DRAFT
CITY OF ROCKY RIVER
AUGUST 25, 2004
The Special Meeting of Council was called to order by Mrs. Bobst, President of Council at 4:30 p.m.
Council Members Present: Mr. Potterfield, Mr. Hurtuk, Mrs. Bartolozzi, Mr. Hagan
Mrs. Bobst
Absent: Mr. Gollinger, Mr. Frost
Administration: Mr. Koran, Mr. Beirne
Law Director: Mr. Matty
Press: Mr. Kelley
The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mrs. Bobst outlined the purpose of this Special Meeting, to consider a motion to review decisions made by the BZA granting variances to the Hamlets of Rocky River East and West projects on Center Ridge Road. She read from the Charter, Article VI, Section 2, (1)(B):
"Any decision of the Board granting a variance or exception shall not be final and take
effect until the seventh (7th) day after the date of the decision by the Board. During such
time period, the applicant, the Director of Community Development or any elected official of the City may request a review by Council of the decision of th Board. A request for review may be granted by Council if it finds and determines that one or more matters at issue in such a request affect or involve a purpose of the City's development code or the intent of Council in said code's adoption and if such request receives an affirmative vote by five (5) members of Council. If such an affirmative vote is received, Council shall hear the request de novo, with all interested parties having the opportunity to be heard and present evidence in support of their respective position. Council may affirm, reverse, amend or modify the decision of the Board. Should Council fail to hear and decide the request within thirty (30) days after the date of the decision of the Board, the decision of the Board shall be final and take effect subject to law. Council may only reverse, amend or modify the decision of the Board by an affirmative vote by five (5) members of Council."
She noted that with five members in attendance, a unanimous vote was necessary for review. She then turned the meeting over to Mr. Potterfield, Ward 2 Councilman and chairman of Council's Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee.
Mr. Potterfield noted that the proposed development, the Hamlets of Rocky River East and West, had generated some public comment. He indicated that Mr. Philip Korey, of East Asplin Drive, had requested a review of the BZA decision to grant variances to the development. He stated that this Special Meeting was being held for questions, comments and ultimately, a vote as to whether to review those decisions. If Council decides to proceed, a hearing to review the variances will be held within 30 days. Council expects to hear from Mr. Korey and from the developers of the project.
Mrs. Bobst added that Mr. Koran, the City's Economic and Community Development Director and Mr. Beirne, the Building Commissioner, were also present and would have some input and answer questions.
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:
Philip Korey, 2807 East Asplin Drive. Mr. Korey stated that the project was introduced at a meeting of the Planning Commission where he could only be an observer, listen to the developer and offer no input. He said that he had no say until the meeting of the BZA.
He objected to the 50% to 60% area variances for distance between the proposed units and said that the Code requires a certain distance for townhouse or cluster housing of 35'. Petition signatures were collected about May 17, primarily from Laramie and East Asplin.
He also expressed concern that the slope of the property from Center Ridge would be abrupt, because the buildings are closer than permitted by Code. He said that because the proposed buildings would be 16'11", 19', 19˝' and 15'3" apart, this constituted not a variance, but a wholesale abandonment of the Code. These buildings would be so close together that a "toppling down" effect would be created.
His major objections were esthetic considerations and an appearance that property was packed "like sardines". Mr. Korey said he thought the developers felt they would not make enough profit if they met Code requirements. Since their goal is to provide housing for "empty nesters" at a cost of $325,000 per unit, he said that 15' or 16' is not attractive and that this is a subterfuge to squeeze in as many units as possible to increase profits.
In their application, Section D on practical difficulties, Mr. Korey stated that the applicant noted that the Code is outdated. This does not qualify. As to why a distance of 16' is not in the Code, Mr. Korey stated his belief that elected officials would never pass such a change.
The downward slope also creates a lighting issue. Further, engineers have not gone through drainage plans.
Mr. Korey feels that the developers should comply with the Code or be required to meet a smaller variance. The lot coverage, 27% from a required 20%, is a 35% variance. Mr. Korey is concerned that another Riverwalk type development would be built. He emphasized that this is a residential area, and the distance between the buildings will affect those who live there and can see them from back yards. Finally, he maintained that mounding has not been adequately discussed.
The Law Director, Mr. Matty, reminded everyone of the standard under which Council was operating. Quoting from the Charter, Mr. Matty said, "A request for review may be granted by Council if it finds and determines that one or more matters at issue in such a request affect or involve a purpose of the City's development code or the intent of Council in said code's adoption." He emphasized the two standards, a purpose of the City's development code or Council's intent in the code's adoption.
Jim Wymer, 31029 Bel Aire Circle, representing WXE Coral Development. Mr. Wymer noted that, as shown by the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Commission, Design and Construction Board of Review and the BZA, issues that were raised today have been discussed, debated fully and addressed, many since the May 17 petition.
