VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
FACILITIES AND SERVICES COMMITTEE
December 8, 2008
Members present: Patton, Milko, Watterson
Also present: Mayor Brick, Himes, Bloom, Byron, Williams, Evans, Baker, Lannon
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Chairman Steven Patton.
BID REVIEW - CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Mr. Himes reported that only one bid was received and it was from N.J.S., who is our current provider, in the amount of $2,265 per month, which is $27,180 for the year. It is a two-year term and reflects a 3% per year increase over the previous contract, which was $25,632 per year. We have had excellent service from N.J.S. and he recommends that they continue with them.
Moved by Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Watterson that we recommend to Council this evening that we pass the ordinance for the Mayor to enter into an agreement with N.J.S. Cleaning Service for custodial services. Carried. Patton, Milko, Watterson. Nays: None.
BID REVIEW - TREE SERVICE CONTRACT
Mr. Himes reported that four bids were received and two that we are recommending for entering into contracts, Davey Tree and Van Curen. Davey Tree was the low bid on tree lawn tree planting. Their bid was $440 per tree and the previous bid from 2006 was $415, which reflects a 3% increase per year. Their labor costs all remain the same and the tree fertilization went up from $800 to $900. Van Curen did not bid this year on the tree planting and their labor did go up between 4.5% to 7% per year. Their tree fertilization went down from $925 in 2006 to $900 per tree.
Moved by Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Watterson that we recommend to Council that we pass this ordinance which authorizes the Mayor to enter into an agreement with Davey Tree and Van Curen for tree services as discussed. Carried. Ayes: Patton, Milko, Watterson. Nays: None.
MARIO’S BUILDING
This was initially discussed at the November 24, 2008 meeting where Mr. Himes explained what was being proposed and one of the property owners presented his case to the Committee.
John Kelly, property owner of 14 Bell Street, complained that if they add on to the building to the west it will block his view of the river.
Ted deConingh, 80 Pheasant Run Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal to lease or sell this property.
Mr. Patton said they have received a number of letters from residents, directed to Council, also in opposition to the proposal.
Kathy Watterson, 544 North Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Beth Skeel, member of the Parks Commission and resident of 49 West Washington Street, mentioned that the $50,000 enticement offered by Mr. Bumbu and his associates shouldn’t be used, if Council approves the proposal, for improvements to the parks or Village improvements but should be put into a separate fund for maintenance of the dam because of the additional cost of having to maintain such things from the north side of the river rather than the south side of the river that is easily accessed.
Ray Bell, 6000 Nob Hill Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Lydia Champlin, 100 Pheasant Run Drive, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Bobbie Wheeler, 4 Church Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Patty Baker, 49 East Summit Street, spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Brooke Spectorsky, one of the property owners, said he is confused about the opposition because he has worked very hard with the Mayor to come up with a plan that we think the entire Village will benefit from. He is sorry about blocking the view to the river but he finds it very difficult to understand how this structure that they are proposing is going to do that. It is almost all glass and is in character with the existing building with wood and brick and there is a huge tree adjacent to it. As far as the storm water sewers, they have already told the Village that they are more than willing to line those 36 inch storm sewers, which will give it a life in excess of fifty years. They are also willing to take on the liability after the fifty years if they have to be relined again they would be responsible for that.
Janine Fast spoke in opposition to the proposal and commented that when they bought the property they should have known the perimeters.
Mr. Watterson said the code says that if a building is one-hundred years old it is not just historic, it is historically significant. He has heard from their outside expert on historic significance that many times an addition on a house can destroy the historical significance if the addition isn’t in keeping with the history of the house. In this case, from what he has seen in the pictures, it does not look like it is at all compatible with the existing structure. The other thing that seems to have been lost is that people seem to think that because it is going to be a restaurant it is a free pass on parking. But, when it is a historical building in the central shopping district it is grand-fathered for whatever use you want, but if it expands the use then it is not grand-fathered so there would be an addition to the parking plan. The location of this building does not suggest another restaurant in town; it’s just not the place for a restaurant.
Mr. Spectorsky said the ARB was quite encouraging and we are well aware of the significance of the building.
Mr. Milko said this reminds him of the Jetta Project with the sewer tie-in that they had to exhaust all other possibilities before we would even consider it so they went to the Metro Parks and Solon and none of that worked. He said he understands that the neighbor next to the Mario’s building maybe not willing or inclined to deal with you but there still may be some opportunities there before we would even consider giving up a driveway and changing the entire look of that building. There are just so many issues that look like it is shoe-horning a phenomenal project in such a small space and when you add the variances needed it just looks tough from the perspective of what they are asking.
Mr. Watterson said there is a code and the code says that we can sell real-estate if it is not needed for municipal purposes and it is clear that this property is needed for municipal purposes. It was put in originally 150 years ago for municipal purposes (access to the dam and it is park land) and they can’t ignore that.
Roger Kahn, Hickory Hill Road resident, said if they make it so difficult for somebody to develop that property, that property will be empty for the next ten years (like the Ivex Property was).
Moved by Mr. Patton, seconded by Mr. Watterson that we deny the request that the Village either sell or lease that parcel of property to the owners of Mario’s. Mr. Milko said the motion is specifically on that driveway, that piece of land for this concept of expanding to the west side of the building on that space. Mr. Patton said that is correct. Carried. Ayes: Patton, Milko, Watterson. Nays: None.
Mr. Patton said this Committee has decided that we are not interested in selling or leasing the Village owned park land.
HERITAGE HOME LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. Patton said they will discuss this at their next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
____________________________
Steven Patton, Chairman
lgb
