The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall."

Daniella Anthony
5 years ago
Views:

1 The regular meeting of the ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held on Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 7:00 P.M. at the Rootstown Town Hall. Those present: Troy Cutright Jennifer Milnes Derek Ball Gary Slocum Robert Stefanik Those absent: Patricia Saillant Also in attendance: Zoning Inspector, Mark Tirpak ZBA Secretary, Jordan Michael Mr. Cutright called the meeting to order. Mr. Cutright introduced the Board members and explained the evening's procedures. The first item on the agenda was an application for a Conditional Use Permit for drivethru facilities in association with a permitted use, at property on 4099 State Route 44 in a V-C district, submitted by: DS Architecture 136 North Water Street, Suite 208 Kent, OH Mr. Cutright swore in the following people: Amanda Carter, 136 N. Water Street, Kent, OH Craig Anton, 855 W. State Street, Salem, OH Ms. Carter said the application is for a Dunkin Donuts. The drive-thru will have a pay window and a pick-up window. Mr. Slocum said the justification for variance was not addressed in the application. Ms. Carter asked if that applies to the Conditional Use Permit as well. Mr. Cutright said any paperwork is considered general information. Mr. Slocum asked whether the requested variance is solely for economic gain. Ms. Carter said a Dunkin Donuts would not function without a drive-thru. Mr. Slocum asked what would happen if these are not approved. Ms. Carter said if the pick-up window is not approved, the building will not be built. Mr. Cutright swore in Stewart White, 855 W. State Street, Salem, OH Mr. White stated that the drive-thru is non-negotiable. Mr. Slocum asked if a traffic study has been done. Mr. White said they have a left turning lane with approval from ODOT. Mr. Cutright asked if the driveway is in line with the middle school driveway across the street. Mr. Anton said it is pretty close and was put there for that reason. Ms. Milnes had no questions. Mr. Ball asked if the bank is directly north. Mr. White said correct.

2 Resolution ZBA Mr. Slocum made a motion to grant the Conditional Use Permit from Section J as presented. Ms. Milnes seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. The second item on the agenda was an application for variances from Section B2 (roof pitch), Section B1 (side/rear parking setbacks), Section D (max. area for signs), Section (max. height of freestanding signs), and Section A (minimum tree requirement), at property on 4099 State Route 44 in a V-C district, submitted by: DS Architecture 136 North Water Street, Suite 208 Kent, OH Mr. Cutright asked the audience to quiet down. Ms. Carter said the proposed flat roof is a variation on the corporate requirements, which is a much more contemporary look. The schools and NEOMED have flat roofs so it fits in with the neighborhood. Mr. White mentioned the heating and air conditioning, from a build standpoint. He added that this is the building they are used to and they have never built one with a pitched roof. Ms. Carter said they have a parapet to hide the mechanical units. Mr. Stefanik asked if they are not building a pitched roof in order to fit in with the medical building. Ms. Carter said they feel it is compatible with the other buildings in the area. It is a balance between corporate requirements and the neighborhood. Mr. Stefanik said the board must consider the future needs of the Village Center district, and part of the plan is to have buildings with pitched roofs. Mr. White said he does not see a theme yet. Ms. Milnes said it is still in the planning stages. Mr. Cutright said the lot is already tight on parking spots, and it would take more room for heating and air conditioning. Mr. Slocum asked Mr. White how the adoption of a Western Reserve style would alter his design. Mr. White said he would consider pioneering it. Mr. Cutright asked how this Dunkin Donuts compares to the others he has built. Mr. White said this is smaller. They generally have 1.5 acres, whereas this is just under an acre. Mr. Slocum asked if they will be purchasing the property. Mr. White said yes. Mr. Cutright asked which store of his is the nearest. Mr. White said either Alliance or Salem. Ms. Milnes asked if there are other pitched roofs on State Route 44. Mr. Slocum said the banks have gabled roofs. Resolution ZBA Mr. Slocum made a motion to grant the variance from Section B2 as presented. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - No Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 4/1. Ms. Carter said this is a tighter lot than they usually work with. In order to have 35 to 40 parking spaces, they have parking on both sides of the building. The drive-thru and bypass clearance pushes the parking closer to the lot lines than is currently permitted.

3 They are asking for a variance of 5'-6" on the north side and 7'-2" on the south side. Both adjacent properties are the same zoning. Mr. Slocum asked what the front setback is. Ms. Carter said it is 25 feet. Mr. White said most of the reason they set it back is for the turning radius. Mr. Anton said without the variance they cannot fit any parking spaces on the south side. Mr. White said the parking is necessary for people to sit down and eat. Mr. Slocum asked if there is a patio. Mr. White said yes. Ms. Milnes asked if a smaller variance would be helpful. Mr. Anton said a smaller variance would not allow a parked car to back out if cars are in the drive-thru lane. Mr. Ball had no questions. Mr. Stefanik had no questions. Mr. Cutright asked the audience if there were any comments. Mr. Cutright swore in Keith Dunlavy, 6913 N. Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH Mr. Dunlavy said there will be joint construction going on because the sewer line is being extended across both of his properties. Resolution ZBA Mr. Slocum made a motion to grant the variance from Section B1 as presented. Ms. Milnes seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. Ms. Carter said they are allowed square feet of sign area based on the building frontage, and are requesting a variance of square feet. There is a primary identification sign on the front of the building, which is the standard size. The other signs are intended to identify the building from a car, with enough time to turn in. Mr. Cutright said the sign area on the corporate site would be more favorable, with only one sign on the side. Ms. Carter said they are limited with the narrow side of the building facing the street. The primary entrance will be on the side. Ms. Milnes had no questions. Mr. Ball had no questions. Mr. Slocum asked Ms. Carter if the information presented in their letter is correct. Ms. Carter said one sign was swapped out with another sign that is 1 square foot larger. Mr. Anton said they just tried to use that sign on another store and it did not work. Mr. Stefanik asked if the freestanding sign will be enough for oncoming traffic to identify the building. Mr. White said he feels having a sign on each side is not asking too much. Mr. Cutright asked if reducing the signage would kill the deal. Mr. White said he would rather have a larger street sign. The everyday traveler can find it with no signage, but someone coming from I-76 would need signage. Mr. White asked about directional signs. Mr. Cutright said the ones out on the property are separate. This is just for signs on the building. Mr. Tirpak said they are allowed to

4 have directional signs. Resolution ZBA Mr. Cutright made a motion to grant the variance from Section D for the maximum area of signs to be a total of 78 square feet, for the facade sign and two oval signs. Ms. Milnes seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. Ms. Carter said the proposed freestanding sign is a standard size, with an additional readerboard. The requested variance is 58 square feet, for visibility from the roadway. Ms. Milnes asked if they would consider just a digital readerboard without the other sign. Mr. White said no. Mr. Slocum asked Mr. White if he has placed smaller signs. Mr. White said they have done monument signs. Mr. Cutright asked Mr. White what the majority of the signs are like for his other businesses. Mr. White said pylons, and recently electronic readerboards have been added. Mr. Anton said the proposed signs are smaller than what they usually have. Mr. Slocum asked which is more important to them, the height of the sign or the size. Mr. White said it has to be proportional. Mr. Cutright said he would like to see the readerboard be higher. Mr. Anton said the sign draws attention from farther away, and the readerboard draws attention from up close. Resolution ZBA Mr. Slocum made a motion to grant the variance from Section D5 and for the freestanding sign to be 4' x 9', with a 2'-5" by 8'-3" readerboard, and a maximum height of 18 feet. For D5, Mr. Stefanik seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Cutright - Yes Stefanik - Yes Ball - Yes Milnes - Yes Slocum - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. For , Mr. Stefanik seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Cutright - Yes Stefanik - Yes Ball - Yes Milnes - Yes Slocum - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. Ms. Carter said the dimensions of the site, with the driveway and parking at the front of the site, causes the sign to be in front of the setback. They are asking for a variance of 6 feet. Mr. Stefanik asked when State Route 44 is being widened. Audience member Woodie Goodnight said it is only being widened as far north as the church, according to ODOT. Mr. Stefanik asked if there are any plans for a sidewalk. Mr. Cutright said we cannot speculate and will go with what is submitted. Resolution ZBA Mr. Cutright made a motion to grant the variance from Section A3 to reduce the sign setback from 10 feet to 6 feet. Ms. Milnes seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. Ms. Carter said the lot frontage of 148 feet would require 6 trees along the front. They are concerned about spacing them too close together, and about visibility at the curb. They are requesting 3 trees instead of 6. Mr. Slocum asked what kind of vegetation they are planning. Ms. Carter said there are specific requirements in the zoning book.

5 Mr. Stefanik questioned having any trees there for safety reasons. Ms. Carter and Mr. White said they may add landscaping inside the drive-thru lane instead. Mr. Cutright asked the audience if there were any comments. Roger Carpenter asked if there is any parking along State Route 44. Ms. Carter said the parking is all on the sides. Resolution ZBA Mr. Stefanik made a motion to grant the variance from Section A to eliminate the need for any trees, for safety reasons, but not for the shrubbery to be eliminated. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. Mr. Slocum asked about the lighting planned for the site. Mr. Anton said there will be parking lot lights with shields. The final item on the agenda was an application for variances from Section for a beauty salon in existing offices, at property on 5192 Tallmadge Road in an L-I district, submitted by: Donphil Holdings 5192 Tallmadge Road Rootstown, OH Mr. Cutright swore in Donald Litsinger, 5155 Tallmadge Road, Rootstown, OH Attorney Aaron Heavner said they are also asking consideration for an accessory use from Section C4. This property is unique to the area, and the principal use would be a contractor's yard and storage area. The request is for 800 square feet of the existing office space to be used as a beauty salon. Mr. Litsinger said his son and daughter-in-law would put the beauty shop there. Mr. Slocum asked if the existing use is in full compliance with zoning as of right now. Mr. Heavner said the contractor's yard and storage is a permitted use in L-I. That is currently the only use of this property. Mr. Cutright asked how a beauty salon would be considered incidental to light industry. Mr. Heavner said it is incidental in that it is not the primary use. It is only 800 square feet and will allow the property owner to get more reasonable use out of the property which is pretty much vacant at this point. Mr. Stefanik asked if the office is already separate from the rest. Mr. Litsinger said it was already office space when Wickes Lumber was there. Mr. Stefanik asked Mr. Litsinger if he would agree to getting a zoning permit for his signage. Mr. Litsinger agreed. Mr. Slocum asked how long the beauty shop has been open. Mr. Litsinger said they have just been over there working. Mr. Slocum asked if any services have been provided. Mr. Litsinger said no. Mr. Stefanik asked Mr. Heavner what he means by an incidental or subordinate use. Mr. Heavner said the dictionary definition is "accompanied, but not a major part of something". The property was previously used as retail space, but the principal use will

6 remain as storage and contractor's use. Mr. Stefanik asked if they could come back for four or five incidental uses. Mr. Litsinger said that is the plan. Mr. Cutright asked Mr. Litsinger for the size of his signs. Mr. Litsinger said they are 3' x 5'. Mr. Cutright asked how much building frontage the salon has. Mr. Litsinger said 80 feet. Mr. Cutright asked about the septic. Mr. Litsinger said Wickes put in a $50,000 commercial system. Mr. Cutright asked if the salon was approved by the Board of Cosmetology on December 2nd. Mr. Litsinger said yes. Mr. Cutright asked how they inspected it without any permits. Mr. Litsinger said the only thing they had done to the building was putting in chairs, rubber mats, and a mirror. Mr. Ball asked what they anticipate the hours of operation to be. Mr. Litsinger said it will be in the evenings, three days a week, and maybe on Saturdays. Mr. Slocum said he is concerned about the slippery slope and asked how this would set the board up for future issues in L-I. Mr. Heavner said this is a unique property, so they will not have another situation like this. Mr. Slocum asked how long they anticipate the business being there. Mr. Litsinger did not know. Mr. Cutright asked if they had contacted the trustees or the zoning commission for clarification on accessory uses. Mr. Heavner said they were directed to the BZA as a starting point. Mr. Tirpak said Donphil Holdings previously met with the zoning commission to ask for the contractor's storage yard, which was added about two years ago. Mr. Slocum asked how long that process takes. Mr. Tirpak said it takes six to nine months. Mr. Slocum asked Mr. Litsinger what types of products his daughter-in-law sells. Mr. Litsinger said she is not selling anything right now, but she is licensed to sell. Mr. Cutright asked Mr. Litsinger if he is willing to bring the building up to commercial code in order to open the salon. Mr. Litsinger said yes. Mr. Cutright swore in Phil Accordino, 8565 Hidden Hills Drive, Warren, OH Mr. Accordino said every transaction in the salon would be considered a retail sale. Mr. Stefanik said the book defines what retail is. Mr. Litsinger said Wickes Lumber previously had architects' professional offices there. Mr. Slocum said if we expand the definition of professional office to include this, no variance would be needed. Mr. Cutright said he would only feel comfortable granting this if the building was fully upgraded to code. He would want to see a blueprint, inspections, and a building permit for operations. Mr. Litsinger said that is not feasible. Mr. Slocum said the board can approve or deny, or if they decide it is a permitted use they would not have to vote. Mr. Tirpak said in that case it would go to our legal counsel. Mr. Litsinger can also request to table it. If he is turned down, he cannot re-apply for a year. Mr. Litsinger requested for it to be tabled. Resolution ZBA Mr. Slocum made a motion to table the variance request from Section for a beauty salon in existing offices. Mr. Ball seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0.

7 Resolution ZBA Ms. Milnes made a motion to consult the Zoning Commission on whether a licensed beautician would fall under "professional services". Mr. Cutright seconded the motion. A vote was taken as follows: Slocum - Yes Milnes - Yes Ball - Yes Stefanik - Yes Cutright - Yes. The motion carried by a vote of 5/0. The minutes for the September 20, 2016 meeting were journalized. Mr. Slocum made a motion to adjourn. It was seconded by Ms. Milnes. Mr. Cutright adjourned the meeting. Troy Cutright, Chairman ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Jordan Michael, Secretary ROOTSTOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

CITY OF AURORA OHIO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Meeting Minutes June 8, 2016

CITY OF AURORA OHIO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Meeting Minutes June 8, 2016 The Aurora Board of Zoning Appeals met in a regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday, June 8, 2016 in the Council Chambers at City