have more landscaping such
as a wooden fence to help screen the headlights.
Mr. Dodson asked, by a car turning into the bank and swinging around the turn, how it changes anything by putting the ATM immediately against the bank.
Ms. Hilson stated that it wouldn’t change anything, it would just move a little bit of the noise away from their home.
No one else in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Henderson stated that the ATM is on the outside of the drive thru for security reasons. If looking at the grading and elevation there is about a 10 to 12 ft. difference from where the cars would be pulling in and where Mr.& Mrs. Hilson’s house sits. Mr. Henderson stated that they would be willing to do some type of fence if this would make the Hilson’s feel comfortable regarding additional screening.
Mr. Henderson stated that the lighting poles are about 18 ft. in height and are down lit. The drive thru lighting is under the drive thru area so the lights should not be a problem.
Mr. Deremer asked if the bank had researched the issue of traffic flow.
Mr. Henderson stated that they have not done a traffic study.
Mr. Giulitto asked if they routinely do a traffic study.
Mr. Henderson stated no.
Mr. McDonnell stated when he first looked at the plan he was concerned about the left hand turn in and out of Portage and asked if they could restrict the entrance and exit on Portage to a right turn in and out only.
Mr. Henderson stated that he does not see this as a big issue and the bank could consider this.
Mr. Juergensen asked what percentage of traffic attributes to the drive thru.
Mr. Henderson stated about fifty to seventy percent of the vehicles.
There were no further comments.
Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Deremer stated that the property is zoned B-1 the conditional use permit is to allow the drive thru facility, which most banks want. Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks they are creating a headache by allowing a drive thru facility on this corner. There is a drive thru about three parcels to the south on Frank Ave., which is the credit union. Unizan bank is approximately two parcels down to the east and has a drive thru and ATM and there is also one at the strip so obviously there are people using the facilities and when this one is built it will be a busy place. Mr. Deremer stated that he thinks it will be a traffic headache and does not think that he could permit the additional traffic flow as the current roadway improvements stand.
Mr. Deremer stated that there is an issue of sitting next to a residential neighborhood. He understands the elevation difference but also believes that the landscaping plan should require a solid fence along the residential area to truly protect the neighbors from the traffic headlights at the drive thru.
Mr. Dodson stated that he somewhat disagrees and thinks that if you have a B-1 property and the bank is a lawful use there, if you deny the bank to have a drive thru facility based on the testimony of how many people use the drive thru, you are basically preventing a lawful use of the property. If the bank is willing to make only right turns in or out of Portage at least until the road in widened and they can see what the situation is and if they are willing to put up some kind of wooden fence to protect the neighbors from headlights and the ATM traffic at night then he would be willing to approve it.
Mr. Giulitto stated that the area is already congested and by allowing them to put in a bank are they helping the situation, the answer is no. Mr. Giulitto stated that he concurs with Mr. Dodson that the property is zoned B-1 and a bank is permitted without the drive thru. If they make concessions with a right turn and put in the proper landscaping then he is for it but right now it is a difficult decision and he can see both sides.
Mr. Juergensen stated that Mr. Dodson made an excellent point and if they are willing to make the accommodations for the neighbors and limit it to a right turn in and out then he would be tempted to approve the request.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he sees three issues that need to be addressed. One is the right turn only both in and out of the bank on Portage. The second issue is the board did not review the actual landscaping plan. A condition could be made that it has to meet all the township landscaping requirements, leaving it to Mr. Phillippi to count the trees and bushes that are required. The third issue is a condition regarding the screening along the west side of the property. Mr. McDonnell stated that he shares Mr. Dodson’s thoughts with regards to a bank without the drive thru would be allowed and thinks that a bank without a drive thru is a dinosaur. Mr. McDonnell stated with conditions he would be inclined to approve the conditional use permit.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1835 with the following three conditions: 1) All landscaping requirements per zoning be met, 2) Fencing or some other solid light barrier be erected on the west side of the premises efficient to shield adjacent homes from auto headlights, 3) On Portage St. only right turn in or out of the premises be permitted with the provision that the board could revisit this once the widening is concluded on Portage St. because it may no longer be necessary.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-no, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-no.
