Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, let's get going.

I call to order the June 18th meeting of Hudson's Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. Ms. Rodak, would you please call the roll?

Mr. Scott?

Present.

Mr. Jones? Mr. Dyer?

Here.

Mr. Carl? Chair Bronstein? Here.

All right, I'm going to identify city staff that is present tonight. Mary Rodak, Associate Planner. We have Nick Sugar, city planner, and I'm sorry, I didn't get your full name. Chris Thomas. Chris Thomas, who is our city solicitor present. And then we also have Samantha Diorama, who is our city council representative in the audience. And I'm going to go ahead and swear in staff. And any audience who will be addressing the board tonight, if you could stand and then please raise your right hand for me. Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony that you will provide tonight is the truth? Thank you. All right. Moving on, we are going to do approval of the minutes. And I see we have two sets of minutes that need to be approved tonight. Has everybody had a chance to review both sets of minutes? Yes. And are there any suggestions or changes that need to be made to either one? All right. Can I have a motion to approve the April 27 minutes, please?

I move to approve the April 27th minutes.

We have a second. Ms. Rodak, could you call the roll, please? Mr. Scott? Yes. Mr. Jones?

Mr. Dyer?

Yes.

Mr. Carl? Chair Bernstein?

Yes. All right. The next set of minutes is for the May 21st meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the May 21st minutes?

So moved.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Ms. Rodak, can you call the roll, please?

Mr. Scott?

Yes.

Mr. Jones? Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl? Chair Bronstein?

Yes. All right, moving on, we're going to go to new business now. And the first case in front of us this evening is BZBA case 26-556. The subject of this hearing is a request for three variances to allow for the construction related to a townhome development that includes a public multipurpose path extension of Veterans Trail. The variances are as follows. The first variance, a variance of 47 feet from the required stream corridor setback. of 75 feet resulting in a 28 foot setback pursuant to section 1207.03e1b entitled wetland stream corridor protection, stream corridor setbacks of the city of Hudson land development code. The second variance, a variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance within stream corridors, wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03c entitled prohibited activities of the city of Hudson land development code. And the third variance, a variance of five feet from the required rear yard residential principal structure setback of 25 feet resulting in a 20 foot setback. Pursuant to section 120508D7B1 entitled Property Development Design Standard Setbacks of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. Ms. Rodak, may we have the staff report please? Yes.

So this property is located in District 5 along frontage with Morris Road, Clinton Street, and Brown Street. The project area consists of two parcels owned by the applicant and two parcels owned by the city of Hudson. The applicant is requesting to construct an 18 unit townhome and a public multipurpose path that is proposed on the two city owned parcels. Regarding the stream corridor variances, the applicant is requesting stream corridor setback variance of approximately 47 feet from the required 75 foot setback, resulting in a 28 foot stream corridor setback. The multi-purpose path is required public open space dedication requirements from the LDC. Staff notes the proposed townhome development would encroach into the stream corridor setback by approximately five feet, and the rest would be the multi-purpose path. The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance of approximately five feet from the required 25 feet, resulting in a rear yard setback of approximately 20 feet. Regarding the stream corridor variances, staff notes the encroachment related to the building footprint is minor and the proposed multipurpose trail would allow for construction of the veterans trail. And regarding the rear yard setback variance, unit one is the only unit that would be encroaching with a proposed rear yard setback variance limited to the rear property line that is angled towards the proposed house development. Additionally, staff notes a portion of the existing parking lot and disturbed lawn are encroaching into the stream corridor setback. And the board brought up the additional review standard of the index of ecological integrity. This is a citywide study that was done in 1996. Bring up the map here. to determine ecological integrity of land throughout the city. Each site is given a score based on various metrics like habitat, disturbance, hydrology, and staff reviewed the site and the study did not indicate any level or score for this site. So there would be no reduction in the level or score with a development. However, staff notes there is the existing Brandywine Creek. Staff also would like to present the Veterans Trail proposal.

YES, I'D LIKE TO JUST GIVE A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND. I KNOW WE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH BACKGROUND ON VETERANS TRAIL. IT IS A PORTION OF THIS APPLICATION. SO THIS IS THE VETERANS TRAIL PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS. THIS PLAN DATES BACK TO THE 2000 PARKS PLAN, PARKS MASTER PLAN, AND IT'S AN 8 TO 10 FOOT WIDE MULTIPURPOSE TRAIL THAT ESSENTIALLY EXTENDS FROM THE SOUTH END OF TOWN THROUGH THE NORTH END OF TOWN. and it has also been identified in subsequent citywide plans the 2024 comprehensive plan and the 2026 walk and bike plan and dating back to our connectivity plans prior to that so the the alignment has fluctuated throughout the years but this is our our current uh design if i can grab this for a sec and just to note uh We are gaining momentum on installation of the trail. So for example, the portion here from Barlow to Veterans Way that is currently a rail line, the city has just purchased that piece in April. And we have received AMATS funding to construct the trail on this piece, so it's a pretty substantial stretch here. But we do anticipate that being built in a couple years, I think design late next year, and hopefully development the following year. um we've also you may have seen uh downtown the portion built along the library so when the library is built they built that portion of the trail that is veterans trail even though it's a kind of a short leg and additionally clayton court which is which is off of morse there um northwest of this site they built their portion of the trail when when their development went in and i believe i have that date uh they were in 2005. so they built that right around the library and the library was in 2005-6 when they built their section so those two sections around this property were built around that era separately we have been studying the clinton crossing former downtown phase two site that has the potential to bring this trail to connect to clayton court so we'd have a hopefully then clayton court uh the clinton crossing section this property and the library all connected downtown so downtown is the trickiest part uh in our opinion to get to get a eight to ten foot wide multi-purpose trail uh through um so yeah i just wanted to give some some information on that oh and one other item of note the the section south of norton road is a little trickier that's owned by metro rta and they're currently working to divest that property but they're working through some federal government requirements but they would like they're trying to work with the city of hudson stowe cuyahoga falls and to divest all of their rail along that section so this just trail could extend all the way down through to akron essentially so this is pretty It's been a pretty exciting plan, but it's a long range plan and we're excited to finally kind of be chipping away at it.

And the applicant is here to present. And they have a presentation they would like to use, if the chair would allow them to use a presentation.

That's a good question. Would it make sense, Mr. Sugar, to ask questions of staff first for the trail and then proceed with the presentation relative to the rest of the development?

I think our admin rules do spell out the order, so I just want to be careful of the order.

It's a little confusing because it's partially an application by the- Do you have initial applicant comments next? Yeah.

In our order?

Yeah. Isn't the city of Hudson one of the applicants?

You're not an applicant in this case, no.

Okay.

It says otherwise. I'm sorry? It says otherwise.

Where?

If you look at-

It's property owners, Hudson, Village Town.

We are a property owner and our city council will have to authorize the trail, but we are not an applicant in this. Okay. The intent is for the applicant to construct the trail and for the city to accept the trail.

Well then I think it makes sense to listen to the presentation now. If you would approach and identify your name and address for us.

Good evening, Adam Fishman, Fairmount Properties, 200 Park Avenue, Orange Village, Ohio. Delighted to be with you, to the chair and to the members of the commission. Is it okay for me to proceed?

Yes. Thank you.

Go ahead. Someone clicking my slides? Thank you. We're here today to talk about the 18 unit town home development on Clinton Street, just by way of background. Fairmount Properties, the original developer, along with the Murdo family of First and Main, been an active corporate citizen in Hudson since 2002. The site itself is on the upper left of this slide, surrounded in blue, immediately to the west of the town homes we built in conjunction with the original development of First and Main. And we can just keep clicking along, thank you. The current site condition is the home of Farinacci Pizza and a lot of asphalt. And we are the owners of the property. We closed on the property a few months ago. So we are proposing 18 town homes in six pods of three. This is a plan that has been before planning commission for preliminary plan review. With their feedback, modifications are made, and then this plan came before this body. for a variance to have a curb cut on Owen Brown. And we are grateful for your deliberation and consideration and approval of that. And we're before you today with some additional minor modifications. Thank you. The rare yard setback unit one, the required setback encroaches into the 25 foot setback. And we're requesting a variance of five feet to accommodate the site plan and it's a tight site and we're trying to make really great units for the people of Hudson. So it's a five foot across the variance. Thank you. I feel like we missed a slide.

Is there a slide that had the- That's from rear yard?

