JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Thursday, October 14, 2010 MINUTES

JACKSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Thursday, October 14, 2010 MINUTES Members present: Alternate Zoning Inspector: Absent Member: Ted Deremer Jim Giulitto Gary Zillich Philip Kirkbride Leon Vitale Joni Poindexter Edward McDonnell 6:30 pm #2165 Archer Sign, 1917 Henry Ave SW, Canton, Ohio 44705 agent for Whipple- Dressler LLC, property owner, 2555-34 th St. NE, Canton, Ohio 44705 requests a variance for a zero ft. setback for freestanding sign from road right of way where 5 ft. is required per Art. V Sect. 501.5G of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6141 Whipple NW, Sect. 13NE Jackson Twp. zoned I-1. Mr. Deremer read the file application, reason for the appeal, and contents of the file. Mr. Deremer swore in Dan Griffith, senior Trust Officer for the Bank and Trust and Lou Altman, landlord for property. Mr. Griffith stated that they have been through a big construction project but a big piece of the process is the location of the sign. The drawing shows that they do not meet the 5 ft. setback due to the fact that there was an expansion related to the Whipple-Dressler intersection. Although there is a zero setback the sign is quite a substantial distance from the roadway. Mr. Griffith stated that there would not be an issue with blocking any visuals from the right of way. The sign itself is up the hill quite a bit. The hardship is because there was an expansion of the parking lot for emergency vehicles to get around the building and they can t go back any further because of that expansion. Mr. Griffith stated with the zero setback, there will be no essential harm to the public. Mr. Griffith present photos to the board. Exhibit #1 showed that the sign is not an issue because it is above the minivan as shown in the photo. Exhibit #2 is the same thing and shows the sign is away from the road so it is not an issue regarding snow removal or traffic. Exhibit #3 is the same and shows the height and where the wall is located. Mr. Kirkbride asked if the blue pole as shown in the photo has any significance. Mr. Griffith stated no. The pole has nothing to do with the sign. 1

Mr. Zillich asked if there is an issue with the height of the sign. Mr. Griffith stated no. Mr. Deremer asked if the curb goes to the zero ft. setback. Mr. Griffith stated no. Mr. Zillich asked how far from the curb the sign is located. Mr. Griffith stated that the sign is about 20 to 30 ft. from the pavement. Mr. Vitale asked if the sign would be three sided. Mr. Griffith stated yes. Mr. Giulitto asked if the sign could be placed somewhere else on the property and meet the requirement. Mr. Griffith stated it would be difficult but he wouldn t say that it couldn t. The reason for putting the sign in the proposed location is for it to be as promotional as possible. Mr. Altman stated that the hardship would be that the building was built in 1994 and then the setbacks were changed so the property was adversely affected because they are on two corners. 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. Kirkbride stated that he doesn t see a problem with the sign per the photos that were submitted. Mr. Zillich stated that there is still a considerable amount of green space although the right of way is closer. He doesn t see an issue in granting the appeal. Mr. Giulitto stated that he agrees with the other board members. His concern before looking at it was where the sign was going to be sitting at a zero ft. setback. But with the pictures that were provided there is still 20 to 25 ft. to the road so he doesn t have a problem with the appeal. Mr. Zillich made a motion to approve appeal #2165 as requested. Mr. Kirkbride seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Deremer-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, and Mr. Vitale-yes. The variance for appeal #2165 has been approved as requested. 2

6:45 PM #2167 Todd Huntington, 520 S. Main St., Ste. 2531, Akron, OH agent for All Ohio Land Dev. & Bldg. Co., property owner, 994 Nokomis Dr., Akron, OH 44313 requests a variance for a 2.5 ft. east parking setback with no landscaping where 10 ft. is required with landscaping, 14 ft. north parking setback where 20 ft. required, an 8 7 in height menu board where 8 ft. is permitted and to allow logo signage on the north, east & south side of the building above the roofline where not permitted per Art. IV & V, Sect. 411.8, 411.9, 501.5F & 502.2 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 4030 Belden Village NW, Sect. 24SE Jackson Twp. Zoned B-3. Mr. Deremer read the file application, reason for the appeal and contents of the file. Mr. Deremer swore in Ryan Oster, 520 S. Main St, Akron, Ohio 44311. Mr. Oster stated that Taco Bell would like take over the Maytag site. The parking setback is 2.5 ft. along Whipple and a 14 ft. setback along Belden Village, both of which are significantly more than what is currently there. The existing pavement currently goes into the right of way so it will be an improvement to the property. Mr. Oster stated that the menu board is requested to be at 8.7 ft. in height which is the standard for the Taco Bell menu board. They would like to keep it at 8.7 ft. although the requirement is 8 ft. Mr. Oster stated that the last variance is for the swinging bells. Technically the code says that the bells are a sign. The bells are a little above the roof line as an architectural portion of the building. Taco Bell looks at them as an architectural portion of the building and would like to stay with the architectural look of the building. Mr. Kirkbride asked if the existing Taco Bell down the road, just north of Everhard, is similar to this type of building. Mr. Oster stated if it wasn t recently constructed then the answer is probably not. Mr. Deremer stated that he doesn t think that the bell is above the roofline on that particular taco bell. Mr. Zillich asked if Jackson Township looks at the bell as a sign. Mr. Oster stated yes, although he looks at it as an architectural feature. Mr. Kirkbride asked Mr. Oster if he stated that the currently parking lot already extends into the right of way. Mr. Oster stated yes, it extends into the right of way on the Belden side. He is guessing because there was right of way taken in the past. They will make it 14 ft. of green space. Mr. Zillich asked if they met the requirement for green space would they not meet the requirement for parking spaces. Mr. Oster stated yes. Mr. Zillich stated that it seems that would be the practical difficulty. 3

