VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
December 15, 2009
Members present: O’Brien, Boehringer, Fricke, Mignogna
Also present: Himes, Byron
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman John O’Brien.
JOANN MITCHELL, 232 CHAGRIN BOULEVARD - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(b), NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, AND SECTION 1125.03(f), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-09-016.
Mr. Himes said the applicant has asked for a continuance until the January meeting.
HOUSEHOLD REALTY CORP, 195 NORTH MAIN STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(b), NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, AND SECTION 1125.03(f), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-10-006.
Mr. Himes explained that the existing house sits entirely in the front yard, the 30 foot front yard setback, and they are proposing to put an addition on the house; primarily a second story addition. Our code states that additions to nonconforming dwellings must comply with the code.
Lynn DeGreen said I want to put a second story on. The house right next to it, just south of it, is a two-story so it is going to look more like the rest of the neighborhood. The other side is the cemetery. And then you are adding an addition on the back with a walk-out basement. The whole house is built on the setback so we are not changing the footprint of the house; we are going up. We wouldn’t be able to do anything without a variance so we just want a 6 foot entry way into the front of the house and then adding the second story.
Mr. O’Brien asked if it went to the ARB? Mrs. DeGreen said yes, this morning, and it passed.
Moved by Mr. Fricke, seconded by Mr. Boehringer that we grant the variances with respect to Section 1145.02(b) and with respect to Section 1125.03(f) as requested by the applicants. I do so based on a number of factors. One, the evidence that we heard suggests that by granting the variances the character of the neighborhood won’t be substantially altered. In fact, we will have a two-story house next to two-story houses. It think perhaps, most significantly, the footprint is not changing and the entire house is nonconforming with respect to the front yard setback. The delivery of governmental services will not be adversely affected by granting the variance. The property owner, I assume, purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, however, the entire house is nonconforming. One of the tests is can the property owner’s predicament feasiblely be obviated through another method other than going up? I don’t see how that would happen without creating more of a need for a variance. I think the spirit and intent of the zoning requirement will be met by allowing you to build up in your nonconforming footprint. Fort those reasons I would move that we grant the variances as requested.
Boehringer: For the reasons given, yes.
Fricke: Aye.
O’Brien: For the reasons given, and the fact that there is no opposition from any of the neighbors as well, I vote aye.
Mignogna: Aye.
Mr. Himes said this will go to Council on Monday, January 11, 2010 for final action.
VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS, 32 WEST ORANGE STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1130.04(c), AREA REGULATIONS, SECTION 1130.06(a)(1)(c), YARD AND BUFFER REGULATION, SECTION 1130.05(a), HEIGHT REGULATIONS, AND SECTION 1165.04(f)(1), HILLSIDE, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-12-023.
Mr. Himes said the variances requested should not include Section 1165, Hillside Ordinances as indicated on the application. The average slope on this parcel is about 9% based on the county topography maps or about 7.4% per the site plan, which is less than the 12% slope that triggers coverage restrictions. The lot is nearly 100% improved in its current state and there is no undisturbed natural features to protect.
Mr. Himes explained that this is the last parcel on the West Orange Street development. It was previously a lot zoned for office use. The applicant has gone through the Planning Commission and to Council to have the zoning amended. There is now a Residential Mixed-Use overlay on the parcel. They propose to build one two-family dwelling on the parcel. As you will recall, from the previous discussions all of the lots will be adjusted to a more uniform frontage. The western lot line will be moved 20 feet to the east to split the distance between the proposed buildings. The zoning analysis was based on the future proposed lot so variances are required for lot coverage. Twenty-seven percent is allowed and 33.9% is proposed. They are requesting a height variance; 35 feet is allowed and 46 feet is proposed.
Setbacks are defined by what is considered the front of the parcel. Our code allows the property owner to designate the front. If the front is taken as West Orange Street, they meet the front yard setback and side yard setbacks but will need a variance to the rear yard setback. If Williams Street is taken as the front of the parcel, they would meet both side yard setbacks but would need a front and rear yard setback.
