Civil War Timeline.

VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
September 27, 2011

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

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Moved by Mr. Boehringer, seconded by Mrs. Loomis that the minutes of the meeting held August 23, 2011 be approved. Carried. Ayes: Boehringer, Loomis, Williams. Abstain: Fricke. Nays: None.
SWEARING OF WITNESSES

All were sworn in.

STEVE & CHRIS MIGNOGNA, 430 SOLON ROAD - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1353.08, FLOOD HAZARD ZONE/RIVER BUFFER, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-24-061.

Mr. Fricke said, for the record, I would note that Chris is a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. She is not here today and as we told Chris and others who appear before the Board with a potential conflict of this nature we will treat her application as we will any other application. So, Chris is not here but we will proceed as we would with any other application.

Mr. Himes said the Mignognas are asking for a variance to our flood hazard buffer zone regulation, a river buffer ordinance it is commonly referred to. The house sits entirely within the 120 foot river buffer setback and therefore they are asking for this variance. The river buffer ordinances is in the flood hazard prevention chapter of our code and therefore the hearing’s conditions are entirely based on flood issues. The base flood elevation, or also known as the 100-year flood or 1% chance of a flood occurring in any given year, that elevation is at 840 feet, approximately, and the first floor elevation of the house is at 850 feet. So, they are roughly 10 feet above the flood hazard zone. Since the criteria are flood based they are out of the flood hazard zone. The lot is entirely developed. The intent of the river buffer ordinance is to preserve natural riparian areas so they are here for a variance for that being within that setback and proposing to add on to the house.

Mr. Fricke asked, the variance is to the river setback, it’s not a flood issue? Mr. Himes said the variance is to the river buffer zone, which states that you basically can not do any type of construction activity in the river buffer. The criteria, though, for that variance are flood related. For example, will materials be swept down stream in a flood or property be damaged? Mr. Fricke asked, but the elevation is not an issue? Mr. Himes said they are 10 feet above the flood hazard zone so they are well out of the flood hazard.

Steve Mignogna said we bought the house two years ago and before I bought it I checked with neighbors and checked the actual foundation of the house and there was no concern of any flood issues. But, we had a civil engineer do a survey of the property. I also have pictures if you want to see of the river in the back of the property and then I also have the tentative plans that we are trying to do.

Mr. Fricke said, so if I am looking at the diagram correctly you are going to be adding a basement, a crawl space, a floor above the basement, a floor above the crawl space, a deck, and a screened in porch? Mr. Mignogna said yes, it is going to go approximately 18 out by 24 across. Mr. Fricke asked, existing there now is just lawn? Mr. Mignogna said yes.

Mr. Boehringer asked, is everything within the code? Mr. Himes said other than the river buffer issue, yes, it complies with the zoning code.

Mr. Boehringer asked, have you had any flooding in the last four months? Mr. Mignogna said no. Mr. Boehringer said I guess you are safe. Mr. Fricke asked, water literally has not come up to the chair you have sitting down close to the river? Mr. Mignogna said that chair, when the dam broke this past Spring, late Spring, the water came up over the banks at about maybe 3 feet in front of that chair. According to my neighbor Carl, who has been there forty years, he said that is the highest he has seen it. I’ve checked with both neighbors and on the other side they have been living there over twenty years and no issues of flooding. Mr. Williams asked, are you talking about when we had all the rain come on top of the foot of snow and it all melted at once? Mr. Mignogna said yes, some dam broke and a lot of water came through. Mrs. Loomis said by Gates Mills.

Mr. Boehringer asked, have you spoken to the neighbors about your addition. Mr. Mignogna said yes. Mr. Boehringer asked, any objections? Mr. Mignogna said no. Mr. Himes said we notified the neighbors and have had no comment back.

Mr. Fricke asked, so what is the specific, Ben, encroachment or what is the variance we are seeking? What is the distance that we are seeking here? Mr. Himes said the buffer zone is measured from the normal low water mark at a stream. So, we start there and measure out 120 feet and that establishes the buffer zone and that buffer zone is really to limit impact on the river, preserve the quality, purity, and free flowing condition of streams. Mr. Fricke asked, and the entire house is in the 120 foot buffer zone? Mr. Himes said right. Mr. Boehringer said the house precedes the ordinance. Mr. Himes said right, the house was there prior to the ordinance that was adopted in the 80's or 90's.

Joe Gutowski, Mr. Mignogna’s engineer/surveyor, said part of the reason for what the river buffer was and the distance they picked was kind of a function of trying to keep woods around either side of the river that protect the water quality and then keep the river from warming from the sun so that is part of the reason that 120 was picked. You’ll see, and I don’t know if your code has it, but other places I have worked the width of the setback kind of varies with the size of the stream and then it is trying to protect the water quality and then more for temperature for the organisms that are living in there. As you can see in the pictures here, it is basically all grass and there really is no buffer on the lot all the way to the river.

