Members present:
Ted Deremer
Edward McDonnell
Richard Dodson
John Juergensen
Alternate member:
Eric Oldroyd
Absent: Jim Giulitto
Zoning Coordinator: Lori Foutz
APPEAL #2043 – Mike Pastis, PO Box 476, Bath, OH 44210, property owner, Another Look, 5410 Fulton Dr NW, Canton, OH 44718, and Traynor’s Police Academy, 5396 Fulton Drive, NW, Canton, OH 44718, applicants, request a variance for a permanent wall sign for Another Look and Traynor’s Police Academy to extend 6” above the roof line where a sign is not permitted to extend above the upper edge of a roof line per Art. V, Section 501.5(F) of the zoning resolution. Property located at 5410 & 5396 Fulton Dr, NW, Canton, Section 23SE Jackson Twp. Area zoned B-3.
Mr. Deremer read the application signed by Sue Knisley and the reason for the appeal as listed in the file. The file contained colored photos of both signs. Also in the file was an aerial view map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. McDonnell recused himself from this appeal.
Mr. Deremer swore in Sue Knisley, 6284 Sandava Ave, Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal. Ms. Knisley is the owner of Another Look Consignment shop.
Ms. Knisley stated she is a tenant in the shopping center that is owned by Mike Pastis. She is representing Another Look and Traynor’s Police Academy for the sign violation. The existing signs have been in compliance for 10 years. The owner remodeled the building this past year. When the signs were reinstalled they were found to be 6 inches above the roof line. Her practical difficulty is to replace her sign it will cost her $3,460. This plaza sits back from Fulton Road. She is on the far left side of the property. She needs the larger sign for visability. In the future if she changes her sign, she would stay in compliance with the regulation. Ms. Knisley presented to the board a quote of the cost of a new sign.
Mr. Deremer marked as Exhibit #1.
Mr. Deremer asked if these are the only two signs that sit above the roof line.
Ms. Knisley stated yes.
Mr. Deremer asked what they changed on the building.
Ms. Knisley stated they changed the awning that is below the signs. When Adam Signs came out to give her a quote, she was informed the signs could not be lowered.
Mr. Deremer asked the size of her sign.
Ms. Knisley stated it is 4 x 12 feet.
Mr. Dodson asked how long the sign was down during the remodeling.
Ms. Knisley stated approximately one month.
Mr. Oldroyd asked if she was informed of the design before the remodeling was started.
Ms. Knisley stated she had no idea what they were going to do. She also stated her signage is very important to her. Her location in the plaza is behind Huntington Bank and the visibility is not good. She needs a large sign to bring in business. She has had this sign for 10 years.
Mr. Deremer asked if there is a pole sign for the plaza.
Ms. Knisley stated there is a pole sign that has been there for 40 years. It needs to be redesigned. The sign is too high; needs to be eye level.
No one in the audience spoke in favor or opposition of the application. The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Dodson stated he feels it is a minimal variance. The sign was not originally in violation, and he does not have a problem approving the variance.
Mr. Oldroyd stated he concurs with Mr. Dodson. This appears to be no fault of the applicant. He would also have no problem approving the variance.
Mr. Deremer stated he agrees with Mr. Dodson and Mr. Oldroyd. This is a minimal variance and it was out of the applicants hands.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion to approve appeal 2043.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion.
The vote was: Mr. Oldroyd-yes, Mr. Juergensen-yes,
Mr. Dodson-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes.
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. The file contained responses to the conditional use questions from the zoning resolution book, copy of an email dated 9/13/06, from Chief Heck with requirements from the fire department, a memo from Joni Poindexter to BZA, and a full set of drawings. Also in the file was an aerial view map of the parcel and adjoining parcels.
Mr. Deremer swore in Bryan Ashman, Architect, Cooper & Associates, 1359 Market Ave, N. Canton, and Scott Fitzpatrick, 4942 Higbee Ave, Canton, to speak on behalf of the appeal.
Mr. Ashman stated he has an adjustment to the site plan that is in file. He presented each board member with a new drawing. He stated a portion of the parking lot has been eliminated; bottom left of the site plan. The original plan shows 500 parking spaces. He was informed by Brown Mackie College they need 400 parking spaces and the new site plan reflects 416 parking spaces. The remainder of the site has not changed except for the landscaping for the portion of the parking spaces changed. The building is 3 stories and consists of 50,000 square feet. The property to the east, south, and west is surrounded by rural residential. The private access drive is a means to the GE Capital building. They have 2 points of ingress and egress, one being off of Munson Street and the second is the private drive. The northeast corner of the site shows the storm water management and water quality treatment that is required by Stark County Subdivision Engineers. All drainage will be directed to this basin; maintained, treated, and discharged to a storm system that is located east of the private access drive and into a storm sewer that crosses Munson Street. They presented the proposed landscaping plan and green space area. The green space in front of the property is 5.08% and in the rear is 5.34%. The entire site has 5.2% open/green space and the minimal required is 5%. All parking spaces are 9x18 ft. except for the handicap spaces. They will work with Chief Heck to meet the fire department requirements.