When made aware of neighborhood concerns, the developers voluntarily called a meeting and presented their plans. Much of the site plan is the result of requests and discussions with neighbors. He pointed out that the property is zoned multi-family. Density under that classification would allow for approximately twice as many units. The developers were asked to pursue a plan which would provide more of this type of housing which is needed by those downsizing and wishing to remain in the City. Units would feature a first floor master suite so that the primary householders could live entirely on one floor. Based upon the meeting with the neighbors, more green area has been provided and it has been made more visually friendly.
If this project was viewed as a cluster development, coverage allowed would be 25% and their variance request would be for 27%. With a 10' requirement between buildings in cluster development, all their buildings would comply. Reducing the number of units created several detached units. The revised plan is more user friendly with more green spaces. At the BZA meeting, it was pointed out that many single-family homes do not have a separation of 24' to 35'.
The setback from Center Ridge was made smaller to reduce the impact to neighbors. All changes received the unanimous approval of the respective boards.
Mr. Wymer said that the developers have made every effort to accommodate the needs of the neighbors. This development has approximately five units per acre. This is not too dissimilar from the single-family code which says no more than five. The lot size of 8600 to 8956 sq. ft compares favorably with Bears Run (5400-6400), Aberdeen Court (2900-3300) and others.
Mr. Wymer feels that this will be a quality gateway to the west end of Rocky River.
Mr. Wymer agreed, noting that plans had first received pre-preliminary and then, with more landscaping and addressing of elevation, had received preliminary approval.
Peter Rubin, 14400 Chagrin Blvd., president of Coral Co., partner of Mr. Wymer in this project, echoed Mr. Wymer's comments. He said that he came to Rocky River with the intent to pursue responsible development. His company has always kept its promises, and he expressed interest in addressing concerns of affected constituents. These included:
3. Focus groups - they have received input from realtors as to what the market needs really are.
Their company has taken a responsible approach and a sensible approach in dealing with a complex zoning code which is two-dimensional in dealing with a three or four-dimensional project. Mr. Rubin has done similar projects in other Cleveland and Cincinnati communities which are much denser. He said that the residents like the intimacy and the building esthetics. Since our community has little undeveloped land, a responsible approach is essential.
Joy Christensen, accompanied by her mother, Marlys Christensen, 22447 Laramie. Ms. Christensen noted that their property would be bounded by the Hamlets East project on two sides. She supported Mr. Korey's comments. At the preliminary meeting of the Planning Commission, she said that the developers were asked to reduce the number of units. At the July 20 meeting, however, no reduction had occurred. She feels that their significant variances are simply for a greater return on their investment. The City has established codes for a purpose, and she would like to see residents continue to have a nice city in which to live.
Kory Koran, Economic and Community Development Director. Mr. Koran said that it was difficult to briefly summarize the background of this project because it has been a long process beginning with meetings with the property owner. He was asked to postpone development plans because of the ongoing Master Plan revision process which would give the City a clearer idea of development as it relates to the Center Ridge area. One thing that has been shown is that we have a growing population of seniors moving to other cities because they have desired housing with first floor master suites.
Mr. Koran stated that this plan is 100% consistent with the Master Plan. The property is zoned for apartments, and the sites could have as many as 70 units built on them. He met with Mr. Wymer and another partner initially whose plan was to build apartments. When asked to reconsider, Mr. Wymer returned with a townhouse project more dense than the present, but less than the apartments. Mr. Koran has worked with the developers through many revisions and attended the resident meeting. Mentioning that the zoning could permit apartments, he noted that when the plans were submitted, they were viewed by the Building Commissioner as if the zoning were for townhouses, i.e. this is interpreted as a townhouse development. This proposal has a first floor master bedroom suite and therefore, a larger footprint.
In reviewing the density, Mr. Koran mentioned that the density of Avalon Dr is 3.8 units/acre and Middlepost, 4.14, Schlather, 3.6, Goldwood 4.14, E. Shoreland 4.85, Stratford, 6.22, Battersea 7.2 and Erie, 7.26. These are existing streets where 5 units/acre is somewhere between E. Shoreland and Stratford. In looking at density, this is not a high density project.
A second question is quality. Mr. Koran has worked with Mr. Rubin and attested that he does only high quality developments. This one will add approximately $12 million to the tax base or $120,000 in new revenue to the school district.
He said that the BZA did its job: researched, listened, asked questions, and made good decisions.
Kevin Beirne, Building Commissioner: Mr. Beirne agreed with Mr. Koran in his approach to this project.
Mr. Korey asked for time to rebut arguments made.
Finally, Mr. Korey expressed concern about the residents if the City does not require compliance with the Code. He respectfully asked that the City Council review the variances granted.
Mrs. Bobst then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
MOTION:
Moved by Mr. Potterfield, seconded by Mr. Hurtuk, that City Council vote to review the decision by the BZA, August 12, 2004 relative to the two projects, Hamlets of Rocky River East and Hamlets of Rocky River West on Center Ridge Road. Mrs. Bobst added that this motion would include all variances granted for both projects.
