Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Absent: Jim Giulitto
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2044 – Dressler Properties, 4942 Higbee Ave NW, Canton, OH 44718, property owners, request a conditional use permit for a technical college where a conditional use permit is required in area zoned B-1 per Art. IV, Section 411.3 of the zoning resolution. Property location is parcel 1623451, Munson Street, Canton, Section 25NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-1 & B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Scott Fitzpatrick and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. Mr. Deremer stated this is a continuance from the September 14, 2006, meeting. There was no additional documentation submitted into the file since the last meeting.
Mr. Deremer swore in Bryan Ashman, Cooper & Associates, 1359 Market Ave, N. Canton, and Peter Perkowski, President, Brown Mackie College, 1320 W. Maple St, North Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Ashman presented a modified drawing to each board member with a revised landscaping plan, Exhibit #2. The original landscaping plan had two areas that was not landscaped due to a power easement is required by the power company. Ms. Poindexter advised Mr. Ashman this should be handled as a variance. They will be asking for a variance to eliminate this landscaping at the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. An architectural rending of the building was also submitted.
Mr. Ashman stated they would like to resolve the issues from last week. First, he would like to put into record the type of school.
Mr. Perkowski stated they have always been defined as a college, however, at times they are stereo typed a trade school. The best way to describe is they offer academic associate degrees, not occupational or technical degrees. He submitted a catalog of Brown Mackie College into the record. He stated they are considered a college by the State Board of Career Colleges and Schools out of Columbus Ohio.
Mr. McDonnell clarified they are credited.
Mr. Perkowski stated yes.
Mr. Ashman stated the entire building will be leased space by Brown Mackie College. Based on this fact, he is asking Mr. Perkowski how many students will be enrolled at the college.
Mr. Perkowski stated they currently have 975 students in their 25,000 sq. ft. North Canton building. They are forecasting in the next 5 years, the maximum growth potential should be no more then 1500 students. They will move all the students from the North Canton location to the Jackson Township location.
Mr. Ashman stated the site plan is showing 416 parking spaces. The zoning regulations require 1 parking space for every 5 students. Zoning would only require 300 parking spaces. They could have 2,000 students with amount of parking spaces they will have, however, they are not expecting that amount of growth.
Mr. Perkowski stated the current hours of operation are Monday thru Thursday, 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Classes begin at 9:00 am and end at 10:00. The hours may change but still will not go later than 10:00 p.m. They may add Saturday classes in the future.
Mr. Ashman stated the proposed lighting has not been designed for the project. The lighting that will be designed will be post mounted lights with down directional lighting, properly screened to not cause any obtrusion to any surrounding neighbors. They will be designed by a lighting specialist. He also wanted to reemphasis they are providing a 4 ft. high landscaped mound that will be landscaped with a barrier that will be 8-9 ft. high around the entire property that is adjacent to rural residential properties.
Ms. Mary Sharp, her property adjoins to the south of this site. She stated she has the right of way to go through the property to the south to get to Munson Road. She presented documentation from her mother when she sold the property.
Mr. Deremer marked as opposition Exhibit #1. There are 3 sheets of 8 1/2 x 11.
Mr. David Sharp, wanted to clarify the position of his mother. He does not feel they are in opposition of the appeal. He stated they established the right of way with Cooper & Associates. They are for positive community development. There are some wetland issues that need addressed. He also feels safety issues are important for college students. There needs to be some good planning.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the right of way is a deed restriction or contractile agreement between two people. The board does not have the authority to release from or enforce deed restrictions. This is between the two parties involved and the courts need to resolve this. The wetland issue is governed by federal and state government. The board has no authority to reduce the restriction. If there is an issue with wetlands, the enforcement agency would be the county or state.
Mr. William Pollard, 4029 Belair St NW, spoke in opposition of the appeal. His concern is the college is a multi unit with 70 plus sites. Is this particular site a trade school or a technical school and what type of degree is received at this site? His other concern is last week they needed an emergency meeting because they had to order steel the next day. He now sees they are scheduled to go before the board on October 12 for a variance for the height of the building. He doesn’t feel they could order steel when they do not know how tall the building will be. He is hoping everything else they have stated is the truth.
Mr. Richard Reicosky, 4220 Reicosky Lane, spoke in opposition of the appeal. This building is 50,000 square feet. He is concerned if the land is capable to hold the weight. He is also concerned with the drainage onto his property. He would like to know who is responsible to make sure this will not happen. If they approve this and there are issues down the road, he would like to know if the contractor is responsible or the college.
Mr. Deremer stated all of this is incorporated into the conditional use permit. The board has the ability to add conditions on to the permit if approved. If they do not comply, the board has the right to revoke the permit.
Mr. Ashman stated there are soil concerns with the northeast and southwest corner of the property. They have retained soil consultants and they have determined this site is suitable for what they are proposing to do. The soil consultants will make recommendations to the developer for the foundation of the building and the parking lot. Their intention is to resolve all concerns and not cause a negative impact to surrounding properties. He feels Mr. Reicosky should see a decrease in water on his property. Their storm system will actually be taking some of the water from Mr. Reicosky’s property and diverting it into their storm sewer system. He stated they have not designed the storm sewer system as of yet. They are asking for the conditional use permit first.
Mr. Deremer clarified they need to go to Stark County Regional Planning for their approval.