Mr. McDonnell asked Mr. Ashman who specifically he is representing.
Mr. Ashman stated he is representing Dressler Properties Inc.
Mr. McDonnell asked what type of college a technical college is?
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated the name of the college is Brown Mackie College. It is a technical college; there are 70 colleges across the United States. There is currently a branch on Market Avenue in Canton. They teach basic life skills.
Mr. McDonnell asked how many students the college is planning on having.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated he has 400 spaces, therefore, approximately up to 800 students.
Mr. Ashman stated the technical school is based upon 1 space for every 5 students. The 400 parking spaces would allow them up to 2,000 students. He is not aware of the exact count.
Mr. McDonnell stated that is correct if it is a technical college. If it is a business and trade school the requirement is 1 parking space for every 2 seats in the classroom. He is not sure what type of college this is classified as.
Mr. Ashman stated he is aware of the parking requirement. He is not aware of or prepared to give number of students or seats. He would like to give this information to the zoning inspector at a later date. If they find out they need more parking spaces they will make another submission to the board.
Mr. McDonnell asked what type of certificate a student receives upon completion.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated he does not know.
Mr. McDonnell stated this may help determine what type of college, either a technical or a trade school.
Mr. Ashman stated he will get the information and provide it to the zoning inspector.
Mr. McDonnell read through the general criteria for all conditional use permits in Section 431.2 and Mr. Ashman and/or Mr. Fitzpatrick responded.
A. Will not be detrimental to property values in the immediate vicinity. RESPONSE: Yes.
B. Will not restrict or adversely affect the existing use of the adjacent property owners. RESPONSE: Yes.
C. Will be designed and constructed so that all access drives, access points to public streets, driveways, parking and service areas shall meet the approval of the Township Trustees, or count or state agencies where applicable. RESPONSE: Yes.
D. Will meet all requirements for EPA for storm water runoff, when applicable. RESPONSE: Yes.
E. Will be property landscaped according to Section 411.9 where applicable pursuant to Chapter 411 or when specified as a condition for approval. RESPONSE: Plan has been prepared. Zoning will need to approve before permit is given.
F. Will be constructed and maintained in a neat, orderly and safe condition. RESPONSE: Yes.
Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.3 for specific standards for conditional uses and read through the criteria that pertained to their request under paragraph C., specific development standards:
1. The Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation to ensure that the conditional use is compatible with the surrounding uses. RESPONSE: Mr. Ashman stated he does not know the exact hours. He imagines it will be like Stark State, however, he will get information and provide to the zoning inspector.
2. For parcels of one or more acres, all points of vehicular entrance or exit shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the intersection of two arterial streets, or 50 feet from the intersection of an arterial street and a local or collector street. RESPONSE: It is 270 ft. from Higbee Avenue to Munson. The next closest intersection is to the east.
3. No lighting shall constitute a nuisance
or in no way shall impair safe movement of traffic on any street or highway.
All outside lighting shall be shielded from adjacent properties.
RESPONSE: The lighting is pole lighting and is directed downward.
Not certain of the bulbs. The location has not been designed and
not on site plan. They will make sure not a nuisance and shielded
from adjacent properties.
4. Floodlights, searchlights, loudspeakers
or similar structures shall not be erected or used in any manner that will
cause hazards or annoyance to the public generally or to the occupants
of adjacent property. RESPONSE: Not aware of floodlights or
loudspeakers.
5. All trash receptacles shall be adequately screened. RESPONSE: They are located at the southeast corner and will be enclosed by a wall.
6. Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be prepared by a registered engineer and reviewed or approved by the Stark County Subdivision Engineer. RESPONSE: Not as of yet. They will be prepared by Bryan Ashman’s office and will be approved.
Mr. McDonnell referred to Section 431.6 (E) of supplemental regulations for certain uses. He reviewed the specific conditions, standards, and regulations for colleges and universities. They shall comply with the following:
1. Vehicular approaches to the property shall be designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets or roads. RESPONSE: Yes.
