Civil War Timeline.

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
May 25, 2010

Members present: Fricke, Boehringer, Williams, Mignogna, Loomis
Also present: Himes, Schaltenbrand

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Wade Fricke.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held April 27, 2010 were approved.

MICHAEL AND GAIL BERNARD, 395 EAST WASHINGTON STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(b), NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS, AND SECTION 1125.04(a)(2)&(a)(3), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS; ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-11-007

Mr. Himes said the applicants are proposing to demolish an existing, nonconforming accessory structure that serves as a garage on the property. They propose to build another garage 40' x 24" in roughly the same location. Our code 1145 is the nonconforming structure section that requires additions to nonconforming structures be in compliance with the yard coverage and height regulations and that also the original building be made to conform to those regulations. The proposal doesn’t meet the code for setback, side yard, or lot coverage. They are proposing a one foot eleven inches setback where our code requires a three foot minimum setback. Lot coverage is proposed at 960 square feet plus 80 square feet of an existing shed for a total accessory building coverage of 1,040 square feet where the code allows 700 square feet.

Mr. Fricke asked if this is a demolition and rebuild? Mr. Himes said correct. Mr. Bernard said originally it was my intent to try to preserve the actual building and just spread it out but it would be uneconomical.

Phil Koepf, architect, said the existing garage, the foundation is failing along the westerly wall. The grade drops off to about 3 feet from the floor line to the grade in the back corner of the existing garage and right now it is being held together with temporary cables that actually run across the floor. By the time you get done trying to save this and make it larger it is just not practical. The Bernards would like to have a garage large enough to store four cars. Subsequent to me doing these drawings, he had spoken to a couple of contractors and they all believe that he should cut back on the depth but he will still be able to fit his cars in it if he went to 38 feet but there are large trees behind the shed that we don’t want to kill and we don’t want to take the shed out because it is practical and it has been there probably longer than the garage. The two garages, the neighbor’s single-car garage and the Bernard’s garage, sit approximately two feet off and at the same line next to each other. The house, driveway, and garage entrance is already approximately eight feet behind the house. As it is, in order to get out of this garage you would have to kind of back out and turn to miss the corner of the house. I left the garage doors in approximately the same location and made the garage wider so that there would be minimal rework of the existing pavement for the driveway so that you are not any further behind the house to try to maneuver around. There is really no place to create any kind of turnaround without losing even more yard than they already have. We would like to keep it on the same foundation line, probably not the same foundation, and just make it wider. Instead of 40' we would like to make it 38' deep. In terms of height, we are not making it any taller; as short as we can make a garage with an eight foot wall and a standard pitch that matches the house and the details of the existing garage.

Mr. Koepf said we have letters of approval from two of the neighbors at 389 East Washington Street and 383 East Washington Street.

Mr. Boehringer said, the fact that it is a complete demolition, I was hoping you could get some room between the property line but then you were explaining the driveway and all that kind of stuff. Mr. Koepf said I originally proposed that we demo the garage, take the floor slab out, and dig along the existing foundation and use it as like a retaining wall or a foundation next to it which would have moved it over but every inch we move it over we end up needing to do something with the apron to get into the garage because right now it lines up 8 inches off the base. Mr. Williams asked, since you are demolishing the garage completely, have you thought about changing the location of it and attaching it the house? He said our code typically requires that for new construction the garage has to be attached to the house and with new garage construction the code generally encourages that it be attached to the house. Although, we have granted variances in the past where an old garage is falling down like yours and the owner requested to build a replacement garage on the existing location. But, because of the size of your garage, I was wondering if you’d even consider attaching it to the back of the house. Mr. Bernard said even if I didn’t enlarge the garage and if we were to put it on the side it would have to be a side entry garage because there is simply not enough driveway to enable that to happen. To make it a rear-load garage I would have to run the pavement all the way around and then I think you change the whole character of the home and certainly the interior in terms of the lighting and the way it would look. I would abandon the project entirely if that was going to be a requirement.

Mr. Fricke asked if there is a chance that it is actually hanging over into the neighbor’s property? Mr. Koepf said no, they are about two feet apart.

Mr. Williams said one of the challenges that we’ve got is this issue of practical difficulty. As variance requests are submitted we have to basically use the test of practical difficulty. What are the practical difficulties facing the project that you have in mind? One of things I am struggling with is the four-car garage request itself. I have never seen one and I have been doing this for nine years. When you talk about is the request itself unusual I think it is in this circumstance because of the four-car garage size. That is the first hurdle for me that makes it more difficult to consider the other elements of practical difficulty like the side yard setback, the lot coverage variance, and so forth. And, also the increase in the actual size of the garage itself. Besides the fact that it is a four-car garage we are talking about increasing the size of the out building by close to 50% of the existing garage itself. One of the other things that is important to note, particularly in this case, and this comes up almost every single time because most homes in the Village are nonconforming. In this case, when I look at the nonconforming requirement, that section of the code requires that the house or the structure be brought into compliance with the code, which is why you need a variance request for that because it would be out of code and you need these other variances. So, with the combination of these elements they are overwhelming to me relative to a lot of the other garages and other similar additions that we have put on, that we have allowed in terms of the variances. West Summit Street is a chronic challenge. They are very small bungalow style houses. They are in need of pretty dramatic improvements both interior and exterior just to accommodate a typical family so we see variance requests there a lot. In fact, we got a second variance request from the same homeowner from one we gave him two years ago and he is making another small adjustment to the house that required that. I totally appreciate your desire to upgrade the house and make it the way you want to. Where I am getting really stuck is the combination of all the elements of what you are looking for here and when I use this test of practical difficulty that is where it gets really challenging. It is not so much the fact that you want to build a new garage, the first step is that you want to build a four-car garage. I understand it is tandem; two in back and two in front. Mr. Bernard said the garage is already 30 feet so it is a much deeper garage than normal. When we bought the house, what came to use was just push out the back and I wasn’t even thinking of widening it at all. Then, one thing led to another and we said if we are going to do that we might as well widen it too.

Mr. Fricke asked, have you done everything you can to make this proposal as small as possible? It is my understanding you just took 2 feet off from the back. Mr. Bernard said we have done everything we can. We might be able to narrow it some if we had to a foot or so. It is just that at some level it doesn’t create any significant economics so I was trying to get as much space with the relative cost involved while keeping the size.

Mr. Williams said if you have to rip out the foundation of the old garage, in terms of the side yard, we are talking about 2 feet and I haven’t looked at the actual dimensions on site in terms of how the garage is going to sit and I understand that you have the turnaround issue as well. Mr. Bernard said if you did that then the whole driveway is going to be skewed and actually be back behind our patio and would require additional paving and grading in order to accommodate that. It would change the look and feel of the home, actually. We have a privacy fence right in front of that patio so likely it would be very difficult to even tell that the garage has been expanded as you are standing on the side.
Mr. Boehringer said across the street from where they live, the house next to the high school has a barn. Is that barn about the same size as this? Mr. Himes said I don’t know, I think they did get a variance for the height.

Mr. Williams said here is one of the other reasons why we are kind of digging more deeply into the combinations of elements that you’ve got going on with your garage. We are an administrative body for the Chagrin Falls Village Council and what we do is whatever variance requests come up we review them, we test practical difficulty, and we do our findings of facts in terms of understanding the details of all those elements that make up the variance requests and other elements like do you have neighbors that are opposed to it or neighbors that are for it. All of those things kind of get baked into this. This then has to go to Council and then they have to approve the administrative actions. So, that is where the actual authority is. They rely on the BZA to do all of the technical components before a recommendation is made. I am on Council and so I am the one who presents it to Council. I am thinking about explaining all of these elements, the elements of practical difficulty, and I get quizzed and there are some other ones that are so complex that they would never survive and these are much larger projects. Where I am getting concerned is that the combination of elements could cause a problem at Council. So, as I am explaining practical difficulty of the garage, the dimensions it is, where it is sitting on the property, and so forth it could be challenged at Council and that is obviously not something we want you to have to go through a second time if that be the case.

Mr. Koepf said by narrowing and shortening the garage to a certain point to try to get it to stay under 700 square feet, you could make it. It is possible to fit four vehicles in a 700 square foot area and if we moved it over 12 inches or something it would still probably work. Any further back we are getting into trees even if we are cutting down to thirty-six or something in terms of the length. Anything less than 36 feet you are not going to get the two cars front to back. Mr. Bernard said the objective is to ultimately put four cars in there and be able to maneuver around the cars comfortably. I just don’t want to shoehorn them in there. It is not just a storage thing, I could find storage for a lot cheaper than I can rebuild this garage. I think the result is going to be a structure that will look very similar to what is currently there.

Mr. Frick said even though it sounds like it is only 3 feet, if you just take the garage and move it over a little bit then you are not even here on that particular variance issue. I understand it will create the need to pour more concrete and give you a little bit of a swaggle to your driveway. That is one of the things I wrestle with. When you fill out your application it has the factors we have to look at and answer aye or nay and one of them is can you get what you want through other means? I keep thinking well, if you just move the garage over a little bit you would get the 3 feet. I think we have to think about the fact that the neighbor’s garage, one of the things we worry about is the neighbor’s garage right now is mirroring your garage. What happens when the neighbor moves and we allow you to have your variance and the next neighbor comes along and we just have to think through things like that.

Mr. Boehringer said where it is placed you don’t see it. Even though it is large it will blend into this area and maybe the next guy comes and wants the same thing it wouldn’t blend in the area. He’s got a lot of room back there and it just seems that it would be absorbed in there. I would still like to see that thing moved off the line.

Mr. Williams said I am having a really tough time coming up with the reasons behind granting the variance. What happens is when variance requests are granted the variances are named and the reasons for granting those variances are listed out and that is where I am struggling. I don’t know how to, with these sets of variables, come up with a reasonable explanation as to why all three of these variances are being granted.

Mr. Boehringer asked, are you in the position to suggest what the bare bone minimum footprint could be? Mr. Williams said I have another suggestion. He said it would be possible to table the matter and give Phil a chance to talk to the Bernards about the things that have come up with tonight. Mr. Boehringer said we can, if you’d like, vote now based on what we’ve heard or what Bob is suggesting. Would you like an opportunity to go back and see if it is doable at 760 feet? If you went 3 three feet over or 2 feet over what does that do to the project? We can always revisit this again but if you decide no, this is what we want, we can proceed. Mr. Bernard said I am proposing 24 by 38 at this point. If you wanted me to move it another foot off the line I could take a foot off the other side and then that way it wouldn’t have to go further into the yard. I am trying not to encroach on the other addition that has been added on to the house. Right now the way it sits is the center of the driveway runs right up the center of the two garages and if you move the garage off that they are going to be skewed and so I do think there is going to be a difference in my mind. It is going to be a different look to the structures. The further I come off that center line, the combination of those two structures are going to appear differently. Mr. Boehringer asked, do you have an adjoining/shared driveway? Mr. Bernard said it is not shared, they abut and that center line runs right up exactly between those two garages and I think it adds character to the home. I prefer probably that I didn’t have that situation but it is there.

Mr. Bernard asked, if you table it when will it come back for reconsideration? Mr. Fricke said as early as next month. Your choice is to allow us to vote, if you want to take it back and see if you can move off the 3 three feet, or see what you can live with. Mr. Bernard said I am probably inclined to let you vote based on what you heard. What I am concerned about is if we change it a lot it will change the character and look of our home overall and then make it too small to put the cars.

Mr. Fricke said if you wanted 38 by 20 that gets you that 760 feet so you are at 38 feet now and if you took the 4 feet off the width you are getting close. Although, the shed also counts; the 80 square feet.

Mr. Koepf said you can probably build a four-car garage at around 700 square feet. You are still going to have a variance request because of the shed in terms of overall footprint on the site. I think I could come back with something that maybe they could work with or maybe they can’t and maybe it is more palatable and easier to sell to Council.

Mr. Williams said the one thing you want to keep in mind is how substantial is the overall variance is. The footprint is a consideration of how substantial the overall variance is. Obviously side yard setback is of interest to us. You do have an existing structure that sits there. We take that into account as well so I think what you have to do is really talk about the scale of the garage as well. I think that is probably your most important consideration right now.

Mr. Fricke said I really never focused on the shed because to me it is a separate structure. While it does count towards the footprint I am not sure that, to me, it makes a bit of a difference.

Mr. Bernard asked, if the garage just needed to be replaced and I didn’t make it any bigger, would I need variances to do that? Mr. Fricke said you would still have the three foot issue and I don’t believe it is over 700 square feet. Mr. Boehringer said you would still be asked to move it over.

Mr. Williams said the variances, as they stand right now, I can not make a motion to grant the variances that you have asked for because of the combination and the substantial nature of them as they are considered as a whole. In order for the variances to be granted somebody would have to make an affirmative motion to grant your variance requests. I can no do that. Your options are, as Wade said, let it ride and see how the vote occurs on the variance request approval or denial and go from there or you can ask us to table it and go back and you have a $100 filing fee for each new request. I guess I would suggest you ask us to table it and think about your plan or we are happy to go ahead and proceed with a vote on this matter.

Mr. Fricke said one of the tests is, is what they are seeking possible through other reasonable means? So, I still wrestle with that myself whether coming in two feet or a foot and a half on either side. If you are here looking for a side variance of 6 inches I think that might be different than 2 feet but I don’t know. Mr. Bernard said I suppose instead of making it 24 feet I could make it 22 feet and start it 2 feet in from where it currently is.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer to propose a motion to grant the variances. It will simply be a simple motion to approve. I make a motion to approve the variance requests made by the Bernards at 395 East Washington Street, the variances to section 1145.02(b), nonconforming structure, 1125.04(a)(2), total area of accessory structures. They are requesting a variance to the code of 700 square feet. Their variance request is for an additional 260 square feet to 960 square feet plus the 80 feet for the additional out building and a variance to section 1124.05(a)(3), minimum setback of 3 feet to the side yard. They are requesting a setback of one foot eleven inches. Mr. Fricke said it is 2 feet one inch.

Boehringer: No.

Loomis: No.

Fricke: I will vote no.

Williams: No, I am going to vote against the motion. I don’t believe that the variance requests meet the test of practical difficulty in particular to the unusual scale increase of the garage that they have, also, the side yard setback encroachment that they are requesting.

Mignogna: No, for all the reasons Bob mentioned.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council on June 14, 2010 for their final action.

MISCELLANEOUS

The Board discussed and reviewed open meeting procedures and rules.

The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.

____________________________
Wade Fricke, Chairman
lgb

Waste Management’s Solar Powered Compactor is built to last! It is 100% made in the USA with 99% U.S. manufactured parts. Read More