Mr. Ashman stated the site plan will be submitted to Stark County Regional Planning. The Stark County Subdivision Engineer will review the drainage plans. They will verify they are meeting all of the requirements.
Mr. Perkowski stated over 90% of the students will graduate with associates degrees.
Mr. Ashman responded to the concern of the Sharp family. He is not aware of the drive easement or driveway. He will review the deed and discuss with Scott Fitzpatrick. He also stated there were wetlands on this property but they have been mitigated. They received approval from Ohio EPA to remove the wetlands. He stated they want to design a safe site. They will try and get a design that is acceptable with GE Finance to construct the access drive from Brown Mackie facility in a way they will not be able to turn into the GE Finance parking lot. He stated he feels they are addressing all of the issues that were presented.
Mr. Juergensen asked the average age of the students at the college.
Mr. Perkowski stated the average age is 26-27 years of age.
Mr. Juergensen asked if they would ever have alcohol on the premises, for example, at a graduation party, etc.
Mr. Perkowski stated no, there will not be alcohol on the premises.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the soil consultant have already tested the soil.
Mr. Ashman stated yes, they have already tested the soil. They take samples and send a report to the developer of what type of foundation is needed. They will also give recommendation for a stable parking lot.
Mr. McDonnell asked if the soil consultants do a study of the impact on surrounding properties.
Mr. Ashman stated no they do not. They try and provide guidelines for the design engineer to design the parking lot in a way that will not promote problems with the adjacent property owners. They provide recommendations for movement of the soil. If they would design drainage from this site incorrectly the sub division engineer would stop this. The soil water consultants do not address ground water and surface water issues.
Mr. McDonnell clarified it is Cooper and Associates responsibility to design this facility so there is no increase in storm or surface water drainage onto adjacent properties.
Mr. Ashman stated that is correct conditional that the developer hires Cooper & Associates as the design engineer for the site. They are the representative for the appeal and their understanding is they will be hired to do this, but not official as of yet.
Mr. McDonnell asked once the soil consultants makes their recommendations to the developer concerning water drainage issues, who makes the ultimate decision these recommendations will be followed.
Mr. Ashman stated his understanding is it is a joint decision between the developer and the design engineer for the site. If they are the design engineer, Cooper & Associates would be responsible for the site and Dressler Properties Inc. would be responsible for building.
Mr. McDonnell asked who owns the private drive or access drive on the west of the property.
Mr. Ashman stated it is owned by Dressler Properties.
Mr. McDonnell asked who maintains that drive.
Mr. Ashman stated his understanding is Dressler Properties maintains this drive.
Mr. McDonnell asked if he reviewed the memo from Chief Heck.
Mr. Ashman stated he has reviewed the memo. Chief Heck wants to make sure access onto Munson Street is in not limited and they can get emergency vehicles through. He also stated there should be 24 ft. between parking isles. He stated he will meet with Chief Heck and comply with all his requests.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen stated last week he had concerns if there was sufficient parking on the site, could not determine if a trade or technical school, number of students, hours of operation, and the lighting on the building. He feels these questions have been answered. He feels the board should add a condition to limit the hours of operation as testified. He stated it appears all criteria have been met and he would be in favor of granting the conditional use permit
Mr. Deremer stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen. The applicant has addressed the issues that were not apparent last week. There will also be other agencies looking at this site plan. Stark County will review the drainage plans. He stated from the testimony he has heard at this meeting and last meeting he believes they have met the criteria for the conditional use permit. He also stated the board will add some additional conditions to the permit.
Mr. McDonnell stated he agrees with Mr. Juergensen and Mr. Deremer. Exhibit 3 is the site plan they are basing their decision on. His only concern is Mr. Ashman is testifying, unfortunately he may not be the one designing the site or making the ultimate decisions. The ultimate decision is the developer. He is concerned if the board can hold the developer responsible for Mr. Ashman’s testimony, unless the developer states he is authorizing Mr. Ashman to make the decisions. He would like to see the developer and owner present at the meeting. He would like to add the following conditions to ensure the developer will meet: will meet fire dept. request from memo dated 9/13/06, surface drainage and soil displacement shall not adversely impact adjacent property owners or property.
Mr. Dodson stated he would also like to add the restriction on the west exit drive to deter left hand turn onto private drive currently leased by GE Capital and limit the hours of operation to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm on Monday thru Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Juergensen stated it is his opinion that Mr. Ashman’s has the ability to bind Dressler Property Inc. He is Dressler Property Inc. representative for the appeal.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve with the following conditions: will meet fire dept. request from memo dated 9/13/06, surface drainage and soil displacement shall not adversely impact adjacent property owners or property, construct west exit drive to deter left hand turn onto private drive, and limit hours of operation to 8:00 am to 10:00 pm on Monday thru Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Friday and Saturday.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes,
Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of May 25, 2006. All members were present except for Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Juergensen. Mr. Giulitto recused himself for Appeal #2032 only.
Mr. Dodson made a motion to approve the minutes from May 25, 2006 meeting as written.
Mr. Oldroyd seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of June 22, 2006. All members were present except for Mr. Dodson and Mr. Oldroyd.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve the minutes from June 22, 2006, meeting as written.
Mr. McDonnell seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of July 13, 2006. All members were present except for Mr. Juergensen.
Mr. McDonnell made reference to page #5. The last sentence should read all were in favor not all was in favor.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 13, 2006 meeting with correction to page 5.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer asked for a motion for adjournment.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion for adjournment. All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator