CITY OF CHARDON PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 21, Jim Gillette, Law Director Steve Yaney, Planning and Zoning Administrator

Transcription

1 CITY OF CHARDON PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 21, 2016 Members Present: Chris Grau Andrew Blackley, Vice-Chairman Al Hunziker Kenneth Miller, Chairman Dan Meleski Mary Jo Stark Members Absent: James Pruce Also Present: Doug Courtney, City Engineer Jim Gillette, Law Director Steve Yaney, Planning and Zoning Administrator Mr. Miller called the m eeting to order at 6: 30 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was said. Rol l was called. Mr. Miller said everyone received copies of the minutes of the February 16, meeting. He asked for any corrections or additions. There were none. The motion was made by Mr. Hunziker to approve the minutes. It was seconded by M r. Meleski. Mr. Miller asked for any discussion on the minutes. All were in favor to approve the minutes. Mr. Miller reminded all that were present to sign in for the meeting. Mr. Miller explained the procedure of the hearing. He swore in City Staff. He asked if there was any old business. There was none. PC Case # Mr. Yaney explained the applicant Leon Sampat (LS Architects) is requesting architectural review for renovating the existing outdoor patio to be an enclosed dining area at Joey s Restaurant. Mr. Yaney said the stone will match the existing building and the windows will be able to open for the summer months and be closed for the winter months. In addition, the new renovations will be ADA compliant. Mr. Yaney said the City Engineer has reviewed and recommended the renovations for approval. Mr. Yaney said the City Architect has a few comments for correction. Mr. Sampat explained any outstanding issues will be addressed and will be compliant with the Fire Inspector s requests. Mr. Hunziker asked if the windows will be electric or manual. Mr. Longo said electric as well as the screens. Mr. Hunziker made a motion to grant the architectural review for the exterior renovations at Joey s Restaurant. It was seconded by Mr. Grau. Mr. Blackley requested the City Architect s 1

2 final letter be submitted with the preliminary drawings. Roll was called. All were in favor to approve. PC Case # Mr. Yaney explained the applicants Joyce Perrico and Edward Lawrence are requesting concept approval for a lot split and the consolidation involving three parcels. In addition, the applicants will be requesting six variances: 1. A variance from the minimum lot size of 25,000 sq. ft. in the R-1 Single Family Residence District 2. A variance from lot consolidation when a minor subdivision will result in a nonconforming lot 3. A variance from requiring replatting a sublot after adding land 4. A variance from the elimination of submittals required for replatting 5. A variance from allowing a zoning certificate to be issued for a non-conforming lot 6. A variance from the elimination the necessity to re-zone the parcel from R-1 to PUD. Mr. Yaney explained the lot between 408 Chardon Avenue and 214 Basquin, would be split and the remaining portion be consolidated to the existing parcel at 214 Basquin. The current lot is a legal, non-conforming lot and will be a difficult lot to build on. Another issue Mr. Yaney explained is 408 Chardon Avenue is in the Rocky Cellars Subdivision and a re-zoning process would be required. Mr. Gillette explained the lot owned by the Lawrence s is only 18,300 sq. ft. and it needs to be 25,000 sq. ft. The lot next door, which is a legal non-conforming use, technically could have a house could be built on that property. Mr. Gillette explained the home at 408 Chardon Avenue, the lot size is less than 25,000 sq. ft. but is part of a subdivision and the lot is an approved PUD. Mr. Gillette said the end result is the Lawrence s will take a portion of the parcel and will consolidate the two parcels and will end up with a conforming lot. Mr. Gillette said the Perrico s will take the remainder of the lot and will have a separate parcel, but that parcel will never be able to built upon because of the deed restrictions going with this lot. In addition Mr. Gillette explained, any time 408 Chardon Avenue is sold, this parcel will have to be conveyed with it and never be able to be built on. Mr. Gillette said the issue is the Perrico s lot is in a subdivision with sublots and the subdivision cannot be modified without a lot of difficulty and that is the reason for the variances. Mr. Gillette said the goal is to eliminate a parcel that is a little over an acre from the potential of being built upon. Mr. Courtney asked Mr. Gillette to expand on what type of accessories or allowed as well as a single family use structure. Mr. Gillette said accessories coul d be built such as a pole barn or a structure that is permitted on that property. 2