Mr. Deremer asked if Taco Bell upgraded their sign to increase the height. Mr. Oster stated probably 6 or 7 years ago. Mr. Deremer asked if the board doesn t agree with Taco Bell, what they would do. Mr. Oster stated that they would probably have to modify the post but he doesn t know. Mr. Giulitto stated there was a similar variance request for Target to allow the sign above the roof line and asked Ms. Poindexter if there had been any other request in the past couple years for the same thing. Ms. Poindexter stated no not that she recalls. No one else in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input. Mr. Deremer stated that the first variance is for the parking setback. Mr. Giulitto stated that a lot of concrete is on the property and the green space is not being reduced and will not have a negative impact so he doesn t have a problem with the request. Mr. Zillich stated that he thinks it will improve the intersection and general appearance of the corner so he does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the parking setbacks as requested. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Mr. Deremer stated that next portion of the request is for the menu board height. Mr. Zillich stated that it is a small variance and won t change the look of the area so he does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Vitale agreed with Mr. Zillich and stated he has no problem with the request. Mr. Giulitto stated it is a small variance so he has no problem with the request. Mr. Kirkbride made a motion to approve the variance for the height of the menu board. Mr. Zillich seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Mr. Deremer stated that the last variance request if to allow the bells above the roof line. Mr. Zillich asked how high the bell would be above the roofline. 4

Mr. Oster stated about 2 ft. Mr. Kirkbride stated that he thinks the bell is part of the aesthetics of the Taco Bell and he would not have a problem or be offended by that type of advertising. Mr. Zillich stated that this has to do with aesthetics and is a logical layout. He does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Deremer stated despite the advertising comment, this type of sign is not permitted. He doesn t see that it is a valid request just because it is the standard advertising. Mr. Kirkbride made a motion to allow the 2 ft. sign variance above the roof line. Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-no, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-no, and Mr. Deremerno. Per Appeal #2167 the variances for the parking setback and menu board have been approved and the variance for the signage above the roof line has been denied. 7:00 PM #2168 Domenic Ferrante, 3722 Whipple NW, Canton, OH agent for Robert & Pamela Cazolli, property owner, 6677 Frank NW, N. Canton, OH requests variance for a 10 ft. west parking setback where 20 ft. is required and 6 ft. north bldg. setback where 16 ft. is required per Art. IV Sect. 411.8 & 411.5 of the zoning resolution. Property located at 6677 Frank NW, Sect. 11SE Jackson Twp. Zoned B-3. Mr. Deremer read the file application, reason for the appeal and contents of the file. Mr. Deremer swore in Dominick Ferrante, 3722 Whipple NW. Mr. Ferrante stated that he has closed on the property therefore the owners are no longer the Cazolli s. Mr. Ferrante stated that the parking setback along the west side of the property is due to the minimum lot width. It is a tight, long and narrow site. The building is a long rectangular building. The other component to the project is the easement for the drive entrance, which is on the neighbor s property. They have a verbal agreement for the easement. Mr. Ferrante stated that he has spoken to Keith Bennett at the Stark County Engineer s office and Mr. Bennett stated that he would grant the curb cut. By doing this it would eliminate the existing curb cut on the property. They would like to maintain as much green space as possible. Mr. Ferrante stated that he spoke to Tracy Hogue, Jackson Fire Department, and he was excited to the see the building separation. With the variance being to the north no building can be located on the existing parcel to the north due to the size of it. Mr. Deremer asked how wide the strip of land is to the north. Mr. Ferrante stated he believes it is 45 ft. wide. 5

