Civil War Timeline.

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
April 27, 2010

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

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held February 23, 2010 were approved.

SWEARING OF WITNESSES

All were sworn in.

CRAIG GEMMILL, 34 WEST SUMMIT STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(b), NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, AND SECTION 1125.03(f)(g), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-10-010.

Mr. Himes said Mr. Gemmill was here in 2008 to ask for a variance for an addition or some improvements to the front porch and is doing another improvement to the house. The existing house itself is substantially in the front yard setback in the R1-100 zone so there is a 50' front yard setback and the main building is approximately 34.5' back from the street. So, we have a nonconforming building and our code, section 1145.02(b), requires that additions to nonconforming dwellings comply with the code. Their new addition on the easterly side of the house would have a proposed front setback of 34.5' where we have a 50' requirement. The side yard setback is about 5.5' where we have a 10' minimum setback requirement and then there is a 24' total side yard setback so if you add both side yard setbacks together it needs to equal 24' and they are at 10.5' total. That is basically the variance they are requesting, the side and front yard setback.

Mr. Himes said there is an agreement between Gemmills and their neighbor to the east, the Fruits, which calls for a construction fence between the two properties and that the addition be built according to the plans by the architect. The Fruits did ask that the stipulation become part of the conditions of the variance.

David Howe, architect, showed photos and explained where the addition would be. Mr. Williams asked, what does the addition accomplish for the homeowner? What are they attempting to do to the interior? Mr. Howe said they have a single-car garage right now and they would like a double-car garage. They don’t have enough width to put them side by side so the one will be behind the other so the garage is really being lengthened in the rear and it is being extended to the front a little bit. It will be a little bit behind, about a foot behind the front wall of the house right now. The porch extends out a little further than that. It is about 3.5' wider just to get a little storage in the garage. There is an addition on the rear which tears down an existing porch and makes a dining room and enlarges the master bedroom on the second floor. There is a basement that basically remain the same. They are just trying to update the house and make it a little more comfortable. Mr. Fricke asked if they have been before the ARB and Mr. Howe said yes. They have not signed off, they wanted approval here before they did.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer to grant the requested variances specifically variances to section 1145.02(b), which deals with nonconforming buildings, 1125.03(f), front yard setback, and 1125.03(g), specifically 1145.02. It is a nonconforming building and granting a variance that allows them to make alterations without bringing the entire building into conformance with the code. 1125.03(f), the front yard setback, they have requested a 34.5' setback where the code allows for a 50' foot setback. That is a 15.5' variance from code. The section 1125.03(g), side yard setback, they have requested a 5.5' side yard setback where the code requires 10'. That is a 4.5' variance and that code section also requires a minimum of 24' feet total of both the left and the right side yards and they have requested 10.5' so that would be a 9.5' variance to the code. I’d also like to acknowledge that they have an agreement with the Fruits where they have requested that the Gemmills maintain the architectural appearance and make it consistent with the rest of the house and also that the Gemmills erect a barrier fence that is a minimum of 80' long staring at the beginning of the right-of-way up the street and extending back along the property line between their two homes and they have also stated, more specifically, the type of fence so I would like to enter into that request which they submitted with their packet as a part of our motion. Also, in terms of the test for practical difficulty I think they have satisfied a majority of the tests that are listed here. For starters, is the variance substantial? No, I do not believe it is substantial. Would the character of the neighborhood be substantially altered? No, they have been here before and we acknowledged that his is a further improvement to the neighborhood, specifically sighting their neighbors, the Fruits at 28 West Summit and their work with them to reach a satisfactory agreement between two neighbors. Also that this will not effect governmental services and it is generally in line with the spirit and intent of our zoning code.

Boehringer: For the reasons given by Bob, I vote yes.

Loomis: Yes, for the reasons given.

Fricke: Aye, for the reasons given.

Mignogna: Aye, for the reasons given.

Williams: Aye.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council for final action on Monday, May 10, 2010.

SPILLWAY, LLC, 218 CLEVELAND STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1353.08(c)(2), TREE REMOVAL IN RIVER BUFFER, AND SECTION 1353.06(a)(5), FILL PROHIBITED IN FLOOD PLAIN, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 931-15-016.

Mr. Himes said the Village is a recipient of an EPA Grant to do some work lowing the dam and some restoration upstream from the dam. As property owner, Spillway is requesting the variances to make that work happen. They need to cut an access road to get to the base of the dam to begin doing the work on the dam. Our river buffer ordinance, section 1353.08(c)(2) prohibits the removal of trees in the river buffer. For the repairing and restoration upstream some of that work will require fill in the flood plain, which our flood hazard prevention ordinance prohibits. Most of the fill will be sediment taken out of the river itself so, despite the fact that it is filled it is coming out of the flood plain going back into the flood plain, that is still viewed as fill going into the flood plain so they would need a variance for that prohibition. There is also a portion of rip rap armor protection on the bank in the dam which would constitute placement of fill in the flood plain.

Mr. Fricke asked if there has been any environmental engineering done on this? Is this in fact what needs to be done? Mr. Himes said right, Spillway has hired an engineer to design the project. It is being reviewed by the Village’s engineer and the Chagrin River Watershed Partners who are administering the grant for us. The grant is coming from EPA so EPA has to approve everything that goes on there and they also need the Army Corp of Engineer permits.

Mr. Williams said I just want to make sure everybody is clear that we are dealing with a different section of the code than we normally would in terms of flood prevention, specifically, and that the standard will be different but I will address that after Bob finishes his presentation.