Mr. Williams said, Ben, on the map that indicates elevation, the house placement on the lot, they show the 500-year flood hazard zone and the line there, do we know what the 500-year elevation is? Is it 146 feet like it looks like on this particular? Mr. Himes said I don’t know what that is. The 840 you see there, the squiggly line, that is the base flood elevation, which is the 100-year flood. Mr. Gutowski said that is off of the Village maps that show the flood plain. Basically what we did is we took that map and superimposed it. Mr. Himes said the thing that really controls is the vertical elevation. The horizontal detail of those maps is not really accurate so if you run over to 840 on their property you will see that’s probably about half way between their house and the river. That is the theoretical one percent chance floor. Mr. Williams said, so the 500-year flood hazard is almost irrelevant for this discussion. Mr. Himes said right.

Mr. Fricke asked, are there any trees that are coming down as a result of the new addition. Mr. Mignogna said no.

Mr. Fricke said this variance is not being granted pursuant to our practical difficulties, Section 1111.07, this is actually pursuant to the river buffer. Mrs. Schaltenbrand said right, it is 1353.05, which is part of the building code. There is a variance procedure in there that controls in a river buffer scenario, such as this, over our standard criteria. The Board has to make certain findings of fact based upon the river buffer and these criteria relate to the flood hazards, the danger of materials being swept onto other lands to the injury of others, the danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage, the susceptibility of the proposed construction and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the owner, the importance of the services provided by the proposed construction to the Village, the availability of alternative locations, the necessity tot he facility of a waterfront location, if applicable, the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development, the relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for that area, the safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles, the expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, that are expected at the site, and the cost of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electric, and water systems, and streets and bridges. She said the criteria are here in this instance. You have to weigh the facts that you have been given where the construction is, how far it is to the river buffer, and determine if there is a threat to any of these criteria and determine whether or not it is appropriate to grant the variance.

Bobbie Wheeler, 4 Church Street, said a good size of my property is within that 120 foot setback as well as Mrs. Solether’s. I am just interested in observing this meeting to see how many variances are going to be given within that 120 foot setback from the river. Is this going to be often, occasionally, a hardship, which I understand is not pertinent any more? I am asking this for protection of my own property. Mr. Himes said I think the difference here is that the house itself sits within the river buffer zone whereas I don’t believe your house sits in the zone. Mrs. Wheeler said the back part of my yard sits within that 120 foot setback. How often are there going to be zoning changes made within these 120 foot setbacks? Mr. Boehringer said I can remember one. Mr. Himes said it would be based on circumstances of the request. Mr. Fricke said one of the thing I particularly enjoy about what we do is every case is different. We look at the facts that are given to us. We ask for the law that we need to apply to it and we take the presentation, the facts, and we apply them accordingly.

Mr. Boehringer said I can remember when we wrote it and we knew we were going to have some situations. Mrs. Wheeler said so do I and that is why I am questioning it. Mr. Himes said the Harper house on Solon Road is in the river buffer. They were given a variance. The Miller’s property was given a variance to it as well. Those are the only ones I recall.

Mr. Mignogna said the reason why we are doing this, when we bought the house, it is twelve years old now and it is a colonial, four bedrooms up, two and a half baths. It has a front room, a living room or a den, a kitchen, a dining room, a laundry room, and a half batch. But, it doesn’t have a family room. We have a beautiful river in the back that we want to open up a room where we could have windows and a view to accent that part and to also add beauty to a home that is in a beautiful area of town.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer to approve the variance request to Section 1353.08, flood hazard zone and river buffer noting that the area where the variance is being requested is completely developed and because of that there is no risk of disturbing any undeveloped area on the lot. I’d also like to note that neighbors had all been notified and there was no objection to this. As it relates to the flood hazard zone I’d like to note first that the house sits entirely within the river buffer and that the finished floor of the existing house as well as the proposed addition will be at 850 feet; just 10 feet above the 100-year flood hazard zone, which is an elevation of 140 feet this point on the river. I’d also like to note that this is not likely to affect important services that could be delivered such as safety or other Village services. The driveway is on the opposite side of the river on the south side where the river is on the north side of the house. I’d also like to note that because of their distance from the river and their elevation it is unlikely to change the flow of the river or cause any additional materials to be swept into the river. Also, because they are not exacerbating the elevation relative to the flood hazard that they are not likely to increase the danger to life or property during flooding.

Boehringer: Yes, on the conditions and knowing full well what goes down on Solon Road but in this situation it seems to be a safe area.

Loomis: Yes, I vote for it.

Fricke: I vote aye. I am sure when I go back and look at Bob’s motion it includes it but I just want to make sure, I didn’t hear, there was no evidence that there was any evidence of flood damage to the existing area where the addition will be made so I would add that if it wasn’t already in Bob’s full motion.

Williams: Aye, for all the reasons stated.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council on October 10, 2011.

ABIGAIL STAUDT, 100 CHURCH STREET - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.03(e)(f), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, SECTION 1125.04(a)(1), AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATION; ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND SECTION 1145.02(b), NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-04-083.

