Planning and Zoning - Minutes
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
CITY OF CIRCLEVILLE|
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
104 EAST FRANKLIN STREET
CIRCLEVILLE, OH 43113
MAY 3, 2006
MEMBERS PRESENT VISITORS PRESENT
BILL MOSHER SEE ATTACHED LIST
MARSHA GREIBEL GRAHAM
VALERIE SANZONI, CLERK
The first item on the agenda was approval of April’s meeting minutes. Marsha Griebel Graham motioned to approve as submitted, seconded by Louis McFarland. All in favor, motion carried.
The next item on the agenda was Variance #2-06, as requested by Angelina Nutter, 14590 Clapper Hollow Road, Laurelville, to install one 4.16’ x 2’ = 8.32 square foot sign and one 3.58’ x 1.89’ = 6.76 square foot sign at 559 East Mound Street (recently approved beauty salon) and to vary the maximum square footage allowed from 2 square feet to 15.08 square feet, in an area zoned R-4, Historic Neighborhood Residential District.
Bill Mosher stated your application included pictures of signs being requested. Everything appears to be on the fascia of the building. Is this correct?
Angelina Nutter stated yes.
Bill Mosher stated a good portion of that is in the window. There is no illumination and nothing protruding off of the building.
Angelina Nutter replied correct.
Al Sedlak motioned to approve as requested, seconded by Louis McFarland. VOTE ON MOTION: BILL MOSHER, YEA; JEAN DROSTE, YEA; MARSHA GRIEBEL GRAHAM, YEA; LOUIS MCFARLAND, YEA; ALAN SEDLAK, YEA. 5 YEAS, 0 NAYS, MOTION CARRIED.
The next item on the agenda was Variance #3-06. No one was present at this time to discuss the request.
Louis McFarland motioned to table Variance #3-06, seconded by Al Sedlak. All in favor, motion carried.
The next item on the agenda was Variance #4-06, as requested by Jerry Isaac, 337 East Franklin Street, to build a 720 square foot garage and to vary the maximum lot coverage allowed from 35% to 43.9% and the left side yard setback from 3’ to 0’, in an area zoned R-4, Historic Neighborhood Residential District.
Jerry Isaac was sworn in.
Bill Mosher stated on your application you have an option one and option two. Please explain what you want to do and the options.
Mr. Isaac stated I am a self employed business man and I carry tools in my vehicle. Here within the past two years I have lost close to $13,000.00 - $14,000.00 worth of tools, which has affected my lively hood. I have had alarms systems put on vehicle. My concern is to secure my equipment for my work and a garage would do that for me. I spoke with Gayle earlier this month and there were a couple of option we were going with. We originally wanted to go with a 25’ x 30’, but found it wasn’t workable with our lot size, so were going with 24’ x 30’. Bill Hoover, my next door neighbor and I talked and he indicated it wouldn’t be a problem to place my building on the property line. He basically said he would put that in writing for you. Possibly we would like to go with a larger building, which would keep both our vehicles and an office for my business, which would be a studio overhead.
Bill Mosher stated your intent for the studio apartment would be an office. Do you have plans of renting that out?
Mr. Isaac stated no, I wouldn’t rent it out, it’s for an office.
Bill Mosher stated based on what you have said I would assume you would rather have option one.
Mr. Isaac stated that is correct.
Bill Mosher stated option two fits much more tightly on your lot. I speak for myself and I have been on this commission for many years and we have never varied a setback to 0’. I would be highly concerned in doing that. That is fine your neighbor is okay with that but he is the current owner.
Al Sedlak stated with option one the west side of the garage would be right on the property line. One problem with that is if you wanted to paint that side of the garage you would need to have the consent of whoever your neighbor might be at that time or obtain an easement. This could really put you into a bind.
Mr. Isaac stated currently my house sits on the property line.
Bill Mosher stated we contend with those types of issues all the time. That house was built without the benefit of the zoning code.
Mr. Isaac stated it was built in 1840. I’m sure there wasn’t a code at the time.
Marsha Griebel Graham stated I agree with Al. There may not be any problems now but it causes title problems in the future. I buyer down the road may have a hard time getting a loan because of the encroachment.
Mr. Isaac stated as you can see from the picture of my backyard we are in desperate need of a garage. My wife has complained for the past two years about the stuff up against the fence.
Mr. Mosher stated what type of advantage you see in having the full width face the back instead of the side.
Mr. Isaac stated we discussed a couple of options. My lot size is 33’, originally we wanted it length wise (width across). That gives us access to pulling into the back. The alley behind our home is wider than the alley beside our home by 18”. By positioning it width way rather than length it makes it easier and more accessible for my wife and me to pull our vehicles in.
Al Sedlak stated your plan require a 30’ wide garage.
Mr. Isaac stated there are some variations and I have spoken to the supplier of the garage and we can vary that.
Al Sedlak stated 24’ x 24’ would work better it would give you the additional six feet.
Mr. Isaac stated would it be possible to center that in the middle. We have a 30’ building and that gives us 3’ off the property line. Can I make it one and half feet on each side. Would you consider that?
Bill Mosher stated if you turn it the other way, length wise on the lot and put a 3’ setback on the west side of the garage your lot being 33’ wide you would have 6’ off the alley just as you would at the back. The alley at the back is 18” wider than the alley on the side.
Mr. Isaac stated there is one other thing I wanted to point out. I don’t know if you can see it from the picture but there is an apple tree in front of the shed. That apple tree was planted by my son when he was one year old and when he found out that apple tree had to go down he was devastated. His name is Jonathan and that is his Johnny Apple Tree.
Mr. Sedlak stated and option two will take it out.
Mr. Isaac stated correct. That is a genuine concern of his and if we went with option one he could keep his tree.
Mr. Sedlak stated option one would look better but a 30’ x 24’ is too big.
Mr. Mosher stated I don’t have a problem with the 43.9% lot coverage compared to 35%. I only have a problem with the setback. I would suggest we allow a variance for the lot coverage and strike the request for the setback variance. That still leaves you with an option. You can make the garage smaller and place it on the lot like option one. I appreciate the issue with the tree but I can’t allow a variance down to 0’.
Louis A. McFarland stated we need to keep in mind that this is probably 33’ by deed reference, this is not a pin survey. As pointed out this house was built years ago and that lot could be at an excess or have a deficiency. Some day in the future when that lot is surveyed they may find out that lot is only 32’ or 31’, and then all of a sudden you have an encroachment.
Jean Droste stated we would like to see you get this garage but you need to prove your setbacks.
Bill Mosher stated the 720 sq. ft. garage you are asking for is allowed.
Mr. Isaac stated you want me to keep the garage 3’ off the property line. The property line off the back of the house is actually 3’ off the alley. The current garages that are down the street now are right on the property line. Mr. Hoover’s garage is right on the property line. A lot of the garages built in the back yards are right on the property line.
Mr. Mosher stated they were probably built thinking they were off the property line.
Mr. Isaac stated I want to know if I could move it closer to the back property line that would give me the size I want without destroying the habitat.
Mr. Mosher stated option two is closer to the alley.
Mr. Isaac stated coming that way instead of going to the neighbors coming back toward the alley is a little bit closer. The over head lines are not power lines, they are cable lines. The power line is on the other side of the alley. Option two is closer to the back of the alley and change it from a 24’ x 30 to a 26’ x 28’. This will fit well. I want a shop where I can do wood working, things in that nature that I enjoy which I have been unable to do because of not having a garage. The size of the garage we are asking for will allow us to do that. The shed is going to come down but I would like to spare the tree.
Mr. Mosher stated you will have 3’ on the side, 3’ on the back and 5’ facing the side alley.
Mr. Isaac stated the shed is right on the property line. What I want to do is bring the garage right to where the shed is and move it 3’ off the neighbor and cut it down to 28’ which should give me the clearance you are asking, but it will push it further south. That would work within what we need. The south alley would be the only area we would encroach upon as for the property line.
Mr. Mosher stated what we can do is strike the left side yard setback from 3’ to 0’ from the variance request and change the 43.9% lot coverage to 44.05%. By doing that he can still put the garage any direction he wants provided he keeps it 3’ off the property lines. We won’t have to vary the square footage because what he is requesting is to code.
