Members present:                                                         Ted Deremer-Recused from appeal #1955
                                                                                         Edward McDonnell
                                                                                         Richard Dodson
                                                                                        Jim Giulitto
                                                                                        John Juergensen
                                                                                        Eric Oldroyd-Alternate

Zoning Inspector:                                                          Joni Poindexter

Mr. Deremer stated that the board needed to vote on a Chairman and Vice Chairman for 2005.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks Mr. Deremer has done a great job as Chairman in the past and doesn’t see any reason to change.

Mr. Giulitto agreed with Mr. McDonnell.

There were no further nominations.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to appoint Mr. Deremer as Chairman for 2005.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

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

Mr. Dodson stated that he thinks Mr. McDonnell has done a wonderful job in the absence of Mr. Deremer and thinks he should continue as Vice Chairman for 2005.

There were no further nominations.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to appoint Mr. McDonnell as Vice Chairman for 2005.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

APPEAL #1956 – Archer Sign Corporation, 1917 Henry Ave. SW, Canton, Ohio 44706 agent for Westfield Shoppingtown Belden LLC, property owner, 4230 Belden Village St. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 requests a variance for an 11 ft. 7 in. square foot directional sign with a height of 4 ft. where the maximum square footage for a directional sign is 6 sq. ft. with a maximum height of 3 ft. per Art. V Sect. 502.1 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 4230 Belden Village St. NW, Sect. 24NE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned B-3.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Stephanie Maynard with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “The current sign is not visible.  The proposed signage would offer more visibility to customers coming in either direction.  Also, the proposed signage offers direction to the Management Office.”  The file contained a tax map of the property, a site layout of the existing structures on the property, and a colored view of the proposed sign and location.

Mr. Deremer asked who would like to speak in favor of the appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in John Henry, 1917 Henry Ave. SW.

Mr. Henry stated that the applicant is requesting a directional sign.  They have moved the management office within the mall and currently there is no signage.  They need a sign so people can identify where the office is located.  The mall feels the square footage of the sign would be consistent with the other signs around the mall and it would help with visibility.

Mr. Henry stated that the sign would be a silver and gray metal sign with acrylic text.  The text that is shown in black on the drawing will light up as white at night.

Mr. Deremer asked if this is similar to the other directional signs that have been approved.

Mr. Henry stated yes, they are very similar in size.

Mr. Deremer asked if this sign was larger.

Mr. Henry stated that the reason they are proposing the requested sign is because it is consistent in size.

Mr. Deremer asked if there is an existing management sign on the property.

Mr. Henry stated that he could not answer that, but he knows there isn’t a sign where the management offices are located at this time.

Mr. Juergensen asked who frequents the management office.

Mr. Henry stated that he wasn’t sure if it was tenants, complainants, deliveries or salesman, but would imagine it would be variety of all of them.

Mr. Juergensen asked if the road is flat when approaching the area where the sign would be located.

Mr. Henry stated that the road is flat and is located between Sears and the food court.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the sign would be located where the “X” is shown on the plan.

Mr. Henry stated yes.  It would be in the grass area and would not protrude on the side walk at all.

Mr. Henry stated that he cannot attest to it but was told by mall management that the sign is consistent with the other directional signs and this is why the proposed sign is the size as requested.  Mr. Henry stated that the sign would be perpendicular to the road and would be identical on both sides.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Dodson stated that this is the largest retail establishment in the township and if the size is the same as the other directional signs then he doesn’t have a problem with it.

Mr. Juergensen stated that the board is required to find a practical difficulty and he doesn’t see one.  He thinks the directional signs that were granted in the past were for safety reasons and he hasn’t heard any testimony that there would be difficulty in seeing the sign so he has a problem with it.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Juergensen is right in stating that generally the board is required to find a practical difficulty with the land but in reading section 502.1, it says that these are the sizes that you need a permit for.  It’s not saying it’s the maximum allowable; it’s just saying you need a permit if it falls under this size.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he is not as nearly concerned about finding a practical difficulty as he would be for an area variance.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he does see a practical difficulty just in the size of the facility and doesn’t think it would obstruct traffic in any way.  If they allow the directional sign he thinks it should be with the condition that is it is for direction to the management offices only.

Mr. Deremer stated that he was on the board when the other directional signs were approved and they were strictly for direction and safety and doesn’t think they were lighted signs.  Mr. Deremer stated that the other signs did not have the Westfield logo on them.  He believes the logo is what makes the sign bigger than the other signs that were approved.  If it is truly a directional sign, then he doesn’t think they would need the Westfield logo on it.  Mr. Deremer stated that he doesn’t mind that the sign is lighted but doesn’t think the size variance has been proven to be permitted per the resolution.

Mr. McDonnell asked if the variance were turned down could the applicant come back with something different.

Mr. Deremer stated that they could come back to the board with a different size, but not the same request.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1956 as requested.

Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-no, Mr. Giulitto-no, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-no.

The variance was denied.

APPEAL #1957 – TriDoc/Dave Daugherty, 2953 Carie Hill Circle NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 agent for Ronald Beebe, property owner, 7727 Hills & Dales Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a variance for a 19 ft. 9 in. left (south) side yard setback where 25 ft. is required and a 19 ft. 10 in. right (north) side yard setback where 35 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 401.6 of the zoning resolution.  Property location is parcel #1601879 Hills & Dales Rd. NW, Sect. 33SE Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-4.

Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Dave Daugherty with reasons being as stated by the applicant, “TriDoc would like to build a two family duplex of ranch style.  The duplex could be turned but would result in a less than desirable view for the R-R and new condo owners.  The side yards will be over 19 ft. a side.”  The file contained a tax map of the property in question, a site plan showing the layout of the duplex, three different aerial views of the property, and a plan of the duplex.

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

Mr. Deremer swore in Dave Daugherty, 2953 Carie Hill Circle NW.

Mr. Daugherty stated that he the president of TriDoc.  The property is zoned R-4 which would permit a six unit apartment building; however, they are proposing to build a two family duplex.  There is a six or eight unit apartment building to the south of the proposed property and a single family home is to the north of the proposed property, so he thought it would be a nice transition to build a ranch style two car duplex on the property.  Due to the fact that the R-4 adjoins a rural residential district, the required setback is 35 ft. on the north side and is 25 ft. on the south side.  Mr. Daugherty stated that there is approximately 46 ft. between the building on the R-R property and the R-4 property; therefore, there would be a large buffer between the duplex and the single family home.

Mr. Daugherty stated that they could rotate the building, but they would like to keep it with a two car garage which 48 ft. is needed.

Mr. Deremer asked how the property is accessed.

Mr. Daugherty stated that there is an easement going to the parcel from Hills & Dales.

Mr. Juergensen asked what the part of the building is that juts out on both sides.

Mr. Daugherty stated that there is a great room and then a fireplace that juts out.

Mr. Juergensen asked if it would take off on extra four feet if the line were straight.

Mr. Daughter stated yes.  They have built some that way but it makes it too narrow for the great room.

Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Poindexter if the fireplace counted in the setback area.

Ms. Poindexter stated that fireplace chimney is permitted to protrude two feet into the setback area.

Mr. Deremer stated that the fireplace wouldn’t count regarding the setback.

Mr. Daugherty stated then they could take two of the four feet off.

Mr. Deremer stated that they would gain two feet on both sides so the variance would be 21 ft.

Mr. Daugherty stated yes.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the board needed to find some special conditions that are peculiar to the land or structure, which are not applicable generally to the land or other structures in the area to justify a variance and asked Mr. Daugherty what those circumstances might be.

Mr. Daugherty stated that the rural residential is kind of a spot zoning in the area.  Everything around it is zoned R-4, so there is kind of a unique layout in the area from the way it was originally developed and he is trying to blend it the best way possible.

Mr. Giulitto asked if the road is graveled.

Mr. Daugherty stated that it is asphalt and maintained by the property owners.  Mr. Daugherty stated Mr. Beebe, who he is purchasing the property from, owns the single family home and maintains the road right up to his property.  The rest of the road, or easement, is maintained by the owner of the multi family structure.

Mr. Giulitto asked if a larger unit could fit on the property.

Mr. Daugherty stated yes.  He would be permitted to put a six unit apartment building on the property without a variance if the building were turned, but he thinks what he is proposing is a better fit for the area.

Mr. Deremer asked if the setback in the front is equal to what is on the adjacent parcels.

Mr. Daugherty stated that the setback is 40 ft., but he is not sure how the other buildings are setback.

Mr. Juergensen asked how much distance is between the single family home and the property line.

Mr. Daugherty stated that it is about 46 ft. to the property line and with the duplex being at a 19 ft. setback there would be approximately 65 ft. between buildings.

Mr. Deremer asked Mr. Daugherty if he agreed that the two feet for the chimney could come off the setback so it would be 21.9 ft. on one side and 21.10 ft. on the other side.

Mr. Daugherty stated yes, if that is how it is calculated.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor of this appeal and no one in the audience spoke in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. Deremer asked if the board had any comments on the modified request.