No, keep, no, could you go back two more slides? Yeah, I'm sorry, that's the slide I wanted to look at. We skipped that. This slide shows the red area represents the existing pavement that is already within the 75 foot stream setback of the existing U. So there's an existing I guess you would call it a non-conforming use, probably grandfathered for quite some time. So there's over 2,500 square feet of pavement that is already in the existing setback. So I just wanted to set the, so you understand the existing conditions. So even though we are asking for some variances, we are actually significantly improving the variance from law from the existing condition. Thank you. So we showed the first setback. We talked about this slide already. Thank you. And then there's a 75-foot stream setback requirement. Unit 1 and 2 and 11 encroaches into the required 75-foot setback by ranging from two to five feet, depending on the area. But again, as compared to the existing asphalt, obviously much more minor. Multiple units of the first and main townhouse development to the east were also constructed in the stream corridor setback. We dealt with this 20 some years ago on the other side of the creek. Thank you, on the stream, thank you. As I think staff indicated, the city is desirous of us building an extension of their multi-purpose trail on land they own. The net result of that is a modification from a BZA standpoint. that would allow for this extension, the multi-purpose trail would encroach on the stream setback by approximately 47 feet, resulting in a stream corridor setback of 28 feet. So I think you guys talked about that a little bit. So as per your code, we have to demonstrate a series of practical difficulties for you to consider and act on a matter of this nature. We believe these requirements meet all these requirements of the code. They're necessary to allow the property to achieve a reasonable economic return, but still remaining consistent with the community's development requirements. They allow for first floor primary bedroom layouts, which was a feedback we got both from planning commission and the community writ large. Providing more accessible functional housing that meet the current market demand. They'll provide a needed benefit to the community through quality residential development. Really wonderful townhomes, only 18 of them, we know people want to live downtown. So it's an improved housing option, particularly for young professionals and empty nesters that want to have a really walkable, livable experience downtown. Also provide public benefit by extending the multi-purpose trail as staff so articulately explained earlier. Granted, the variance will not substantially alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In fact, to the contrary, we believe it will enhance the neighborhood. The proposed site layout and architectural design are compatible with surrounding residential context and will reduce perceived building mass. Having a little more room on the site, and we're just talking about a couple of feet, a little more room on the site allows us to create these six pods of three and a little space between them, which breaks the masses of the buildings and will make the townhomes themselves look like a series of really individual homes as opposed to sort of a larger mass building. The variance should not have any impact on water or sewer. And the proposed layout are separated by the interior courtyard, providing superior life safety access and therefore benefit to the community. The circumstances created for the need of this variance cannot feasibly be resolved through alternative design solutions. Trust me, we tried. I'd rather not be here before you asking for these variances today, but we couldn't figure out another way. Try though we may. There's three street facing setback conditions, internal vehicular circulation and garage maneuverability requirements just forced us to push the site just again this little titch back. The architectural massing considerations I mentioned and the fire life safety feedback we got from Hudson Fire Department all indicated that these were good ideas. This also allows us to add street parking improvements through our work with the city. And really we think meets the need for a compatible empty nest or housing with first floor master bedrooms. I went through that quickly because your time is valuable, but I'm also here to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

thank you mr scott wait we might have questions sorry if you're picking on me first i'm going to start with staff so well um then maybe we'll hold on those for a second mr dyer do you have any um questions for the applicant sure

um i had the opportunity to go back and watch your presentation at the thing was the planning commission meeting in september last year and um normally in my mind that shouldn't matter but it was great context um and i it seemed to me uh that you and the planning commission had worked very hard on a number of issues to come up with what something that was suitable and which it was a 7-0 vote in favor of the concept plan so everybody should be congratulated for that for that effort uh one question I had um and I don't know if you've given this any thought I know during the planning commission meeting um the refrain was always we haven't gotten to that point yet we you know that's further on down the line we'll be looking at that and have more details but I was thinking about the trail itself um which is a big part of the variance that's being being requested and the um retention And it appears that per our code, when the retention is wet, that it can be excluded from consideration of needing a variance from the creek, the 75 feet. So I don't think that's part of it. But my thought was this, and again, I think I know what you're going to tell me. But the retention that you're proposing on the site, Just eyeballing it seems inadequate. And I know the refrain is, well, we'll meet the city code. But my only thought is, if that trail were eliminated or moved and you had more room to work on city property for retention, is that something you would consider and come back to this? Have you thought about that?

Madam Chair, to the Commissioner member, firstly, I was remiss by not introducing the balance of my team. I'm joined by Bryce Hamel, Vice President of Design and Construction of Fairmont Properties, Dave Petrotone, River Star Architects, we literally shared space with them for ten years. I can't remember the name of this firm. That's really embarrassing. And Suzanne Meltzer from RDL Architects. I am going to actually call on, Dave, you're probably the best to answer this question, right?

Sir, can you please speak into the microphone so that we can get it on recording and identify yourself, please? Thank you.

They put your tongue Riverstone company were 3800 Lakeside Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio.

Thank you.

The reason it's a requirement to keep the retention or detention on our property. So we haven't looked at going over the city property. But if we did, then we wouldn't have any place for the trail itself.

Right and having walked the library trail and actually walked the property I'm thinking and with everything that's going on in phase I call it phase two that maybe there's another way to do that trail um and it might end up being somewhere else and in my mind that may help you out in if you needed additional retention that's that's my only thought i didn't know if you would discuss that with the city or not part of the part of our conditions of approval with our open space requirement is putting the trail in at that spot if we didn't put it in then we would have to go to another avenue to find additional area for the green space requirements And let me ask the city staff quickly, if for some reason the trail went away, can the applicant, just with a monetary contribution to parks or recreation, can they meet their requirement that way?

there is a funds in lieu for open space dedication but right the city intent is is to have a trail through that public trail through that property um and I guess I'll add the Putting a storm water basin on public land is another conversation. I don't know if the city would be open to that, but a trail is a public benefit and a private storm water pond would not be. So I think there's a difference in the conversation if we're talking about what's going on in the city property. But yes, for more background, that discussion came up through the planning review process. Obviously, the city had this planned trail. The applicant has an open space requirement. It definitely made sense to construct that with this project. And it made sense, in our view, and I believe Planning Commission's view, to align it with the library trail. um there has been some discussion on owen brown when you cross over to owen brown to get to morris do you do that along uh these town homes in front of the frontage of these town homes or do you cross the street and do it there so there's been a little discussion on that but um um i guess that's what i can say is where we stand as far as the planning commission discussions go and i think i think it's a great

it's a great work a workout it's a win-win again just from viewing the site plan knowing the distances and it's a wet basin also at least that's the way it's it's it's shown that does not appear to be large enough to handle All that impervious surface. That's all I'm saying. So what if it doesn't work out? Have there been any discussions? It sounds like there has not. So I'm not saying that I'm not in favor of it. I'm just thinking, have people thought ahead if it didn't work?

I think the question is, how comfortable is your team with this depicted size of these basins?

Respectfully, we think it does work. We've evaluated the site. We've evaluated the requirements. We've evaluated the pervious and impervious surface. We're very comfortable that we're well within the required code.

That's great news. Good to hear.

But I agree with you. When you look at it, I understand the visual.

And my only other question, this goes to city staff, and I had mentioned it to Mr. Sugar earlier, and you both brought it up, and that is the city's role in this. I was looking at it thinking that the city would be a co-applicant since the variances are being granted on two of the city parcels. and we what we're you're saying is they're they're not a co-applicant they're the owner but is there just looking down the road from a legal perspective are we handling this right so that somebody can't come back later if we were to grant the variances and challenge that that's yes i believe we are okay great

You state some component of the code or precedent for I'd have to I'd have to.

Look for the citation and get back with you on that. But from the standpoint of the applicant is the party that is looking to have. The construction done, they're the ones that are looking at. We would have to the city would have to approve the use of our land, but they're the they're making the application they're applying for. But for. them doing so I don't know if the city would be building that trail at this point. That was the they're the impetus of the of the project.

I think I I will just for the record think it's quite unusual and I have not seen president in our cases. Staff has something else to to otherwise that a application for a variance would be made by a party who is not the owner of the property. That's a very big concern for me.

At cases where it's not the owner of the property is that the applicant we've had it where it's the architect themselves were.

That's on behalf of the right.

And there would be a sign typically there's a signed document saying that it's stating such that they represent.

Yeah, I think I'm thinking of not Board of Zoning Appeals, but Hudson Community Living. Are you familiar with that project across from the fire station? The city sold a piece of property to them for that project. We were not an applicant, but it was a subject to the sale and the lot split. I believe a zoning request, part of that.

Did the city of Hudson own the piece of land during the application process? Yes, yes, yeah.

so and then this would be um a question to the applicant uh you performed a delineation and ecological review of your parcels um the three oh one one two one and three two oh one one two oh um and to indicate uh the stream corridor and wetland impact or if there was even a wetland there State the however that delineation report did not cover the city oriented parcel the city on parcels. Where is your ecological or delineation review of those city parcels.

