Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Eric Oldroyd
Member absent: Jim Giulitto
Zoning Inspector:
Joni Poindexter
Zoning Coordinator:
Lori Foutz
APPEAL #1998 – FirstMerit Corporation, 106 S. Main St, Floor 20, Akron, OH 44303, and T.C. Architects Incorp. 1650 W. Market Street, Akron, OH 44313, applicants for Albrecht Incorporated, property owner, 17 S. Main St, Suite 401, Akron, OH 44309, requests a variance for a 20 ft. front building setback where a 50 ft. is required and a zero parking and landscaping setback where a 20 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.5 & 411.8 of the zoning resolution. Property location is 2905 Whipple Ave NW, Sect. 36NE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Robert Chordar, and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained an overhead view of the parcel and adjoining parcels. There is a memo from Chief Ted Heck, Jackson Township Fire Department, to Lori Foutz, Jackson Township Zoning Coordinator, stating that he reviewed the site map and the fire lanes appear to be fine. The file also contained a proposed site, landscaping, and restaurant plan.
Mr. Deremer swore in Bob Chordar, T.C. Architects, 1650 W. Market St, Akron OH 44313 and Fred Hawk, Project Manager, FirstMerit Bank, 106 S. Main St, Akron, OH 44308 as representatives for the appeal.
Mr. Chordar referred to the site map that is on file and he reviewed the overall layout of the buildings adjacent to the new structure. Mr. Chordar stated that FirstMerit will lease the front portion of the property from Albrecht Incorporated. The new facility will line up with the current drive and entrance that is already on the property. The new facility will be 3250 square feet with 4 drive thru lanes. The first lane will have a night depository and ATM machine. Stacking within the site meets the current zoning. They need a variance on the front yard for car stacking, and to increase the area so customers have a better view when driving out of the parking area.
Mr. Hawk stated that they have an agreement with Albrecht Incorporated, with an understanding they would have constrictions to work around. They have three boundaries to fit the branch into. They needed to maintain the property line and entrance along Whipple Road. Albrecht Incorporated was also very interested in preserving the cross lane. They thought about rotating the building counter clockwise, however, the customers using the drive thru lanes would conflict with walk in traffic. At one time they considered sliding the building further back on the lot, however, that would alter the view of their customers leaving the parking lot. They wanted their customers to see any on coming traffic. They feel this is the best site for the new building.
Mr. Deremer asked if this is a new parcel.
Mr. Chordar stated it is currently all parking lot. He referred the board to the restaurant drawing they had in front of them. This drawing shows all of the parking counts for the entire facility. Mr. Chordar stated that the parking is well within the zoning guidelines.
Mr. Hawk stated that these leased lines were developed for their parcel. This is a leased out lot so not creating separate parcels on separate property lines.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Poindexter is they needed a variance for the side setback.
Ms. Poindexter answered that they do not. They are not changing any parking on the left side. In the case of shared parking they could submit a cross access agreement.
Mr. Deremer asked Ms. Poindexter if they need a variance in the back.
Ms. Poindexter answered that they do not.
Mr. Dodson clarified with Ms. Poindexter the reason they do not need a variance on the left side is due to it is not a separate parcel.
Ms. Poindexter stated that is correct.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Hawk or Mr. Chordar to explain to the board why they need the front yard setback. The front yard is the portion facing Whipple Road, and the front door is facing south.
Mr. Hawk stated that they believe this
building dimension is fixed, as is the dimension off of the drive up.
They need this size building for their business. When they worked
back from the lease line and allowed the 20 ft. this size building exceeded
the setback.
Mr. Chordar stated that it also created
a problem of cars stacking up in the parking lot, and conflicts with the
drive thru traffic.
Mr. Hawk stated that when they did consider the site plan, they took the building counter clockwise 90 degrees. This overall dimension still did not meet the setback due to the canopy over the area facing Whipple.
Mr. Mc Donnell asked how much closer to Whipple is the new structure than the current building they are in now.