Discussion:
Mr. Hurtuk observed that he was pleased with the opportunity to hear articulate testimony. One difficulty is that today's discussion is not centered on the highest and best use use of the site or what Council thinks is right in the Code, or whether it is antiquated and needs adjustments. He said today's meeting is to hear opinions on BZA actions and whether the Board made an error. In that case a review might be warranted. Mr. Hurtuk noted that as a member of the Planning Commission for many years, and having served as its chairman, he was interested to see that the votes for approval by that body were unanimous. Rocky River is a mature community now, and this brings teardowns and rebuilding projects as well as small parcels which pose a challenge for development and thus for the Boards of the City. He has not seen any indications, nor red flags that mistakes or omissions were made and that review is called for. He said that therefore, he would probably vote no.
Mrs. Bobst agreed with Mr. Hurtuk that today's comments had been articulate and organized. She further acknowledged that Council would need to work on the Code. Council would be looking for Master Plan recommendations to address desired housing products.
These parcels are zoned multi-family, and everyone should be aware of what could be built there. She wondered if the petitioners still feel the same. The Code says that up to 70 units could be built on each parcel. In that case, residents would not see that as a plus and the development would not meeting housing needs. This project would met those housing needs but that does not mean that it cannot be improved and meet the needs of abutting properties. Residents need a voice, and the developer has allowed for this.
Mr. Korey raised the question of the process, pointing out that the public does not have a voice in the early stages. Council will need to look at the Code to address current housing needs as well as the commercial side. The Code should meet what is desired by residents.
Today's consideration is the process. Council is looking for something missed in the process, and if the intent of the Code is not being followed. She believes that it was followed. Mr. Beirne, the Building Commissioner, in an apartment zoning, treated this development as a townhouse and applied townhouse standards. This is the second time the issue of the Code has been raised, and Council needs to look at it.
Mrs. Bartolozzi noted that the developer had indicated regulations for cluster homes and asked for an explanation. Mr. Beirne explained that cluster houses are detached and townhouses are attached. He added that regulations for cluster development are less stringent.
Mr. Potterfield mentioned that in January 2004, Council had a similar discussion about Beachcliff Row. He is pleased that this developer has worked with the City, but in the past year, for this type of project, including Astor Place, Beachcliff Row and the Chandler development on E. Asplin, a total of 174 units will have been built. He said that he was appalled at the number of variances required for Astor Place and Beachcliff Row as well as this project because he feels that if the number of units is decreased, the number of variances will also decrease. He does not think that a number of BZA rulings follow the intent of the Code or Council's intent on how the Code was written. If the Code is outdated, the Council needs direction from the Administration on how to amend it.
Mrs. Bartolozzi commented that she understands Mr. Potterfield's points and feels that if, with apartment zoning, such density is possible on this site, the Code could require updating, and that this zoning should probably have been changed years ago. This project should move forward as it is preferable to apartments.
Mrs. Potterfield raised the point that 70 units are unlikely because he felt that the height limit for that area is 25', or 2 ˝ stories. Mr. Beirne confirmed that although originally 50', the limit had been reduced to 25' on the north side of Center Ridge.
Mr. Hagan expressed his opinion that the sole issue is review of the rulings-financial difficulties or profit or even project preferences are no part of the decision. If Council conducts a review, it may reach the same conclusions as the BZA. Within the next 2 or 3 weeks, a de novo hearing could decide if Council agrees with the rules of the BZA. He thought it was interesting that no protests were registered in the Hamlets West project.
Mrs. Bobst noted that the minutes do articulate the considerations in the granting of the variances. She acknowledged that Council has work to do but said that she would not vote to review at this time because the record states clearly why the BZA voted as they did. A de novo hearing is not something that Council wishes to do. Minutes have been studied for many months, and some concerns of the neighbors were addressed.
Mr. Hurtuk commented that if any Council members feel that the Code is antiquated, legislation to change it can be introduced at any time. No one should vote yes on this because of the Code. This about the BZA process, and there has been active dialogue on that topic.
Mr. Potterfield concluded by saying that his feeling is that the Code is not so bad or antiquated. If it were, we would not have so many new projects.
Vote: Potterfield - aye Hurtuk - nay Bartolozzi - nay
Hagan - aye Bobst - nay
2 ayes 3 nays DEFEATED
Mrs. Bobst announced that there would be no hearing de novo and thanked the residents who attended the meeting. She appreciated the fact that Mr. Korey's arguments were clearly articulated. Council knows that it has work ahead of it and issues which must be addressed. She looks forward to the Master Plan to help Council in its deliberations.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:48 p.m.
__________________________________ _____________________________
Pamela E. Bobst Misao Kurokawa
President of Council Clerk of Council
Please note: This is a draft copy of the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 25, 2004. These minutes may be amended or revised at the next Legislative Meeting.