Board of Zoning Appeals

Page 1 of 4 VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS June 25, 2024 Members present: Fricke, Freshman-Johnson, Holdren, Hijar Members absent: Rockey Also present: Jamieson, Markowitz 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 None. SWEARING OF WITNESSES All were sworn in. REQUEST A VARIANCE TO SECTION 1143.06(A)(2) NUMBER AND TYPE OF SIGNS PERMITTED: NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, GENERAL, SPECIFICALLY AT 14 ½ NORTH MAIN STREET, PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-07-025. Mr. Jamieson explained that this is the application for Mr. Paul Spohn pertaining to the property he owns at 14 ½ North Main Street. Mr. Spohn has a new tenant, the agency Tweedland, who is proposing a projecting sign for their business at this location. There is already an existing projecting sign at this location and code section 1143.06(A)(2), the number and type of signs permitted in nonresidential districts, states that in the central sopping district, only one sign may be displayed as a projecting sign. They are requesting a variance on this section. This sign application went before the ABR on October 3rd, 2023. They approved the sign and recommended the variance. Ms. Freshman Johnson: “ I'd like to make a motion in regard to the business located at 14 and a half North Main Street parcel number 932-07-025, requesting a variance to section 1143.06(A)(2), which limits the number and type of signs permitted in the central shopping district to one sign, one projecting sign per building. At 14 and a half this, even though it's a unique address that services only one tenant, it is requesting a projecting sign. The store that it shares the building with has a centered sign above that is not equally able to be used as a sign above to share because it would look awkward, and it would also affect that tenant who is a long -standing national chain tenant would be very difficult to work with them. Secondly, the awning covers the door and so you can't put a sign above the door because you can't see it from the street. Thirdly, as you look down the street the sign is a reasonable distance away from any other projecting sign based on the space that the door is located from the main entrance to the store that shares a tendency in this  Page 2 of 4 building. So, this is a particularly unique spot which creates a unique opportunity to request this variance. Thirdly, with only one tenant, it is only one additional sign, not a tenant and entrance space to a multiple tenant shared. So, there wouldn't be any further requests for additional signs. And if the space upstairs happens to be separated in the future for multiple tenants, they will have to come in for variants to then deal with the projecting sign request. There have been several looks by the Architectural Review Board, and they approved the look and feel of the sign as a projecting sign. The pictures shown of what the sign would look like show that it matches the size and landscape of what is down the street and is very similar and would not adversely affect the neighborhood and is in support of the character of the neighborhood. And lastly, it is not possible for a ground sign because of the sidewalks. And there's no space in front of this door for a ground sign, although that would be permitted. So, because of all these challenges, the best and most reasonable approach is to do a projecting sign in the shape and format that the Architecture Review Board has approved. This variance is substantial in that it's unique and we always talk about precedence, but this is, we have proven that there are unique circumstances this half address in the building that would share well in the neighborhood that it's in. There would be no adverse effect on the adjoining property since there is a reasonable distance between all the projecting signs down that row. It wouldn't affect any governmental services. The owner is aware of the issue and would like to support this. The wall sign there's no wall space so the only sign possible would be in the window, which you can't see because of the projecting awning and the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed if granted. For those reasons I make this motion” Mr. Markowitz: “Is there a second?” Mr. Holdren: “Second.” Mr. Jamieson: “Motion by Freshman-Johnson, second by Holdren. I’ll start with Holdren” Mr. Holdren: “I vote aye for the reason stated.” Mr. Jamieson: “Hijar.” Ms. Hijar: “ Aye for the reason stated, and just given the unique circumstances of sharing the building with Chico’s, it is a reasonable request.” Mr. Jamieson: “Fricke?” Mr. Fricke: “ Again, I welcome you. I'm delighted you're in town. I see this differently. I see this as a substantial request. I see it as a changing the scope of the neighborhood I think we're going to see a lot of second requests for signs now. I'm not sure that your walk -up business is all that significant. I think people will find you regardless of where you are. I just can't see I support what you're doing. I think the sign looks great. I just look at the code and I worry about what's going to come after you so I’m going to have to vote no.”  Page 3 of 4 Mr. Jamieson: “Freshman-Johnson?” Ms. Freshman-Johnson: “I vote aye for the reason stated in the motion.” Mr. Fricke: “ So the good news is that it passes. Again, our council representative is not here. That doesn’t mean anything other than someone else from the council would have to move to appeal our decision. You’ll find out that they have 15 days to do that. So, Rob will call you close to the end of 15 days. If 15 days come and go and there’s been no appeal by council, then you’re good to go.” REQUEST VARIANCES TO SECTION 1139.04(B) YARD AND SETBACK REGULATIONS AND SECTION 1141.05 SCHEDULE OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, SPECIFICALLY AT 177 EAST WASHINGTON ST., PERMANENT PARCEL NO. 932-09-019 & 932-09-020. Mr. Jamieson shared that this the application of the Two Foundation at 177 East Washington Street, located in the limited industrial/residential mixed use, RMU Zoning District. They’re proposing to make a slight alteration to their previously approved site plan. They are proposing to eliminate five of the parking spaces that are located on the west side of the entrance and relocate them towards the back of the property. There are two variances that are required for this proposal. The first is section 1139.04(B), yard and setback regulations, which requires a minimum setback from a surface parking area to another lot line of five feet. Previously a variance of five feet was granted for a 45-foot length of the rear parking lot at the rear north lot line for 10 parking spaces which was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 20, 2023. Now the Two Foundation is proposing an additional seven parking spaces be added to this area, increasing the length of the non-conformity to 77 feet instead of 45 feet so a total of 17 spaces are now proposed where 10 used to be. An additional variance for an additional 5 feet for additional 32 feet in length. The second variance is to section 1141.05, schedule of off-street parking spaces, which sets the parking space requirements for all three uses and the front dining patio proposed for this facility. When the project first came to BZA there were three proposed uses for the facility: retail, restaurant, and office/training center. Mr. Jamieson shared that they had calculated that 100 spaces would be required for the code requirements. Previously the BZA granted a variance of 8 parking spaces on January 31st, 2023, bringing the total number of parking spaces to 92. With the new configurations the new plan has a total of 90 parking spaces. This application was withdrawn and will be resubmitted. MISCELLANEOUS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m. Page 4 of 4 Wade Fricke, BZA Chair GCS