Civil War Timeline.

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
January 27, 2009

Members present: O’Brien, Boehringer, Williams, Mignogna
Also present: Himes, Schaltenbrand

The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman John O’Brien.

ORGANIZATION

Mr. O’Brien opened nominations for Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman. Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer that Mr. O’Brien serve as Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman. Carried. Ayes: Williams, Boehringer, O’Brien. Nays: None. Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer that the nominations for Board of Zoning Appeals Chairman be closed. Carried. Ayes: Williams, Boehringer, O’Brien. Nays: None.

Mr. O’Brien opened nominations for Board of Zoning Appeals Secretary. Moved by Mr. Boehringer, seconded by Mr. Williams that Mr. Fricke serve as Board of Zoning Appeals Secretary. Carried. Ayes: Williams, Boehringer, O’Brien. Nays: None. Moved by Mr. Boehringer, seconded by Mr. Williams that the nominations for Board of Zoning Appeals Secretary be closed. Carried. Boehringer, Williams, O’Brien. Nays: None.

Mrs. Schaltenbrand swore in new Board member, Christina Mignogna.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Mr. Boehringer, seconded by Mr. Williams that the minutes of the meetings held September 23, 2008 and October 28, 2008 be approved. Carried. Ayes: O’Brien, Boehringer, Williams. Abstain: Mignogna. Nays: None.

GOLDEN GATE MASONIC TEMPLE ASSN. CO. - 11 WEST WASHINGTON STREET, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1143.06, NUMBER AND TYPE OF SIGNS PERMITTED, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-03-007.

Mr. Himes explained that the masonic Temple would like to put a sign at the top of the building on the east side of the building similar to their existing sign that is on the north side, although this one would be standing letters rather than the engraved letters that are on the north side. The zoning code does not permit the sign. Section 1143.06 limits the number and type of signs on buildings and this would be in excess of what the code allows.

Mr. O’Brien said they have what is permitted in (a) through (h). Mr. Himes said correct, and if not specifically permitted the code says that they are prohibited. Mr. O’Brien said other types of permanent signs are prohibited unless expressly permitted. Mr. Himes said correct. Mr. O’Brien asked if this sign, in Mr. Himes’ opinion, meets any of the descriptions? Mr. Himes said no.

Attorney Dan Corcoran, who is representing the Golden Gate Masonic Temple, said he disagrees with Mr. Himes and Mr. Edwards and he finds it a stretch to say that this thing comes under the upper floor uses. It says in business districts, any use located on the second floor of a building or above shall be entitled to one window sign identifying the name and nature of the business. He said they are not a business, they are an organization and it is a stretch to use Section 1143.06. They want to put a sign above the third floor on the east side of the building. The reason for that is that Masons like to travel quite a lot and they get calls from people who are stranded and can’t get to the lodge because they can’t see a sign.

Mr. Corcoran read Section 1143.06(d): “In addition to other permitted signs, building identification wall or window signs of historic significance shall be permitted regardless of size. Such signs shall be considered of historic significance if in place for at least fifty years or as determined by the Architectural Review Board”. Mr. O’Brien said what Mr. Corcoran just referred to, Exempt Signs, the sign (an existing sign) has to be there for fifty years. Mr. Corcoran said he thinks the last sentence, “or”. Mr. O’Brien said “or” right. He asked if they have been to the ARB? Mr. Corcoran said no.

Mr. Corcoran said he thinks the sign ordinance is a good ordinance. However, he thinks it pertains mostly to if you are like a boutique or a restaurant because it talks about putting a sign in a window. He his talking about on the outside wall, not a window. He said the sign is not obtrusive. They are asking just to be able to put this on the east side of the building, which is the area where people can see it. They have been there a long time and are a part of the community.

