| Mr. Breuckman summarized the staff report. There are a few attachments to |
|
| the staff report for additional information - one is the colored chart/table, a |
|
| survey of all the B-5 zoned stations in the City. The other is a graphic showing |
|
| the expansion potential on the subject site with the 25 foot setback as well as the |
|
| requested 10 foot setback. The table of B-5 properties is sorted by site area |
|
| from smallest to largest. The subject site is the sixth smallest B-5 zoned site in |
|
| the City and the fifth smallest gas station site. The table is color-coded to show |
|
| the non-conforming situations where there is an existing building that doesn't |
|
| conform with ordinance standards. Nearly every B-5 zoned site has a |
|
| nonconforming status. Right now, in the B-5 district, a front yard setback is |
|
| required from any street frontage. The subject site is a corner lot, so front yard |
|
| setbacks of 75 feet are required from the north and east property lines, and rear |
|
| yard setbacks of 50 feet are required from the west and south property lines. |
|
| Footnote "j" to the schedule of regulations does allow the Planning Commission |
|
| to reduce the rear yard setback to 25 feet where the property lines abut a |
|
| non-residential zoning district. The applicant is requesting a 40 foot variance |
|
| from the 50 foot setback, which if granted, would allow the construction of a new |
|
| building with 10 foot rear yard setbacks. This issue was taken to the September |
|
| 6th Planning Commission meeting for discussion to gauge the Commission's |
|
| interest about granting the reduction to a 25 foot rear yard setback. The |
|
| minutes from that meeting are attached to the packet. Of the members who |
|
| were present, the Planning Commission unanimously expressed their |
|
| willingness to go with a 25 foot rear yard setback. This is not binding, but it does |
|
| lend a reasonable expectation that should the ZBA grant a 15 foot rear yard |
|
| variance, the Planning Commission would reduce the setback to 25 feet, and |
|
| then the applicant would have their 10 foot ultimate setback from the rear |
|
| property lines. With that, the Board could reduce the variance granted from 40 |
|
| feet to 15 feet and have the same effect of a 10 foot setback from the property |
|
|
| Mr. Breuckman reported that the property was initially developed in 1970. In |
|
| 1970 there were only three "B" zoning districts - there was no B-4 or B-5 at that |
|
| time. From the table you can see that the site, as it's developed today, easily |
|
| complied with all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance at that time. The |
|
| fact that the lesser setback requirements were in place meant that in the past |
|
| you could have a much smaller site to support a gas station and still meet the |
|
| setback requirements. So, there are many smaller parcels that exist where gas |
|
| stations are located than are feasible today. With the setback requirements of |
|
| today, a larger parcel is needed to accommodate a gas station. In 1977, Avon |
|
| Township adopted a new zoning ordinance which included the B-4 and B-5 |
|
| zoning districts - which have the familiar setbacks of 75 feet from any street and |
|
| 50 feet from a rear yard. When the zoning ordinance was amended in 2009, the |
|
| Planning Commission was given the ability to reduce rear yard setbacks to 25 |
|