2. Such development should be located on arterial streets or at intersections of arterial and/or collector streets. RESPONSE: Not applicable.
3. Related facilities such as, but not limited to dormitories, student union halls, athletic facilities, shall be located on the same lot as the college or university. RESPONSE: Does not apply.
4. A ten foot buffer yard shall be provided
around the perimeter of the property where it abuts R-R, R-1, R-1A, or
R-2 Districts. The buffer yard plan shall comply with Section 411.9D
of these regulations and shall be implemented within one year of the completion
of each building or phase of development. A building phase or parking
area shall be considered complete the day it is first used for the purposes
intended. Changes thereto shall be approved by the zoning inspector
prior to completion. RESPONSE: Yes, will comply.
5. Accessory uses shall be limited to
those directly related to the conditional use permit so granted.
RESPONSE: He is not aware of any, but will check on.
Mr. Ashman stated the private access drive was constructed for a second access for GE Capital to get into the proposed intersection of Munson and Higbee Avenue. It was intended and hoped there will be a traffic light installed at this intersection. It currently does not meet the state warrants to install a traffic light. This has been discussed with Jackson’s Road Supervisor and there are no plans of installing a light. With continue growth, they are hoping this will warrant a traffic light. The access drive is owned by Dressler Properties Inc. An agreement was granted to GE Capital to allow them to use this driveway. GE leases the building and Mr. Fitzpatrick owns the property.
Mr. Nick Sandru, 4500 Munson Street, spoke in opposition of the application. He is the Facilities Manager, for GE Consumer Finance and will be representing them. Mr. Sandru stated they have four concerns. First, they are concerned about public safety. There is no light at the intersection of Higbee and Munson Avenue. For improved traffic flow they are asking Jackson Township to install a traffic light at this intersection. He stated he has old documents dated back to 1999, from Ohio Department of Development, stating that Jackson Township will extend Higbee Avenue to Munson Street and provide a traffic signal at a cost of $740,000. Mr. Ralph Boger, Jackson Township Highway Dept, requested of the Stark County Engineer, a traffic signal study be done at the intersection of Higbee and Munson. Mr. Mike Rehfus responded that a study would be done at a later date when the intersection is open to traffic to determine the correct counts. Since Munson and Higbee Avenues are both township roads any costs for a signal would be the townships responsibility. Their second point is for the safety of GE employees and for the maintenance of the property they pay for. They are requesting the access drive be designed to prevent cars from turning left back into GE parking lot they maintain. They maintain this lot by snow removal and striping. They are concerned that students will take a left onto GE property to exit onto Munson and cause one tremendous traffic problem. The third request is the appellant comply with zoning regulations in regards to landscaping and provide shade trees along the street frontage. The last concern is they are concerned there may not be adequate parking spaces provided at the school. If this is the case the students may try and park in the GE parking lot and the access drive. They are concerned about safety issues. He stated they are not opposed to the college and he feels the college would be a beautiful improvement for Jackson Township. He feels the four concerns and requests they have are reasonable.
Mr. McDonnell asked if GE employees use the private access drive to enter and exit.
Mr. Sandru stated yes they do. GE works from 7:00 am to 12:00 midnight during the week. The peak hours are 7:30 a.m., noon, and 4:30 p.m.
Mr. William Pollard, owner of the property at 4029 Belair Avenue NW, spoke in opposition of the appeal. He is concerned about safety issues with this new college. It possibly could affect the homes behind this building with transient people in the area. Generally the types of business in a B-1 district do not have night time hours, and this college may be having night classes. He is also asking they move the trash receptacles toward the business side of the property, since they tend to empty these receptacles very early in the morning. He stated the applicant could not answer the questions concerning type of lighting. He feels lighting on a 3 story building will be difficult to keep away from adjacent property owners.
Mr. Richard Reicosky, 4220 Reicosky Lane NW, stated he is concerned about flooding on his land. Since they constructed the GE building he has not been able to mow his field due to water drainage on his property. His concern is once this new building and parking lot is constructed the weight on the land will cause the water problem to be worse. The water flows north. He is requesting they check out the weight of this new construction and ensure the drainage runs properly and does not affect his property.