Mr. Himes said the applicant proposes to build a detached garage and an addition to the existing legal, nonconforming home. The existing dwelling is nonconforming to the front and side yard setbacks. The proposed main building lot coverage would be 25.6 percent where the code allows 24 percent. The front yard depth for the proposed addition would be 25 feet where 30 feet is required. They are proposing a detached garage with dimensions of 15' by 20' and our code requires a minimum dimension of 19' by 20' and then since it is a nonconforming dwelling our code section 1145.02(b) requires that any additions to nonconforming dwellings comply with the yard and area regulations. I would note that by adding a garage to the property they are reducing one of the non-conformities and that is to Section 1125.04 that requires each dwelling to be served by a garage.
Bill Childs, architect, said we were here a couple of months ago and had some great suggestions from the Board. He said we are adding an addition off of the rear of the home and a detached garage. It is currently a two-bedroom house and we are proposing to make it a four-bedroom house. As far as the floor plan, on the first floor we are opening up the space. This area here has an existing kitchen, a bathroom, and an office. It is basically an addition off the back to give the family a family room and a side entry mud room. There is also the new detached garage, which this property doesn’t have a garage and I know the Village is encouraging to have a garage for every property. We have a 15' by 20' garage. The lower level there is a possible future rec room for the family and a laundry room and on the second floor, which is very important, there are only two bedrooms. We are going to go over the kitchen with a two-story addition, which basically will have a bedroom, bathroom, and a master bedroom suite in the back that will have a bath and a closet. The idea for the roof plan is we will have a gable that is front to back and a reverse gable, and a gable off the back. As far as elevation wise we are basically adding over the kitchen and the office keeping the same architectural elements of the asphalt shingles, the rafters, and the windows. As far as the lot coverage, the minimum lot is 6,000 and this is actually 5,000. So, if we were a 6,000 minimum lot we wouldn’t even be here probably as far as lot coverage. We also probably wouldn’t be here for the garage. It is just that the site is so tight that it is difficult to get a garage in here. If we went ahead and put the garage the maximum size it would basically cover up half the back yard. We also have seven different neighbors that were kind enough to give us letters of support.

Mr. Williams asked, how many iterations did you have to go through to try and figure out how to meet some of the goals of the owner as well as squeeze it within the limitations of the code. Mr. Childs said it took a few and a lot of work.

Mr. Williams said there is a proposed addition on the front, a very small one, what is that room? Mr. Childs said that was from last year. That has already been approved. I just showed it on there because it is part of the lot coverage. It hasn’t been built yet but has been approved. Mr. Himes asked, was there a previous variance for that? Mr. Childs said no, it wasn’t a previous variance. Mr. Himes said because it encroaches in the front setback they do need a variance for construction on that. Mr. Williams asked, what is that space for? Mr. Childs said it is just basically an entry, a vestibule. Mr. Fricke said that is being built within the range of the existing porch, it is not exceeding the porch in any direction, it is actually going into the porch. Mr. Williams said it is not increasing the encroachment.

Mr. Boehringer said they were here and they discussed this. At first they had the garage on the property line and we discussed a whole bunch of stuff. I guess it was last month or so and they are pretty much back in code for not having much as far as foot print wise.

Jay Erickson, neighbor, spoke in favor of the variance request.

Carl Homes, 118 Church Street, spoke in favor of the variance request.

Moved by Mr. Williams, seconded by Mr. Boehringer to recommend the variance requests by the owners of 100 Church Street to Section 1125.03(e)(f), Section 1125.04(a)(1), and Section 114502(b). I’d like to note that I don’t believe the variance requests individually or collectively are substantial where Section 1125.03(e) is concerned, which has to do with lot coverage. The code requires a total lot coverage of 24 percent and they are asking for a 1.6 percent variance to that increasing the lot coverage to 25.6 percent by the main building. Section 1125.03(f), front yard depth, the front yard setback requirement is 30 feet and the existing structure already sits within that front yard setback so their variance request to the small vestibule that is to be added to the front of the house is only 4 feet, four inches as a consequence does not increase the existing encroachment into the front yard. Section 1125.04(a)(1), the minimum attached garage dimensions as was mentioned during testimony, our code encourages the addition of garages or the inclusion of garages with new construction so the addition of a new garage is actually going to be reducing the extent of the nonconformity overall. Given limitations of the lot, their request to reduce the size of the garage from 19' by 20' to 15' by 20' in terms of interior dimensions is also a minimum request. Section 1145.02(b), this is a nonconforming building and I believe that the spirit and intent of the code is really being upheld because the owners do not intent to release this as a rental property. They are reclaiming it for themselves as a family and they are actually restoring the property. With regard to some of the other elements that we need to consider, these variances and the proposed construction should not affect the delivery of governmental services whether it be police and fire or simply mail deliver. They have not heard any objections from their surrounding neighbors, in fact there were seven letters of support from surrounding neighbors for their variance requests and two verbal supporting comments from participants here tonight.
Boehringer: Aye, for the reasons given.

Loomis: Aye, for the reasons given.

Fricke: Aye, and I would just extenuate one of the standards is, is the essential character of the neighborhood being substantially altered and I think it is in a positive way so I would vote yes.

Williams: Aye, for all the reasons stated.

Mr. Himes said this will go to Council on October 10, 2011.

The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m.





____________________________
Wade Fricke, 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