3 Mr. Blackley asked if a physical addition could be built on the existing house being that it will encroach on the lot lines. Mr. Gillette said yes. Mr. Yaney said they could have to return to Planning Commission to build an addition. Mr. Miller asked for a motion for the six variances. Mr. Meleski asked if the lot that is up against the PUD, will it be under the same zoning of the PUD or under non PUD? Mr. Gillette said it will not have the PUD requirements and subject to the R-1 zoning. Mr. Blackley asked regarding variances C and D of the lot that is created, will it remain a standalone lot and the subdivision plat will not be modified. Mr. Gillette said correct. Mr. Blackley clarified nothing is being added to the sublot. Mr. Gillette said no. Mr. Blackley asked if any new submittals will be required because no replatting of the subdivision will be done. Mr. Gillette said the reason for the variance is because a lot consolidation is required when a minor subdivision results in a non-conforming lot. Mr. Blackley made the motion to approve the six variances as outlined in the Law Director s memorandum of November 4, It was seconded by Mr. Hunziker. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The variances were granted. Mr. Blackley made the motion to approve the concept plan for the lot split. It was seconded by Mr. Hunziker. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The motion was granted. PC Case # Mr. Yaney explained the applicant Richard Gebhard of Chardon Healthcare is requesting an exception from the Codified Ordinance to allow placement of temporary signs at different times, manner and size that is permitted in the Code. The sign Mr. Yaney said will be for community fundraisers throughout the year, four to six, and the banner will be 3x4 ft. along the frontage on both sides of the driveway and be at least ten feet back. Mr. Yaney expressed concern of permitting this type of sign because he believes it will set a precedence for other business or organizations. Mr. Yaney also asked for guidance from the Commission beyond this applicant s request. Mr. Yaney said for special events, one temporary ground sign or banner is permitted to be displayed on the front of the building for no more than fifty-six days and be no more than sixty sq. ft. The maximum height for a ground sign is six feet. Mr. Yaney said Planning Commission can grant special permissions. Mr. Yaney explained a Supreme Court case ruling has hindered the way temporary signs are regulated and this may lead to an overhaule to the City s sign ordinances. Mr. Blackley asked if the code differentiates between a ground sign and a banner. Mr. Blackley continued by asking why the applicant is asking for a variances with the listed items A through E. Mr. Yaney explained that a ground sign that is in the ground and the banner is a vinyl material. Mr. Blackley asked if those can be up to sixty sq. ft. Mr. Yaney said if it were on the building; this proposal is by the street and is larger than six sq. ft. Mr. Blackley asked being 3

4 seven to ten events per year which is up to sixty days for the year, if that is the problem. Mr. Yaney said yes and is hard to track because no permits are issued for each sign. Mrs. Stark asked how the Supreme Court ruling effects this case. Mr. Yaney said that particular Supreme Court case wiped out any sign regulations regarding content; there would need to be the same rules for all types of signs. Mrs. Stark asked if the City could write the rules. Mr. Yaney said yes but the City cannot differentiate rules by types of signs. Mr. Gillette added that political signs are protected political free speech and therefore allowed, and the large real estate signs are allowed by City regulations. Mr. Gillette said the City s sign ordinances will have to be revamped. Mr. Meleski asked if it matters whether the sign has wheels underneath it. Mr. Gillette said as long as it is a licensed vehicle the City cannot do anything about it. Mr. Yaney asked about commercial signs on wheels. Mr. Gillette said that is the same thing because it is not technically a sign and is capable of being moved. Mr. Grau asked about the nature of the fundraising events. Mr. Richard Gebhard is sworn in. Mr. Gebhard the total number of events per year will only be four. He explained the fundraisers will be for raising money for the Veteran Services Commissions or like type entity. He explained it is part of Chardon Healthcare s marketing plan and integrating their business into the community. He said it does not have to be twelve sq. ft. and requested it be allowed out seven to ten days prior to the event. Mr. Grau asked if Mr. Gebhard would be running the event. Mr. Gebhard said yes. Mr. Blackley asked if the Commission can link their approval to the purpose being presented. Mr. Gillette said yes for a charitable purpose. Mr. Blackley asked if the Commission can make that a stipulation. Mr. Gillette asked Mr. Yaney if the applicant reduce d the size of the size to 2x3 sq. ft. and the advertising for the event was within fourteen days, would they be in compliance. Mr. Yaney said no because the sign would need to be on the building, not the entrance to the property. Mr. Gehbard said putting the sign on the building creates difficulty to read the sign. Mr. Blackley said he has no issue putting the 3x4 sq. ft. sign as a banner and not as a ground sign and allowing the fifty-six days for the sign. Mr. Blackley said the only issue is the sign being permitted at the entrance. Mr. Yaney said yes. Mr. Blackley said the Commission could allow the applicant a 3x4 sq. ft. banner that would be allowed at the entrance of the property and permitted outside the public right of way for the purpose of promoting an event to support (Mr. Blackley defers to the Law Director for exact verbiage). Mr. Gillette said veterans. Mr. Gillette explained granting a variance for four events to 4

5 raise money for veteran services and those events will have to be held by March 3 1, 2017 and by that time there should be a new sign ordinance. Mr. Gebhard said he is willing to request sign permits for each event. Mr. Yaney said an will suffice as long as it is specific. Mr. Blackley asked Mr. Yaney if he only wants it for four events. Mrs. Stark asked if this would be open to other people. Mr. Yaney said yes for being specific on the number of events and no to being open to others. Mr. Gillette said the regulation should be a banner, not to exceed 3x4 sq. ft. to be at least ten feet back from the public right of way, and not to exceed four charitable events benefiting veterans between the Announcement of Decision and March 31, Mr. Meleski made a suggestion it include that each event have a time frame of how long the sign will be out. Mr. Gillette continued the statement to read that each event be advertised no longer than fourteen days with notification to the Planning and Zoning Administrator when the banner is going to be up. Mr. Blackley made the motion to grant the temporary banner on the conditions said by the Law Director. It was seconded by Mr. Hunziker. Mr. Grau asked Mr. Gebhard if he was comfortable with the veteran language of the statement. Mr. Gebhard said yes it will always be focused towards the veterans. There was no further discussion. Roll was called. The motion was granted. There was no need for an executive session. Mr. Blackley made a motion to adjourn the meeting. It was seconded by M r. Meleski. The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 PM. Respectfully Submitted: Rebecca Repasky, Secretary KENNETH R. MILLER, CHAIRMAN 5