Mr. O’Brien asked, has Mr. Vitt decided yet which way he wants to go. Mr. Himes said there would be another step if Williams Street is taken as the front yard. He would have to go back to the Planning Commission to get that selection confirmed. Mr. O’Brien asked, would we be within our authority though to grant a variance so that he would have the flexibility of going either way? Mr. Byron said you can grant a contingent variance. All you are doing is allowing the proposed location and setbacks. The orientation of the structure isn’t going to impact those measurements. Mr. O’Brien said if that is our decision, to grant the variances, then wouldn’t we be better off tonight trying to resolve it so he doesn’t have to come back to us if he does? Mr. Himes said right, although selection of front yard only impacts setbacks. Mr. O’Brien said, that is what I am saying that I think we might be able to get there tonight. Mr. Boehringer said he can make selection even without, there is no requirement for a front door. Mr. Himes said the front of the property and front yard has no bearing on the orientation of the building. It only affects how the setbacks are measured. There is no requirement to have a front door facing the front yard. Mr. Fricke asked, upon what will P&Z base its decision if he goes back to P&Z and he says I want Williams Street to be the front? Mr. Himes said typically it is the alignment of the existing buildings. For instance, if you have 30 foot setbacks along Williams Street it would look like all the houses lined up that way. I think it would mostly bear on what it looks like in the neighborhood; does the house really look like it faces this street or that street?
Mr. O’Brien said a year ago we granted a variance for this property but for a totally different type of building, a commercial building. Could you kind of contrast what would have been there versus what Mr. Vitt is proposing tonight? Mr. Himes said I didn’t bring that file with me but generally Mr. Shibley was proposing an office and retail building. Mr. O’Brien asked, it is going to be 13,000 square feet? Mr. Himes said right, 13,600 square feet I think. It would have been three stories and it would have had parking in the rear yard area right up to the property line. Mr. O’Brien said this is a building that is about a third the size of what we approved a year ago to go there. Mr. Himes said right.
Mr. Fricke asked, was this not proposed a single-family house when we last heard it? Mr. Vitt said in an earlier rendition it was proposed because the site doesn’t permit six duplexes. We are going to have five duplexes and one single and what we looked at was whether the single went on the east end or the west end because the west end has such extreme topography it became apparent that it worked on the east end and not the west end so the single unit went from the west end to the east end.
Mr. Vitt said we looked at this question, “what is the front?”. The other units front entrance is actually on the side of the building. When you get down to the last building, the side faces Williams Street so even though it would appear to be the front of the house, if you consider as all the other duplexes it is in fact the side elevation. If it was considered the front elevation the five foot setback that we are asking for on the north would be in compliance. But, because in this orientation the side facing West Orange is what we will probably consider the front elevation meaning the north side of the house becomes the rear yard. That is why the variance goes from 30 feet to 5 feet.
Mr. O’Brien asked, have you made a decision what you are going to call a front, Williams or West Orange? Mr. Vitt said I think they will all be fronted on Orange Street; they will all have West Orange addresses.
Valerie Bertsch asked, would you explain to me why we have zoning laws? She said I don’t understand why we have these laws if anybody with a fist full of dollars can come in and get whatever they need. This is my house. This is where I live and you are like right on top of me. I have been here twenty some years. Like, why do you have these laws if it seems to me anybody that wants to can get a variance and do whatever they want. Would you explain that to me? Aren’t these here to protect people that have been here like me that have lived in this house for twenty years?
Mr. Byron said the history to zoning goes back to the 1920's. It is to provide for rules for people to construct houses and projects, however, when you have uniquely shaped lots that make the development of the property difficult, which is the legal standard of practical difficulty for this type of thing, a variance is a safety valve to allow a reasonable development of a parcel of property because while you have property rights, so does the other property owner as well. What the government is here to do is balance the competing interest of your property interests against other property interests and that is what this exercise is about.
Ms. Bertsch said, I don’t see my interest being taken into consideration. Mr. O’Brien said, I am sorry you feel that way because we think we are, in fact, doing that. Ms. Bertsch said how do you come up with that when you are like right there. I mean have you seen a picture of this? This is 5 feet from my yard. I mean if that were your house would you want that?
Mr. O’Brien said that is exactly what I have. You picked the wrong example. The fact is, you have more distance between this property and this dwelling than I have on either side of my house. That building is not going to be 5 feet from your house. Mr. Vitt said we are actually 14 feet so we are actually 4 feet further away than the zoning comes in. Ms. Bertsch said I must not be reading this correctly then because building rear setback 5 feet, zoning requirement 30 feet. Mr. Himes said it will be 5 feet from the property line, not from the building. Mr. Vitt said if it was a side yard it could be 3 feet. Mr. Himes said the setback is measured from the property line to the building so that 5 feet that they are showing is from the property line to their proposed building.
Ms. Bertsch said, and the hillside regulation, my house is already sliding, according to the new door I just put in. The guy that put it in said it is because your house is going down hill. So, how are we going to guarantee that my house isn’t going to go a little bit more down the hill? I mean it is very un-square, let’s put is that way. Mr. Himes said they don’t need a variance to the hillside ordinance. It was an error on the application that they applied for that section.
Mr. O’Brien said Mr. Vitt did talk at a prior meeting about further to the west there are some slope issues and some movement and what he intends to do when we granted the variance in October. That has been an issue that we’ve been concerned about.
Mr. Boehringer said this proposal is one-third the size of the original proposal. Ms. Bertsch said I just think this is too big. I think it is a silly place for a house because you are right across from Gamekeeper’s. You hear traffic all day long and you hear Gamekeeper’s patio until 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. I live there, I know this stuff. You look out this window and you see the pretty pink lights on the other little house, which I don’t mind but I don’t know who would want to live there. You are right downtown; there is no buffer. You get the noise, you get the motorcycles, you get the traffic, the people drinking on the patio, you get all that. I know because I live there and at least I have that much of a space between me. I just think it is inappropriate to put a house there because I honestly can’t understand who would want to live there. Mr. O’Brien said that isn’t something that we consider as part of the variance request.
Mr. Fricke said I would like to hear from Mr. Vitt. Have you considered a smaller building? Is it feasible? Mr. Vitt said we have actually decreased the footprint of these buildings from the previous developer’s plans. The footprint was approximately 46 feet wide by 56 feet deep while we are 44 feet wide by 50 feet deep. We have also decreased the height. It is only one foot less but if you looked at the size, that building was 95 feet wide when the office building was proposed and our buildings are 44 feet wide with a 12-foot separation between them so the mass of the building is substantially less. The other thing about the previous project is that they were putting a parking lot within 5 feet of Ms. Bertsch’s house. That parking lot, because of the restaurants and the building, probably would have been used until the restaurants and the bars closed at night. In our situation, instead of being a parking lot 5 feet from her house our building is 14.5 feet and it will literally be a buffer between her house and the activity on Orange Street and the wine bar across the street. Additionally, we will landscape that 14.5 feet separation between the two buildings. Had we designated that as a side yard we could have built within literally less than 10 feet of the side per house and we are in fact approximately 14 feet. We want to be a good neighbor. We hope that in the end we will end up being somewhat of a buffer from that activity and noise on West Orange and I am really not concerned about buyers for the units in proximity to downtown. One of the things that is going to be very attractive to buyers is the fact that they are down there.
Moved by Mr. Fricke, seconded by Mr. Boehringer that I would propose that we grant the three variance requests at 32 West Orange Street; the variances to Section 1130.04(c), Lot Coverage, Section 1130.06(a)(1)(c), Rear Yard Depth, and Section 1130.05(a), Height. I do so while acknowledging the concerns of the neighbor. This is an unusual neighborhood, so to speak. It is a one-house neighborhood which does create unusual and unique concerns. We are also creating a neighborhood, I guess, along West Orange Street. I would note that the variances that this group has considered in the past that were granted were for a much more substantial building. The building before us now is a third of the size of the one we already approved. It is, I believe, a story less and there will be no parking abutting the neighbor’s house on this proposal. I will also note that it would be up to the property owner, or could be up to the property owner to declare the front of the building being on Williams Street, in which case the side closest to the Bertschs would be in compliance with the ordinances of Chagrin Falls. I would also acknowledge, as we have acknowledged in granting variances before, this is a very unique piece of property, very uniquely shaped, and I think it is of the type warranting a variance as requested. I guess for those reasons I would move that the Board consider granting the three variances as requested.
Boehringer: For the reasons stated in the motion plus the fact that there is a 14 foot buffer between the home and the proposed house and I think that probably 50% of the houses in Chagrin Falls are less than that. I vote yes.
Fricke: I vote aye as well.
O’Brien: Aye, for the reasons mentioned.
Mignogna: Aye, for the reasons mentioned as well.
Mr. Himes said this will go to Council on January 11, 2010 for final action.
The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
___________________________
John O’Brien, Chairman
lgb