I don't believe we did review the city parcels. They're not our parcels.

And how can you say that you've reviewed this and are comfortable with the ecological impact when you haven't done a study?

Madam Chairman, to the board member, I'm comfortable with the presentation we made regarding our development and we were requested to build this trail on city property.

don't have any privities to the cities that's more of a question for us yeah i don't i don't know how to answer that actually yeah um my understanding is a wetland delineation has not been performed on the city parcel um i think the the test points for the wet for the wetland study was at the edge of this parcel um i'm not a certified wetland specialist, so I cannot speak for wetlands on the parcel, though I know the stream corridor is very defined, but there has not been a wetland delineation performed on that parcel.

I think that this is one of the challenges of kind of confusing the applicants here, is that it makes things So. And the other thing that this introduces as far as challenges is that if for example there was a wetland delineation on that found in that. And the city parcel they would need to come back to come back. Yeah, that's true if we wanted to approve for example their section. We it could be mooted by the by by the results of that.

It would be an additional variance. It would be for a wetland setback if in fact there was a wetland on the parcel.

And the other feedback or question that I have is that the hydrological study was done for your property and on the impact analysis in January. So everything was frozen over. And so that limits the ability for the study to actually identify certain aspects of the property. Are you comfortable with that as far as determining impact? I am not the topic expert.

Chris Hamel with Fairmount Properties, 200 Park Avenue, Orange Village, Ohio. Yes, so when we did our delineation on our specific parcel, you're correct, we did do it during winter months. One of the things that our specialist did say is that she did not go out until there wasn't ground cover in terms of snow so that she could actually view the dirt, the soil, what was there.

Do you have any other questions, Mr. Scott?

So this goes towards staff. For the IEI analysis, just for context for folks, there is a component in section 12403, which is the variance. of the ldc that indicates that no variance shall be granted if doing so will have the potential to reduce the level of ecological integrity from the existing level to a lesser level as shown by any of the individual metrics or the undeveloped composite set for set in appendix b to the code and less substantially mitigated. And so one of the challenges is that we don't really have a score other than this one map that was produced 30 years ago. Why would staff not analyze, for example, the ecological impact kind of independently just using the factors that are present in code?

Yes, so this was done in 1996 and you can see this portion of downtown for I cannot speak why it does not have any scores. But the report we understand is outdated and we've discussed updating that report as soon as this year we've had discussions on that. This was done by an environmental scientist. And honestly, we do not have the expertise to recreate this report. This would be something we would hire a consultant to update.

But it's not just a report. It's a set of criteria in Appendix B of the LDC that is part of our evaluation of ecological impact. So when it comes to things like stream, we kind of need that data. a reasonable determination.

Our code references this report. I think we would need to update the report and reference a new report for our analysis.

There any value and reviewing independently the fact the fact those factors in the code for example, they talk about the hydrology the on the you know the the buffers and components I mean. Independently make that evaluation.

Yes, I hear what you're saying. I'm then a little uncertain what factors you would tie that to. They're in the code. They're in Appendix B. I'm sorry? No, I mean the factors of the Board of Zoning Appeals variance.

It says that if the scores could be reduced or are at risk of being reduced by it's supposed to be mitigated.

I understand. But what we're working with is a it's referencing a document that says there are no score. There's no score here.

But it is not just saying that you have to go off of the map. It has a set of metrics that could be evaluated. So I guess I don't think the intent of the LDC is if there is not on the map, then we don't evaluate this component.

I don't think the intent is to have a fluid study. Okay. That's my understanding of how we've been implementing this in the ten years since I've been here. So, I mean, that's the challenge. I think we need to update the study. Yes, I agree. And we have been studying that and having discussions with firms that would have thoughts on that.

So in lieu of that, I think it makes sense to have a wetland delineation on...

Yeah, you could do it one of two ways. You could rule on the stream corridor setback and what's in front of you tonight. And we would separately have that performed. And if there's an issue, yes, then that would be a separate variance request. That could be verified through the Planning Commission site plan review that would follow this application.

As Mr. Dyer indicated, that he has concerns about the impact of the trail, and there's no analysis of the impact of the trail, nor any potential proposed mitigation if there was impact.

To a wetland.

To a wetland or stream corridor.

My concern wasn't so much with wetland impacts as it was that the applicant wouldn't be able to handle the retention on their site the way it was designed, and they could use the additional land where the trail is right up against the property line, which is probably a good idea. me if the if the applicant said they feel confident that's you know that's something they have to deal with and that's their risk so i i don't have a concern from that perspective now if there is a wetland and the setbacks change right but again um my thought is you could we can move forward and they would have to come back the key is when would that study or would that study even be done the wetland on the city property and that's yeah you I learned early on I know nothing about wetlands. I just don't even try to figure out what is a wetland. But most of that property is mowed. It's disturbed mowed land. But there could be wetlands closer.

That would be done for the site plan review application to Planning Commission.

And why wouldn't that site plan review happen before the variance request under this?

We felt that since it had concept review, that there was a level of comfort with the planning commission on the layout and the applicant could proceed with variance requests in between the two.

So if we could also just change the order again, then.

You could change the order. You could take off the path for now. You could rule on the building.

have some questions about the path too um is is it going to be a paved path or is it good okay so it's going to be asphalt correct um it's intended to be a multi-purpose permeability or is it a asphalt that is non-permeable the um current design would be a asphalt non-permeable but that could be looked at Those are evaluations that we would evaluate if we had a study for the city part of the city parcel.

The intent is, sorry, for the eight to 10 foot multipurpose bike and walk trail that would be continuous from north to south so you wouldn't have gravel in certain sections.

If I may? Is it okay? Yeah. Okay, thank you. We are deeply immersed in a, completing an architectural civil engineering structural design process. I hear your concerns. I'm just wondering if we can bifurcate these concerns and allow us to continue to move forward with the designs of our buildings and allow you all to figure out what it is that makes the most sense for the trail. Is that a feasible solution?

That was my Okay. Comment of you could split the variance requests. You could not act on, or you could withdraw the trail requests. That is an option for tonight.

I think it would make the most sense to withdraw or withdraw that specific request and it could be resubmitted at a later date. um because i think otherwise we have well because there's three of us here it would automatically get delayed to the next meeting but that then that gives city more time to figure out yeah you could also comment on some of the items you're requesting to see more detail um just to have on the record or the other option is to move forward

with the trail with the understanding that that wetlands the wetland survey would be done you're saying it would be done before the next iteration i mean there's i know there's a bunch of steps you still have to go through thank you um and it could it could go through that process and then planning commission would have that and then if they they'd have to come back correct or another if there were an issue with that there was an issue yeah and i'm not sure there'd be an issue I don't want to throw roadblocks where there aren't any. It's just, either way, if we're protected either way, then I would say let's move forward with it. But if you're saying, if somebody says no, you wouldn't be protected, then we ought to bifurcate it, split it up, and handle just the one. So, I mean, I'd be in favor of continuing. It's totally up to you. It's a long process. And again, I'm so glad I had the opportunity to watch the Planning Commission meeting in September to see all the work that's going on up to this point, the give and the take. an example and this has nothing to do with our our board but the design changes you made on Owen with the the building on Owen Brown um that was a a great having riding my bike up Owen Brown the other day that was a concern um but I think it seems like it was handled appropriately from a planning perspective

Having done business here for almost 30 years, I understand this process to be iterative. And I genuinely do appreciate the feedback from both this board and the planning commission and council. And we try and listen and be as responsive as we can. And the net result is we think we get a project that makes the community happy, and that's good for everybody.

My feeling, at least on the City of Hudson parcel, is that I don't feel like I have the same amount of information in front of me as we do for the other parcel of land. And it's hard to make supported findings without full information. So the options are for the applicant to withdraw it, or what is the other option for us to rule on it with our recommendations? So somebody would have to make a motion, or does the- I'm going to go ahead and withdraw it.

I think that's probably better than having you rule against it.

The multi-purpose path, or is it the entire?

This was trying the yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to know it would be one and just variance one. Or would it also be to where it's getting a little tricky as comes. Because the if you go it because because the the variance 3. the rear yard setback, it would still run into the stream corridor setback.

Yes, we still have a stream. It's just reduced.

Yeah, we would reduce the scope, I guess, of that second.

You could limit it to the plans minus the trail.

Yeah, unit one, essentially. Yeah. Okay. So you'd like to withdraw variance number one? Yes.

Probably not to screw this up, my hardest. Could he omit the trail from the plans as presented? And then we would determine the variance setbacks while you're discussing, because I think it's going to modify the setbacks, right?

Yeah, so the stream corridor setback is for the trail and the buildings. The buildings end up being a five-foot setback just for the townhome development. The 47-foot setback is for the multipurpose trail and the townhome. So it would be reducing the first variance.

