Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 5 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS March 26, 2024 Members present: Freshman-Johnson, Fricke, Hijar Members absent: Holdren, Rockey Also present: Jamieson, Cribari, Matheny The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mr. Fricke. Mr. Fricke gave a brief introduction to the meeting and the general routine of how BZA meetings are run. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Ms. Hijar, seconded by Ms. Freshman-Johnson to approve the minutes from January 23, 2024. Carried. Ayes: Fricke, Freshman-Johnson, Hijar. Nays: none. SWEARING OF WITNESSES All were sworn in. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1145.02(B) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: ADDITIONS, AND SECTION 1125.03(F) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS, SPECIFICALLY AT 117 ELM COURT, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-16-040 Mr. Jamieson shared that the variance pertains to the front porch proposed for the front of the house. The proposal requires variances to two sections. 1. Section 1145.02(b) Nonconforming Buildings and Structures: Additions, states that a nonconforming building or other structure shall not be altered, added to or enlarged unless the additions and original building or other structure are made to conform to the yard, coverage and height regulations of the district in which it is located, except a nonconforming dwelling may be altered, modernized or enlarged provided the alterations and enlargements conform to all the yard regulations and setbacks. The existing house is nonconforming as it extends 10 feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback boundary. The proposed new front porch extends another 8 feet into the front yard setback. A variance to this section would be required. 2. Section 1125.03(f) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings, requires a 30-foot front yard setback. The proposed new front porch will have a front yard setback of 12 feet. A variance of 18 feet would be required. Ms. Hijar: “Okay. I'd like to make a motion to approve two variances to parcel number 932- 16-040 at 117 Elton Court. The two variances are for section 1145.02(b), which states that you need a variance to add to a non-conforming building and structure. Please correct me if I'm doing it wrong guys. And also, a variance to section 1125.03(f), which requires a 30-foot front yard  Page 2 of 5 setback. The owners would like to build a front porch, which would create a front yard setback of 12 feet. So, a variance of 18 feet would be required. Variance is appropriate because, first of all, the owners are bringing back the property to its original look, and it looks like many of the other homes on the street also have a similar porch, probably with a similar setback. A porch would bring a reasonable return, it would be beneficial to the property. A setback of 18 feet, while does seem substantial, it's not really given that the porch cement steps are already existing. So, it's really just creating, I believe three feet more. Is that correct? - Yep. - A setback. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered. It would not impact the delivery of governmental services. Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction, I'm not too sure. And the property owner does need a variance to build this porch. and I believe that proving these variances is in keeping with the spirit of the zoning law. So, with that said I move.” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “Second” Mr. Fricke: “Excellent, vote please, roll” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “I would vote aye. I think this checks most of the boxes. I do believe this is a substantial variance request, but I think all the other factors weigh substantially in favor of this. The neighborhood, that's a very unique neighborhood. The houses are all relatively close to one another. I think taking this back to its historic, or something closer to its historic roots is also significant, but I think the character of the neighborhood would be enhanced significantly. So, while I find it a substantial request, I think it's more than appropriate, I would vote yes. Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar?” Ms. Hijar: “Yes” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ I agree, I vote aye for the reason stated. I also mentioned on record that ABR has provided preliminary approval and a recommendation to approve the variance as well, so we are aligned on our approaches.” Mr. Fricke: “ Okay, so that means that your application has been approved. There is a provision in our code that provides council can have up to 15 days, or a party has up to 15 days, or even a non -party has up to 15 days to get three members of counsel to seek a new review of this decision. I've given up making predictions on when those will or won't happen. So, you've got a three - nothing decision today, but once 15 days come and go, if there's no action by council, you'll receive word from Rob, and you're good to proceed.” REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1125.03(e) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT  Page 3 of 5 REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS: MAXIMUM MAIN BUILDING LOT COVERAGE, SECTION 1125.03(g) AREA, YARD, AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS: MAIN BUILDINGS: MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND SECTION 1145.02(b) NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: ADDITIONS, SPECIFICALLY AT 55 WEST WASHINGTON ST, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-03-003 Mr. Jamieson shared that this proposal requires three variances: 1. Section 1125.03(e) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings: Maximum Main Building Lot Coverage requires a maximum coverage of the main building at 24% of the overall lot size. The lot size of this parcel is 5,661 square feet and 24 % of this area is 1,358 square feet. The existing house with the proposed addition would have a lot coverage of 1,686 square feet, or 29.78%. A variance of 5.78% (6% rounded) / 328 square feet would be required. 2. Section 1125.03(g) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations: Main Buildings: Minimum Side Yard Setback requires a minimum side yard setback of 3 feet to each side and a minimum of 12 feet total. The proposed addition to the house has a proposed side yard setback of two feet with a total of 11.3 feet including the existing house. A variance of one foot would be required. 