Bob Darden of Spillway LLC showed pictures and showed where they are going to cut an access road and where trees are going to be cut. He said the silt is behind the dam. Part of the river’s restoration is that 600' of silt needs to be removed.

Mrs. Mignogna asked, why do you need access to there? What is the intent? Mr. Darden said to get down here, part of the dam lowering, the first phase is you have to drill, there is a series of one or two foot diameter holes that need to be drilled into the dam. There is a row of eleven of them all the way across and then once the water level goes down then those are down about two or three feet then once it gets down to that level then another row is drilled about two feel below that and drains it even more. You need equipment. You can’t drill from this side. They are going to have to get equipment down there on a low flow day to do what they need to do. Once that part is done the next phase of the whole dam lowering river restoration is the top of the dam is getting cut off by eleven or twelve feet so they will have to have some way of getting material out of there.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Mignogna to approve the variances requested to sections 1353.08(c)(2) for tree removal within a river buffer area and section 1353.06(a)(5) dealing with the prohibition of fill in the flood plain. This is dealing with the river buffer area so the test is different than for practical difficulty like some of our other sections, specifically, the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights beyond that which is allowed in this chapter, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances or conflict with subsection (a)(6) hereof, and I think the applicant given all of the previous work that we have done on the Spillway project and understanding this and the variances required there, I believe we have a thorough understanding of what he is requesting so I do not believe the removal of the trees or the removal of silt and moving it to the north side of the river where it will be placed to dry out will increase the dangers to any individuals or property that might be downstream or upstream from this. I think they have done a very good job of satisfying that, specifically, also the rip rap that they are requesting to place in the flood plain is a safety feature and designed specifically for hillside retention. As the dam is lowered they obviously are attempting to prevent scouring to incur on that part of the river bank so they are taking preventive measures to do that. I would also like to note that the area where they are going to be removing trees there is a preexisting path or an old road that is simply overgrown. They want to remove those trees to gain access to actually lower the dam and then they will allow that section of the river to naturalize again. I believe that they satisfied the conditions that are set forth here and submit my motion for approval.
Boehringer: Aye, for the reasons.

Loomis: Aye, for the reasons given.

Fricke: Aye, for the reasons given and also I would mention that we are only giving the variances to what is before us and that other people will be opining on the engineering feasibility and all those things. So, we are limited in what we are doing here.

Mignogna: Aye.

Williams: Aye.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council for final action on Monday, May 10, 2010.

GRANT AND LAURA CLEVELAND, 530 SOLON ROAD - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(b), NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, AND SECTION 1125.03(f)(g), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-24-015.

Mr. Himes said this in an R1-100 district and is a nonconforming building so they need a variance to 1145.02(b) for additions to nonconforming buildings. They are proposing a garage addition with a 36.1' setback and we have a 50' requirement. They have a side yard setback proposed at 9.3' where we require 10', total side yard setback of 19.6' where the code requires 24'.

Mr. Cleveland showed pictures of the existing house. He said they are adding a play room, a two-car garage, a bigger office area, a great room, and a master bedroom. He said he has signed letters of support from five of his neighbors.

Mr. Williams asked, will you be changing any of the grading on the property? Will the grades remain all the same? Mr. Cleveland said yes. Just so you can get a perspective, this is the limitation in the back yard, you can see the severe slope that is occurring back there that is limiting the rear yard expansion, at least from an economical feasibility.

Mr. Williams asked what year the house was build. The answer was the mid 70's. Mr. Williams asked if a variance was required back in the 70's to build in the front yard setback? Mr. Himes said I think the encroachment is on the side yard. Our side yard setbacks have changed since that house was built. The existing house is okay on the front yard setback.

Mr. Williams asked if there were any neighbors voicing their decent of concern over? Mr. Himes said none contacted my office; no letters or phone calls.

Mr. Williams asked if they are putting a basement under the great room? The answer was yes.

Mr. Williams asked if this has been to the ARB? The answer was, they gave us preliminary approval.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer to approve the variances as requested to section 1145.02(b), nonconforming dwelling, section 1125.03(f), side yard setback, and section 1125.03(g). Section 1125.03(f) is the requirement for 50' front yard setback. They are requesting a 14' variance to that to within 36.1' of the front yard. Section 1125.03(g), is the side yard setbacks. They are requesting essentially a 1' variance to the 10' minimum requirement and also approximately 4.5' from the total required side yard setbacks of 24', specifically 19.6'. As far as practical difficulty is concerned, I think they have satisfied the tests for that. Specifically, are the variance requests substantial? No, I do not believe they are. Side yard being a 1' variance set back for a total of 4.5' and the front yard setback of 14' noting that this is R1-100 zoned property and the house was built in the 1970's so it was already build very close to that line. Will it effect the delivery of governmental services? No, I do not believe it will. They are not substantially changing the access to the front of the house. Can their situation be, predicament be feasibly obviated through other means? No, this is a substantial improvement to the house involving both new garage, attached garage to the front of the house and addition to the back of the house and I think the spirit and intent of the code is being observed also noting that five of the neighbors essentially on all sides of the home have submitted their support for the Cleveland’s variance requests.

Boehringer: For the reasons given, yes.

Loomis: Aye, for the reasons given.

Fricke: Aye, for the reasons of the motion.

Mignogna: Aye.

Williams: Aye.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council for final action on Monday, May 10, 2010.

The meeting adjourned at 8:43 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