Mr. McDonnell stated that the request for 19 ft. where 35 ft. is required is better than a forty percent variance and he doesn’t think the threshold has been met, being special conditions and circumstances that are peculiar to the property that would warrant a variance.  The fact that it is adjacent to an R-R district, which increases the required setback, is not peculiar to that and is shared by any R-4 property that is next to an R-R property.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks the property will yield a reasonable return without the variance although it may not be quite aesthetic.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he thinks a forty percent variance is substantial and has difficulty with the requested variance.

Mr. Deremer disagreed with Mr. McDonnell and stated that he thinks because of the proposed duplex it is lighter than what could actually be put on the R-4 property and it would make a good transition from the R-R.  There is a large setback between the R-4 property and the building on the R-R property.  If there were two R-R properties together they could have only 20 ft. between buildings so what is requested exceeds what is required for the R-R district.  Mr. Deremer stated that he looks at this as a good transition and believes the variance is approval as amended and requested.

Mr. Giulitto concurred with Mr. Deremer and stated with the property being R-4 they could put a larger building on the lot, but they are trying to blend in the property.  Mr. Giulitto stated that he thinks what they are trying to do is good for the township, so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Dodson stated that he doesn’t see a practical difficulty and it is possible to configure the building without violating zoning, so he has a problem with the request.

Mr. Juergensen agreed with Mr. Deremer and stated that he doesn’t think the spirit and intent of the zoning resolution would be violated by granting the variance and it is a good transition.

Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1957 as amended to a 21.9 ft. left side yard setback and a 21.10 ft. right side yard setback.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Dodson-no, Mr. McDonnell-no, and Mr. Deremer-yes.

The variance was approved as modified.

Mr. Deremer recused himself from appeal #1955; therefore, Mr. McDonnell served as chairman for appeal #1955.

Mr. McDonnell stated that Mr. Oldroyd would participate in the hearing for appeal #1955 due to the absence of Mr. Deremer.

APPEAL #1955 – Harris Day Architects, Matthew Sutter, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW, Canton, Ohio 44718 agent for Jackson Local Schools/Board of Education, property owner, 7984 Fulton Rd. NW, Massillon, Ohio 44646 requests a conditional use permit for a school where a conditional use permit is required and a variance for 1,460 parking spaces where 1,945 parking spaces are required per Art. IV & VI Sect. 401.3 & 601.2 of the zoning resolution.  Property located at 7600 Fulton Rd. NW, Sect. 21NW Jackson Twp.  Area zoned R-R.

Mr. McDonnell read the file application signed by Matthew Sutter with reason being a conditional use permit is required and the parking will be adequate.  The file contained an aerial view of the tax map of the property in question, a site plan by Harris Day Architects dated October 29, 2004, a sheet consisting the parking calculations, and the answers to the criteria for the conditional use permit.  The file also contained a letter from Ted Heck, Fire Chief for Jackson Township, dated December 30, 2004, which was read into the record.

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

Mr. McDonnell swore in Scott Shively, 3722 Whipple Ave. NW.

Mr. Shively stated that they are asking for approval of a conditional use and a parking variance.

Mr. Shively stated that a bond issue was passed last year and they would like to add new additions to the school all of which will meet the setback requirements.  Mr. Shively explained the site plan and stated that they expect the student enrollment to increase to 2,200 which is about a 400 student increase.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Dodson to review the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Section 431.2
Mr. Dodson asked if it would not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity.

Mr. Shively stated no.

Mr. Dodson asked if it would not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners.

Mr. Shively stated no.

Mr. Dodson asked if it would 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 state agencies where applicable.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if it would meet the requirements of EPA for stormwater runoff, when applicable.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if it would be properly landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

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

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Section 431.3(C)
Mr. Dodson asked if the hours of operation would be different from the current use of the high school.

Mr. Shively stated that the hours of operation would remain the same.
Mr. Dodson stated for parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than one hundred feet from the intersection of two arterial streets or fifty feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street.

Mr. Shively stated that they meet the requirement.

Mr. Dodson stated that no lighting shall constitute a nuisance and in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway and all outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.

Mr. Shively stated they will comply.

Mr. Dodson asked if there would be any floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers or similar structures.

Mr. Shively stated no.

Mr. Dodson asked if the trash receptacles would be adequately screened.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Mr. Dodson asked if the grading and surface drainage provisions would be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer, where applicable.

Mr. Shively stated that the drainage drawings have been prepared by ME Companies and have been submitted to the Stark County Engineers.

Section 431.6(F)
Mr. Dodson stated that all uses should be located on an arterial or collector street or have direct access to an arterial or collector street without going through a residential neighborhood to lessen the impact on the residential area.  Mr. Dodson stated that they are on an arterial street which is Fulton Rd.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Mr. Dodson stated that all outdoor children’s activity areas shall be enclosed by a fence or wall having a height of at least five feet but not exceeding six feet.  An entry gate shall be securely fastened.

