VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
COUNCIL MEETING 01-25-10

The meeting of the Council of the Village of Chagrin Falls was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Mr. Patton.

Member present: Evans, Jacobs, Lutz, Milko, Patton, Subel, Williams
Members absent: None.
Officials present: Mayor Brick, Bloom, Himes, Zugan, Byron, Cockrell, Lannon

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Mr. Jacobs, seconded by Mrs. Evans that the minutes of the meeting held November 23, 2009 be approved. Carried. Ayes: Evans, Jacobs, Lutz, Milko, Patton, Subel, Williams. Nays: None.

Moved by Mrs. Evans, seconded by Mr. Williams that the minutes of the meeting held January 11, 2010 be approved. Carried. Ayes: Evans, Jacobs, Lutz, Milko, Patton, Subel, Williams. Nays: None.

REPORT OF THE MAYOR

Mayor Brick mentioned that Council should have received a draft of Village priorities through the end of March. If anyone has any suggestions or additions, please let him know. He said number one on the list is to develop breakeven 2010 budgets and that process is already underway. They are aiming to have the various groups involved and looking for approval in March.

Mayor Brick said he is still looking for a volunteer to serve on the Board of Zoning Appeals so if any of you have any candidates, please do let him know.

Mayor Brick reported that he was informed that the Chagrin River Watershed Balanced Growth Plan has been endorsed by the Ohio Lake Erie Commission. This is a growth plan for the Village that was developed with the help of the Chagrin River Watershed Partners. It will really mean that it will help us when we apply for grants in the future with things respecting property and things of a more natural state. It wasn’t just for Chagrin Falls, it was for surrounding communities as well.
REPORT OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR

No report.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO AGENDA ITEMS (NOT TO EXCEED TWO (2) MINUTES PER PERSON)

Kathy Watterson spoke in opposition to the granting of the variances in Administrative Order No. 2010-01. She asked that Council deny these variances because they fail to comply with the Charter and the ordinances of the Village, or that they return the recommendation to the BZA directing them to consider the Duncan Rules and also advise them of the provisions of the zoning code sections 1130.04(a)(1) and 1130.04(a)(2).

REPORT OF THE LAW DIRECTOR

FINAL ORDER OF COUNCIL AND CONCLUSIONS OF FACT
Mr. Byron placed on the floor Administrative Order No. 2010-01 entitled:

FINAL ORDER OF COUNCIL AND CONCLUSIONS OF FACT REGARDING A VARIANCE REQUEST OF ROBERT J. VITT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-12-023.

Mr. Williams said this remains on our agenda tonight because we do have an open motion for this particular administrative action as well and this is being carried over because they didn’t have the written minutes available for them to review.