APPEAL #1836 – Norman Saeger, 4956 Eshelman Ave. NE, Louisville, Ohio 44641 agent for Rohr & Sons Nursery, Inc., property owner, 5357 Everhard Rd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 16 ft. left (south) side yard setback and a 65 ft. rear (west) side yard setback where 75 ft. is required in Art. IV Sect. 411.5 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 3483 Wales Rd. NW, Sect. 32NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-2.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Dr. Bruce Fertal with reasons being the existing setbacks render the site unbuildable. The file contained a tax map of the property in question, property record consisting of three sheets from the Stark County Auditor’s office, and a full size site plan showing the location of the existing building and the proposed building.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Norman Saeger, 4956 Eshelman Ave. NE, Louisville, Ohio 44641.
Mr. Saeger stated that they would like to tear down the existing office building and garage and put up a new office that would be big enough for three units. Mr. Saeger stated that they are asking for a 16 ft. setback along the south side, which is within inches of where the existing buildings are located, and a 65 ft. setback along the west side where 75 ft. is required due to being next to residential. Mr. Saeger stated that the ingress/egress would be a new drive in area as opposed to the current parking where you back onto the street to get out of the parking area.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Saeger’s testimony that the building will not be any closer than the existing buildings.
Mr. Saeger stated yes. They want to tear down the existing building because it is an old building that was converted from a house to a commercial building.
Mr. McDonnell asked what the square footage of the new building would be.
Mr. Saeger stated that it would be double the size of the old building.
Mr. Deremer asked what the setback is from the proposed building to Stuhldreher St.
Mr. Saeger stated that it is on an angel and would be 45 to 55 ft.
Mr. Deremer asked what would happen if the building were pushed closer to Stuhldreher St. and the parking was put in the back.
Mr. Saeger stated that there is a grade difference that is seven feet higher in the back.
Mr. Deremer swore in Dr. Bruce Fertal, 6505 Alabama, Canal Fulton, Ohio.
Dr. Fertal stated that he has been practicing at the property since 1984. He is purchasing the property and would like to improve it by upgrading. The old building was built in the 1950’s and the way the parking is at this time people have to back out into the street in order to pull out.
Mr. Deremer asked if the all the tenants would be professionals.
Dr. Fertal stated yes.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor of the appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Giulitto stated that he believes this would be a nice addition to the area and would be willing to approve the request.
Mr. Dodson stated that he agrees with Mr. Giulitto. It is no closer to the boundaries than the existing buildings that will be removed so he has no problem with the request.
Mr. Juergensen stated that he agrees with the other board member’s comments.
Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve appeal #1836 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 #1837 – Jay & Kelly Serra, property owner, 4829 East Blvd. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for a 5 ft. right (north) side yard setback where a 10 ft. side yard setback is required in Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4829 East Blvd. NW, Sect. 23SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-1.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Jay Serra with reason being existing garage is small. The file contained a tax map of the property in question and a site plan showing the proposed addition.
Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Jay Serra, 4829 East Blvd. NW.
Mr. Serra presented a letter to the board, exhibit #1, from the Manager of Lake Cable which stated that he has no problem with the 5 ft. setback. Mr. Serra stated that he cannot go any further then 5 ft. from the property line and the breezeway has been shortened from 13 ft. to 10-1/2 ft.
Mr. McDonnell asked why the addition needed to be at a 5 ft. setback.
Mr. Serra stated that they need the distance to back out of the new garage. If they went further to the south it would impede into the bank and they would have to dig into the front yard. There are railroad ties that hold the bank up and if moved the ties would have to be taken out and it would not look good.
There was no one else present in the audience to speak in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.
Mr. Deremer stated that there is a practical difficulty because he can only back up so far without tearing up the front yard. Mr. Deremer stated that he has no problem with the request.
Mr. Juergensen stated that in light of the fact that there is no opposition to the appeal he is inclined to approve it.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he concurs that there is a practical difficulty and it is not overbuilding the property so he has no problem with the appeal.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1837 as requested.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell 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