We're just changing the scope. Reducing the scope.

Reduce the variance from 47 feet to the 70 feet.

And the retention being wet retention is not, doesn't require- Correct, our understanding through the process is it would be a wet basin which would not be applicable to the setbacks. Okay, so that's not, okay. It is designed essentially as a wetland, constructed wetland with the code requirements.

Okay.

So we're moving forward. on the requests as to a parcel owned by Hudson Village Townhomes LLC.

Yes, just the two applicant-owned parcels.

The motion would have to be constricted.

First variance would be restricted to just the setback of the town home development, which is approximately five feet. So it would be changing from a 75 foot setback to a 70 foot setback.

So the words a variance of 47 feet would be changed to five feet. And the words resulting in a 28 foot setback would be replaced with a 70 foot.

Yes.

Questions about that.

I was going to say, because I also have questions, but I'll let you go, Mr. Scott, if you have questions as to those two parcels.

I've been asking enough questions. Please go ahead.

Okay, thank you. So my question is, You were in front of this board for obviously the curb cut request in I believe October of last year. Can you explain to me the changes or updates in design that made it necessary to add these variances specifically to the request? Sure, thank you. Suzanne?

I'm Suzanne Meltzer with RDL Architects. And my address, 21111 Sugarin Boulevard in Beachwood, Ohio. Sorry, I've got a little bit of a cold. The changes that were made since then, there were a couple of, we developed the design a lot more. And two, I think the biggest things, and you can tell me if I missed anything, but the two biggest things that affected that were maneuverability in two garages. We were really concerned with being able to keep the maneuverability good, especially thinking about empty nesters or seniors that might want to live there. So that pushed, we wanted to widen the alley, the drive access coming in, which is much smaller in the original town homes. We widened that a bit just to provide more maneuverability. We also made the separation so that we would have the three kind of triplexes versus, we had six of them connected before, so we have the through sidewalk that passes through from each of the carports. WHICH HELPS WITH LIFE SAFETY. SO WE HAD REVIEWED THAT WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL AND THEY FELT THAT THAT WAS A BIG BENEFIT FOR THEM. SO THAT PUSHED THE BUILDINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARD THE SETBACK. SO I THINK THOSE WERE THE TWO MAIN DRIVERS.

So, not to put words in your mouth, but the life safety updates were adding additional access points, which caused the changes in the footprint to impact the setback.

Yes, so that they don't have to go into the carport if they had to fight any fire.

that was my that was my big question uh mr scott did you have any uh specific questions regarding the town homes so the the other option of course is to make the unit smaller right

Yeah, I mean, you'd have to make them smaller. But right now, we've tightened them up as much as we could while keeping them marketable. Two feet is not very much when you consider the totality of the site, but it's a lot when you consider the size of a living room. So that was kind of what's driving it. We just didn't have that two feet of flexibility to push it back. And it's really just the corners that are hitting it. It's not uniform across that setback. So it's because of the way that that setback angles, it affected it. And then the streamline as well, the high water mark just caused some kind of weird angles. it touches yeah where it touches it's i think that's probably about um i think that's about 12 feet there And then the other portion that sticks out, that's just a porch. And we just felt that that was important from the architectural standpoint. We know the Planning Commission's very interested in making sure that these feel like houses and not just the back or the side of a townhouse. So the porches help us architecturally to really make that look nice, especially if that bike path does go in there. And also because it's kind of a tranquil area for marketing purposes, having that porch there is just a really nice touch.

Was there a diagram of the floodplain area? I thought there was one.

Yeah, we stayed out of the floodplain. We're close, but we're out of it. I think that red, it's the red, right? Yeah.

We've been tracking that separately. That is administered to our floodplain administrator, which is also the city engineer. So he's been involved through this whole process. There are certain criteria. You can technically disturb a floodplain. It's just you cannot lower it. So there are certain criteria on grading and how you balance the site. And we've had substantial discussions with him. And the applicant on how to address any work within that floodplain requires a separate permit and review through those general items I talked about, but it's a lot more detailed than that.

both those outside units, those they're called C units, that one and on the other side, those were specifically designed to minimize the impact that we have, because of the angle of the setback on the Clinton Street side and the angle of the floodplain on the Owen Brown side, we redesigned the unit. So those are specially designed units to try to minimize where we're touching all of that. So they're different from the other units.

Okay, so the boundary of unit two's porch is still a little bit away from the floodplain, even with the terrain?

Correct.

Yeah, it's just a lot of lines there.

Are there any questions? Okay. Mr. Dyer, do you have any questions specific to this? No. Okay. All right, then seeing as we don't have any other questions from the board at this moment, then we will move to comments from individuals who have standing. Do we have any individuals? Now, the standing definition is anybody who would have received a card in the mail about this? Yes. Letter. Okay. Yes. Do we have any members of the audience who would like to talk, who have standing? Seeing none, then we will open it to comments from the public. If anybody would like to make comments from the public, they have the ability to, not to exceed five minutes. All right. Then we will move to final questions from the board. Do we have any? I don't think we do. OK. Applicant, you're able to provide some final comments. If you'd like to, you don't have to. And then we'll have discussion amongst the board.

Thank you for your consideration and time.

Thank you. I'm happy these are separated. This makes it a little easier for us, I think. My biggest question that I had going into this with the development was, why has it changed over time? And is that changed now? Is that change sufficient for a variance? And to me, I think it sounds like the applicant has been working with the city to try to make a design that not only fits what people are looking for in Hudson but also fits what is needed from a life safety perspective for those who may want to live in these buildings. So to me, I think it makes sense, but I'm open to anybody's concerns or thoughts with the changes that have been made over time.

I concur. My piece of feedback for staff is that on the variance for the trail i think that one would make sense to have a little bit later after site plan review from planning commission because they will have done all the homework that we were trying to get trying to get done around the impact to the stream um and run off and the like and so it would i would be much more comfortable um if it was after their approval was subject to bcba approval yeah yeah because then we would have all the data to help us with 12 or 4 3 c right we yeah we'd be in good shape because they'll probably give you feedback about the asphalt for example as mr bronstein yeah indicated so okay

If I can make a comment, I don't want to complicate things further. So typically, our variances are determined by limits of disturbance. So you say the building is encroaching two feet into the setback, but you're going to need equipment to work around that, right? So the code says you cannot disturb anything. But I think with the understanding that we know the ponds are going to be developed, I think we're covered under our amended variance, but I just wanted to add that into the record.

Yeah, so we could put conditions on the variance that require, for example, silt. What do they call the silt barriers during construction? Yes. And those aspects to make sure that there isn't any disturbance of the stream corridor as part of the variance.

Isn't that something that the city, I mean, you do that.

correct correct but you could yes you can enforce that but yes we do that historically we have yes so that would that would extend that would extend just beyond the ponds as they're permitted to build those yeah so you get a little bit of yeah we could we could add that as a condition okay so is anybody at this point prepared to make a motion

I'll make a motion, but I'm going to need some help.

OK. My recommendation is to go to the end of page three is a good place to start when you go through the Duncan factors.

I've got everything here. now this another question uh when i was looking at this since i'm new uh there were three variances do you go through the duncan factors separately for each variance or do you do them as a all together it's a good question i think it's a we've handled it differently on different cases it's kind of a case-by-case evaluation my recommendation is

If you do them together to separately call out the facts for each, or you could do them separately.

OK.

So you could say it meets standard A variance one meets that standard based on this answer. Variance two meets this standard based on this answer is what Ms. Bronson's saying. That's one way to do it.

