WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2015, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, AVON CITY HALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Randy Fratianne. Present: Bruce Klingshirn; Mark Ladegaard; Chauncey Miller; Kurt Schatschneider; Randy Fratianne; Pam Fechter, Economic Developer/Planning Coordinator; John Gasior, Law Director; Rick Schneider, Zoning Enforcement Officer; and Jill Clements, Secretary. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 5, 2015 A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Schatschneider to dispense with the reading of the minutes of Wednesday, August 5, 2015, and to approve said minutes as published. The vote was: AYES All. The Chairman declared the motion passed. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS DUNKIN DONUTS APPEAL Elizabeth Eaken of DS Architecture is requesting a variance from C.O. 1292.09(a) (1) which requires a minimum 10 stacking spaces, due to the unique nature of the property and typical locations of Dunkin Donuts they are requesting a 2 stacking space variance for the drive thru of the new Dunkin Donuts to be located on Nagel Road north of Drug Mart. Elizabeth Eaken of DS Architecture and Ken Blumm of Dunkin Donuts are sworn in by Mr. Gasior. Ms. Eaken explains that it s a one acre parcel being sectioned off for a free standing Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru. The drive thru window is located on the north side of the building and you will enter from Nagel Road, head east to drive thru lane which takes you north and west and then out. Ms. Eaken says they are able to use the access points on the west and east from the existing Drug Mart which is why the building is situated in its current location. The ultimate goal is when the other two parcels to north are developed there will be a cross access drive in the rear of Dunkin Donuts, being on the east side and possibly one in front, the west side of the site which will help eliminate the traffic on Nagel Road. There are 8 spots for the drive thru, typically 7 is a good number and they like 5 spots between their window and their menu board and then one behind that. Ms. Eaken says even if additional stacking happens, it s not near the road to cause a safety issue. Ms. Fechter says the store across of City Hall, knowing it s not the same owner and not a free standing facility, there is some concern of the amount of traffic backed up in their drive thru. Ms. Eaken says she is not sure how it worked but the standard time between the menu board and product the standard is two and a half minutes, in Mr. Blumm s stores their time is two minutes or faster. Ms. Fechter didn t know if there is more traffic going through a freestanding building or not. Mr. Fratianne asks if this has been through Planning and Ms. Fechter comes yes it has been and they did not discuss the stacking in Planning. Mr. Fratianne is curious if the access drive in the back is new and Ms. Fechter says the drive will be required and it will exist in the future. Mr. Fratianne says even if they stack around the curb to the south of the building it will not affect any parking. Mr. Klingshirn says then they would not need a variance. The question is brought up where the stacking procedure ends in conjunction to the drive thru lane. It was determined that the way the plan is drawn is what the determining factor is. Mr. Fratianne says there is still room for them to wrap and not require the variance. Mr. Gasior says they look like they want the stacking to stop as you enter the drive thru lane and they would need the variance. Ms. Fechter
says if the stacking does back up it will not be backing up onto Nagel Road. Mr. Blumm says he wanted the connectivity from the Drug Mart to allow things to flow. Ms. Fechter says there will be two more parcels to the north of Dunkin Donuts that the access drive will help traffic flow north to the other parcels to help try to eliminate curb cuts on Nagel Road. Mr. Klingshirn says he has seen the traffic backed up in the one across the street. Mr. Blumm says they do their best to be quick and make sure traffic isn t backed up or interfering with parking. He believes that people won t come if it s messy in the parking lot or the backup is too far and slow, so they work harder to make sure that doesn t happen. Mr. Schatschneider says that he was at a Dunkin Donuts that had a similar lay out of this one and said it moved pretty quickly and doesn t see this to be an issue. William Loughren is sworn in by Mr. Gasior. Mr. Loughren asks if this is adjacent the existing Drug Mart and it is confirmed yes. Mr. Loughren asks if the access road in the back will the garbage facility be moved? Ms. Eaken shows Mr. Loughren where the garbage facility is and how it will not be affected. A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Ladegaard to approve the 2 stacking space variance from C.O. 1292.09(a) (1) which requires a minimum 10 stacking spaces, due to the unique nature of the property and typical locations of Dunkin Donuts they are requesting a 2 stacking space variance for the drive thru of the new Dunkin Donuts to be located on Nagel Road north of Drug Mart. The vote was: 4 AYES, 1 NAY. The Chair declared the motion passed. COUSINS APPEAL Zachary Cousins, 2449 Roxboro is requesting a 6 front yard setback variance from C.O. 1262.08(c) (2) (g) to allow the construction of a driveway extension to be located at 2449 Roxboro St. Zachary Cousins is sworn in by Mr. Gasior. Mr. Cousins says that he would like to extend his driveway to add to left side. His mother in law lives with them part time and they are looking to allow a little extra room for moving cars around. Mr. Fratianne asks if he is familiar with his neighbor s project and asks if he wants to put in something similar and he says yes. Mr. Cousins continues to explain that when they built the house they wanted a 3 car garage but was told by Ryan homes they would not have those on that street. After they built the next group of houses being built offered the third car garage. Mr. Cousins says he is familiar is with the neighbors and sais their extension would be on the same side and Mr. Cousins said they are doing some greenery to separate the drives to break up the concrete look. Mr. Fratianne says that he understands why they are coming in for variances but they also don t want the entire front yard all concrete. Mr. Cousins says he is coming back into the drive and will not finish the extension off with pavers to the sidewalk, he said he doesn t need that. Mr. Fratianne asks if the ordinance was resolved and Mr. Schneider says any house less than 40 foot is a 10 foot setback. Mr. Fratianne confirms he is going 5 feet up from the side walk and then bumps the extension out. A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Klingshirn to approve the 6 front yard setback variance from C.O. 1262.08(c)(2)(g) to allow the construction of a driveway extension to be located at 2449 Roxboro St. The vote was: AYES All. The Chair declared the motion passed.
ASKAROV APPEAL Joe Work of Seasonal Yard Work is requesting a 1 8 side yard setback variance from C.O. 1262.08(b) (2) (B) for a concrete patio and pavilion located at 39427 Miramar. Russ Duesler representing Joe Work of Seasonal Yard Work is sworn in by Mr. Gasior. Mr. Duesler explains that he was hired by Joe Work of Seasonal Yard Work to build a pavilion, gave him the plot plan. Mr. Duesler says he took a dry line from the front pin and the back pin was in swamp area and he did not go to that pin. The line went up to the ditch area, ran a parallel between the houses and that s how he made the mistake. There is an existing 6 foot fence that is already installed on the property. Mr. Fratianne asks if it is one foot off and Mr. Schneider says he is looking for a 1 foot 8 inch variance from the side yard. Mr. Ladegaard said he was back there and thinks having the solid fence should help. Mr. Schatschneider asks Mr. Schneider how it was determined they were off. Mr. Schneider explains that a neighbor complained, he reviewed the topo and then talked with Mr. Duesler to see how he came up with the measurements. Mr. Schatschneider asked if they subcontracted the fence out as well and it was confirmed yes. A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Klingshirn to approve 1 8 side yard setback variance from C.O. 1262.08(b)(2)(B) for a concrete patio and pavilion located at 39427 Miramar. The vote was: AYES All. The Chair declared the motion passed. ABFALL APPEAL Richard Batt representing Tracy and Steven Abfall is requesting a 5 side yard setback variance from C.O. 1262.08(b) (2) to allow the existing house with covered patio to remain in its current location at 3140 Moon Road. Richard Batt, Tracy Abfall and Deborah Orr all are sworn in by Mr. Gasior. Mr. Batt explains that he is the developer for the property and says that he is in the process of purchasing the Orr property, a portion of the Abfall lot and the Sylvester property to develop single family homes. They have been through Planning Commission for the Preliminary Plat and needed to come seek a variance. On the existing house is a porch with a roof and the porch is seven feet from the proposed lot line. Mr. Batt continues to say that he is proposing to request the five foot variance and on the adjacent lot instead of having a 12 foot setback they will move the new house over 5 feet to create a 17 foot setback still keeping 24 feet between both structures. Mr. Schatschneider asks where the 17 foot comes into play. Mr. Batt says the 17 feet would be from the lot line in 17 feet instead of 12 on the side lot line. Mr. Ladegaard asks if there would be a deed restriction put on it. Mr. Batt says he is not sure of the process and Mr. Gasior says they could do a deed restriction. Mr. Schatschneider asks why they didn t ask for a variance for a lot that is approximately 95 feet wide and Mr. Batt said he didn t realize he could do that and that would be fine as well. Mr. Gasior says he could request a variance for 5% but Mr. Batt thought for long term it would be easier to make the farm house comply. Mr. Gasior says if you move the lot line to the 95 feet frontage and grant the 5% variance than nothing will be deed restricted. Mr. Schneider says that if they grant the 5% at 95 feet then more people will come in to request to have a 95 foot lot instead of 100 foot frontage. The overhang that is in the setback is the porch and it s primarily just the front corner of the house. Mr. Fratianne asks what the frontage will be for the existing home and Mr. Batt says its 124 feet. Ms. Fechter says they have issues with the
accessory building percentage. Mr. Schneider says that is not on the application as it came to light when reviewing the original request. Discussion continues about what buildings are to be taken down and what is to stay. Mr. Schatschneider asks where the new road is going and Mr. Batt explains its south of the resident and it s not where it originally was proposed. Mr. Batt gives a brief overview what was supposed to happen with the old road and how the property was changed. Its determined they will have 59,000 sq. ft. of the lot and are allowed 1880 sq. ft. under roof and discuss what is allowed and what is still outstanding and its determined they would need a 4,058 sq. ft. variance. Mr. Fratianne talks about the last time a variance was granted they were supposed to take down 2 bays and Mr. Schatschneider says the bays were never taken down from the original variance but never did because a road was supposed to be there and that fell through. Mrs. Orr said the barn was built in 1968 or 1969 and Mr. Batt confirms that is why they added property to the existing to center the barn more. Conversation is on the side and rear setbacks of the oversized barn and the only issues for the property are the side yard setback for the front house and the oversized structures of square footage. Mr. Batt explains the house behind the barn is a fairly deep lot and whoever buys that house will know that the barn is there and he will look into possibly adjusting the lot line and adding a little more to the Abfall lot but would still need the variance anyways. The existing barn is storage for some of the local farmers to store some of their equipment and the tenant of the house does not have a garage and are using it as that as well. Mrs. Orr says the two deals they had fell through and doesn t recall the variance and figured since the road never went through nothing materialized and they left everything the way it was. Mr. Ladegaard tries to recap the events and says this variance was granted 11 years ago tear down 2 bays of the barn and provide landscape buffer for a new road to the north and that didn t happen except the lot split went through. Mr. Ladegaard said he would like some more time to go out and look at the building as he knew nothing about this barn and its issue and would be ok with voting on the 5 feet side yard. Mr. Schatschneider says if they remove the 2 bays as they said they would it would reduce the variance by half and that is more of a reasonable request. Mr. Miller says they would need to look at the structure to make sure it is feasible to remove those bays and Ms. Fechter says some time has gone by that she s not sure what the structure is like. Mr. Fratianne asks if it is something they would consider is following through with the removal of the two bays and Mr. Batt says he is not sure as they have not thought about that at all. Mr. Gasior says that they did not comply with what they were supposed to do and they split the lot so there isn t much that can be done. If they complied they would still need the variance. There is a lot to consider with this property as there is a lot going on with it. The Board members talk about the best way to handle this with everything that is going on and what should have been done and what needs to be done. Mr. Gasior says that his next step is to come in front of planning for the lot split and doesn t think Planning will act on the request with pending Zoning issues. Mr. Klingshirn says that if they grant the front variance and the lot split there is no incentive for them to do anything else. Ms. Fechter says that the Zoning Enforcement Officer will follow up with new procedures for pending items. It was determined to table the appeal request until the October meeting to allow more time to look into what can be done with the barn. A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Klingshirn to table the Abfall appeal until the October meeting. The vote was: AYES All. The Chair declared the motion passed.
COMMENT ADJOURN A motion was made by Mr. Klingshirn, seconded by Mr. Ladegaard to adjourn. The vote was: AYES All. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30P.M. ATTEST CHAIRMAN DATE