Mr. Ashman spoke in response. He addressed Mr. Reicosky’s concern first. His client has retained a consultant service for soil testing. Over the last two months, they evaluated the soil and determined the site will support the building and parking lot. The drainage concerns are not associated with this site. After this property is developed, the drainage problem should be reduced from Mr. Reicosky’s property. The water that runs along this site will be intercepted and taken into the storm system. A lot of drainage will still come on Mr. Reicosky’s property but not from this site. He then addressed Mr. Pollards concerns. He stated even if a B-1 office building would go in, they would still have a lighted parking lot. The intention of the zoning regulation is to make certain the lighting is not obtrusive to the neighbors. They will prepare a system of lighting that will not be obtrusive. He stated he can not control transients coming on to the property; however he does not anticipate this being a problem. They will have landscaping mounds surrounding the residential property. He does not feel a fence is required. The trash dumpsters are proposed to be across from the B-1 zoned area, not the residential district. He stated Mr. Sandru has very valid concerns; however, the traffic light has to meet state warrants. The township can not put in a light unless it meets the state warrants. The developer does not have control over this. He does not feel it is an unreasonable demand asking to restrict cars to a right only turn into the access drive. They will meet the landscaping regulations as testified.
Mr. Deremer questioned the site plan with the two areas that do not have landscaping.
Mr. Ashman stated there is a transmission line that runs in these areas. They have to allow access for the power company and can not put in landscaping in that area.
Mr. Juergensen clarified they do not know how many students enrolled in the college, therefore, they do not know how many parking spaces are needed. They also do not know the hours of operation. They are unsure about lighting.
Mr. Ashman stated that is correct. He is asking to defer this to the zoning inspector. He has stated in his response they will meet with the requirement of Jackson Township. He does not know enough about Brown Mackie College. The college made the determination they needed 400 parking spaces.
Mr. McDonnell clarified the landscaping plan will meet Section 411.9 of the zoning resolution. He asked if the plan they submitted is what they plan to do. This plan is what the zoning inspector based her comments on after her review.
Mr. Ashman stated this is what they propose as their landscaping plan. He understands this is what they are approving.
Mr. McDonnell stated for the record the Board of Zoning Appeals may limit the hours of operation, not the zoning inspector.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated he had a comment regarding the hours of operation. The hours of operation could be till midnight with an office building. He stated he doubts a college will hold hours later than that.
The meeting was closed to public input and the board deliberated.
Mr. Juergensen stated traditionally if all criteria is met the board approves the conditional use. He has concerns with the lack of information to specific questions asked. He has issues they do not know how many students, how many parking spaces will be needed, the hours of operation, and what type of lighting will be on the building. He is not comfortable the applicant can testify the lighting will not be a nuisance to surrounding properties, when they do not know what type of lighting will be on the building. He would like answers to these questions, before he approves this conditional use permit.
Mr. McDonnell stated he concurs with Mr. Juergensen. He feels they do not even have a starting point as far as the hours of operation. They are not even sure what type of facility this is. Is it a technical or trade college, which dictates the amount of parking. They do not know for sure about accessory activities. He stated the applicant does not know, and they need these questions answered from the tenant. He is also not comfortable in making a decision on this tonight.
Mr. Juergensen stated he would like to continue this meeting to another date to give the applicant time to get these answers.
Mr. Dodson asked if they have to get approval from the applicant to continue the meeting.
Mr. Deremer asked if they would be opposed if they continued the meeting. The next meeting date is October 12, 2006.
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated he needs to order steel tomorrow and does not want to continue the meeting for October 12.
Mr. Deremer informed Mr. Fitzpatrick that ordering steel is really not the boards’ problem. The board needs to determine if they meet the criteria for the conditional use permit.
Mr. Ashman stated he feels the zoning inspector could enforce that the regulations are met.
Mr. Deremer informed Mr. Ashman it is up to the Board of Zoning Appeals Board to ensure they meet the criteria. That is why they are asking them to continue the meeting versus the board making a decision at this meeting with the information supplied.
Mr. Juergensen stated he would feel irresponsible allowing this conditional use to go through without the questions answered. If the applicant wants to proceed, they can vote on it tonight.
Mr. McDonnell stated referred to section 802.3 of the zoning resolution. It states the BZA may recess or continue such hearing without the applicant’s approval. He wanted to make it clear that it is the not applicants decision if they continue, it is the boards decision. He suggests they continue the meeting. He also stated he wants testimony to what this specific facility on Munson will be doing. He will not accept a statement read off the internet concerning Brown Mackie College.
Mr. Ashman requested an emergency meeting for one week.
Mr. Deremer asked the board members if they would be available to attend a meeting on September 21, 2006. He stated the meeting will be continued on September 21, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Deremer made a motion to continue the hearing.
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 stated since they are continuing the meeting they will not need to re-advertise.
Mr. Juergensen made a motion for adjournment.
Mr. Dodson seconded the motion. All was in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Lori Foutz
Zoning Coordinator