Mr. O’Brien asked if Mr. Corcoran is familiar with the Valley Art Center? Mr. Corcoran said yes, on Bell Street. Mr. O’Brien said and the fact that they were here the last couple of months for a sign that they would like to have that doesn’t meet the code. In the case of the Valley Art Center we said we even like the sign but we don’t have any basis in our code to give you the relief you are looking for. That ended up being our decision with them and as I read our code, I am also looking for the same basis that we can act without, when we take our oath of office we sort of say we will uphold the law, we won’t make new law. And so in the case of the Valley Art Center what we did was we asked them to discuss with Council having the Board of Planning and Zoning look at this to see if there should be some change in our code that would allow the Valley Art Center, since they are not-for-profit, like you are not-for-profit, to have some sort of special treatment and that will be up to Council. Our dilemma, or my dilemma and I will speak for myself and let everyone else speak for themself, is that as I read the code I don’t see and it is very clear it says other types of permanent signs are prohibited unless expressly permitted. I don’t find any of the areas here where it would be permitted and I don’t find any of the other basis that we would have, practical difficulty or what have you, to grant a variance and I was looking to you. Do you see something that I don’t see. Mr. Corcoran said I don’t see any exemption of this type of sign. If it is not in the statute of the ordinance it doesn’t apply. Mr. O’Brien said this language says other types of permanent signs are prohibited unless expressly permitted and it is none of these. This is 1143.06. Mr. Corcoran said his argument is that 1143.06(f) doesn’t apply. That is what Mr. Edwards and Mr. Himes used as the argument that we didn’t comply. Mr. O’Brien said I don’t know what they said to you but you would be able to have a second floor sign limited to a maximum of 25 square feet. Mr. Corcoran said it is just for windows. Mr. O’Brien said in the window, right. Mr. Corcoran said he doesn’t want it in the window. Mr. O’Brien said that is expressly permitted, anything else that is not here is expressly prohibited. That is our dilemma. That was our dilemma with the Valley Art Center. We didn’t have a specific basis in the code or thinking outside the code where they would qualify based upon what the Ohio Revised Code and our code say must be present to grant a variance. Mr. Corcoran said my argument is since it is not included in here that it should be permitted because it is not part of the ordinance. Mrs. Schaltenbrand said unless you fall within (a) through (h) as being permitted, you are prohibited. Mr. Corcoran said it seems to me that someplace along the line the ordinance should indicate what is permitted. Mr. O’Brien said it does, (a) through (h).

Mr. O’Brien said you might want to take the route that the Valley Art Center is and see if you can get Planning and Zoning to initiate some change to the code that would give you some relief. Mr. Boehringer said they are working on that right now. Mr. O’Brien said they are working on it in the context of the Valley Art Center.

Mr. Boehringer said Dan, if I were you I would take that sign that you’ve got there that says Golden Gate and I would do something with that so that would stand out. And then I would put a light on top of it.

Mr. Williams said we get a number of signage requests every year and first the administration has to make a determination as to whether or not the request actually fits within the code guidelines and if it doesn’t the next step is to come to the Board of Zoning Appeals to render an interpretation of the request to see if it is in fact going to receive or be eligible for a variance. The BZA then makes their findings of fact relative to the request to the code and makes that recommendation based on those findings of fact to the Council and Council renders the final decision on the Board’s findings.
Mr. O’Brien suggested that the applicant withdraw his request for a variance so that the BZA does not vote negatively, which would prevent the applicant from coming back to the BZA for the same or similar request.

Mr. Corcoran said he would suggest that also.

It was asked if there is any recommendation this Board might have to follow the code that we might put some identification on the building so people coming into town might know what it is? Mr. O’Brien said Tom gave you two. He said could you go to the building that has the Lowe’s sign on it to identify your building. Mr. Boehringer said I still think you can darken those letters.

Mr. Corcoran said, for the record, we agree that the Golden Gate Masonic Temple Association hereby withdraws their application for a zoning appeal in order to put up a sign on the east side of present building. Mr. Himes said the Planning and Zoning Commission will meet on the third Monday in February if he would like to attend the meeting.

FALLS WALK DEVELOPERS, LLC - 115 EAST SUMMIT STREET, REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.04(b), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS; ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, PERMANENT PARCEL NOS. 931-06-002, 931-06-012, 931-06-013, AND 931-06-015.

Mr. Himes said Falls Walk Developers, LLC has been here previously for a density variance, which was granted. During the design development of the subdivision and subsequent Planning Commission meetings where sidewalks are required throughout the frontage on Summit Street, it came to light that there were some difficulty with installing driveways out to Summit Street on three lots closest to North Street, sub-lots 33, 34, & 35 and then also the Sears House, which is the remaining historic structure on the property, had difficulty accessing Summit Street due to the topography and the required sidewalk installation so they have requested a shared driveway to access those properties from the rear as well as connecting to the Sears House. Our code requires each individual residence to be served by a separate driveway on the individual lot so the variance request is for the shared driveway.

Bob Micco said the sidewalk issues exasperated, the problem was still there before but it certainly exasperated. It took away horizontal distance from the grade. When we got to the end of the plan design and we looked at what we had, I asked the engineer to do a profile on the street front.

Mr. Williams asked who said the sidewalk had to go on the north side? Mr. Himes said that came from the Planning Commission and the Streets and Sidewalks Committee also considered it. Mr. Micco said we had originally offered the Village to go on the north side of the street to our road coming from Main Street and then go across the street on the south side not only for the topographical issue but the issue of safety at the terminus of the sidewalk at North Street. Mr. O’Brien said we like that. Mr. Micco said I am still concerned about safety, however, whatever was decided was to keep it all on the north side of the street. One of the things we looked at to solve this problem was to reduce the grade of the Sears House. What we want to do is cut the grade down and move the house back on a new foundation where it was. We talked to a few people informally on the ARB and they said if Ted Sande recommends it we would probably go along with Ted. The option we have is what you have before you and then subsequent to that, as we put this together the sidewalk committee decided that we have the sidewalk on the north side, which exasperated the grade problem. What we tried to do with the driveways that have a grade less than 10% so when people open their car door it doesn’t shut up against them. By dropping the grade, the Sears House just stuck up in the air on the east side and it is 13 feet on the west side, which we have to live with. At least this will make the profile, the streetscape from Summit look much more attractive.

Mr. Williams said in the elevation that you did in Exhibit “B”, how extreme is that grade? It looks like it has to be 8' to 10'. Mr. Micco said it is 15' on the north-east side. Mr. Williams said you would have to excavate 15' down in order for the original plan to be met. Mr. Micco said from the grade of the Sears House to the grade of the first house there is a vertical difference of 15'. Mr. Williams asked, if you go with the new plan, how would the grade change? Mr. Micco said it wouldn’t change much at all. There is a grade plan there included. He said one of the reasons this makes sense is that we have the apparatus and mechanics in place with the homeowners association to take care of not only the maintenance but the repair of that driveway and it will be done by the majority of the four people. If it is a two-to-two vote then the president of the homeowners association will step in and cast the deciding ballot. If the president of the homeowners association is one of the four, then the next officer would decide.

Jim Newll, 62 East Summit Street, asked to see what is being proposed. Mr. Williams said it is a shared private drive. It is not maintained by the Village.

Mr. Williams asked how wide the proposed shared driveway will be? Mr. Micco said 22'.

Jane Betz, 110 East Summit Street, spoke in favor of the common driveway.

Mr. Himes mentioned that the police chief did review this plan and didn’t have any problems with it.

Richard Jerkovitz, 231 North Street, asked how far up the hill is the curb cut for the shared drive from Summit Street that accesses on North Street. Mr. Micco said it is just a few feet from that telephone pole by the first house on North Street. They would have to get as far up North Street as possible so they can have a view either direction. Mr. Boehringer asked if the entrance can be wider? Mr. Micco said your apron on your driveway probably isn’t 22' long. He said sure, it could be wider but 22' is adequate. Mr. Williams said it looks like your flare is probably 35'. It looks likes a commercial grade flare on the end of the driveway going onto North Street.

Mr. Jerkovitz asked, what about signage so people don’t think they are pulling into the development? Mr. Himes said a sign could be put up saying “private drive” or “no outlet”.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer to approve the variance request by Falls Walk Developers LLC, a variance to Section 1125.04(b). I would like to enter a couple of facts into the record. One, the sidewalk that will be located now on the north side of Summit Street along the adjacent properties was essentially required by the Planning Commission so the option of putting the sidewalk on the south side was not available to the developers, thus creating a predicament in terms of safety. The safety issue having specifically to do with the proposed grade of the new houses, the grade of the new houses as originally designed would have required a 15' drop in the grade from the level of the Sears House, which of course is a historically significant house and also note that the grade of the Sears House can not be changed because of its historical nature. In fact, I would also like to note that I think that the new plan of leaving the grade essentially intact along the sites of the plots 33, 34, and 35 will actually improve the safety regarding pedestrian traffic. In other words, we won’t have the sidewalk going down the grade, across the driveways, and back up the grade on the other end of the site. Also, I would like to note that the developer will have a mandatory agreement amongst the four homeowners in place as a condition of purchasing the residences that provides for shared maintenance of the shared drive; the proposed shared drive being on the north side of lots 33, 34, and 35. Also, I would like to note that the proposed shared drive will be 22' wide, which is wide enough for two cars to pass. I would like to note that the average width of our public roads is 24'. I would also like to note that while this variance is substantial, it takes into account the safety of the area for both pedestrians and the ingress and egress of the residents onto North Street as opposed to Summit Street. Also, it does not change the character of the neighborhood substantially and probably improves the character of the neighborhood along Summit Street because of the reduced impact of the required grade under the new plan.

Mr. Boehringer said, I was looking at this, you enter that 22' private drive and you go down to the Sears Building. Is there any chance of putting a turn-around opposite the houses? Otherwise, you are going to have everybody turning around in somebody’s driveway. Mr. Micco said at the Sears House there will be a place to back up, turn around, and back out.

Mr. Jerkovitz asked about the shared driveway and where it will be. He was shown where it will be on the drawings.

Boehringer: For the reasons of the motion, plus the fact that I think this is a much safer plan that what the original was, I vote yes.

O’Brien: For all the reasons, and the fact that the neighbors present support it was well, I vote yes.

Williams: Aye, for the reasons I stated in my motion and I would also like to add a couple of other things. I believe this supports the spirit and intent of the zoning code. I think this will actually improve the access to governmental services and specifically I would like to note that I have not seen any written objections or heard any verbal objections to the proposed change.

Mignogna: For all the reasons stated I vote yes.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council on Monday February 9, 2009 for their final action.

The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

____________________________
John O’Brien, Chairman
lgb

27th Year

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