Mr. Hawk stated that he does not have the exact dimensions. It is their understanding that it will be the same distance. On the aerial map it also appears to be the same distance.
Mr. McDonnell asked if that parcel is elevated.
Mr. Hawk stated that yes it is elevated about 5 feet above Whipple Road.
Mr. Deremer asked if there would be a drive up window for the teller.
Mr. Hawk answered that yes it will be under the canopy.
Mr. McDonnell asked them to explain again why rotating the building so it would be length wise down the length of the lot will not work.
Mr. Hawk stated that since there is a canopy on the building they would still need the variance. It also would affect the customers using the drive up windows because they would be stacking up in the parking area. They would need to put in an island to define the drive up area. If they put in an island, the customers would drive into a dead end parking area. Customers would be pulling into the lot as other customers may be backing up. They have had this happen in other branches and customers tend to stop outside of the parking lot. Therefore, by turning the building created a conflict off of the site and potentially on the site. That is why they feel this is the best possible layout for this building.
Mr. Deremer asked if the west side would remain parking.
Mr. Hawk stated that yes, to their knowledge that area would remain parking.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed the meeting to public input and deliberated among the board members.
Mr. Oldroyd asked for clarification that the only setbacks they are asking for would be the front setback off of Whipple.
Mr. Deremer stated that is correct.
Mr. McDonnell stated that the board needs to find a practical difficulty that is related to the property or building. In Section 803.5 B. Whether special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure involved. Examples of such special conditions or circumstances are: exceptional irregularity, narrowness, shallowness or steepness of the lot. It appears the applicant is moving to a narrower lot. Due to the nature of the business, the need is there to add additional drive thru windows. Stacking on the east side of the building will work for their business. He does not think the spirit or intent of the regulation will be injured by granting the variance. He does not have a problem granting the variance for the east side, and the other side is a mute point.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees with Mr. McDonnell.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to divide the question for appeal #1998 into two separate questions. The first one would be for the 20 ft. front yard setback. The second would be for zero parking and landscaping setback.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1998A, for the 20 ft. front yard setback where 50 ft. is required.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. McDonnell made a motion to approve appeal #1998B, on the east side, for a zero parking & landscaping setback.
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 advised Mr. Chordar and Mr. Hawk that their variance has been approved with a slight modification to the request. They are approved for the east side which is the only side they need.
APPEAL #1999 – Adrey Schley, 8600 HighMill Ave NW, Canal Fulton, OH 44614 applicant for Aaron & Adrey Schley and William & Debara Riley, property owners, 8600 HighMill Ave NW, Canal Fulton, OH 44614 requests a variance for a 24x26 detached accessory building in front side yard where only permitted in a side or rear yard per Art. IV Sect. 401.11 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 8600 HighMill Ave NW, Sect. 6 NW Jackson Twp. Area zoned R-R.
Mr. Deremer read the file application signed by Adrey Schley, with reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained a site plan with the proposed building, an aerial view of the parcel and adjacent parcels. The file also contained color photos of the property, marked as Exhibit 1, 2, & 3. An advertisement from Carter Lumber showing the type of building they want to erect.
Mr. Deremer swore in Adrey Schley, 8600 HighMill Ave, NW, Canal Fulton 44614, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Ms. Schley stated that they are adding a garage in a 100 year house that they just recently remodeled and brought up to standard. They just finished added siding to the home. They have a long lot with a long driveway in the front of their home. Where the house is situated, to the north end, they have 35 feet to the property line. They would be in violation if they put the building on that end. They have limited access to the rear of the home due to a 100 year old tree standing where the building would be located. The other side of the home also has trees and ravine. Their backyard is about 20 feet deep and then drops to a ravine and wetland. They feel the only practical place to put the building is in the front and side. It will not be blocking the front of the house in this location, it will be off to the side.
Mr. Deremer asked if the advertisement from Carter Lumber is the type of structure they are planning on putting up.
