You are here: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 032414

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 24, 2014


The meeting was called to order by Chairman Fritz at 6:15 p.m.

PRESENT AT ROLL CALL: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
ABSENT: Mr. Bolek, Mrs. Cooper

Others Present: Dave Strichko, Building Inspector, Aimee Lane, Assistant Law Director, Jeff Filarski, Village Engineer, Sherri Arrietta, Clerk of Council

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Ms. Corcoran to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2014 meeting.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 


Sutton Residence
32600 Jackson
New Dwelling

Mr. Keith Sutton, homeowner, and Mr. Michael Augoustidis, architect, were present at the meeting. Mr. Sutton explained that there is an existing home on the site that they plan on razing. He stated that the proposed house will be built with the Energy Star Compliant factors since he has been an Energy Star Builder for over 15 years. Mr. Augoustidis stated that the site is a flag shaped lot with access off of Jackson Road. The drive access will loop around to a courtyard in front of the house, which is how the site is currently configured. The proposed house will be placed where the existing house is currently, just rotated slightly toward Jackson Road; the front of the house will face Jackson Road. It will consist of exposed wood, timber framing, hardy plank as siding and a stone veneer for the base of the house. He stated that an existing barn and garage are going to be maintained. The plan will also include a covered area for parking. The slight slopes significantly on one side, therefore one side of the house is two-stories because of the topography.

Mr. Augoustidis stated that he spoke with Mr. Strichko earlier today regarding the setbacks on the front of the house. He stated that Mr. Strichko was concerned because the porch extends beyond the setback, however the Zoning Code does allow for that as long as it is less than 12 feet from the main wall of the home and it is well within that requirement at only 6 feet over the setback. Mr. Augoustidis stated that Mr. Strichko was also concerned with the dormer that extends out over the porch; the Zoning Code allows projections, roof overhangs, etc., up to 3 feet beyond the overhang and since the dormer only projects out 6 inches beyond the setback, it is also within the Zoning Code requirement. Mr. Augoustidis stated that Mr. Strichko informed him that he felt that the possible requirement of a variance needed to be discussed by the Planning Commission. He stated that he believes it is pretty clear that their plans meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Mr. Sutton stated that they did do a lot of work to reconfigure the house in order to meet the setback requirements while also dealing with the slope issues. Mr. Fritz asked Mr. Sutton if he had any hardships that would prevent him from changing the plans in order to meet the setbacks, if it were decided that a variance would be required. Mr. Sutton stated that the topography of the land limits the usable space in order to have level ground. Mrs. Lisa Sutton, homeowner, stated that the level ground is very critical for her since she requires the use of a walker and will need a safe place to be able to navigate. Mr. Strichko explained that he believes that a 6 foot variance would be required because a portion of the porch is two-stories. Mr. Augoustidis stated that he does not believe that the porch is considered two-stories because if it were, there would be a staircase connecting the two levels or there would be another porch on the second level, which is not the case. Mrs. Lane stated that she agreed with Mr. Augoustidis’ interpretation of the code and therefore does not believe that a variance is required.

Mr. Strichko stated that the Village Architect approved the plans with notes that the footer drains and footer depths need to be indicated.

Mayor Renda made a motion seconded by Mr. Stanard to approve the new dwelling located at 32600 Jackson Road, contingent upon final approval from the Village Engineer and adherence to the Village Architect’s notes.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None
Motion Carried


Graffy Residence
32700 Jackson Road
Porte Cochere

Mr. Mike Fant, Architect was present at the meeting. He stated that they have added more structural notes and technical notes based on the comments from the last meeting. Mr. Fritz stated that the Village Architect approved the plans without any notes. Ms. Corcoran stated that she noticed some trees have been removed and asked Mr. Fant if he knew how many. Mr. Fant stated that he is not involved in that portion of the project so he does not know and stated that there were only 2 or 3 necessary to be removed for the location of the porte cochere. He stated that any additional trees that may have been removed were done so by the homeowner. Ms. Corcoran informed Mr. Fant that there is an ordinance that only allows the removal of 4 trees unless approval is given by the Building Department. Mr. Fant stated that he will inform the homeowner.