Jean Droste motioned to approve the request as amended above, seconded by Marsha Griebel Graham. VOTE ON MOTION: JEAN DROSTE, YEA; MARSHA GRIEBEL GRAHAM, YEA; LOUIS MCFARLAND, YEA; ALAN SEDLAK, YEA; BILL MOSHER, YEA. 5 YEAS, 0 NAYS, 2 ABSENT (LEASURE AND VINKOVICH). MOTION CARRIED.
The next item on the agenda was Variance #5-06, as requested by Stepping Stones, 1220 South Court Street, to erect a 4’ x 4’ two sided freestanding sign and to vary the maximum square footage allowed from 30 square feet to 32 square feet, in an area zoned CF, Community Facility District.
Andrea Calder, Director of Stepping Stones was sworn in.
Bill Mosher stated you are located behind the fire station.
Ms. Calder stated yes, I have been there for almost two years.
Bill Mosher stated how do people find you without a sign.
Ms. Calder stated I think the North Court Fire Station gets a lot of my clients and they send them down to me.
Bill Mosher stated you want to put a sign in the grassy area out in the front of the fire station.
Ms. Calder stated from the picture do you see the bench along the big window in the grassy area. I am not sure when the picture was taken but there might be two big wooden post in the yard and that is where Signs of Distinction was going to put the sign.
Mr. Mosher stated the sign will be perpendicular to the street, two sided and non-illuminated. There is a copy of what it will read. Does anyone have any questions?
Al Sedlak motioned to approve as requested, seconded by Louis McFarland. VOTE ON MOTION: MARSHA GRIEBEL GRAHAM, YEA; LOUIS MCFARLAND, YEA; ALAN SEDLAK, YEA; BILL MOSHER, YEA; JEAN DROSTE, YEA. 5 YEAS, 0 NAYS, 2 ABSENT (LEASURE AND VINKOVICH), MOTION CARRIED.
The next item on the agenda was an informal discussion as requested by Sam Shapiro for the Trinity Lutheran Church to discuss possible uses for their parsonage house located at 135 East Mound Street, in an area zoned DB, Downtown Business District.
Mr. Shapiro stated the parsonage sits to the west of the sanctuary. The lot is 50’ x 148’. Our concern is when we look to the future in terms of what our needs will be. We are looking at the possibility of razing it. The first consideration would be to raze the structure and put in a parking lot. As the Presbyterians are expanding parking becomes crucial. Can we access a parking lot off of Mound Street?
Bill Mosher stated you already have an access off of Mound Street.
Louis A. McFarland stated a parking lot is an allowable use.
Jean Droste stated would there be traffic problems with all the parishioners trying to get in and out of these lots.
Marsha Griebel Graham asked what is behind that house.
Mr. Shapiro stated the Walker Property is approximately, roughly contiguous to. The Walker Property is for sale and we are informally negotiating the purchase of that property.
Louis A. McFarland stated this lot is 50’ wide. I would steer you toward someone to configure 20’ x 10’ parking stalls.
Mr. Shapiro stated I have thought of that and this is informal obviously before we would go any further we would have a professional draft this out.
Mr. McFarland stated you don’t have access to that alley; it would be nice if you could come into that at an angle.
Mr. Shapiro stated we do have access to the alley.
Al Sedlak stated the alley runs between the Walker Property and this property.
Mr. Shapiro stated there is an alley that runs east/west. This property runs through the alley and the Walker Property also runs through that same alley. I think this lot is big enough to have a single row straight in; assuming this is feasible. Second idea, would be to install a wheel chair ramp into the sanctuary, the parsonage and sanctuary are approximately at the same grade.
Bill Mosher asked if they would grade it to street level.
Mr. Shapiro stated more specifically grade it from Mound Street back to the alley. Could we come off the Noecker Building to where the alley runs from there clear over to Union Street with an all purpose recreational building.
Louis A. McFarland asked is that alley vacated.
Mr. Shapiro stated I seriously doubt that. How do we go about finding out if that alley has been vacated?
Mr. McFarland stated check with our office.
Bill Mosher stated if you decide to vacate the alley then you will be back in to see us and then takes an act of council to approve it.
Jean Droste stated it takes a few months for the whole process.
Mr. Shapiro stated this is all long term planning.
Louis A. McFarland stated there is a method to vacate an alley through Common Pleas Court.
Mr. Shapiro stated how you go about razing that property.
Mr. McFarland stated there is a permit required by the Building Department.
Bill Mosher stated I don’t see any problems as discussed.
The next item on the agenda was requested by Sam Lucas, Superintendent for Circleville City Schools, to utilize a modular unit at Court Street Elementary School, in an area zoned CF, Community Facility District.
Cindy Ritter stated I am the treasurer and we have been here before about modular units approximately three years ago for Atwater and Court Street Elementary Schools when we received the all day kindergarten money. We received the money at the end of June and had to start at the beginning of the school year to see where we were going to house them and then we ended up using the Brook Yates building on High Street. This time we are here about a modular we do need due to the fact we are restructuring the schools and we have more students coming in for special needs. We need to add a room to Court Street School for fourth and fifth graders. That unit will be a 24’ x 42’ located to the back side of Court Street School to the south end on the black top area and used to house the library. It will be fully self-contained with self-contained fire alarms. We are working with GE Capital to get all the building permits.
Bill Mosher asked will this be permanent.
Ms. Ritter stated yes. It will have cement pilings to make it sturdy, more than usual for a classroom because it’s for a library for the weight of the text books.
Jean Droste stated we had GE Capital for the temporary fire station.
Louis A. McFarland asked how you would classify the unit.
Ms. Ritter stated a manufactured home that meets all fire codes throughout the state.
Louis A. McFarland read the definition of an industrial unit compared to a manufactured home. It is considered permanent if put on a foundation. Do you know the year it was manufactured?
Ms. Ritter stated I don’t know. It’s a used unit and no more than two years old.
Louis A. McFarland stated from what I’ve been told it appears to meet the requirements. Will it connect to the building?
Ms. Ritter stated no, it will sit away from it to meet fire codes.
Louis A. McFarland stated I don’t see a problem with it. You will have to make sure you get all the necessary permits.
Ms. Ritter stated we will let GE Capital take care of getting the permits.
Variance #3-06, which was tabled earlier in the evening, came in late. Jean Droste motioned to remove Variance #3-06 from the table, seconded by Louis McFarland. All in favor, motion carried.
Variance #3-06, as requested by Connie Hanley, 837 Clinton Street, to add a 24’ x 24’ room addition and to vary the rear yard setback from 30’ to 29.75’ and the Weldon Avenue front yard setback from 25’ to 4.95’, in an area zoned R-5, Two Family Residential District.
Brian Greeno, 837 Clinton Street, was sworn in and stated the house is very small. The back of the house is only 20’ wide and the front is only 16’. The house is only 20’ but there is an upstairs that we built on to it when we received it. The rooms are real small and there really isn’t enough room for a kitchen. There is only a living room with a kitchen and sink, not large enough for a table. The property is paid off and now we would like to expand.
Bill Mosher stated it appears your plans are to match the current side of the building that faces Weldon Avenue.
Brian Greeno stated I was thinking about going four feet out toward the street and after Valerie and I talked about it there would be an obstruction in the line of sight making the turn at the intersection. So I have decided to go out the additional four feet on the other side.
Louis A. McFarland stated along the north side.
Mr. Greeno stated its 20’ across the back.
Mr. Mosher stated right now its 4.95’ off the right of way.
Mr. Greeno stated probably 20’ from the road way but I can’t find the pins. I know they were set at one time, so I am assuming that is correct.
Bill Mosher stated the house is in good shape.
Al Sedlak stated basically this addition will go straight back.
Brian Greeno stated it will be four feet additional to the fence line away from Weldon Avenue and straight back. Weldon Avenue is a one way street; there is a transmission shop on the corner, that’s about all the traffic there is on that street.
Bill Mosher asked is this a two story addition?
Mr. Greeno replied one story.
Louis A. McFarland motioned to approve, seconded by Al Sedlak. VOTE ON MOTION: LOUIS MCFARLAND, YEA; ALAN SEDLAK, YEA; BILL MOSHER, YEA; JEAN DROSTE, YEA; MARSHA GRIEBEL GRAHAM, YEA. 5 YEAS, 0 NAYS, 2 ABSENT (LEASURE AND VINKOVICH). MOTION CARRIED.
Jean Droste motioned to adjourn, seconded by Louis A. McFarland. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned.
Printer friendly version