3. Section 1145.02(b) Nonconforming Buildings and Structures: Additions, states that a nonconforming building or other structure shall not be altered, added to or enlarged unless the additions and original building or other structure are made to conform to the yard, coverage and height regulations of the district in which it is located, except a nonconforming dwelling may be altered, modernized or enlarged provided the alterations and enlargements conform to all the yard regulations and setbacks. The existing house is nonconforming as it does not meet the required minimum side yard setbacks and encroaches 1.3 feet over the lot line. The proposed new addition has a side yard setback of two feet and a minimum of three feet is required. A variance to this section would be required. Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Ok, I will move. I would like to propose a variance requested for the property located at 55 West Washington Street, Parcel 932-03-003 in the R150 zoning district, requesting a variance to three sections: section 1125.03(e) Area, Yard, and Height Regulations, dealing with maximum main building lot coverage. The coverage of the main building needs to be 24% of the total lot size and no more, however with the addition proposed the new property would be 29.78% of the lot size which requires a variance of 5.78%, which actually equals 328 square feet. The second variance required would be section 1125.03(g), Area, Yard, and Height Regulations, determining side yard setback. They are required to have a setback of 3 feet on each side with a minimum of 12 feet total. The proposed house with the additions would need a side yard setback of only 2 feet but totaling 11.3 feet, so it’s 2 feet and some change on one of the sides and includes a taper which we will discuss in the motion. So, they would need a variance of about 1 foot on each side which equals, well, one foot total for the 12 feet total and 1 foot for each of the three feet on each side. Then the third variance would be to section 1145.02(b), existing nonconforming needs to conform to buildings and structures. This property is extremely old and its existing nonconforming was built almost 200 years ago so clearly wasn’t the footprint of where it was before the code was in place. When talking about the Area, Yard, and Height regulation variance, it is a  Page 4 of 5 variance proposed of about almost 6% and really talking about the massing of this house, the street around it, has massing of houses that are greater than this house. The lot size of this house is a little bit smaller than the ones in a row and also has an angle requiring them to put certain doors and certain extension of the porch in certain areas and requiring in the back the sizes to proportion the house to a modernized living situation in order to put a basement underneath and access to the basement stairs and correct the proportions of a previous kitchen renovation that was done on a slab that really didn’t fit with the flow of the natural living space down below. The basement will also fix the water drainage and some of the issues in the yard that have been an issue from the alleyway next door. And the massing of the house proposed is actually very reasonable considering the proposal of the area there. In the back the house has a detached garage that would shelter the additional feet required for the green space of the backyard and there are no other properties that would get diminished green space since they are not flanked in the back by any properties and the ones on the left and the right, or the east and the west I should say, also have houses that extend beyond that spot as well. In addition, the area, yard, and height regulations variance for the purpose and need for the feet, first of all, one side is existing and it is not extending any further and the other side, the way that the house is proposed to add a porch would be to make it from 9 feet to 11 feet to allow for easier access which would help both government services as well as usefulness and portioning of the porch, the other porches on the street in the neighborhood it’s very reasonably like those front porches, it is really a side porch with a front entrance. And then in addition the side yard is angled, it’s not exactly 2 feet the entire way down the westside boundary and it’s tapered. So, if you really wanted to be specific it’s a little bit less as you go along the side yard. So, it’s actually less substantial than it sounds. The property would yield reasonable return because of all these changes and points mentioned below with the massing and the access in the structure of how to create better flow and better drainage and usefulness of this house and also keeping it within the historical feel and style of what the house is today and was for a longtime. The variance is not substantial considering that the houses next door also has a massing that is greater than this and from a percentage and measuring part it is not hugely substantial especially considering the taper of the side yard setback issue. The character of the neighborhood would actually be improved adding help to the drainage in the alleyway and working with an engineer to help figure that out to work with the city to grade correctly and work with how drainage flow comes off this area as a known issue. It will upgrade the landscaping and all the other features around the side of the new addition. Government services would not be impacted and if anything would allow easier access to the front porch of the home because of the increase in space. The property owner purchased this home many years ago and would like to address this so knowledge of zoning and restriction came in play and they have at different ways to add modernization and upgrades to this house and they have done an excellent job of looking at not doing an over massing extension of this house and the intent and spirit of the zoning requirements would be fulfilled as they are trying to restore and improve a 187 year old house with modern capabilities of living and maintenance. I would also like to mention that ARB has approved, preliminary approval, and is in support of these variance requests.” Ms. Hijar: “ Second” Mr. Fricke: “Roll please Rob” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar?”  Page 5 of 5 Ms. Hijar: “ Aye for the reasons stated and also, I just think that this is a very reasonable request, especially given the neighborhood, which I’m very familiar with, just the size of the other houses. This is really in the spirit of the zoning rules. Aye.” Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “ Aye for the reasons stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “ Aye for the reasons of the motion and all those made to support the motion. “Alright so if you heard me tell the previous group, council has a mechanism by which council may entertain 3 members of council can choose to rehear what we have just decided today, they may. But if they don’t do that, you’ll receive notice close to 15 days, if those days have passed with no appeal, then you’re free to proceed.” MISCELLANEOUS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Wade Fricke, BZA Chair GCS