OK. Well, let me start and see how it goes. So I'll make a motion on application number five dash 20 dash 2026 for the property located at 86 Owen Brown Street for the permanent parcel numbers 3201121 and 3201120. um the variance uh that were the variances that we're looking at would be and that is now it's a five see a five foot variance from the required 75 foot stream corridor setback Resulting in a 70 foot setback pursuant to section 1207.03, parenthesis E, parenthesis 1, parenthesis B. Quote, wetland stream corridor protection dash stream corridor setbacks of the city of Hudson land development code. see does that yeah should it be the other yeah okay uh also a variance um from the prohibited activity of disturbance from within stream quarters wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03 parentheses c quote print prohibited activities end quote of the city of hudson land development code and then number three a variance of five feet from the required rear yard residential principal structure setback of 25 feet resulting in a 20-foot setback pursuant to section 1205.08 d7b1 property development slash design standards setbacks of the city of hudson land development code The applicant is Hudson Village Townhomes LLC. And the Duncan factors are whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Okay. Let's see, the townhome design as i think we all understand it's it's complex and it's highly integrated and the movement of dwellings to the west by five feet would result in either a redesign or elimination of dwellings and the applicant has already reduced the dwelling count i believe it was by three um And to address Planning Commission concerns. So I think there's a question, a significant issue regarding a reasonable return by eliminating this variance. Whether the variance is substantial, The variance on its face would not be substantial five feet for a 75 foot wide setback and also five feet on a 20 foot setback. Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. These two parcels are separated from the residential uses on Owen Brown Street by a creek and natural habitat, providing a substantial buffer. The current structures, we didn't talk about this, but the current structures are commercial buildings, including a substantial asphalt parking lot, which also currently exists in that 75 foot wide buffer without a variance. The variance will allow residential uses more compatible to existing residential than the site's current commercial structures. Number four, whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services such as water and the answer is no in fact storm water management should be enhanced with the addition of the wet retention facilities the current site provides no retention number five whether the applicant purchased the property with the knowledge of the requirement yes number six whether the applicant's predicament can be obviated feasibly through some method other than a variance the The change to the site plans would be significant. And again, the plan has been modified based on comments from the Hudson Planning Commission. So I would say no, we say no. And number seven, whether the spirit and intent behind the requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. Yes, we've got the removal of a deteriorating commercial structure and the existing asphalt parking lot with use changes to residential from commercial. in addition there'll be storm water retention on the site which currently has none something about connectivity but that's um that would be it all right um is anybody prepared to second second all right miss rodak i'd like to make a moment okay

Were there any conditions to add in?

So I'd like to make an amendment to the motion to add conditions during construction of the use of a silt fence and sediment control plan during construction.

Mr. Dyer, do you accept that amendment? Yes. All right. Can I get a second for the amended motion?

Second. This is my motion.

I think you have to second.

I have to second that one or get a second?

Okay, all right. Ms. Rodak, can we have the roll call please? Yes.

Mr. Scott? Yes. Mr. Jones? Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl? Chair Rothstein?

Yes. All right, congratulations. Okay, moving on to our next case in front of us tonight. We have BZBA case 26-537. The subject of this hearing is a request for two variances to allow for the construction of a driveway for a new home. The variances are a variance of 14 feet from the required 50 foot wetland setback resulting in a setback of 36 feet from the delineated edge of wetlands pursuant to section 1207.03e2. entitled Setbacks Wetlands of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. And the second, a variance from the prohibited activity of disturbance within a stream corridor's wetlands and their setbacks pursuant to section 1207.03c entitled prohibited activities of the City of Hudson Land Development Code. The applicant is Chris Brown of 778 Macaulay Road. Suite 140, Stowe, Ohio, 44224. The property owner is GVI, LLC, 410 Dunwoody Drive, Aurora, Ohio, 44202. For the property at 549 West Streetsboro Street in District 2, rural residential conservation within the city of Hudson. Ms. Rodak, may we have the staff report, please?

yes uh as we just mentioned properties located in district two along west streetsboro street lot is approximately 5.2 acres and if the variances were to be approved they would then be split into two 2.5 acre lots for single-family detached home development Applicant is requesting variance of 14 feet from the required 50 foot wetland setback, resulting in a setback of 36 feet from the delineated edge of the wetlands. Staff notes the neighboring residential properties along West Streetsboro Street are generally between 0.5 acres to 1.5 acres in size. And according to the wetland delineation provided, the wetland D as identified is a category two wetland. However, the wetland delineation reports states that it is not a high quality wetland. The applicant could construct a driveway on the adjoining lot with a shared access easement. However, shared driveways generally create more complications for both properties. Additionally, like the last case, the index of ecological integrity was looked at for this. It is in overlaid here on this yellow parcel. The yellow parcel is the lowest score according to the IEI that we have and would not be impact, would not be reduced to another level as there is no other level to go to. The applicant is here for questions if you have any.

Thank you, Ms. Rodak. With that, would the applicant step up to the podium and present your case? Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Evening my name is Chris Brown and my address is 7, 7, 8, Macaulay drive so Ohio just on the South edge of town. I and I am representing GBI as the owner of the parcel. It is partial number 3, 0, 1, 0, 4, 1, 9, within the city of Hudson is currently a little over a 5.2 acre parcel. We're limited in the frontage, but we can cut it off and meet the requirements for the lot size in District 2. The thing that we ran into was the wetland setbacks. We did have the wetland, a very large wetland that extends back behind the properties. We did have that delineated. The delineation is current. The current 50-foot wetland buffer doesn't actually go over to the property line between the two proposed lots. There's actually about four feet in between the property line and the edge of the 50-foot setback. Mary, if you could put the, yeah. So you can see, looking straight on at it, you can see the property line between proposed lots S1 and S2. The edge of the proposed driveway will be three foot off the property line. The current wetland buffer yard is 4.16 feet. So if we start at the three foot from the property line, put our 12 foot concrete drive in, And have another 3 feet to allow some grading for the driveway because it is pretty flat in there, but we will need to to grade a little bit. I'm actually at 13.8 4 feet which we rounded up to 14 feet. Do you have the pictures of this site? This is looking westerly going down State Route 303. And this is looking into the site from the south side of 303 looking north. There is one tree that we will have to remove. Can you zoom in on that any, Mary? You can see the tree right there, it's actually dead. It's a four inch dead pine tree. Sorry, is this the right one? No, the other side, right there. Yeah. You can see the the wetland area and adjacent to it It's all a lot of phragmites a very invasive species as far as wetlands go And We do have the opportunity, as stated in the staff report, basically the property line, if it's where the electric box currently is along 303 there, we would have the opportunity to put an easement for a common drive, but as the staff report mentioned, i've been doing this a long time and common drive easements are just they're a nightmare as far as snow plowing and maintenance and taking care of everything we had the other option of possibly getting a permit to fill approximately 0.3 acres of wetland But as I thought about it, that doesn't make a lot of sense because the land development code wants to preserve wetlands. So we thought that the fastest, easiest, most logical thing to do would be request a variance. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Scott, I'll start with you this time.

So I wanted to start with the system clarifications on the staff report. The you indicate that the it's not a high quality wetland. However, the I believe doesn't the report indicated as a moderate quality wetland, which I guess makes it not a high quality wetland, but it kind of has an implication that

Yeah, so it is in the middle. There's one, two, and three, so it is two. The answer, one of the narrative forms that the wetland special end does, they have yes and no questions. One of the questions is, is it a high quality wetland? And no is the answer.

Which would immediately turn it into category three.

So he answered no. Right. So that's where that came from.

but i i guess the and then again this goes to the iei kind of designation here because here i i definitely feel very strongly that there is an impact that needs to be addressed um uh for uh Of all the wetlands that were in this report, wetland D was definitely the healthiest of them all. In particular, It had active amphibian nesting. It had several of the microtopology components that are very to the wetland environment. So it's just the characterization of it is not high quality without taking into the account some of the other aspects that were found in the report. It seems like an omission.

I think the applicant can speak to the wetland itself. Of note, though, this is not impacting the wetland itself. The proposal would impact the setback to the wetland. We are not impacting the actual wetland.

But the code makes no distinction. Code requires a setback from the edge of the wetland where you cannot disturb right, but that right and because because it would impact the well.

What we're not filling the proposal is not to fill the wetland or do work within a well and boundary just I just want to make that clarification. I don't know if you can speak to some of the wetlands on the property in the report Chris.

um as mary had mentioned when the uh wetland specialist comes out there there are areas within this site since it is such a large you can see that such a large wetland there's some areas that are better quality than the ones that are up front along 303. As I mentioned, those are basically Phragmites, which is basically an invasive species, according to the wetland specialist. So and again, we're not we're not asking to impact the wetland. We're just asking to go into that within that 50 foot buffer. We're looking to go 14 feet into it. So there will still be a buffer from the edge of the driveway to the wetland.

So. When did you acquire the property.

GVI purchased property from Prestige Homes probably back in three years ago, I'm thinking.

You were aware of the requirements? Yes. And you commissioned the wetland delineation. The report title page talks about our proposed River Oaks subdivision property. Can you describe the broader development plan for that 81 acre holding?

That's actually a development that I think Pulte Homes did that. Prestige Homes did own the property and Prestige sold it to Pulte and they developed it.

But this GVI owns other properties around that area, right?

We actually, if you go just to the east of that, we developed the cottages at Pine Ridge, that first little cul-de-sac there.

That was originally platted by Pulte. The original intent was to have that all the way up to Boston Mills Road as part of their project.

It actually came in front of the zoning board previously for wetland.

And so is there an intent to do more development in that area? The reason that I ask is that one of the components of code is that if this is a common variance request that you're going to keep making for additional properties as you develop them, then it really needs to be handled by council as opposed to by us.

Yeah, no, I'm out of room. So there will not be any more.

So that other property, that other property that's owned is not currently planned to be developed?

That's actually all open space as part of the cottages at Pine Ridge.

Okay, so that's going to be intended to be used.

So it's in a separate... That cannot be developed.

Yeah. Per the previous approval. Yeah.

And so... The staff report identified three feasible alternatives. Can you walk us through your engagement with each of those alternatives? The first is maintaining the property as a single 5.2 acre lot with a single residence.

Well, as it is right now, it's a 5.2 acre lot. I think we would open this up to a lot more customers if it was a smaller lot. And then we could, you know, obviously a two and a half acre lot would be a little less expensive for the customer than a 5.2 acre lot.

I mean you purchased it as a 5.2 acre piece of property correct with knowledge of the existing land development code what were you thinking regarding driveways under that under that

This is platted separate from the cottages or any subdivision. It was just a standalone 5.2 acres. After we got the cottages underway, we looked at this to see what we could do with it.

It was acquired at the same time? all of the remaining property uh was acquired at the same time so but and but i think my point is is that is this a scenario where you could still get strong return on the property without splitting it in half and without getting and and getting the variant

we want to have the ability to split the property and create two lots not to leave it as one lot and a lot of dimensions work out that it is compliant with the land development code as far as acreage measurements distances setbacks so let's talk about the shared driveway um

What directly is your concern there?

A lot of customers, a lot of people buying homes. We would actually have to put an easement on, I think it's lot S1, to be able to fit a driveway. So it would be a shared driveway servicing S1 and also going south. Lot S2. If you get two neighbors that especially don't get along with each other, that becomes a problem. And any easement on a property is a restriction on the property. So we prefer not to do that.

And what about just relocating the driveway further westward as proposed with a three foot side setback?

Say that again?

So in the staff report, they suggested The good word could reduce the requested variance by proposing a driveway closer to the property line and instead request a side setback variance from the required 3 foot set. You can move it 3 feet.

I could I could move it 3 feet and put it on the property line. But again I think I am I correct neck that all driveways should be 3 feet from the property line.

i can say the intent of that setback is um for maintenance to allow for me so there may be some sort of easement you would need like if you're ever going to repave it right you would need to access the neighboring lot or um and storm water it would run off directly onto the neighboring property i think that's my understanding of the requirement for the three foot space setback for a driveway

And I do know that. The engineering department looks very closely and they like to put swales whenever possible down the property line. For stormwater purposes so putting it closer to the property line make that a lot more difficult.

And so the other other thought that I had was is it is there something as far as the limitation of lot size that wouldn't allow you to make a little bit of a kind of a serpentine driveway that this kind of goes or goes around that and respects. And so you would basically take a little bite out of the the the other

My attempt was to make the lots the most compliant that I could with the land development code. The land development code says all the property lines should be perpendicular to the road center line. I'm limited to 200 feet minimum lot width. If I did a serpentine type of line, I don't know if that would be acceptable to staff.

With the minimum lot with this is already leave its 200 feet so it wouldn't it would then create as one to be lower.

I would require a variance.

Right there's a 100 foot with requirement for lots and that's what. So

So the questions around kind of the ecological impact, what proposed mitigations do you have?

As far as encroaching into the setback buffer, we haven't thought about any type of mitigation because we're not impacting any wetland boundaries.

So the. I think. I think there's a fundamental question about in almost all of these cases of some type of of mitigation, you know, whether it be impacts of like using using permeable surfacing. Sometimes it involves plants and other aspects to... I don't see that in the proposal.

Like I mentioned we hadn't proposed any mitigation for that. I would love to mow down those Ugly frag mighties on the right side of the driveway If we if we do that, maybe we could plant some some true wetland plantings in the buffer yard in your

application, you indicate that there are no special circumstances particular to the property that would require the need for a variance. Is there something unique about about those that were those type of.

Now there was no special circumstances is just a matter of the topography. The location of the wetlands. Just what what we thought we we wouldn't want to do as far as the driveway location.

Thank you Mister Scott Mister chair.

Thank you thank you. A couple of questions. You're showing a 12-foot concrete driveway. Is that the standard in Hudson for the width of the driveway?

That's the standard that we use for building our homes.

because I measured mine and my house is 11 years old and it's actually under nine feet. So I'm just thinking out loud, if you reduce the width, particularly in that area, let's say going from 12 to 10, you've picked up two feet. If you reduce the three feet on each side to two feet, you've picked up another two feet. and i thought corey's your your mr scott's um line of questioning about moving the driveway as a you can come in on your lot and then you you start to serpentine where you would go the way it's drawn now you would cross that line but you could move that line now you're the you're saying the code They want a perpendicular line with the street. The line would be perpendicular except for that small area. I was looking, I mean it's about 200 and I think it's like 230 feet, square feet, where it would extend over, maybe a little bit more. This is the way I'm looking at it. It's an environmental issue. And to me, an environmental issue I hate to use this word, trumps the maybe other issues that we deal with, with side lot lines. And if we can figure out a way, if you can figure out a way to put that driveway in without having any variance, that would be wonderful for everybody, including yourself. so it now I don't know what again you'd have to re-survey the lot and do a lot split type of situation and I know it seems like why am I doing this just for this crazy little wetland area but that would allow this board to where you wouldn't even need to be here essentially

And I completely understand so. I'm going to lose the mic here, but.

Don't need to be captured.

So you're saying starting at the right away.

Stay inside because I think that's 200. You're at 200 feet, which is the minimum lot size. You can't. You can't reduce the lot on the left or the west. Is it 200 feet wide? I believe, looking at your survey numbers.

Yes, correct.

So we can't move that lot line any further at the street.

So it's your flexibility in notching it.

Yes.

After you have it at the street.

Yes, you provided- The span of maybe 10 feet. The staff provided this nice drawing showing essentially where the 50 foot line is run. So you'd be essentially taking the driveway, and the driveway would run right along that 50 foot buffer line. And that would show you where it would have to extend into the other lot. But you change the lot line so that the driveway stays in the lot to the east.

I think a lot. I understand what you're saying.

I know that a reaction would be typically, why are we jumping through these hoops? But we have a regulation on an environmental issue.

Let me ask Nick and staff, would they approve that type of lot split? Because to me, that goes against the land development code. You would be coming from, this is actually the right-of-way, so you'd be coming here and then cutting a notch out here and back, and then I would have to go back this property line, then I would actually have to cut a notch back here somewhere to make sure I get my acreage. Do you know what I mean?

The lot on the left, if my recollection was, that was 2.6, 2 point, I think, or there was.

So I have about 13 hundredths of an acre that I could make that. Maybe I wouldn't have to do a jog in the back. Maybe I could just do it in the front.

Just a thought.

No, I mean, it's reasonable. The lot configurations is kind of defined as well in the land development code, and I was following that.

We would need the minimum lot sizes for each lot. We could look at if there's We'd have to be digging into the definitions if there's flexibility in the width. If we have a, you know, 90% of the lot width is compliant, though 10% is not.

It would be compliant at the right of way, which is important. Correct.

So that that can be. I don't have an answer now that can be further looked at. Yes. If there's a potential for administrative approval with a regular lot shape.

I agree, but I don't think city engineering is going to to agree to it, unfortunately.

Just to comment on the, you know, the other side, you've got 303, does the storm, the water coming off of 303, is that picked up in a swale and deposited somewhere else, or does that water flow into that wetland?

There's a ditch on both sides of 303 and at some place, and I'm not quite sure, I think it does come across the road onto the north side and into that wetland.

You're getting lots of salt and oils and all sorts of contaminants coming from 303. And you can look at the map and see how the wetland actually was cut off when 303 was put in. So from the other side, I look at it and say, we're having this discussion on a 10 foot driveway or 12 foot driveway in a setback. Where we have incredible contamination occurring coming off of 303. And like you said, it's phragmites, it's an invasive species. But to me, if there's a way we can avoid a variance on an environmental regulation, we should pursue that.

No, that's perfectly fine. Both the other board members have asked really good questions that are substantially similar to the thoughts I had, which is basically my first thought was why can't we move the lot line? I feel like the lot line is More of an issue than the wetland. But then Bob brought up a good point regarding the size of the driveway. And so those were really my two issues. So I don't really have any other questions at this point. So I'm going to-

Well, let me just ask. I would basically if I if I move the lot line from the right away, keep it perpendicular to State Route 303 per the land development code. I have a nonconforming lot. I won't have 200 foot of frontage. Along the front. If I. If I'm if I kink the lot line a little bit. so I can move the driveway over to the west side is that something Nick that would could I still get that approved administratively so I think what we're hearing from the board is

one likely chase internally if the lot line can be manipulated and administratively approved then there's no need for a variance that may require some discussions with the solicitor um two if if that is if that is not possible the applicant may wish to consider a lot with variance that would move the in the drive outside of the wetland setback as this wetland setback is seen as more imperative to to to preserve excuse me yep okay is that what that's what I'm just relaying what the board is what I'm hearing from the board

i'm just just looking at the again the survey that was provided with the coloring on it that um if this is anywhere close to being accurate accurate you've got a number of feet from where the driveway ties into 303 back to the right-of-way line where you can come straight in and then you've got another i i would say that that looks like that measures at about 30 feet that's got to be a large right of way but 30 20 25 30 feet plus you have another 20 feet before the driveway would need to bend to the west to follow that 50 foot buffer line so I think it it's not like you're you're pulling into a driveway and it curves like in the first five feet it's you'd have a straight shot which is what you want from a safety standpoint and ease of entry and exit and then you could curve it over again i i don't yeah engineering may not but that that seems like that okay do you do you know nick off the top of your head land development code for the r2 district

Do you have to maintain that 200 foot lot with all the way back.

That's what I was looking at the strict definition of lot with. Read it is.

You have to have just 200 foot at the building line. Right there right away.

It's the distance between the side lot lines as measured along the building front setback line. So there may be some flexibility in this first 50 feet or so to adjust the width, but maintain 100 foot as you move north, or 200, excuse me. bind with a maintenance easement of some sort too potentially but try to avoid something like that the one the other item I was separately looking at is in our lots this is Chris I think what you're also familiar with we've discussed this in the past sorry our subdivision standards at 1208. there's some general criteria for lots the lot size with this is a little more gray the lot size width depth shape and orientation shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and type of development and use contemplated You could argue that the two and a half acre lot, there's some flexibility in its shape. But if you have a subdivision lot, it may have more of an impact. Correct. So I'm just talking out loud, walking through the requirements. Yeah. Yeah. So there may be some flexibility in the staff administration of a small jog, is what I'm seeing, to shift that drive over to the west.

but I would still have to maintain my 200 foot.

You keep that at the road, and then you have the change in shape, then you go back to 200.

So I think he's saying that the line, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Sugar, is that the line wouldn't be completely straight? Is that what you're saying, Mr. Sugar? It depends.

It would bend. There would be a slight bend. Yeah.

It wouldn't be a completely perpendicular line. Yeah. Yeah. Because at least from what you're describing, code is not saying that it has to be perpendicular.

Correct.

It has to be a shape. It does say in the code that property lines.

Side lot lines shall normally be at right angles to the street.

It will be.

Well, it will be at the street. To the street.

90% of the lot lines.

Except when natural or cultural features suggest other suitable and appropriate locations. So that is a section we can look at.

So I guess the question for the applicant at this point, we can move forward with the hearing. Or we could, correct me if I'm wrong, delay till next meeting and if it's resolved administratively in the in between it could be taken off of the calendar for next meeting correct yeah which would allow the city to investigate and get you a little bit more of a concrete uh concrete data yeah i could work on a staff memo with a determination for mr brown following this meeting Or we could proceed with the hearing tonight and come to a decision.

It doesn't sound like my decision is going to be good, so. It's long enough, no.

Well, the reality is that, I don't think we directly addressed this earlier, but because it's only three members tonight, we would have to all vote one way or the other, or it automatically gets continued till the next meeting.

Well, I'll just request a continuance until next meeting. In the meantime, I'll look for Nick's memo on what I can possibly do to not make this a non-conforming lot.

I think that makes the most sense. I think we'll accept the continuance. Ms. Rodak, is there anything administratively we need to do to accept the continuance? Do we have to make a motion?

I would make a motion, yeah. Can I get a motion?

I move that we issue a continuance for 26537 to next schedule.

Second.

Second.

Ms. Rodak, can you call the roll, please? Mr. Scott? Yes.

Mr. Jones? Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl? Chair Brownstein?

Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right, on to our last case for the evening. We have BZBA case 26-558. The subject of this hearing is a variance. Request of 13 feet from the required rear yard principle structure setback of 50 feet resulting in a principle structure setback of 37 feet pursuant to section 1205.04, D5, D1 entitled property development design standards rear yard setbacks of the city of Hudson land development code in order to build an addition. The applicant and owners are John and Patricia Caputo of 7400 Valerie Lane, Hudson, Ohio 44236 in District 1 Suburban Residential Neighborhood within the city of Hudson.

Ms. Rodak, may we have the staff report, please? Yes. This property is located in District 1, suburban residential neighborhood on Valerie Lane. Applicant is requesting to construct an approximately 300 square feet enclosed sunroom addition. Staff notes several houses in the neighborhood along Woodyard Road and Valerie Lane also have the similar diagonal orientation that would not currently be permitted. The existing house also has a rear yard setback of 37 feet due to the variance granted by the DCBA in 2015. Additionally, staff notes the proposed addition would abut the rear yard of the property to the west and that it would be in place of an outdoor patio. It would be difficult to build an addition in the rear yard, rear of the house to the angle and the resulting rear yard. Or the size of the addition could be reduced, but it would make functionality difficult for the applicant. And the applicant is here for any questions the board may have.

Thank you. Would the applicant please come to the podium, identify yourself and address, and state your case please. And sorry that you had to listen to all the wetland items in front of us.

Actually, I like wetlands. I manage 200 acres of wetland mitigation sites. So it's really interesting.

Well, you're an expert then.

So John Caputo, 7400 Valerie Lane. So we bought the house. Actually, the house has been in my family for a little bit more than four decades. It was purchased from my aunt and uncle in 2010, so about 16 years ago. We lived in it for a while and decided that it wasn't quite fitting for our family. Asked for a variance that was granted to put a substantial addition on the house. Since that, things have kind of changed in our lives with working from home and in this home, it is a split level. So only the north end of the house has a basement. So it's a very small basement even though the house has a big footprint. So using a basement office with the well pump and the boiler and hot water tank and sump pump and everything else, you get all these noises while you're trying to do meetings and things like that. So we're hoping to utilize this as part of our, both of us work from home, in different companies though so so it makes it a little easier for us i think to have the to have the space it is an existing patio so we're not impacting any sort of runoff impervious surface stays the same the existing patio does have a full frost slab footer and in slab heat So it's got radiant heat in the floor of it. So I really would not like to modify because it would require massive excavation and cutting that tubing and redoing it. So I'd appreciate to not do that. Just on the neighborhood itself, that section of Valerie Lane, there's 12 Valerie Lane houses there. Nine of those 12 houses have sunrooms. uh most of them are they average about 287 square feet so we're really close i think we're about 305. uh the ones on on the west side of the street which is what we're on uh those lots are a little narrower so the ones that are on that side uh the one just to the north of us is about 50 feet from the lot line uh the two to the south of us are like 40 feet and 35 feet from the lot line so it's not substantially different kind of from what the neighbors uh the neighbor behind us they're They have a sunroom. I shot it with a laser. It was 36.52 feet. The nice thing is the houses don't line up. So their sunroom and our sunroom will not actually call it butt up against each other. So it's not like there's going to be a 70 foot space between the two. The houses are offset enough that they're kind of towards our side yard, we're towards their side yard. Other than that, I mean, there's not much. We have it screened pretty well. We have six pine trees, two birch. We have a very mature oak, very mature hickory, and about five maple trees that are all along that property line. So it's screened pretty well. It's not horribly visible. We have spoken to six impacted neighbors. All of them have no issue with us putting this addition on.

all right um we'll go to questions from the board Mr. Dyer do you have any questions for the applicant sure um thanks um do you have a on the the roof um how the roof on the sunroom will work it's just a gable coming off it will be below the second story windows and kind of between them So what would be the elevation of the peak from the slab? How high?

I don't know off the top of my head. It would be about 13 feet, roughly. Eight foot wall, and then we're 19 feet across. It's a 412. So it would be about 13 feet high. So it would be actually lower than the rear neighbors. Theirs is up about two feet. So this is on grade. There is no elevates. It's at the house, it is- The patio is the floor.

Yes. Right. The other, it seemed like the BZA did a great job back in 2015. I was looking at it and saying, okay, we already did our work here. But there was the one condition about the adding screening, and I think the city forester or arborist was supposed to go out and make recommendations. And then I was looking at the picture that was provided, and you had said there were some pine trees back there. And I was seeing mainly deciduous trees, but again, it's not a clear, yeah, there we go.

so there's yeah there's six pine trees there are three that are in the mounded area which is what the arborist uh for the screening there's and that would be further to the south you can kind of see them behind the chairs right there there's three with birch in between then there's another pine that is to the right of it's kind of hard to see in this photo it's it's over this way uh and then there's another one even further north

And those pines, though, if I'm not mistaken, that's where your garage was extended, the side load garage was extended.

On the far south side, yes.

Yes, so that where we're seeing the umbrella and the furniture, that is the patio.

Yes, those are on the patio.

Right, so that's where the building would be. And that would be a different view into the back of your neighbors that's further...

to the north and you're looking east west into the neighbor backyard neighbors is that correct so that would be in so the neighbor behind that would actually be I guess it's their rear yard but it's really their side yard so that section when you look straight out you're looking at wood what is it wood yard you're not really looking at their house they're offset the houses are offset they're not one behind the other so my neighbor behind me is slightly south

My only thought would be to have a similar condition. Again, it's hard to tell from here,

what we ran into with the arborist before with that was with the hickory the oak which are extremely mature and the maples with that canopy you can't things don't grow there's there's so much canopy and like honestly like the oak tree is phenomenal it has a red-shouldered hawk nesting in it right now with a couple of babies uh we really don't want to impact those trees at all right

Those are my only questions. Thank you, Mr. Dyer. Mr. Scott, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Yes, so one of the interesting things about this particular home is that it's diagonal.

It would never be allowed to be built on that lot today. Mr. Schroeder would have a heart attack.

And so are there along the examples that you gave on the other homes that had sunrooms or any of the other ones also in that diagonal space?

Not as strong of a diagonal. If you looked at in Ariel, kind of the houses on both the streets there, Valerie and Woodyard, some of them do have a little cant to them. I think ours is canted more than most. It may be the most on kind of call it that block, but it's definitely more than most.

Yeah, that's what I saw as well.

Yeah, see, it's really substantial. It is. It's unique. And I don't understand why it wasn't done, because there's no topography or there's no issue that would require it. So I don't understand why you would just build it not...

parallel or whatever perpendicular to the street and so that's the 60s you know um yeah right the um no zoning the and so uh and you you there was a previous um um variance granted and um and And it looks like you intentionally designed it so that the variance would would still wouldn't. It's still 37. He's very intentional. Yeah.

To the point of taking a string from pin to pin and measuring off when they were doing the concrete so that it was exactly 30. That was very intentional. Those are my own questions.

Okay. All right. Can you, Ms. Rodak, can you pull up a picture of the backyard again of the current, you had it up earlier, the ones that showed the screening. So you were mentioning, and I'm looking at it from a satellite view at this point, but you were mentioning from the actual patio, your line of sight behind you to your neighbor that's on Woodard, right? Your view would be towards the street. What would they see? You said it's their side yard, not necessarily their backyard.

Well, of course it's behind their house, but yeah, so you can see there. Yeah. Yeah, so it is kind of, you're really angled and looking towards their driveway and garage. So their garage is to the north. Okay. So they have a patio behind the garage between kind of the house and the garage. Okay. And then it's the side yard going up to the north there.

You mentioned earlier that you had talked to your neighbors and they were supportive of this. Were you able to talk to the neighbor that's behind you?

Yes. We talked to Iris Pratt.

And they're supportive?

Yes. Actually, she was like, I love my sunroom. It is the best room. It's great to do. They were very supportive of it.

Okay. All right. Because to me, that's the biggest thing is the impact to the neighbor behind you because that's what that setback is for.

And I made sure I spoke to them and actually to the neighbor to the north because of anybody that could see it, the neighbor to the north could. Okay. So Don and Sandy Schrader, they were completely fine with it. And I showed them the drawings. We actually texted them over the drawings and that so they could see what it was going to look like.

I don't have any other questions. I feel like Mr. Dyer, Mr. Scott had gone through a lot of what I had concerns about. And it doesn't look like we have any members of the public that are here to comment. So I would pass it to you if you have any final, or unless you guys have any other questions or concerns that you wanted to review, otherwise I was gonna allow him to provide his final thoughts.

Is it possible for us to put a restriction on the variance regarding the height in other words it would be a one-story addition what is one story right and i'm just saying if if we put that in the in the variance you would you would be fine with that let's yeah so by the architectural board it's going to have to be the same roof shape so it's going to be a 412 pitch uh with eight foot walls and i'm not so yeah i'm not talking about putting restrictions on the height necessarily but it's saying it's a once it's going to be a one-story structure

Do you have any final remarks or comments? You're not obligated to. I'm giving you the opportunity.

I don't think we need to go over anymore.

Well, then with that, I will close public comment. And then do we have any thoughts about this? Are we prepared to make a motion? Are there any concerns that we want to share?

i'm prepared to make a motion okay well then i carry away mr scott so this is docket number 2026 558 for property at 7400 valerie lane parcel number three zero zero zero seven eight eight the applicant john caputo is here this evening to ask for a variance of 13 feet from the required rear yard principal structure set back of 50 feet resulting in a principal structure set back of 37 feet pursuant to section 1205.04d5d1 in order to build a 302 square foot one-story enclosed sunroom on the existing rear patio. going through the duncan factors one reasonable return we agree that the property yields a reasonable return and beneficial use without the variance uh the existing home is approximately 2499 square feet so uh factor one doesn't necessarily support the the request uh section two of whether or not the variance is substantial numerically the request is a 26 percent deviation but it does not go any deeper than the rear building line that this board has already established for this very property in the case 2015-08 and the addition isn't a single story that's built on an existing patio pad so based on those facts i find the variance is not substantial Three, an essential character and detriment to adjoining properties. The addition is one story, lower than the house, matching materials. The rear is heavily wooded and further screened by a neighbor's privacy fence. The only one property abuts to the west and its sight line is buffered. A neighbor wrote in their support and there's no opposition. The essential character would not be altered and no adjoining property would suffer a substantial detriment. Four, governmental services. There's no adverse effect and there's no new impervious service and the water well sets to the opposite side of the lot. Five, knowledge of purchase. The owners purchased in 2010 with the setback in place, so knowledge is present, but the condition that's driving this request predates them in this code. Six, whether or not the predicament can be obviated by another method. It can't be feasibly obviated. The angle of the house leaves no functional rear envelope. A six foot deep room would be useless. The relocating to the north side would create an awkward layout and impact utilities. The 13 foot request matching the existing 37 foot line is the least deviation that would afford relief. Seven, the spirit and intent of substantial justice. The purpose of the rear setback, openness, and separation across the rear line would be observed because the addition sits behind a mature wooded buffer and goes no deeper than a line already approved, granting the variance does substantial justice. And finally, most importantly, an exceptional and unusual condition exists that is not common to other properties similarly situated. The house was built in 1964 as a diagonal to the street, an orientation that the current code would no longer permit, and that the placement is what forces any rear addition to the setback. This board recognized that same exceptional condition for this property in case 2015-08. There is one condition we would like to put on the variance is that that has that the the building of the sunroom be no greater than one story Paul. And so for those reasons I move to grant the various variance as requested.

I have a second.

Second.

Ms. Rodak, would you please call the roll? Mr. Scott?

Yes. Mr. Jones? Mr. Dyer? Yes. Mr. Carl?

Chair Brownstein? Yes. Congratulations. All right. Now that we've completed all the cases for this evening, Ms. Rodak, is there any other business? Do we have any cases for next month that we're aware of?

uh the one case will be continued and then we have a new home that will be applying for a wetland setback as well fine that's the theme lately okay all right well if i can make a brief update i wanted to update on the city's clinton crossing process that's the downtown acreage and for a reminder we've been working with rdl architects and ohm advisors on and we're in the public outreach phase of the plan now so we've held recently three planning charrettes which are intensive three-hour design sessions with small groups of residents stakeholders board members they went really well and they had about 40 attendees each and they're producing about 15 different plans so right now we're compiling all of that and we're gonna have a presentation of all those plans on July 1st. So we're inviting everybody to come out to that. That's at the high school media center in the evening. And then we'll move on to taking those plans and distilling them into three draft plans that will also present out to the public. So it's been a great process and we're moving along. I don't know, Mr. Dyer, if you had any thoughts. You attended one of the sessions.

it was exceptional uh it was fun i was at it got to be meet the old ex-mayor bill curran um you know in our group but uh kudos to the city for organizing it and rdl in fact the one of the woman was uh was there at the at the charette so just it was i thought it was it's wonderful i can't wait to see what what you guys have to show us on july 1st for participating.

Yeah. I agree. I attended the board-led one, and not to speak for Mr. Jones as well, but I think it was...

I'm sorry.

No, it was fun. It was also... It was a great experience, and it was... It was really nice to be able to engage with different members of the public that are also invested in how this will turn out. And it was also very interesting to see the overlaps of interests. And so it'll be interesting to see the three final plans that get put together. So thank you, Mr. Sugar. If there is no other business, can I please get a motion and a second for us to adjourn tonight?

I move for adjournment.

Second. So moved. Thank you everyone.