VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
July 28, 2009

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

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mrs. Mignogna that the minutes of the meeting held June 2, 2009 be approved, as amended. Carried. Ayes: O’Brien, Boehringer, Williams, Fricke, Mignogna. Nays: None.

ORANGE STREET HOLDING LLC - 95 NORTH MAIN STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1141.03, CONTINUATION OF PARKING FACILITIES, AND SECTION 1138.05(a), DETAILED REGULATIONS BY TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-06-005.

There was no one present to present this case.

Mr. O’Brien said there are five existing parking spots. He said the applicant appears to be Mr. William Leonetti but it is not clear to us whether or not he is the owner of the building. The last owner we knew of was Mr. Kaufman, who operated the Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Store there. We need to clarify whether Mr. Leonetti is the owner or whether we need Mr. Kaufman to be the petitioner.

Mr. O’Brien said they are asking for the right to basically give up or continue those parking spots and in their place have outdoor seating for the current restaurant. The diagram we have does show how they would intend to put in planters, screens, and a water feature that would dress up the area.

Mr. Williams said they have listed the name of the owner of the property as Orange Street Holding LLC. I don’t know who the owner of that entity is but I believe under our code Mr. Leonetti, who I believe is the operator of the establishment that leases that space, can as the representative of the owner make this petition. Is that correct? Mrs. Schaltenbrand said let me check on that. I believe so because the application does state applicant or owner’s representative. Mr. Williams said from a procedural standpoint I think we are in good shape as far as that is concerned.

Mr. Williams said just to clarify what is going on for the record, there are three parking spaces that are on the south/east corner of the property where I believe they are proposing to re-landscape and put tables and there are two spaces on the north/east corner that are essentially parallel parking spaces that they would use for a common area for seating and I think pedestrian traffic as well. Since our applicant is not here, I am just going off of the diagram but I want the record to show that those are the spaces that we are going to be discussing.

Mr. O”Brien said the answers to our eight questions are not on point in my view. We would need to hear more from the applicant to know why he really, why the code should enable us or compel us to give him a variance. Based on my reading of it, this does not make the case in accordance with our code. It doesn’t even address the issues in our code.

Mr. Williams said this section of the Village has undergone substantial review from other property owners and business operators from a parking standpoint. We have addressed the issue of parking variances in this section of town pretty substantially over the last eight years that I have been on the Board of Zoning Appeals. They have been variance requests mostly having to do with the type of business operation that is occupying a given building and the number of spaces required for that business to operate as defined under our code. I believe this is the first time that we have ever seen a variance request that would actually eliminate parking, not necessarily make a request to expand the use of a facility that would require additional parking over and above the parking that is available. So, I think question number two, is this variance substantial, is an important one because it would be very unusual for us to even consider a variance that eliminates parking in this north/west corner of town because of the intense concentration of business that we have got there already. The applicant has stated that, I’ll quote him, is this variance substantial and they write “Yes, we could provide safe, comfortable seating and there is acceptable parking when people could easily park in two dedicated spaces entering off of West Orange”. I think they misunderstood that question, is this variance substantial. When you are talking about a total of seven dedicated spaces for this space and the elimination of five of those seven spaces for the addition of outdoor seating it is very substantial. We are talking seventy-five percent of the available parking going away for this one structure. I have to say, I do sympathize with the applicant. We made a point of encouraging outdoor seating but I think in this particular situation this variance is very substantial so I have a very tough time with the applicant’s request just based on that one test alone. There are other tests that I think the applicant more or less answered but without them here it is kind of tough to determine exactly what is behind the answers that they have given to our questions. Question number six, can a property owner’s predicament be feasibly obviated through some other method other than a variance and the short answer to that is no, there isn’t because we are so parking constrained. It is not as if the property owner can provide additional parking around the corner or across the street or in some place that is adjacent to this building so I think that presents another difficulty that we would face in looking at this particular variance request.

Mr. O’Brien said he also makes a comparison to the outdoor seating granted to Rick’s Café and to the wine bar and it is not an appropriate comparison since that was not dedicated parking.

Mr. Boehringer said that troubles me because that is dense. Both of those are dense. I see three tables. There is room enough here for probably twenty-five tables. Mr. O’Brien said we did not allow the wine bar or Rick’s Café to give up dedicated, to use dedicated parking for outdoor seating so they are not comparable.

Mr. Fricke asked, is it in our discretion to say we do one of two things? We proceed on the evidence that is presented to us, which is this application, he proceeds at his own risk he is not here, and we make a decision, or we table it and give it another chance? Mr. O’Brien said it is our call. My preference is that we have Ben or Harry reach out to him and ask him why he wasn’t here, tell him that he has another shot, and if he doesn’t show up then we will vote on it.

Mrs. Schaltenbrand said, if I may answer regarding ownership and submitting an application, 1111.03 of the code says an application for an appeal may be filed only by the person who has been denied a building permit, zoning certificate, or any other authorization, or a person who has received a stop work order, or the property owner or anyone who has an interest established by law in the disposition of the matter. In this particular scenario Mr. Leonetti was denied. Mr. O’Brien said, so, it is okay. Mr. Fricke said, I think he just signed on the wrong line. There is a line for the signature of a representative.

Mr. O’Brien said we will table this matter until our next meeting and we will let Mr. Leonetti know that if he doesn’t show up it is at his own risk.

The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

____________________________
John O’Brien, Chairman
lgb