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Ms. Corcoran to approve the porte cochere located at 32700 Jackson Road.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 


Uhrman Residence
35 Farwood Drive
Garage Addition

Mr. John Brown, Architect, was present at the meeting. Mr. Fritz reminded the Planning Commission members that a variance was granted for this garage addition at a previous meeting. He stated that the garage plans were approved by the Village Architect without any notes. Mr. Brown stated that the homeowners needed a larger garage and it has been designed to be compatible with the house; existing roof lines, architecture, siding, trim, etc., will all match. Ms. Corcoran commented that she appreciates that they are attempting to save existing trees on the property. Mr. Stanard asked about the garage slab elevation. Mr. Brown stated that they are lowering it to accommodate a higher garage door, since the topography slopes off slightly to the east, by lowering the floor, they will not have to change the roof. Mr. Stanard asked about the retaining wall and asphalt work. Mr. Brown stated that the homeowners have a landscape contractor that will do that work, which is not part of this project.

Mayor Renda made a motion seconded by Mr. Stanard to approve the garage addition located at 35 Farwood Drive.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 


Robinson Residence
90 Park Lane
Addition

Mr. Greg Robinson, homeowner, was present at the meeting. He stated that when he and his wife built this house in 1980, the plans included an addition to the master bedroom, however it was never built. The proposed addition is 700 square feet and the footprint is the same as what was drawn originally. Mr. Strichko stated that all code requirements have been met.

Mayor Renda made a motion seconded by Mr. Stanard to approve the addition located at 90 Park Lane.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None
Motion Carried


Richard Grobelny
34500 Chagrin Blvd.
Seasonal Flower Sales – Similar Use

Mr. Richard Grobelny and Ms. Megan Sullivan, Business Owners, were present at the meeting. Mrs. Lane made a correction to the agenda and noted that this is not a Conditional Use Certificate but a Similar Use determination, and therefore, a public hearing is not required. Mr. Grobelny stated that he and his wife plan to sell flowers, on a seasonal basis for two months in May and June. The hours of operation would be 9:00am-8:00pm, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. He stated that he has a potential partner who may want to expand those hours. Mr. Grobelny stated that he and his wife do have long term interest in this location, but would like to do a test market first. He stated that they are proposing to put up a temporary greenhouse, which consists of metal hoops and a plastic cover and is 25w’x 90l’. The temporary greenhouse will be located between the two buildings, behind the split-rail fence. Mr. Grobelny stated that they will not be using either building on the site for business purposes and in fact, the one building (former gas station) is not safe. They may need to use the A-frame building for the bathroom facilities for the employees only, but they have no way to determine if the septic system is in working order. If they have to, they will put a port-a-potty on site which will be tucked away and not visible at all. He stated that since it was previously a garden center and there are parking lots in place, he feels that the traffic pattern should be easy to manage and all of the deliveries usually occur in the early morning hours. Mr. Grobelny stated that he is hopeful that they will get a good response where he and his wife could enter into a discussion with the property owner to take control of the property to build a stronger, permanent business.

Mrs. Lane stated that there is a provision in the code regarding Similar Uses and what the Commission has to determine. There are 4 criteria that need to be met for a Similar Use (Section 1171.17):

1. The proposed use is not explicitly prohibited in any other district or the Planning and Zoning Code; Mrs. Lane stated that it is not explicitly prohibited in any zoning district.
2. The proposed use is not listed as a permitted building or use in any other district; Mrs. Lane stated that seasonal outdoor sales is not currently listed as a permitted use in any other zoning district.
3. The proposed use conforms to and is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed district more appropriately than in any other district; Mrs. Lane stated that this does not apply in this case.
4. The proposed use is of the same general character as the permitted use in the district to which it is proposed or is similar to a specific use permitted in that district. Mrs. Lane stated the only similar use is the general retail use which refers to it being indoor.

Mrs. Lane referred to the minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 25, 2011, which was included in the packet, since there was an item that was similar to this proposal. She stated that members should include several points in that approval when a decision is made on this proposal such as; which months, hours of operation, parking and traffic, bathroom facility, etc. Mrs. Lane also recommended that the applicant include a write up of the entire proposal which will include all the key points that the Commission will require.

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Ms. Corcoran to approve the Similar Use for temporary seasonal flower sales located at 34500 Chagrin Blvd., subject to the following conditions being met and outlined in writing:

1. Hours of operation
2. Days of operation
3. Drawing of an overhead view of the layout
4. Signage
5. Delivery times
6. Number of employees
7. Parking plan – ingress & egress of vehicles
8. Temporary portable facilities

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 


Thatcher Thomas
4755 SOM Center Road
Dock

Mr. Thatcher Thomas, homeowner, was present at the meeting. He stated that a lot of work was done on the pond several years ago because they were having drain issues. Now that the pond is filled up again and the grass is grown in, he is ready to put the dock in. Mr. Thomas stated that the dock will be 20 feet from one neighbor’s property line and 35 feet from the other neighbor’s property line. Mr. Fritz stated that the Village Architect approved the plans without any notes.