Mr. Byron said I would like to stress that I am talking about the legal authority of Council here. Council has the full control over the policy choices as to redevelopment and all those other aspects that are involved in this process. You have in front of you the minutes of the BZA and the Charter provides that you aren’t to act on the variance request until you have BZA’s recommendation. You previously had the administration’s formulation of facts, which are subject to your review and approval and you also now have the minutes of the BZA and to the extent the ordinances direct you to look at the record before the BZA. That would be the satisfactory of that ordinance provision. There was an objection to Mr. Vitt serving as the applicant or being designated as the applicant. He is, in fact, the person who signed the application as the representative of the Village. He has a contractual interest in the property and, therefore, is an appropriate party to serve as the applicant. While it was designated on the boards, the BZA’s agenda, that the Village was the property owner the applicant is, in fact, Mr. Vitt now with a contractual interest in the property. The conclusions of fact by their finding make determinations with respect to section 1111.07 of the code, which set forth the Duncan standards, the standards by which a community grants a variance from its zoning code, specifically whether or not a beneficial use is available without the variance, whether the character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, and whether this property is different than others that are required to comply with the code. Those are all findings that you’ll note within the conclusions of fact. The slope of the property is significant in this case, not because of the hillside regulation. The administration advised the BZA that they did not require a variance from the hillside ordinance. The slope is important relative to the height of the building. The front of this building is going to be lower down at a lower elevation than the rear portion of the building The calculation of height is based upon the front, the building as it faces Orange Street. It is a different height building from the back if you were to measure just from the back of the building to the top of the building. So, it is important. The slope of the property is significant. The fact is that the Village had previously granted variances of a similar or greater nature for this site for a more intensive use. That was one of the findings that BZA recommended and carried forward through the draft of your findings. There will be no rational basis to deny a lesser variance for a lesser use of the property. In other words, you authorize a commercial building with greater variances, now you are seeking a lesser use with lesser variances, and I think that was significant of the BZA and you may also find it to be as well. There is an issue regarding sworn testimony of the neighbor and sworn testimony is not binding on the BZA or Council or at criminal trials with criminals. People get on the stand and don’t always have persuasive testimony. The BZA and Council are free to determine what harm to a neighboring property will be and can discount testimony that may be driven by self-interest when making that determination. The practical difficulty of the property including the zoning lot stems from lot sizes and slope that prevent a reasonable use of the property when it is strictly comports with the zoning code. This is the finding the BZA recommended and that Council can make and the facts support such finding. The code talks about lots of record and zoning laws. Both are defined under the code. The significant fact of the matter is that the zoning lot could be viewed to be the entire development. In other words, from Williams Street all the way to the end of what is known as the Shibley property that would compose this development. And, the fact of the matter is, if you take that whole development there aren’t any new lots that have been created relative to this. And, in fact, all of the lots of record remain numerical lots of record. The Village has four parcels there. After the re-division of the lot lines there are four parcels there. This in not a situation where something is getting carved up into smaller units or into smaller parcels so that more units can be put on there. This is an averaging of the frontage to make it a more rational development. And so that aspect negates the argument that I believe is made that 1130.03 precludes you from granting a variance. That is not the case under the facts of this case.

Mr. Williams said it has been suggested that the house that is located on Williams Street, as a single house, would benefit from being included in essentially what would be a new neighborhood. Secondly that the development would act as an additional buffer to that residence and might actually have an improving effect on the value of that house as well. These are things that are open for opinion. They were open for debate and discussed so that issue was included in the BZA’s discovery as well.

Mr. Williams said there was a motion made at our January 11, 2010 meeting. The motion was to approve the variance request, specifically the variance request to section 1130.04(c), lot coverage, 1130.06(a)(1)(c), which is the rear yard setback, and section 1130.05(a), for height. In the original variance request there was a hillside variance included; that was included erroneously. The administration found that that was an unnecessary variance on this particular parcel. So, it is just those three variances that are up for approval this evening.

Mr. Patton said at the last meeting they asked that the height be determined of the proposed building on the side that faces the Bertsch property. Mr. Himes said, as you know, our measurement standard is from the front. You asked for the height measurement from the rear, from grade at the rear to the peak of the roof and that is thirty-seven feet where it meets the ground. There is about a two foot retaining wall behind the building so the grade adjusts down immediately before you hit the building. The height of the front is forty-six feet.

Mr. Williams said because this parcel is fronted by West Orange Street and Williams Street, the option of the developer, in this case, would have been to choose one or the other as the front of the building. The indication is that the developer would like to maintain the integrity of the way all the parcels facing towards West Orange Street and uniform addresses. They could have this parcel front Williams Street in which case the north line would be the side yard instead of the rear yard in which case that particular measurement would be within code and there would then be a variance request necessary for the rear yard, which would be facing west towards the other duplexes which are going to be built and a variance for the left side yard, which would be facing on West Orange Street. It would be an impractical solution given the nature of the development itself so I believe Mr. Vitt is just going to continue to request the variance as it is here. He has not indicated anything different.

Mrs. Watterson questioned what was just said regarding “no new lots are being created” because she said lot #023 is being divided. Mr. Himes said we routinely make lot line adjustments for owners of parcels around town. There are no additional lots being created; you start with four lots, you end up with four lots. There is no lot split here that generates an additional lot.

Mrs. Evans asked, this is going to be a two-family home? It is not going to be an apartment? Mr. Vitt said no.