Mr. Shively stated that the activities by the school currently are not enclosed by a fence.  They do not intend to change the outdoor activities with the proposed plans.

Mr. Dodson stated that he believes number three of the conditions is non applicable.

Mr. Dodson stated that all activities, programs and other events shall be directly related to the conditional use permit so granted, and shall be adequately and properly supervised so as to prevent any hazard and to assure against any disturbance or nuisance to surrounding properties, residents or to the community in general.

Mr. Shively stated they would comply.

Mr. Dodson stated that the development plan shall indicate the parking and emergency entrances or exits and other safety precautions.

Mr. Shively stated that they comply.

This concluded the criteria for the conditional use permit.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he doesn’t believe that high school students are considered children so he is not sure that section 431.6(F)2 is applicable.

Mr. Shively stated that the proposed alterations do not include any alteration or additions to any of the outdoor athletic fields that are currently in place.

Mr. Giulitto asked with the 163,000 sq. ft. addition, what is it percentage wise of the high school.

Mr. Shively stated that it is about fifty percent.  The existing building is about 311,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Giulitto asked if it is correct that Mr. Shively stated that the amount of students is projected to increase from 1,800 to 2,200 students.

Mr. Shively stated yes.

Mr. Giulitto asked if they would be keeping the same number of parking spaces.

Mr. Shively stated that they would be keeping the same ratio.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shively to explain the parking variance.

Mr. Shively stated that the high school has had traffic problems with the increase of students driving with only one entrance and exit on Fulton Rd.  They have tried to simplify and improve that with the parking plan.  It is their intent to move the student parking from the east side of the building to the west side of the building.  Their main focus is to get the buses, faculty, and visitors to the east side of the building and then they will exit from a separate point.  The bus entrance is just to the east of the adjacent property and they will exit onto Fulton Rd. and an easement that will be on the Mercy and YMCA property, which will help drastically with the traffic problems.

Mr. Shively stated that the gym capacity is 2,300 and requires 575 spaces.  There are 111 classrooms which require 1,110 spaces.  The high school staff will be 230 with an additional 30 administration staff which requires 260 spaces for a total requirement of 1,945 parking spaces.  The actual parking that will be provided will be 1,460 spaces.

Mr. Shively stated as of last year the population at the high school was 1,758 students with 1,103 existing parking spaces which is a ratio of 0.627 spaces per student.  With the projected 2,200 students and the same 0.627 ratio, they come up with 1,379 spaces and they are provided at total of 1,460.

Mr. Shively stated that they are approximately 500 spaces short of what is required but the big difference is that the gym requirement of 575 spaces is if the gym is at full capacity, but the gym will never be at full capacity while the building is in use for the students because the district wouldn’t allow it because of safety reason.

Mr. Shively stated that they would bring the student parking to the west side of the building.  There is a student access point on Fulton Rd. which is currently by the small school house.  They have plans to install a traffic light in that area, which would be a blinking light timed with the Fulton and Wales intersection light that will allow for safe exit for students during peak hours.  They will also be adding a third point of access which will be out to Wales Rd.

Mr. Shively stated that they met with the Jackson Township Fire Department and will comply with all of their requests.

Mr. Juergensen asked if all the parking spaces are currently used.

Mr. Shively stated current out of the 1,103 spaces, at the peak occupancy there was only about 1,000 cars.
Mr. McDonnell asked if it is Mr. Shively’s testimony that the gym would never be used by any non Jackson High School students or facility while school is in session.

Mr. Shively stated yes, and the superintendent is in the audience and can also testify to that.

Mr. McDonnell asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding the appeal.

Mr. McDonnell swore in John Roneker, 5673 Vantage Hill NW.

Mr. Roneker stated that he had some questions regarding the plan.  Mr. Roneker stated that he is concerned where the student parking is located because everyone will dump onto Cliff and congest the neighborhood.  The neighborhood between 1:30 and 2:30 in the afternoon becomes a speedway for students cutting through and this is going to make it worse.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he would ask Mr. Shively to address Mr. Roneker’s concerns after everyone speaks.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Daniel Bell, 5670 Vantage Hill NW.

Mr. Bell stated that he has lived on Vantage Hill for 28 years.  The plan does not indicate where the construction trucks are going to come in at because obviously they will have to come in at the administration building that is off of Cliff because they can’t block the exit for the students.  Mr. Bell stated that he thinks it is excellent what they are doing, but he doesn’t think anyone has taken into consideration the safety issue.  People cannot get out onto Cliff on a spring day when the baseball games or school lets out.  Mr. Bell stated that a flashing red light is not going to do the job.

Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Bell what he thinks the solution would be.

Mr. Bell stated that maybe they should put a stop light at Arlington and Fulton or Cliff and Fulton.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he doesn’t know if the school has any control over a light because Fulton Rd. is a State route.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Nancy Pelger, 7981 Windward Trace NW.

Ms. Pelger stated that teenagers don’t stop for a stop light so safety will be a problem and the proposed plan will not make it any better.  Teenagers will not go out where the caution light is because they don’t want to have to wait.  Ms. Pelger stated that is a concern of hers.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Jessica Thompson, 6930 Buckhorn Dr. NW.

Ms. Thompson stated that she is a student at the high school and doesn’t drive but from talking to other people they do need the parking.  The traffic congestion will be better with the new exit at Wales because there are a lot of people who live that way and will use that exit.  Ms. Thompson stated that she doesn’t see how the parking is an issue or is coming into what is being addressed as far as a safety issue.  She thinks they need the parking how it is configured.

Mr. Shively that one of the first things the school told them in doing the plan was that safety was to be addressed.  The school had negotiated with the township for about a year just to get the blinking light for the school zoned moved.

Mr. Shively stated that the light on Fulton will be a stop light that will be on a timer to be timed with the light on Fulton.  Right now there is no connection behind the high school and the only way out of the high school is onto Fulton.  They have planned a connection around the back of the building and Ms. Thompson is correct in stating that most people go out to the east and south so the traffic onto Fulton will be reduced.

Mr. Shively explained the traffic flow for the school and stated that they hope to have a traffic light up by the start of school in the fall and eventually there will be a light at Wales and Caritas Circle as the traffic congestion occurs.

Mr. Shively stated that they will start construction on the west side in the spring.  There will be some construction traffic off of Fulton in the summer until the west side is done.  It will take about two years to finish the entire school project.

Mr. Giulitto asked if there is a proposed light at Wales and Caritas.

Ms. Shively stated yes as it is warranted by the State.

Mr. McDonnell swore in Cheryl Haschak, Jackson High School Superintendent.

Ms. Cheryl Haschak stated that she is the superintendent of Jackson Local Schools.  The light is very expensive and will cost over $100,000.  They would love to have a light at the end of Caritas but they have no control over it.  Ms. Haschak stated that she has asked that they put a cement barrier in so people could only turn right.  They have talked about not doing that but it is her hope to put in the barrier to keep people from turning left onto Wales.

Mr. McDonnell stated that it is his understanding that Jackson Local is paying for the lights.

Ms. Haschak stated yes.

No one else in the audience spoke in favor or in opposition to the appeal.  Mr. McDonnell closed this appeal to public input.

Mr. McDonnell suggested the board separate the issue and first discuss the conditional use permit.

Mr. Dodson stated that the board normally grants a conditional use permit if the criteria has been met and he thinks it has so he is in favor of the request.

Mr. Juergensen concurred with Mr. Dodson.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he also concurs.  The school is aware that there is a problem and they are doing their best to resolve it.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the conditional use permit for appeal #1955 as requested.

Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell stated that the conditional use portion of the appeal has been approved.  The board will now address the parking variance issue.

Mr. Giulitto stated that he doesn’t know where they would get another 500 parking spaces to meet the requirement.  Based on the proposal they are doing the best they can so he doesn’t have a problem with the request.

Mr. Juergensen stated that he concurs with Mr. Giulitto and doesn’t have a problem with the request.
Mr. Dodson stated that he is concerned about the use of the gym by the public excluding students and staff during normal classroom operations because he thinks that would overload the parking.  If approved he suggests this be made a condition.

Mr. McDonnell stated that he concurs with what everyone has said.  The intent of the parking regulation is to make sure that there is adequate parking for all events and that includes the gym, which is the largest room in the facility.  The request is for 1,945 parking spaces and if they remove the gym seating requirement, which is 575 parking spaces, it gives them 1,370 spaces required so it appears that there may be actually 90 more than the requirement.  Mr. McDonnell stated that he agrees with Mr. Dodson that the only way it works is if the gym isn’t used by anyone other than the schools employees and students during school hours.  Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Shively if there would be any problem if this were a condition.

Mr. Shively stated that it would not be a problem.

Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve appeal #1955 for the parking variance with the restriction that occupancy of the gymnasium other than by students and staff during normal daily classroom hours be excluded not to include night school, and adult education.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Mr. McDonnell stated that the parking variance has been approved with the condition.

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Joni Poindexter
Zoning Inspector