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Ms. Corcoran to approve the dock located at 4755 SOM Center Road.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 


Premier Custom Builders/Hodgson Residence
Berkeley Lane
Development Plan – Preliminary Discussion

Mr. Ryan Sanders, Project Manager with Premier Custom Builders, and George Hess, Site Engineer, were present at the meeting. Mr. Sanders stated that they are developing a property that will ultimately have three new homes on it; they are only seeking approval for one home at this time. He stated that the site plan has been submitted to the Police and Fire Departments to which they have recommended making the driveway 14 feet wide and creating a pull off area for safety vehicles. Mr. Sanders stated that they wanted this Board’s feedback before they submit final plans. The first proposed house will be located off the gravel drive from Berkeley. Mr. Fritz asked about the work going on currently at the property. Mr. Sanders stated that any work going on now is not being done by Premier Custom Builders. Mr. Strichko stated that two houses on the property appear to have been gutted and the debris is piled up outside. He stated that a notice was posted on the door, however, he has not heard from anyone nor can he get in contact with the homeowner. Mr. Strichko asked Mr. Sanders to relay the message to the homeowner to get in contact with him because they currently do not have any approvals and/or permits for the work that is being performed on the property. Mr. Stanard summarized the proposed plan; 3 structures are proposed on this 20 acre property, and 2 open spaces will be declared; one is 5 acres, the other is 2.5 acres. No construction is to take place in the severe slope areas.

Mrs. Lane stated that according to the Open Space Conservation District, only 4 houses can be served by the private drive. She stated that there will be a total of 5 homes on the property; however, one of the homes will actually be located in the Dwelling House District, so it will not be an issue and will not require a variance. The house in the DH District can have its’ own driveway, but it will require an easement. Mrs. Lane stated that a deed restriction is required to be placed on all properties to highlight that it is not a dedicated space as set forth in Section 1153.13(c)(5) and therefore the Village is not responsible for maintaining it. Mrs. Lane stated that the Open Space is required to be put into a conservation easement held by a third party, which must, at a minimum, state that no further development will be done on that property as set forth in Section 1153.19(b). She stated the Section 1153.19(c) requires that a maintenance plan be submitted to the Village, subject to approval by the Law Director and Building Inspector, setting forth who is responsible for maintaining the Open Space areas and how it will be funded. Section 1153.21 requires that a homeowner’s association be established to set forth maintenance and control of common areas, including Open Space areas, driveway, any easements, etc. Mrs. Lane informed the members that Section 1153.05 sets forth additional review criteria that need to be considered for Open Space Conservation District developments.

Mr. Hess asked about the Village’s requirements are as it relates to the septic system; one per house or a “community” septic system. Mr. Filarski stated that this is the first parcel of its kind in this District that the Village has dealt with and the Village would most likely consider what the Board of Health requires.


Hodgson Residence
37940 Berkeley Lane
New Dwelling – Preliminary Discussion

Mr. Ryan Sanders, Project Manager with Premier Custom Builders, and George Hess, Site Engineer, were present at the meeting. Mr. Sanders stated that they are proposing to build a new 4200 square foot dwelling with an open-style concept. Mr. Strichko stated that normally the Village Architect does not review a plan if it is only preliminary; however, Mr. Kawalek did look at it briefly and noted that the point loads and how they will be transferred need to be addressed. He stated that from his brief review of the plan, everything appears to be in order. Mr. Filarski stated that the setbacks were met however; he still needs to verify the hillside setbacks. He stated that a site plan for the dwelling will be required before moving forward.

Discussion
Ms. Corcoran asked about the Berkeley Lane property and if there were plans submitted previously for a development there. Mr. Filarski stated that there was a proposed 18-home development. It was appealed to the Common Pleas Court and the Village lost. The Village then appealed and won. The developer went to the Supreme Court and the Village won that decision. He stated that the plan that was proposed tonight is scaled down quite a bit from the previous plan, which was submitted by a different owner of that property.

Mr. Stanard made a motion seconded by Mayor Renda to adjourn the meeting at 8:00pm.

ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Ms. Corcoran, Mr. Fritz, Mayor Renda, Mr. Stanard
Nays: None 
Motion Carried 

Respectfully Submitted,
Sherri Arrietta, Clerk of Council



Village of Moreland Hills | 4350 S.O.M. Center Road | Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022 | P: (440) 248.1188 | F: (440) 498.9591 | Contact UsSitemap | Powered by the Dept. of Information Technology