Mr. Ferrante presented six photos to the board, which was marked as exhibit #1. Exhibit #2 is an email received from Mr. Bennett regarding the curb cut. Mr. Ferrante stated that he received an email from the property owner to the south which stated that he had no objection to the request. Mr. Ferrante read the email. Mr. Deremer stated that he could not put it in the file because it is not sworn testimony. Mr. Deremer swore in Burt Marzley, 1121 Manor Ave. SW. Mr. Marzley stated by being able to use the parcel to the north for the drive there is less pavement on the site and allows for more green space. They want to minimize the amount of paving on the site. There is a large tree in the front of the property that they would like to keep. If they don t get the variance to the north they may have remove the tree because the drive will have to be moved therefore creating more paving on the site and minimal green space. Mr. Marzley stated that the existing house is 6 ft. from the south property line and is approximately 12 to 15 ft. off the north property line. They felt, in talking with Tracy Hogue and looking at the big picture, if they can gain some separation and balance themselves between Walgreens and the development to the south there would be an even rhythm along Frank Ave. Mr. Deremer asked if the building could be built on the parcel without a variance. Mr. Ferrante stated yes, but he doesn t know if they could meet the parking requirements. If they build as shown on the site plan they can achieve the parking requirements. Mr. Marzley stated that the lot is only 75 ft. wide so they don t have a lot of room on the property with the driveway, building and parking. Mr. Deremer asked if the main reason for the north building setback is to gain green space. Mr. Marzley stated it is to accommodate the building and parking. The 16 ft. setbacks plus the parking setbacks limit them. Mr. Marzley showed the board a second site plan showing the drive on the parcel in question and stated the site plan the board is looking at is the worst case scenario because they do not have the agreement yet. Mr. Zillich stated that the approval of the site is going to be based on the approval of the easement being obtained. So if the board approves it they will have to obtain the easement to build or they will be back before the board for a variance for the parking and a different site plan. Mr. Warzley stated he is saying when they agreed to purchase the property this is the only solution that makes sense, but until they have a signed sealed easement he is concerned about how they will develop the site. Mr. Deremer asked if the parcel currently has a curb cut. Mr. Warzley stated yes but if that one has to be used the drive would be on the north side and they would have to come back before the board for a variance on the south side. 6

Mr. Zillich stated that the other request is to allow a 10 ft. parking setback as opposed to 20 ft. and asked what the property to the west is zoned. Mr. Warzley stated it is zoned Multi-Family. Ms. Poindexter stated that actual zoning is R-2 Two Family Residential. Mr. Deremer stated that he is concerned about approving something when the easement agreement has not been approved. Mr. Deremer asked how close they are in getting that approved. Mr. Warzley stated that they are working on it but don t have a time frame. Mr. Zillich asked if the board could table the appeal until the easement is approved. Mr. Deremer stated that they could table it or could move forward with it. Mr. Zillich asked if they have to have to the easement to build the building as shown. Mr. Warzley stated yes, but if the deal doesn t go through he will be back before the board for the variance anyway to have a 6 ft. variance along the north side. Ms. Poindexter stated the board could grant the variance with a condition that the easement be obtained before the issuance of the zoning permit but if they are going to need a variance either way it becomes a moot point. Mr. Warzley stated that they will need the variance either way regardless of where the driveway is located. Mr. Vitale asked if he is correct that Mr. Warzley and Mr. Ferrante is opposed to tabling the appeal. Mr. Warzley stated yes. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input. Mr. Zillich stated that it seems logical if they need the variance either way there is no issue. He does not have a problem with the 10 ft. of green space where the parking abuts the multifamily district. Mr. Giulitto stated that he does not have a problem with the west parking setback. The north versus the south driveway; there has been testimony that the building will need the variance either way. The north driveway makes more sense as far as the fire issue. He does not have a problem with the request. Mr. Deremer stated that the property used to be zoned residential so that is why the lot is 75 ft. wide. Because of the change in zoning classification, the township kind of created the problem. Mr. Deremer stated that he is in agreement with the variances as requested. 7

Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the appeal as requested. Mr. Vitale seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer-yes. Appeal #2168 has been approved as requested. 7:15 PM #2170 Neff & Associates, 6405 York Rd, Parma Heights, OH agent for Strip Mega LLC, property owner, 1350 West Third St., Cleveland, OH requests variance for an 11 ft. east building setback for bldg. #1 where 25 ft. is required and to allow the dumpster in the front yard area where not permitted, a 13.6 ft. east bldg. setback where 25 ft. is required for bldg. #2, a 1 ft. west parking setback with no landscaping, where 20 ft. required, and 3.7 ft. east parking setback with no landscaping where 10 ft. is required per Art. IV 411.5, 411.8, 411.9 & 411.10 of the zoning resolution. Property location is Parcel #1628042 Strip Ave. Sect. 12SW Jackson Twp. zoned I-1. Mr. Deremer read the file application, reason for the appeal and contents of the file. Mr. Deremer swore in Tom Fitzsimmons, 1350 W. 3 rd St, Cleveland, Ohio and Dan Neff, 6405 York Rd., Parma Heights, Ohio. Mr. Fitzsimmons stated they developed, own and manage the Strip which has been a successful shopping center. In the downturn of the economy the Strip has been one of their crown jewels of their portfolio where they actually have a waiting list of tenants who want to come to the property. They are requesting some variances that are associated with some out lots for the property that is fronting on I-77. He cannot disclose the tenants at this time because the leases have not been signed. There will be three buildings with the southernmost building and the middle building being national restaurants. One has a presence in another location and one is not on the market at all. The building to the far north is another national user and this will be its first entry into the market. Mr. Neff stated the parcel is extremely irregular in shape. It is very long and goes clear around to Portage. It is very narrow. Mr. Neff stated the parking layout has been modified slightly but it does not change the variances. There are three buildings and each of them meet the parking requirement per the tenant leases, which slightly exceed Jackson Townships requirements. The first variance under 411.5 is the rear building setback along I-77. I-77 is also considered a frontage although there is no access to it. The most southerly building is building #1 and they are requesting an 11 ft. setback to accommodate the layout where 25 ft. is required. In order to get handicapped parking and access to meet the fire code they are requesting the proposed location. In addition there are a variety of easements going through the property. There is a 50 ft. gas easement going along the side of the buildings and the front of the property so they are limited as to where structures can be located but they are allowed to put paving in the easement. 8

Mr. Neff stated that they are requesting a variance to a 13.6 ft. setback for building number two. The occupied building itself is all within the setback. The variance request is due to the trash enclosure, which is based on the buildings use. Again the hardship is the site location. Mr. Neff stated that the next variance is from section 411.8, the requirement for a 20 ft. setback for the parking. This site again is very tight and in order to meet the parking and space requirements for emergency access they are requesting a variance for a 1 ft. setback along the Strip Ave. right of way. That s not being that there is not grass between the parking and pavement but it is the right of way itself. Again, the hardship is that they couldn t get the site to work without the variance. Mr. Neff stated that there is also a request along the back parking. The back parking is requested to be at a 3.7 ft. setback. It is recognized being I-77 that there is no access and it is slightly above the road. They feel it is a reasonable request. They are very tight across east to west and any loss of parking would cause the project to not go forward. Mr. Neff stated under 411.9 there is a certain amount of shrubs and plantings that are required. In addition to being a very tight sight there is also an easement that runs parallel to Strip Ave. for a gas line that restrict from planting trees because there is a concern about maintenance with the gas line. It is an 8 inch transmission line. Mr. Neff stated that the last variance they are requesting is on the first building, which is the most southerly building. The tenant is very particular about the location and how they handle their waste. The configuration shows the trash enclosure with the gate facing Strip Ave. Mr. Giulitto stated when he first looked at the site he was a little bit concerned because it seemed like a small area to be building, but he noticed that they will have to put a lot of dirt on the property because he seen some significant dips and a retention pond. Mr. Neff stated they are going to be moving the retention ponds to either side of the Strip and in addition to that the additional storage will be put under ground in the Giant Eagle parking lot. It is an expensive venture to get it to work. Mr. Deremer asked if they are trying to squeeze too much into a small space because it seems like the trouble might with the third building. Mr. Neff stated if that they purposely lined up the drive with Mega Street and if they took out the third building they would still have the drive in the same location and still need the variances. Mr. Deremer asked where the deliveries would come in. Mr. Neff stated that building one would get deliveries from the side because they would come in the off hours. Building number two would get them from the south side. Mr. Vitale asked if he is correct that the three buildings are restaurants. Mr. Neff stated that two are restaurant uses. But the third they will call a restaurant accessory. Mr. Deremer asked if the buildings would be single story buildings. Mr. Neff stated yes. 9

No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. Ms. Poindexter stated that she has reviewed the plan along with other staff in the township such as the fire department and they did not have a problem with the request. The board needed to look at the big picture. The development will create jobs and be good for the township and area. Mr. Deremer closed this appeal to public input. Mr. Zillich stated that he believes the practical difficulty is with the property due to the shape and easements so he doesn t have a problem with the appeal. Mr. Giulitto stated that this area is prime real estate and they are trying to squeeze what they can out of it. He doesn t have a problem with that. This is a huge restaurant area for the township and it would fit with the existing area. They are trying to develop the land the best they can and will need variances no matter what. He doesn t have a problem with the property as a whole. Mr. Kirkbride made a motion to approve appeal #2170 as requested. Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer yes. Mr. Giulitto made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 8, 2010 meeting. Mr. Kirkbride seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Giulitto-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, and Mr. Vitale-yes. Mr. Kirkbride made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Mr. Giulitto seconded the motion. The vote was: Mr. Vitale-yes, Mr. Kirkbride-yes, Mr. Zillich-yes, Mr. Giulitto-yes, and Mr. Deremer yes. Respectfully submitted, Joni Poindexter Zoning Inspector 10