Mr. Patton said, regarding the area regulations, we are looking at a 6.9% increase. Mr. Williams said that is correct. Just to review the extent of the variances on 1133.04(c), lot coverage, the maximum listed on our code is 27% percent and the applicant is requesting 33.9% lot coverage. Under 1133.06(a)(1)(c), which is rear yard, the rear yard is 30 feet in our code and 5 feet has been requested. On 1130.05(a), height, our code says 35 feet for the maximum and the applicant is requesting 46 feet.

Mr. Patton said, I would just like to state that Kathy, I appreciate your input and I appreciate Mrs. Bertsch’s comments. I have had the opportunity to look at the minutes, I have had time to look at the conclusions and I am basing my decision on that full review and the application of the Duncan Factors as well as the discussion that we have had up here this evening.

Roll call: Ayes: Jacobs, Lutz, Milko, Patton, Subel, Williams, Evans. Nays: None.

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CUSTOMER SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH FIRSTENERGY

Mr. Patton introduced Ordinance No. 2010-03 entitled:

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORING THE MAYOR TO ENTER INTO A CUSTOMER SUPPLY AGREEMENT AND FIXED-PRICE PRICING ATTACHMENT WITH FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS CORP. FOR THE PROVISION OF ELECTRICITY AND RATIFYING SAME, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.

Moved by Mr. Patton, seconded by Mrs. Evans that the requirement for reading an ordinance three times be suspended. Carried. Ayes: Evans, Jacobs, Lutz, Milko, Patton, Subel, Williams. Nays: None. Moved by Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Williams that the ordinance be adopted. Carried. Ayes: Evans, Jacobs, Lutz, Milko, Patton, Subel, Williams. Nays: None. Mr. Patton said the Village has two accounts, one with the waste water treatment plant, which is their biggest consumer, and an account with the village hall, police station, and fire department. Relative to the waste water treatment plant, we are now spending between $12,000 and $13,000 per month on electricity. Last November when we began working on this we received a quote from FirstEnergy, which was 5.1 cents per kilowatt hour, and Gexa quoted 5.4 center per kilowatt hour. This is a sixteen-month agreement and it is estimated that, in regard to the waste water treatment plant, the Village will save approximately $2,300 per month or $37,800 over a sixteen-month period. For the other accounts, the savings will be saving about $150 per month or $2,500 over a sixteen-month period. It was the unanimous vote of the Utilities Committee that they recommend to Council the passage of this ordinance.

STREETS AND SIDEWALKS COMMITTEE

No report.

FACILITIES AND SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mr. Patton announced a meeting for Monday, February 22, 2010 at 7:30 p.m.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

Mr. Jacobs reported that the Commission has completed a preliminary review of Chapter 11 for the Planning and Zoning Code.

SAFETY COMMITTEE

No report.

UTILITIES COMMITTEE

No report.

BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

Mr. Williams reported that the regularly scheduled meeting for tomorrow night has been canceled; there are no items to be considered until next month.

ADMINISTRATION AND COMPENSATION COMMITTEE

Mr. Subel reported that a quote from Anthem was received for medical insurance. It is up 21%, which is about $80,000. He said new applications are being filled out to present to Anthem as well as Medical Mutual and other companies.

FINANCE COMMITTEE

No report.

PARKS COMMISSION

Mrs. Lutz reported that the Commission talked about their budget for next year and finalizing the plans for Riverside Park and the new swing set.

SHADE TREE COMMISSION

No report.

ARTS COMMISSION

Mr. Milko announced a meeting for Monday, February 1, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.

PARKING COMMISSION

Mr. Milko reported that the Commission is going over many options and alternatives that they will present, in letter form, to Council and then a presentation by the Committee.

Mr. Milko announced a meeting for Wednesday, February 24, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.

REPORT OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

Mr. Himes reported that a gutter was pulled off of the village hall building and it drilled a hole through the roof. Repairs were $1,100.

REPORT OF THE ENGINEER

No report.

REPORT OF THE POLICE CHIEF

No report.

REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF

No report.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO ANY MATTER (NOT TO EXCEED FIVE (5) MINUTES)

None.

MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Patton reported that there is a possibility that they may cancel the February 8, 2010 Council meeting.

Art Kvacic suggested opening up a couple of parking spaces in front of where the RTA bus stop used to be in front of Riverside Park.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Patton adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m.

_____________________________________
President of Council

______________________________________

Clerk of Council