Ms. Schley stated that it will be the same type of siding that is in the picture and it will match their house. It will be a pole building construction.
Mr. Deremer asked the size of building.
Ms. Schley answered 24x26 is the size.
Mr. Deremer asked based on the position of your house that you feel this is the best place to put it.
Ms. Schley stated that yes. They can not get to the back of their house to put the structure. Even if they could get to their back yard, they do not have enough room in the back yard to put the building. The only other spot would be right in front of the house and it would block the windows.
Mr. Deremer asked if they gave thought to attaching the structure to their home.
Ms. Schley stated that yes they did consider attaching the structure, however, it would block the windows in the living room of the house. It would be like living in a cave.
Mr. Deremer said it looks like the driveway continues past her property.
Ms. Schley stated that yes it does, it continues to a barn, the next house over. That house is owned by her parents William and Debara Riley.
Mr. Dodson asked if she had any photos showing the ravine.
Mr. Schley stated that yes she does. She added additional pictures to the file for review of the board.
Mr. Deremer marked the additional pictures as Exhibit 4 - front of house with tree and drop off, Exhibit 5 – area south of house, Exhibit 6 - back left of the house.
Mr. Deremer asked it the parcel was auctioned off at one time.
Ms. Schley stated that yes it used to be 60 acres.
Mr. Deremer asked, for the record, how many square feet the structure will be.
Ms. Schley stated that it is 624 and it will be the required 15 feet from the house.
Mr. McDonnell asked if she could share with the board why they can’t remove the tree on the right side of the house and move the garage back to make it even with the house.
Ms. Schley stated that the tree has been there about 150 years and she will not remove the tree. It also provides all the shade to her house, and she has no air conditioning so that is another practical reason. Their property is full of huge black walnut and maple oak trees that have been there much longer than they have. She feels they should work around what God gave them.
Mr. McDonnell questioned the front left in the picture marked Exhibit 5. He asked if what she is calling her left is standing on the porch looking out to the street?
Ms. Schley stated that no, she marked the pictures incorrectly. She changed the markings on the pictures to reflect the correct sides.
Mr. Deremer asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak in favor of the appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in William Riley, 8600 High Mill Ave NW, Canal Fulton. He is the adjoining parcel and he lives in the barn. The driveway is a shared driveway for both parcels. It is also an easement to the gas company to get to the parcel behind them where there is a gas storage well. He is in favor of this because it is the only ideal location to put the garage. At this location it would sit back in between the trees and would not be quite so visible from the road. It also would not obstruct the view from the house to the road.
No one else in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the appeal. The meeting was closed for public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Deremer stated that he agrees that a tree over 150 years old should not be cut down. He feels the testimony reflects that they are restricted by a well and property line on the north side. Access is restricted south, rear of home, due to septic system and large trees. He feels the practical difficulty has been met.
Mr. Dodson stated, for the record, he agrees with Mr. Deremer.
Mr. McDonnell stated that he also agrees. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties. He also feels the essential character of the neighborhood will not be substantially altered.
Mr. Oldroyd made a motion to approve appeal #1999 as requested.
Mr. Juergensen seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes, Mr. Dodson-yes, Mr. McDonnell-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
Mr. Deremer advised Ms. Schley that their request has been approved.
Mr. Deremer asked if there were any comments or a motion on the minutes from the meeting of August 25, 2005.
Mr. Juergensen stated that his name is misspelled several times throughout the document
Mr. McDonnell stated that it is his recollection that they amended the approval on appeal #1995. The motion in the minutes reads that it was approved as requested. The appeal was amended to ensure the rear of the pool would start no further than 30 feet from the gas line.
Ms. Poindexter stated that they will refer back to the tape for that meeting and correct the minutes under that appeal. They will also correct any misspelled names in the minutes. The minutes will be resubmitted at the next meeting.
Mr. Deremer stated that approval will be held until minutes are corrected and resubmitted.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator