Granville Community Calendar

BZBA Minutes 11/21/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

November 21. 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Don Contini*

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Mary Fellabaum (320 W. Elm),Eloise DeZwarte (338 E.

College).L. Nadwodney (217 Sunrise),Katherine &Herb Smith (329

Summit),Janice Thornborough (447 W. College),unlegible (685 W.

Broadway),Brett Faris 428 E. College),Paul Stehura Faris

attorney),Mark Cassidy (332 E. College),Julie Harper (318 E.

College),Bernard Lukco (343 E. College),James Hopson

Minutes: October 24, 1996:

MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND

PREPARED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

MR. ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES;

THEY WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS

Don Contini, 431 East College -Nonconforming use change

Mr. Contini wishes to change uses at this property which is alreadv a nonconforming use. He has made extensive improvements to

the house and now wants to rent studio space to an interior

decorator, Mr. Cassidy, who will live upstairs.

Mr. Contini read a letter from Bernard Lukco, which objects the application to primarily because (1) the use would perpetuate the nonconforming use and (2) plans do not meet requirements of the ordinances, which recommends phasing out of nonconforming uses. The letter states that the cost of repairs on a nonconforming use is limited to 60 per cent. and this project would exceed that amount. Mr. Lukco also objects that there is no screening for the parking lot and that a retail shop generates a lot of traffic.

The Village Planner has received six letters in support of the Contini application, including one from Brett Faris.

Mr. Contini has explained his intentions to remodel in a letter to the BZBA, which he read, describing the historic non- conforming use of the property as small business and apartment. The property is adjacent to Bennett' s Tire Center, a repair shop, and there are other businesses to the east. A studio would cause much less traffic than in the past. He bought the property with the intention of installing a business. and he has spent consid- erable funds upgrading the property and preparing for a tenant. He stated that Mr. Cassidy' s business will not be detrimental nor

upsetWahennd rMers.ignCeodntini received the Lukco letter. he was greatly from the BZBA

constitute a nuisance.- Mr. Contini will remove a 14' x15' addition

because it does not enhance the building. He would be

willing to screen the' parking area.

Mr. Cassidy stated that rather than having regular hours and

a retail shop. he will work by appointment as a desian consultant

service, mostly for accessories.

Ms. Caravana asked Mr. Cassidy about sign sizes for his

PepperBerry studio, and he said it would be within the sign ordinance.

Advertising will include the need to call for an appointment.

BZBA members wanted "by appointment only" added to his

sign. but Mr. Contini disagreed. lest in the future some other

business, for drop-by customers, might move in.

Public Comments:

LARRY NADWODNEY: The Booster shop was busy and the house

was an evesore. Mr. Contini is to be commended for what he has

done, and his improvements will be beneficial to Granville.

MARY FELLABAUM: As past president of GBPA, she would like

to commend him or anyone who brings a small business to town.

Businesses support each other. With the current application, the

whole neighborhood will be improved tremendously. She read from

a letter from GBPA, who support the continuing nonconforming of this building use and encourage more businesses. especially those

with ample parking, as this location has.

BERNARD LUKCO: His major concern is the establishment of a retail business on College Street. He has no objection to Mr.

Cassidy' s running an appointment-only business; he is concerned about setting a precedent on the street. If they expect to fill

9 parking spaces, they anticipate big business and considerable

traffic. [Mr. Contini had said that he wanted to reduce the

number of spaces.]

ELOISE DeZWARTE: She is an immediate neighbor and noted

that Mr. Contini is a very considerate and respectful neighbor:

whisill home is tastefully done, and she knows whatever he proposes be done well.

PAUL STEHURA: April Farris' s attorney. Mrs. Faris did not receive notice of tonight' s meeting because the name of record on the tax roster was the bank' s name. When she heard of it, she scaulflfeicdiehnetr attorney to object to the fact that she was not given notice. Her concern, according to Mr. Stehura, seemed ttorabfeficw.orry that the business might grow and about increased

Mr. Faris was in the room and had submitted a letter of approval of the application but retracted it at this time, stating that the upgrading of the house was OK. but the business left him uncertain. although he had no SDecific auestions. He

U

thought there might be an increase in traffic. and he worried

about precedent-setting. Mr. Stehura thought Mrs. Faris would

like to table the application until she had an opportunity to

meet with Mr. Contini and Mr. Cassidy.

JANICE THORNBOROUGH; She spoke as a business reference for

Mr. Cassidy. She looked through his extensively and tastefully

recoraced house. He is a beautifier and is sensitive to Deople' s

needs. He has a business we could use and it would be a credit

to Granville.

JIM HOPSON: In support of the request, it seems that the

Drincipal concern has to do with traffic. but it would be a surprise

if he had more than one car per hour. By contrast. a

school or two around the corner generate a lot of traffic. The

present structure is unsightly, and Mr. Contini will substantially

improve it. If he is denied continuance. he might reinstate

student housing, which generates much traffic.

Ms. Caravana stated that the building was designed and built

for a business and business use is appropriate. This would be a

very low traffic use. If the business changes and grows, the

applicant could come back to see us. Additional screening would

address some people' s concerns. Mr. Stewart agreed and did not

feel it would be disruptive in any way. Mr. Herman added that

there are varying degrees of retail businesses and their volume of business. This business would not be detrimental to existing uses. Mr. Essman agrees and since this property has traditionally

been a business. and this proposal would mean less than previous traffic tenants, it would greatly improve the neighborhood.

Mr. Reyazi suggested that Mr. Faris speak with Mr. Contini

and Mr. Cassidy. and if he still has concerns, he should inform Mr. Reyazi within 10 days. The motion could state "by appoint -

ment only" on the sign, but Mr. Contini will not accept that, lest it set a precedent and the business failed. Other businesses

or offices might encourage drop-by traffic. Mr. Cassidy

would prefer saying "for appointment, call

MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, THE APPLICATION HAS MET THE NONCONFORMING USE CHANGE REGULATIONS OF 1149:

a) The proposed change of a nonconforming use will not increase the burden on public facilities and service such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal imposed by the existing nonconforming use.

b) The proposed nonconforming use will not be detrimental nor disturbing to existing uses in the district and will not entail a use which constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons in the surrounding use district.

3

Condition 1: The business sign should state in some wav tna:

appointments are needed, i.e., fo"r appointment. call... '

Condition 2: Any change of business status, i. e.,regular

hours, requires permission.

Condition 3: Parking lot will be screened by a fence as

approved by GPC.

MR. STEWART SECONDED THE MOTION, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Herbert Smith. 329 Summit Street -Setback Variance

Mr. Smith wishes to add a closet to the side of the house.

which would locate the house 1%fr'om the property line, whereas 10' is required. Siding and roofing materials will match the

house, and it will be hardly visible from the street. Mr. Reyazi

has been trying in vain to talk with the neighbor, who is appar- ently moving away, but she did return the acknowledgment of

receipt of the letter. He also wants guidance from the fire

department regarding truck access. Mr. Smith said the other side

of the house would accommodate a fire truck, and there' s no

access to the house from that side anyway. The fire department

does not enforce f ire codes fox homes, only for commezei:ralr-

Mr. Stewart applied the criteria for variance to the application:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The house was built close to the lot line, at a time

when closets were not common on the first floor. The structure

wsiomulidlacrust itduowantioonn.accessibility somewhat, but other house&have a The existence of vegetation would make it less visible.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Other properties have sufficient closet space.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant

purchased the house as it was.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Other houses have small lots close to lot lines.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health. safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. No adverse affects are known.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE APPLICATION; MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Garv and Jennifer Haga, 746 Newark Road

The Hagas wish to build a lawn building 10' 5" from side

property line and 26' from rear property line. The code spectfies

a 14' side setback and 50' rear setback. Although this is

along the TCOD. the GPC determined that the applicant did not

have to apply through them because the lawn building would be

more than 100' from the property line. Mr. Reyazi has received

three letters in support from neighbors. Topographical features

preclude locating the shed large anywhere else, i.e.,a steep hill, a tree, and the driveway turnaround.

The Hagas are not here tonight, but BZBA members had no

problem with the application, and Mr. Stewart applied the criteria

to the project:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The lay of the land presents circumstances.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. It would because others have

storage sheds.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant

purchased the lot as is, and he does not want to cut down the tree or move the driveway.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. No privileges are seen.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health. safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Several neighbors have voiced their support, and no adverse effects hre apparent.

MS. d€ef-Ea*-WjlgA MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS. MR.

4

4

6

Work Session

Moratorium. Mr. Reyazi distributed an update on commercial

building applications and aded that the Mill will be permitted tc

build before the six months are over.

Design Review Standards Committee. Frank Elmer and Associates

has been chosen to fill the position. and their consultant

will be attending our meetings.

Procedures. It would help the Village Planner if he were to

introduce major applications and explain late-arriving materials

at the meeting. He will provide sections of the ordinance where

relevant passages may be found.

Finding of Fact:

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT TONIGHT' S FINDING OF FACTS FOR

CONTINI, SMITH, AND HAGA AS OUR FINAL DECISION. MR. STEWART

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 10 p. m.

Next Meeting: December 19

BZBA Minutes 10/24/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND-BUILDING APPEALS

October 24, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Erin Stewart

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),John Woods, Mary Fellabaum (320

W. Elm),Joe &Dorie Overman (546 N. Pearl),Dave Samuelson (C.

Williams),Bob Needham (815 Burg),Elizabeth &Carl Frazier (554 N.

Pearl),Ed Vance (248 Thornewood),Bill Wernet (134 S. Mulberry),

Leta Ross &Greg Ross (IGA) , John Burriss (332 Cedar) , Eloise

DeZwarte (338 E. College),Garry Wilcox (Certified Oil),Bob Erhard

87 Miller Ave.F)r,ank Abele

Minutes:

PREPARED.

September 26, 1996: MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AS

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Oakley &Delores Overman, 546 N. Pearl -

Variances

Setback and Coverage

The Overmans wish to add a two-story garage and a utility room, which 1) would be 35' closer to the rear lot line than

permitted and also (2) exceed maximum lot coverage. Mr. Overman

explained that they lack sufficient living space, especially a utility/bathroom and garage space. This would allow him off-street

parking. He plans to square" the house and improve its

appearance. A 50' setback would be impractical in this case. The

current structure already violates the setback regulations, as do houses of neighbors.

Following discussions with Mr. Reyazi and the next-door

neighbors, Mr. Overman has revised his plans to build a side-entry grealroacgaet,e to add an entry door, and to eliminate one window and one window.

Mr. Contini suggested improving appearance by offsetting the line in or out a foot or jogging the roofline. Mr. Overman agreed

to move it in one foot. He added that they will remove a portion

of the hedge by no more than is necessary. Mr. Reyazi stressed

maintaining safe visibility for automobiles.

1) MR. STEWART APPLIED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CRITERIA FOR SETBACK VARIANCE:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. unusual circTuhme sthaonucsees was built on a curved lot, which presents and Cuts off available space for the

applicant' s plans. Also, the house sits between two streets rather

2

than backing up to another house.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Not applicable because no one else

has a three-car garage.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the house as it was.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

We would give the same consideration to anyone with a curved lot.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner

adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the

persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed

variance. The neighbors agreed with the plans, and safety concerns have been addressed.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE WITH THE

CONDITION THAT THE WALL PARALLEL TO PEARL STREET BE ONE FOOT

CLOSER TO PEARL STREET AND THE GARAGE DOORS BE ON NORTH SIDE.

MR. STEWART SECONDED AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2) The criteria for lot coverage were reviewed. The plans

cover 18. 8 per cent (or 576 sq. ft),whereas 15 per cent is

permissible:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land applicable to other olarndsstructure(s) involved and which are not or structures in the same zoning

district. Again, the house was built on a curved lot, which

presents unusual circumstances.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Not applicable because no one else

has a three-car garage, and no deprivation exists.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The lot is irregularly shaped and the curve of the road is not a result of the applicant.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

we are dealing with a unique property in an irregular setting.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner

adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the

persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed

variance. No adverse effects are apparent.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE. MR.

HERMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

James Pletcher, 448 West Broadway -setback variance

Mr. Pletcher wishes to remove the porch and add a two-story

addition of the same width and height but 12' deeper to the rear of

the house. 1) It would be in line with the house but closer to

west lot line than setback requirements decree. Mr. Pletcher says

his family has grown and they need more room. The house already

violates the side setback; they would not violate the rear setback.

2) They would also violate lot coverage by 23. 3 per cent, whereas

20 per cent is maximum. Mr. Reyazi has heard no complaints from

neighbors.

1) Mr. Contini applied the request for setback variance to

the criteria:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are

peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not

applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The rest of the structure does not conform to setback and

the proposed addition would not violate this condition to any greater extent.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Other houses in the neighborhood

appear to violate the setback requirements.

C) That

result from the

the special conditions and circumstances do not actions of the applicant. The setback from lot

lines is a condition inherited from the time the house was built.

d) That the grant of the variance will applicant not confer on the any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

They are not asking for anything unique. Such setbacks are quite

common in the village.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the pvearrsiaonnsce.resNiodinadgveorsre working within the vicinity of the proposed effects are noted.

MR. CONTINI MOVED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE. MR. ESSMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

3

2) The lot coverage is over by 3 per cent.

Ms. Caravana applied criteria for variances of lot coverage:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are

peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not

applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. All lots in the area are relatively small.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Other houses in the neighborhood have

appear to have similar additions.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the lot then subsequently needed more space.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The

variance will not grant undue privilege. It is only 3' maximum. over

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner

adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the

pvearrsiaonnsce.residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are noted.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE. MR

HERMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Robert &Meredith Needham and Helen K. Park -Side yard variance

Applicants wish to build an addition with garage, which intrudes into side yard setback by about 2' 8".The neighbor has no objections. There is heavy vegetation there and would be a minor encroachment. The addition would not be very noticeable and will line up to existing asphalt drive. The lot is not rectangular, and the house was built parallel to Burg Street. If it had been

parallel to side lot lines, there would have been room for

expansion without variance.. The Needhams prefer to care for· Mrs. Nnueerdshinagm' s mother at their home instead of forcing her to live in a home.

Mr. Essman applied the criteria to the application:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are papepculicliaabr leto totheotlahnedr or structure(s) involved and which are not lands or structures in the same zoning district. Special circumstances are the shape of the lot and the

4

82 AA

position of the existing and proposed addition on the lot. The

house is skewed relative to the shape of the lot.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Others enjoy additions to their homes

in the same zoning district. This would be a very minor

infraction, about 2%'.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the house as it was and now are asking for extra room.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

No undue privilege would be granted.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner

adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the

persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed

variance. No adverse effects are apparent. Neighbors have

expressed their approval.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE VARIANCE IN SIDE YARD SETBACK.

MR. CONTINI SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Certified Oil, 466 South Main -Conditional Use

John Wood and Gary Wilcox stated that the gas station built in 1970 and by was law they are mandated to upgrade the facility

by 1998. A conditional use is necessary because they are currently a gas station and wish to be a convenience store. If they merely

upgraded the tanks and omitted the store, a conditional use would not be necessary. Mr. Tailford had told them that South Main was to be widened. He had also recommended eliminating one driveway

for safety reasons, so plans were changed to combine driveways with NAPA and IGA. The area would be enhanced, Mr. Wood stated, by an upgrade of the station. He said that GPC' s greatest concern had to do with the combination entry curbcuts. They have an easement for

IGA property now, but Mr. Ross was concerned about traffic at their entry; therefore, they have moved the entry point on the plans to ofanveosr idoef tfhoirsinidgereas. s and egress. Mr. Reyazi said the village is in

Mr. Wilcox, traffic engineer, said that traffic was computed and found to be no problem; they are generating 1/3 to 12/ the maximum; the maximum was 146 cars in and out and they measured 50 cars at a peak hour. Mr. Samuelson referred to the questions he had upon reading applicant' s traffic study, and these were discussed at the meeting.

5

Ms. Caravana asked about pedestrian accommodations and landscaping.

Mr. Woods said there would be a sidewalk, pinoaks, and

other trees and shrubs. She asked whether there could be a

crosswalk, and Mr. Woods said it would be a problem because they

would put in asphalt until the state widened the road and then have

to replace it with concrete.

To Mr. Herman' s question about the convenience store, Mr.

Woods said it would be 1500 sq. ft {Mr. Reyazi had noted that

previous plans called for 1200 sq. ft} and sell pop, cigarettes,

beer, wine, etc. To a question about the canopy, Mr. Woods stated

that it will be illuminated below the deck. He added that GPC

wanted to see building material, and they wanted the dumpster

shielded by brick.

Ms. Caravana asked about parking, and Mr. Woods replied that

with parking at pumps, the spaces would be adequate.

Citizens' Comments

WILLIAM WERNET asked about the requirement for a nonconforming

use by a building roof supported by columns with excessive lighting

in TCOD, which would need 100' setback. Mr. Woods responded that

this was addressed by GPC, who said that rio varidnces would be

required. Mr. Reyazi confirmed that GPC would consider the TCOD,

and can grant variances up to 50'. Mr. Wernet is concerned about

approving applications outside the ordinances. More discussion

ensued on this topic. Ms. Caravana feels that now is the time to

look at the TCOD issue.

Mr. Contini stated that the TCOD issue is not applicable if

they remain as they are, but remaining as they are is less benefit a to this community. He does not want to manipulate to drive them out.

Mr. Herman thought the application appropriate for the area, although BZBA needs to consider nuisances and hazards.

ED VANCE was concerned about the trade-off: more traffic at a

convenience store vs. a more attractive area.

MS. ROSS stated that they are concerned about sharing the driveway, although they appreciate the improvement. There will be

a stacking problem at IGA for left-turning cars. MR. ROSS thought

the application would make the situation more difficult for the IGA. Ms. Caravana thought that c6mbining traffic is outweighted by eliminating one curbcut.

Mr. Herman asked whether on Mr. Samuelson' s report turning points were still a condition, and the answer was yes. He thought

things could be done to quantify these points. Mr. Wilcox reported that a person sat there counting nine cars during a peak hour, and the number of cars going to Certified from IGA was low.

6

JIM JUMP agrees with Mr. Contini that i]E» something is there,

let' s have it look good and improve the area.

Ms. Caravana did not feel she could approve this conditional

use tonight because she wants to look into the TCOD and sort out

requirements and whether this application is in conformance.

Mr. Herman wanted also to determine whether the structure

would be compatible, whether it would be a nuisance, and to get

clear with GPC as to what it will look like before he can approve

this.

Mr. Stewart agreed and is not comfortable because questions

raised tonight, especially by Mr. Wernet, exist, and he did not

feel the plan is ready for us.

Mr. Contini wanted more time but felt Certified should pursue.

He does not like the shared driveway because the Ross' reasons are

sound, and he is uncomfortable about crisscrossing traffic. Even

i f the ordinance wants to .combine curbcuts, there is a tendency for

traffic to get confusing.

Mr. Essman is concerned about traffic at IGA and would like to

see GPC follow a sensible traffic plan, and a shared driveway might

be the answer.

Mr. Wilcox said that the conflict already occurs now on the

street. A convenience store might stack 4 or 5 cars.

Mr. Reyazi recommended a work session, but Mr. Woods said they

have already had two work sessions with GPC. Mr. Reyazi added that

still pending with GPC are the canopy, size of store, and design.

BOB ERHARD stated that the ordinance says GPC decides on TCOD

matters, but it gets muddy regarding overall plans for the area.

BZBA considers impact more than design.

Samuelson what would capacity be on S. Ms. Caravana asked Mr.

Main, and he thought about 5 percent increase. In answer to

another question he believes that removing one drive would improve

the traffic situation, although sometimes planned. things don' t work out as

Mr. Reyazi said that we can go to GPC with design issues. Ms. Caravana indicated BZBA can either vote or table and Mr. Woods and

Mr. Reyazi can work together. Mr. Reyazi' s questions are the impact of traffic to be generated as a result of a convenience store. Mr. Wilcox stated that they took the most critical condition at the most conservative situation of the station at the most critical time. They were operating with a delay of one or two and that is the only objective criteria they can work Mr. Reyazi wants the traffic generated by the current site and by the future site, for it' s difficult to understand the impact. Mr. Wilcox said a different analysis would be more confusing, but Mr. Reyazi disagreed.

Mr. Woods requested tabling the application and coming back

next month after he works with Mr. Reyazi on statistics.

MR. HERMAN MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION. MR. STEWART SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session

Discussion with Bob Erhard -procedural issues

Following the Fackler hearing, Mr. Erhard felt that some

communication was in order between him and BZBA. There are gray

areas with GPC, and it helps to know what GPC must consider, and

how a business fits into the area despite traffic issues. BZBA can

attach conditions to permitted uses and conditional uses, i. e.,

applicant must work out the TCOD situation. TCOD relates to

existing open space and less to places like Certified. They are

scrutinizing closely what was discussed, and it' s important that

BZBA not deduce things that really belong to GPC. Conditional uses

stay with the property. It would be useful to have a definition of

fast food" in the code.

Mr. Herman asked about timelines. Now we have a 30-day

period. When we vote and state reasons later, they can refer back

to the 12-page Finding of Fact in writing. The < reason is to

provide a well thought-out Finding of Fact.

Mr. Erhard said that is the only way to do it. Ms. Caravana

asked whether it was best to vote before writing the Finding of Fact, lest the Finding report inconsistencies. Mr. Erhard said

someone should use a checklist so later somebody can' t say "You did not discuss this."In case of appeal, it is important to have good records. He suggested rather than saying "30 days, "to say "at the

next meeting,"for there might be 31 days interim. He also

suggested holding a joint meeting with GPC. Mr. Erhard stressed

considering everything in the ordinance and not get into items

where people can argue and find loopholes.

Ms. Caravana asked what does a continuation do to a deadline?

He replied hearing. that you TABLE a proposed action; you CONTINUE a

She asked about how appeals will be handled and what role do minutes play. He responded that minutes act as red flags if there misinterpreting in the Finding of Fact that was not discussed in the or vice versa or if they discussed something not legitimate. You have to determine how you want your minutes.

Mr. Contini wondered what happened when BZBA denies someone and he appeals to V. C. and they read our Finding of Fact. Then

V. C. turns him down and he appeals to the courts. The courts

cannot refer to our Finding of Fact. Mr. Erhard confirms that the

courts consider new evidence.

Ms. Caravana asked whether V. C. can determine whether we made, a reasonable decision, and the answer was No, this does not make you a paper tiger.

She asked about the criterion for "appropriate for the area

and compatible with existing uses,"and Mr. Erhard agreed that we

should be looking at that closely. She would like Mr. Erhard to

examine closely criteria for conditional use and variance. Gil

Krone worked on revising criteria, and BZBA will consider them

again.

Mr. Herman brought up the issue of quantification.

Mr. Erhard felt that compatibility , is more useful than

aesthetics in making decisions.

Finding of Fact: Nadwodney

MR. CONTINI MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF FACT AS OUR FINAL

DECISION FOR THE RODNEY APPLICATION. MR. HERMAN SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment: 10: 45 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 9/12/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

September 12, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman,

Eric Stewart

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner

Visitors: Scott Rawden (Sentinel),and about 42 names on attached

sheets.

Minutes: July 25. 1996 and August 22: BZBA members agreed to

postpone approval of the previous sessions until this evening' minutes s can also be considered.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

McDonald' s, South Galway at Cherry Valley Road

Ms.

meeting,

Caravana explained the background for tonight' s special which is a continuation of the hearing regarding a request by Don and Laurie Kissick for a

conditional use permit

McDonald' s. A meeting was held on September 5th at which BZBA and staff had some of their questions about traffic answered. Some

questions remain, and McDonald' s promised to provide answers by September 12. The 18-page memo with attachments arrived this afternoon, and BZBA members have not had time to study it thoroughly. Ms. Caravana stated that citizens who speak must be sworn in.

Dan Gunset introduced representatives from McDonald' s and msteaetetidng:that Mr. Risska would answer questions posed at the last

gener1a.tionPlfaigP¥ulareces.was not included in figures for determining trip traffic manual. The figures provided are from the McDonald' s provided The figure is 33 per cent higher than that by ITE data. He stated that these figures are very conservative. Peak hour rates are higher at restaurants without PlayPlaces than for those with PlayPlaces. The seating for parents in the PlayPlace should have been included with the restaurant. gMer.neRraistsiokna stated that across the nation they have found that trip rates are smaller at peak hours.

2. Drive Through: Ms. Caravana asked whether the drive athnrdouagnh awltaesrnnaectievses.ary, and Mr. Risska stated it was a convenience required. If they eliminated it, more parking would be They would .st1;1=*build the restaurant even if the drive

through were not allowed.

3. 24-Hour Trip Generation figures: Mr. Risska stated that

24-hour figures were not meaningful for the traffic study or for

determining street improvements required. Cars on Cherry Valley

Road (C.V.)were expected to number 357 per hour, an increase of

6. 9 per cent (22 trips per hour. or one car per traffic light

cycle).Ms. Caravana asked whether this meant there would only be

70 more cars per day. This issue has to do with more than just

trafficb-u-t also quality of life and impact on the neighbors.

There is more at stake than just the engineering viewpoint. Some

of the traffic is diverted (pass-by cars) and some is primary

destination McDonald' s).Mr. Gunset stated figures are based on

primary trips, 24 hours, occurring from south of the site on C.V.

rather than traffic from Granville.

4. Fackler' s was not taken into consideration when survey of traffic was done. Mr. Risska said they only were required to look

at existing sites, but Ms. Caravana stated that all sites must be

looked at when considering traffic concerns.

5. Trip Distribution: Ms. Caravana stated that we need to be

aware of other businesses in the area, i. e.,

generating traffic in the future.

Fackler' s and Country

Hearth, Mr. Risska wondered

whether these businesses were asked for funds to help improve the road, and Mr. Herman said the question is irrelevant. Ms. Caravana stated that we placed conditions upon applications, such reducing the drive- as A n decide throughs at Fackler' s. Village Council and GPC A. A1, .L on roads. Mr. Hermanh #er=t a*study taking into account Gu, wthheat inhates rbseeecntiaopnp,roved for Fackler asiell as other development in 1,7-4 small portion Bf1 tMher. Reinsstikrae agreed but McDonald' s is only a very U area. - Mr. Gunset stated that he thought McDonald 's plan was applied for before Fackler' s, and then 7 --, , McDonald' s tabled it. Mr. Herman added that the Lizific Ludy was Ova J resubmitted to GPC, which included significant changes and detail 7 cfrhoamngewhaint wtahseorsigiteinally applied for. Mr. Risska said there was no smaller plan, only the building. The lot size got and greenspace was decreased.

McDonald' s Market Evaluation System is used to identify the trade area for proposed restaurants. Mr. Risska noted a chart in athreea patockebte, s1h0o,w32in8g. proposed population within the primary trade Historically 70-75 per cent of McDonald' s business is generated by home, work and shopping trip patterns and 25-30 per cent is generated by other people, i. e., tourists, college students, sports events. They do not use traffic count information to estimate sales potential. Mr. Samuelson stated that it' s a mixed bag which data are utilized to survey for traffic. A market analysis has a little more validity. Ms. Caravana asked whether for a site within sight of a major highway, might it not reasonably be expected to attract a small portion of business to McDonald' s? Mr. Samuelson thought a higher proportion would come

2

from Rt. 16/C. V. because a substantial amount of trips, according

to ITE, are pass-by traffic. Mr. Herman stated that McDonald' s

traffic study submits less traffic than Mr. Samuelson would have

expected. Mr. Herman did think the added traffic would change the

intersection operations. Mr. Samuelson said that the McDonald' s

study reported that there was a capacity problem at the

intersection now. Mr. Risska said that Mr. Samuelson is well

respected in the trade but that McDonald' s data is based on actual

data and they have been very successful in their marketing

analyses. He added that although Mr. Samuelson would expect

traffic to come from the intersection, he would expect it not to do

SO. •

Ms. Caravana wondered why the number of trip generations

heading east into McDonald' s is greater than the number of trips now. That' s what makes Mr. Samuelson speculate traffic will be

generated from the intersection. Not only would the 21 pass-by

people come in but also 20 more, based on figures in the traffic

study. Mr. Risska said the reason traffic will not be coming from

the intersection is that McDonald' s would not be visible from the

highway and there would be no roadsign. He said that if you drove

by the building you would think you were looking at a bank. There

would be only one very low golden arch. Ms. Caravana stated that

regular drivers know where the restaurants are. Mr. Risska' s

figures are based on the village of Granville. He said that a certain have loacmaoliuznat tioofnRt.s1tu6dC/ie. Vs. traffic was included, but they do not McDonald' s. of what proportion 5110 come to

The McDonald' s representatives questioned BZBA and staff:

inters1e. ctiHoans?Village Council made changes in plans to improve the What improvements have been made? Ms. Caravana

iamnpswroevreemd etnhtsa.t the CMP gives direction as to land use, rather than Village Council has reviewed proposed road

improvements needed but has not taken steps to implement them. CS.uVp.erAmerica, Bob Evans, and Mid-Ohio will participate in improving

HERB MURPHY, owner of the land, stated that over a year ago the Village contacted him and said they had a plan to relieve the congestion submitted by Bird and Bull, so the village intends to take care of the traffic. Mr. Reyazi stated that this plan is only one of many, and Village Council has acted on none of them. He added that we have to evaluate the current issue with this in mind.

Mr. Gunset stated that if the village is asking businesses csoountshideorf the intersection to help improve the road, they must traffic on the south of C.V. worse than traffic on the annodrtht.heMrs. Caravana stated that the two areas are differently zoned are not conditional uses south. She added that BZBA ru n L/ LA 0 YL

3

hesitates to ask

engineers. These

consideration. Mr.

side of the intersec

people to contribute; we are not traffic.

priorities would not be factors in tonight' s

Reyazi stated that there is no priority of one

tion vs. the other.

Regarding the Rt. 16/C. V. intersection, Mr. Risska stated that

the area will remain congested until recommendations from the 1992

study are implemented. He showed a graph of "Delay Comparisons"

showing existing delay conditions and delay if C.V. were improved.

He pointed out that minimal increase in delay would occur with a McDonald' s.

Parking/Stacking: Mr. Risska stated that the maximum number

of cars stacked at the drive-through would be 10; people do not want more than 8. He thought it would take 21 vehicles to reach

the entrance. Ms. Caravana counted 14 cars queued at Wendy' s, and

Mr. Risska thought that was because there was no competition in

Granville. Mr. Samuelson is satisfied that the drive-through would

not cause problems with stacking.

Ms. Caravana had asked about blocking the handicapped when 13 spot cars are stacked, and Mr. Risska indicated the cars would

drive around until a spot is open. Also, the handicapped spot can be relocated.

Site Access: In answer to a question about stacking when a lot of cars want to turn left on Galway, Mr. Risska said Galway is

an access road and there will be no problems. The distance from centerline of r B*r" to entrance drive is 80' , and Mr. Samuelson had C ,. Tinhdeirceatwedill dbreivtweo-threoausgtbhoutnrdaflafinceswould not affect Galway traffic. on Galway. Access to Galway will

be eased by a left-turn lane. McDonald' s is willing to participate in the cost of a left turn land on northbound C.V.

Driveway offsetsZ Mr. Risska said that the McDonald' s exit

dthoeesirnodtrilvinee up with Country Hearth. He is not sure exactly where is. Mr. Samuelson had indicated that offsets are safer. There will not be any combined curbcuts with other sites. Mr. Risska felt that the distance from the drive-through window to the exit was adequate.

Mr. Reyazi stated that his questions raised at their special mfroemetinGgrawnevreillen.ot answered, one of which was about traffic coming in writing. Mr. Risska said he did not have these questions in

Mr. Stewart asked about discrepancy in St 0(0 4 the 1992 figures vs. the TES study, and Mrp.a.ss-by figures from 1992 was a planning study, Rss*ka said that the ifot all the anticipated a general comprehensive planned study. data they use that, butuswehserweertehecreonsisidearemd.ix,Wthheerey they have hard survey. use a general

4

5

CITIZENS COMMENTS: i,

HERB MURPHY noted, in the newsp

the CMP, but that lS not true.

3\0,4

aper that Wendy' s came in before

KIRK COMBE expressed his concerns: 1) Working with the

concerned citizens of Erinwood, they submitted a lengthy report,

and he asked whether this would be included in the official record,

and the answer was Yes. Ms. Caravana stated that she would be

asking the applicant the questions Mr. Combe et al. raised

regarding the CMP and conditional uses. 2) He read the original

McDonald' s traffic report and sent a copy to a traffic engineer and

received his comments. Mr. Gunset interrupted and said such a

report is inappropriate because he is not here in person to be

cross-examined. You can' t build your way out of a traffic problem,

Mr. Combe stated. He then read from:

ROBERT MORRIS' letter:

prepared by TES was remarkable.

system, but does nothing of

intersection at Galway where

intersection as well as other

remarkable, the letter stated,

link trips are irrelevant. It

begin to address the problem

decisiod-makers

The traffic impact study that was

It purports to look at the street

the kind. It only addresses. the

there are no problems. The major

streets were ignored. Even more

is that pass-by trips vs. diverted

is clear that the report does not and would be of no use to the

of this development. Ms. Caravana stated that

these issues have already been discusse45B\d#M-r. Gunset requested that these9remarksL beks-tMri»cgkern1- f r'om the recor. --11' 4* n* 1 " 4,<+2£-* 15 WICKLOW (I didn' t get his name) resident would like to k2n5o0w, 0 0(10) hohmowes. many McDonald' s are built two blocks away from 2) They have invested a lot 0Amley into their nhoemigehsboarnhdooadlt.hough he likes McDonald' s, he doesn<-o/want it in his 3) He thinks they should locate south of Rt. 16. BRENDA BOYLE has a petition signed by 64 per cent of the residents of the Village Green, stating they want the village MocffDiconiaallds' to know they are adamantly opposed to the proposed s. Moreover, they oppose any "freeway off-ramp" or suburban "strip" development north of Rt. 16t-o- include any fast food establishments, motels, gas stations, or any other highv-olume traffic that would lower the quality of life and property values of tshtaendcaormdms ufnoitry Earnindwtohoadt do not accord with the originally proposed or the CMP.

CRAIG EILERS echoed his neighbor' s comments and stated he mfaosvet.d here 6 weeks ago from Gahanna because their growth was too Business was coming in too quickly and he did not want to see that happen here.

TrafJfAicMES FRY stated it' s easy to find gridlock at intersections. is already backed up past Galway at times. Traffic cannot

turn left into Wendy' s. This is not safe. Already yield signs are

replaced by stop signs because of the danger.

JOHN CORT stated that Village Council said Newark-Granville

Road will never be increased, and that Mr. EisenbefR said they

would put up a light if they have to. He is concrned about

increased traffic.

CARL WILKENFELD referred to the 1992 traffic study. After

four years of the fastest growth we have ever experienced, tonight

the McDonald' s man said this is just a general study and Mr.

Wilkenfeld' wondered where the serious study was. Lots of land was

rezoned for denser housing, and even the village has traffic

congestion. He thought that we do not have enough zoning

regulations, so we should stop and take· a breather.

BILL WERNET asked about the Delay Comparison chart and would

like to see different peaks on different days. Also, in the 1992

study mention was made that the traffic was "just a little bit

worse."A little bit is too much. If everyone made it a little

bit worse, where would we be? Also, there have been a number of

deaths and injuries at the intersection. He also wondered about

impact of traffic on Newark-Granville Road or throughout the village itself. He wondered whether McDonald' made s ever found they' ve a mistake. He also wondered where are the follow-up studies

to determine the accuracy as to projections.

Mr. Gunset suggested that the village' s own traffic expert review the study. McDonald' s met with him responding to these questions. There have not been any studies post-development to determine validity of early data. He stated that Mr. Risska had

advised the Board that many of the figures provided by McDonald' s to the expert are verifiable figures based, on experience.

Mr.

compared

questions

00- 9VEW- pea»

Htoerman asked what ppst-study results can be made when actual reality/ Mr. Reyaza had submitted those

to McDonald' s. Mr. Risska said those questions were addressed to staff and he would like a FAX of those questions.

Mr. Reyazi repeated his questions: 1) Based on traffic

study, the scope of the study was limited and it did not take the Rt. 16C/. V. intersection into account. Limiting it to GalwayC/.V. is unrealistic because of the draw of a fast-food restaurant. 2) The most significant question is regarding the location where the trip counts on C.V. were taken. They were taken north of A Galway on C.V.,which has less traffic than traffic south ofA A*GIs:-* Acontrsaidfefriccarsstudayt Wneeneddys' to take into account south of Galway to 7 s.

3) Accuracy of the appendix. The numbers in the appendix cshoonwsidaenyratpioenak and any peak with 63d„ e trip and do not take into turning cars. S C/ -*-

4) The study refers to the fact that the peak of traffic

6

7

occurs between 5 and 6 p.m. He would like to see the' flow at that

time.

5) Regarding McDonald' s market study assumptions, Granville

is largely a bedroom/ commuting community and there are not as many

cars during the day. Were these localization factors taken into

account?

Mr. Risska asked for some clarification and stated he would

formalize his answers. Mr. Gunset objected to this process,

stating that given the many meetings and reports, this new list of

questions is completely unfair to ask their traffic engineer.

Mr. Herman stated in response to the materials requested at

the meeting on the 5th, the Village Planner received just this

afternoon McDonald' s 18-page memo and expected BZBA members to

consider it thoughtfully before tonight' s meeting. Following Ms.

Caravana' s request to have BZBA questions answered, Mr. Gunset

stated that they would answer questions with objection.

DEAN MARKLE thinks we have to look at the pride of the people who have condos and homes in Erinwood and Village Green. He has

known the Murphys for years and it' s hard to oppose them because

they have a business venture they are pursuing. But we have to

address quality of life. The CMP recommends appropriately scaled

development with a New England style well designed. We need

integrated architecture and to view will the entire plan to see how it all fit together. Traffic would be minimized with one in and

out drive halfway down Galway with parking in the rear. You could

have a smaller McDonald' s with no playplace and no drive-through. I f they located south of Rt. 16, they could accorrrnodate more traffic; there are other properties for sale there. The north area should be pedestrian oriented, as residents were told when they purchased there. They were told there would be boutiques and small shops, not fast-food restaurants.

Compatibility of McDonald' s with CMP, ordinances, and Suburban mBuaslilnse. ss District: Ms. Caravana noted that the CMP prohibits strip Even though the entrance is off Galway, it' s still an island rather than a cluster. The CMP also recommends balanced

land use and diversity rather than c- ©1F*E*Ee*use. It should be pedestrian-oriented and reflect a small-town community character. It recommends a high quality residential environment. The zoning ordinance states moderate development for this area. It is < designed to eliminate strip development; McDonald' s is designed to handle large amounts of traffic, rather than ADja,cing=it. Being ptreadeffsitcria-inntse.nsive, McDonald' s makes small efforts to accommodate dangerous confTlhicet high number of cars creates high potential for points. Curbcuts should be clustered to join other businesses. McDonald' s does not fit the CMP and ordinances.

Mr. Risska said the building was designed for this site, but Ms. Caravana explained she was talking about the nature of the

business and whether it was appropriate in close proximity with

residences. Mr. Risska feels it fits in well with the CMP.

Mr. Contini stated thatbbWenedy' s1 »lS «h is t e a.cher. He studied

the parking situation theree;-ad about 1: 15 he was stopped at the

intersection and could not move/because someone was trying to turn

into Wendys;' and traffic going south has already backed up to

Galway. Nobody could move. Also, he has talked . to nearby

residents who were told the area was not designed for fast-food,

and that' s why it is a conditional use. The Kissacks and most of

the rest of us are protected from close proximity of McDonald' s,

but the neighbors are worried about their property values. They

were promised small shops, boutiques, not McDonald' s. Mr. Contini

cannot vote for this or any fast-food restaurant on the basis of

No. 3 of Criteria for Approval of C6nditional Uses.

HERB MURPHY stated that his group has spent thousands of

dollars on this development and no one is asking him about the

design for shops. They were told there was no major retail draw,

so they dropped plans for small shops. Mr. Contini argued that

because he could not find them does not mean they are not out there. There' s no guarantee. Mr. Murphy should hold to his

promise. Mr. Murphy said that some of the residents bought their

property just three weeks ago. Ms. Caravana stated that it is not

the task of the BZBA to find an anchor.

BILL WERNET stated that it is not the point whether or not it' s an economic issue vs. what it has done to the neighborhood.

BRENDA BOYLE went to Guanciale &Johnson to see whether the boutiques" statement was still current, and Joanne Morey could not find a single brochure in the office. She was able to locate the

original brochure in her personal f iles, which she wasusing to ji] promote sales in Erinwood. Mr. Markle had told her these old

brochures were still being used currently to sell property.

Ms. CMarr.avGaunnaset requested to decline to answer more questions, and stated that the Board could consult with their

daattyosr.ney and provide a thorough, written finding of fact within 30

Ms. Caravana stated that the Board does not have to vote tonight; they have thirty days to make their decision, and Mr. wHeorumldanbethopurgehfet rathbalet. waiting until the regularly scheduled meeting Mr. Gunset thought the Board was attempting to stall a vote until the Moratorium is determined, tand he L- _v preferred a vote tonight . N<2 L-9--,61-d--fSp/.L.l)- 7 - - *2p-,*6- 14,

j

Mr. Stewart agreed with Mr. Contini' s comments. Mr. Contini » felt Mr. Gunset was. pinning him down and feels mistrusted, but he 1 «A- 1 is merely responding to the wishes of the people. Mr. Essman said 3, u 6- n

that if McDonald' s would prefer that we consult our attorney, he

8

would go for that.

MS. CARAVANA CALLED FOR A VOTE: ALL IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL

OF PERMITTING MCDONALD' S CONDITIONAL USE AS SUBMITTED: NO AYES,- NO' S.

MS. CARAVANA CALLED FOR A VOTE ON VARIANCES ON PARKING AND

S IGN FOR MOONALD 'S : NO AYES ,3'NO 'S .

The Board then applied the criteria to the application:

a) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning

district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning

Ordinance are met. Although the use is a conditional use, not

all development standards have been met.

b) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans

for the area and is compatible with existing land use. The

plan is. t»es*i7- not in accordance with plans for the area. it is

not compatible with future land uses, i. e.,Fackler' s.

c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on

public facilities and services, such as streets, utilities,

schools, and refuse disposal. The Board finds that the carrying capacity and transportation services are not adequate to approve this application. It will create an undue burden on streets. It

may not put the intersection at Galway and C. V. at capacity but will do so very soon and will aggravate the C.V.R/t. 16 inter- section. The applicant did not consider how it would affect this

important intersection. There is a high likelihood it would generate high levels of trash.

d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses and will not entail a use, struc- ture, or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. This business would be a detriment and disturbing to the neighboring homes both in the fsotrrmeeotsf. an increase in traffic in neighborhood and neighboring There would also be increase in trash and smells of grease. Heavy traffic would drive through the roads where children play. This operation would constitute a nuisance and hazard to people and property nearby.

Ms. Caravana applied "Objectives to Implement a Strong Growth Management System" from the CMP (Page A-12):

4. Prohibit strip commercial development and encourage Tlimhisitepdlansudbo-evsillage commercial uses in well-designpd clusters. not do so.

6. Promote balanced land uses throughout Granville. The proposed land use tips the balance towards automobile-oriented

9

10

uses and repeats uses in the same zoning district, i. e.,Wendy' s.

Objectives to Preserve the Unique Character of Granville"

Page A-13):

2. Promote a development strategy where physical growth

reflects the small-town community character. This strategy does

not do so.

5. Promote diversity and character in new developments--

avoid homogenization. This does not do so. It is a repetition.

Maintain a High-quality Residential Environment.P" a(ge A-

14):This development would be a detriment to a nearby

development.

She referred to the Zoning Ordinance (1175. 01): The

purpose and intent of the SBD is to provide suitable areas for a

moderate concentration of various types of compatible businesses

while providing use, neighborhood and Village enhancing features,

such as adequate parking, appropriate landscaping, screening,

acceptable aesthetics and site design intended to eliminate

adverse effects of traffic congestion."This application is

designed to handle as much traffic as possible and channel it fast through the drive-through.

Traffic Requirements" (1175. 03) : c) Minimization of

conflict points between auto and pedestrian traffic. . . ."This

plan presents many conflict points; by merely putting in concrete for walkways is not an adequate manner to address this. The

applicant said that the drive-through would not bring in more bbuussiinneessss. but they would not build this development without that The BZBA cannot approve a plan that adversely affects traffic to the detriment of the public. The applicant has stated that the capacity of the intersection is overcapacity now. They

have said their traffic would aggravate traffic congestion and would also increase traffic along Galway. The traffic brought in by this restaurant would be detrimental to the residents nearby Most of these residents strongly oppose this project. because the lowered quality of life would lower their property values.

Site Plan Approval Required" 1(175. 04(b)1(): Combined

curbcuts, especially for any uses that are incorporated in a commercial development."McDonald' s proposes two curbcuts. b) 2( ) Minimize conflict points between auto and pedestrian itssruae. ffic.T he..ap"plicant has not adequately addressed this

b) 3( ) Service Traffic separation from customer or commuter traffic. Commuters are likely to park in the lor in off hours. U,=1, » re£ 1 e)rE[3:5¤B: This 0 L * A«46 4 0- - is not truly a plan ror the areaM, Adoes not fit into the original design as far as shops are conce:ftedll -<<7 It is an attempt to get an anchor there and attract a lot of p

cars. It does not fit in with Mr. Murphy' s original scheme and

promise. Traffic: Thefe9a05re5'ba1/lot of problems with the traffic study rA 4j,'

and some inaccura¢ies and some unusual ways traffic was counted. A/ 11& 1

The engineer wasvinaccurate about where the traffic would come r

from. Ms. Caravana thought the traffic study was incomplete and UY

did not cover the entire area. OtherP X*p#ms might show this use J

is more directed toward highway and transient traffic. For a f

PlayPlace where there are many children, it will be more of a

destination and increase the number of primary trips. The di numbers given us are averages based on graphs with a range an

could be higher or lower.

Parking: would not be adequate here and is not adequate at

Wendy' s.

Safety: The traffic engineer is concerned about safety with

the left turn and stacking. Nothing prevents that from happening

at McDonald' s. Rear-ending accidents is a very real threat. The

PlayPlace will ensure high levels of steady traffic, so will not

only be high at peak times but throughout the day.

Fw&O €4-4,k#e0.40-4<C-.x. ,·U+25'

Mr. Herman, stateth*at in 14 years as a public servant, this

is the first time tha anybody has suggested that he might be

cooking up something./He added that the criteria we considered

and the evidenceB €>r o¢vided suggest a preponderance of indieati:ens.creating/burdens, etc. Information provided to us

represents a distorted view on the impaucpto*n this community, and further information will be provided 111tifYdinoffact. Ms. Caravana added that other than changing the outside

appearance of McDonald' s, she does not believe the applicant has made any real effort to make McDonald' s to fit into this community. They have not tried to get together with other business people in the area. She does not see a reason for

accepting this as a Conditional Use. It has not earned it.

Mr. Stewart stated that traffic is a major issue. Others

have addressed the major issues. HE has the same concerns about

traffic flow and traffic volume at other intersections. He does

not think the answer is building a larger road. Also, a preponderance of the residents nearby do not want this, and Mr. Stewart will go along with their wishes.

6064. *=16.d 1/ / /

Mr. Essman' s psimary objection is/drit*ria C."Undue burden

on traffic is by fr the biggest pro]21em(. There are others, but tthreafefixctraisttrhae fmfaici c.o.ntention. Thgin/ tersection cannot handle The burden of having met the four criteria trhesists. wIinthhMiscDcoonnavlde'rssaatniodnshe does not see that they have done ) btougseintehsesr., they have all saidwtihtheypdeoidplenowt haophpLeOlUpQ2e=--defat- s.*tht-efoopdlan r U help but Common sense indicates that the proposed use canno create undue burdens. He is adamant that it is the people, their petitions, their property, their values and quality

11

12

of life. It would be detrimental to the neighborhood and will

entail a nuisance and a hazard.

Adjournment: 10: 15 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 8/22/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

August 22, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Lon Herman

Village Planner:

Visitors: Scott Rawden,Reza Reyazi (incoming Village Planner)and about 25 names on attached sheets.

Minutes: July 25, 1996: BZBA members had enough corrections and

addition:s to warrant a revised copy, and it is attached: Thanks

to Sandy Ellinger for substituting at the meeting.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Jonathan Bridge, 516 West Broadway

The Bridges wish to construct a room addition to the rear of

the house within the setback requirement. Mr. Bridge stated that

the house was built in 1907, at which time there were obviously

no setback requirements. A one foot variance is required on one side and a five foot variance on the other side. The next door

neighbor is supportive of this request.

Ms. Caravana asked about the air conditioner, and Mr. Bridge

stated that it is within a 3' strip of shrubbery on the east side and will not be visible from the street.

Mr. Downs, Contractor, said that the Bridges are requesting

a one-story addition with cathedral ceiling. The deck is immediately

behind the house and will keep the same lines as the house, incorporating the existing tree. He said that the Bridges prefer

to wait until the addition is developed and see what they have to work with before making further plans.

MS. CARAVANA APPLIED THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are dnoist tarpicptli.cable to other lands or structures in the same zoning The house was built when there were no setback re- strictions. The addition will not extend into the side yard any mhoouresea. nd in fact will be set in farther than the sides of the

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. In the past we have allowed other

people in the neighborhood similar leeway, so a literal interpretation

would deprive the Bridges of enjoying a similar right.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant.

The Bridges purchased the house as it was and did not cause any

special conditions or circumstances.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

No undue privileges are granted, as others in the same district

have similar variances.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. No adverse effects are noted, and the neighbors

are supportive of the request.

MR. CONTINI MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE; MR.

ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

McDonald' s, South Galway at Cherry Valley Road

Don and Laurie Kissack propose to construct a 3045 sq. ft

restaurant with drive-through and a two-story, 1400 PlayPlace, which would require ( sq. ft. 1) a conditional use for the

restaurant in SBD and (2) a variance from the parking require- ments for a restaurant.

The Kissacks explained that they are ownero/perators and residents of the area and have been looking for a suitable location for a McDonald' s for several years. They believe in

McDonalds as a community concept and have proven themselves in other McDonalds' locations and want to set the standard for what Granville people want a restaurant to look like. Mr. Kissack

provided rationale for (1) a CONDITIONAL USE for the proposed restaurant:

Setbacks are within the code. Parking is to the rear and side; a berm will be added to screen the parking. There will be zoning islands every 12 spaces. Landscaping by John Klauder will be around the building and suitably high. Lot coverage is 65 per cent. Bike access will be provided along South Galway, and bike parking will be available. Outdoor lighting will be addressed later. They are considering the same uniform lighting system that Granville is now looking at; it' s important that everything at the intersection flow together. Building height is 26' 10".Building materials are red brick with white, and roof

2

structures will be screened. Signs meet requirements of the sign

code so far. They have deleted some of the arches. The monument

sign is 35 sq. ft, a red brick arch without lettering. Traffic

and Parking and Walkways: Their traffic study shows there would

be no change in levels of service for the Cherry Valley/ Galway

intersection from those in the ITE Trip Generation Report. Extra

road improvements will not be needed. Walkways and sidewalks

will be provided. Appearance: It will not look like a standard

McDonalds. They have angles and gables. On the building itself

they have a double door to be more symmetric and added a window

for symmetry with bars in the doors. There will be smokey glass

windows to hide the PlayPlace. It is almost the same color as

the Cherry Valley Lodge. PlayPlace: The unique character of

Granville focuses on children, so the play place will be an

advantage to the village. Site Plan shows one-way in and oneway

out with building in the center. Tax base: McDonalds will

add to Granville' s tax base.

2) Rationale for VARIANCE OF PARKING SPACES was provided by Mr. Kissack:

The site is large enough to provide the required parking

spaces (89),but they believe that 65 spaces are adequate and prefer to turn the parking spaces into additional landscaping. If the PlayPlace is classified as recreational, the parking requirements would be 63. Because a lot of child visitors do not

drive, there is less need for maximum parking. You do not want

more blacktop, and 63 is what they are requesting.

Ms. Caravana stated that since tables and chairs are in the

PlayPlace, that should be figured into the requirement for parking spaces. Mr. Risska stated that and seating the 1400 sq. ft. play area for about 35 is for caregivers for the children. This would be ca. 40 sq. ft. which would require five parking spaces one per 50 sq. ft.)M.s. Caravana indicated that Wendy' s is often full, making traffic congestion. Mr. Risska felt that

extra customers would go to McDonald' s.

from Mr. Hickman stated, that information has not come back yet the traffic engineer. Traffic and parking would be ad- dressed during a lot split and site development plan. Ms. Mre-_hCthaavareatvat2hn4aa-ht aoisunkrfeodsrtmuadbaioteiuostnatrbeaecf-anf-u-icsoe fteiig-tfuy*rehsedlpurfiungl 5p-e*1€aMk rp. eWrioilcdosx, dsitdatinnogt would attract visitors at other tiwmaessntohtanrepleevaaknt. The PlayPlace He thought about 45 periods, he said. they would have been per cent of trips are pass-by drivers, and tion was McDonald' on the street already whether their destina- just how much trafsficor not, but Ms. Caravana wanted to determine McDonald' s would generate. More traffic

means more noise, pollution, and congestion.

Mr. Kissack stated that between 12 noon and 1 p. m. 110 cars

1

3

4

5 32 030

visit his other McDonald's-58-drive-through and 52 parking.

Between 6 and 7 p.m. there are cars6-3: drive-through and 30

parking. Average per day is 1200 transactions. Mr. Wilcox said

that consultants out of Chicago provided estimated figures from

other PlayPlaces and he did not know whether' seating was included

in the play areas. Traffic, he said, is based on studies at

other PlayPlaces and based on restaurant size, and he did not

know whether that was included in the square footage. Ms.

Caravana asked how the figures were arrived at, showing that 30%

of their traffic coming north, 15%south, and 55%from Galway.

Mr. Wilcox based the figures on McDonalds' studies. Ms. Caravana

asked why his traffic study did not look at the Rt. 16/Cherry

Valley intersection, but only the newly created intersection.

Mr. Wilcox stated that if the city asked them for this, they

would have provided it. Ms. Caravana described the stacking of

carsas„ excessive already. Mr. Wilcox said that McDonald' s is

ir*ef-lding tp take traffic into the site.

CY4 &4 a*U dreL-v 9&4

In answer to a question as to why they changed their original

plan from the south side of Rt. 16 to the north,CMh Kissack 4J said it was to alleviate any traffic problem and to make it

easier for children to access. Mr. Risska asked whether the city would be improving the intersection, and Mr. Hickman said that

nothing is planned at present.

Ms. Caravana indicated that Granville Planning Commission

had concerns about the driveway to McDonald' s being so Close to the road.

Public Comments:

Kirk Combe offered three reasons why McDonald' s should not build: 1) It is not compatible with the Erinwood development; the SBD described small shops "just around the corner, "not fast- food restaurants, motels, and gas stations. Property values will suffer. 2) This will be a burden on services, will not be a boon to the community, will require improvement of the roads, and will not provide much of a tax base partly because of declining property values. (3) The proposed restaurant is a traffic hazard to children and the neighborhood; over thirty children already live in the Village Green. McDonald' s, he stated, has not proven there will not be a hazard. It will be a nuisance to our quality of life. He thought that with more transient people there would be more traffic fatalities and child abduction.

Lance Senn preferred the proposed location to one across the highway because it is dangerous for truckers to park on Rt. 16. Ms. Caravana said that truckers cannot get into Wendy' s.

Debbie Farrar, President of Granville Athletic Boosters, wsahiidleBpZBroAt'escjtoinbgis to protect Granville and keep its character growth. The Kissacks, who live in Granville,

should be allowed to do business as they wish because they will

give food and services back to the community. She stated that

the Master Plan calls for this. She said that the area was zoned

commercial when neighbors bought their property.

Bill Wilson, spokesman for residents at Erinwood, presented

a petition with 58 signatures representing 44 households, stating

that the undersigned request that BZBA deny a conditional use to

McDonald' s. Such a proposed use will interfere with the quality

of life for residents and constitute a traffic hazard. He said

that when they bought their property, they were told that Mc-

Donald' s would request land across from Rt. 16

Bobbie Falquet felt compelled to speak on behalf of the

Kissacks, who have been very involved in the community; what

makes Granville special is the people who live here. She felt

that McDonald' s would make Granville a better place to live.

Ed Shepard added that the Kissacks have contributed much to

the community at large. Granville is growing to the east and

McDonald' s would provide a segue for development. Their plan is

compatible even with the traffic problem. It is a challenge that

can be solved.

Ron Lessko, Executive of L. C. Center for the Visually

Impaired, has known the Kissacks for 7 years and they have always

been helpful to the visually impaired.

Brenda Boyle said that the issue has become a moral as well as a commercial issue. She does not doubt that the Kissacks are upstanding citizens, but instead we need to think about how this property is zoned and what the developer has said C) to buyers. _ -f-1/ StdtoitIirl0hteILIh81iSRis: aZ=CsttrtheoTrrsias. We 05 hcoowntirtibuwteildl itmoptahcet tchoamtmpunairtyt bouf tGwrhaantvtihllee. raSmheificisations are and 0 very concerned

about the safety of the children; it' s bad out there now.

Mary Kay Roberts has lived across the street for 40 years and was concerned about the smell. It smells like grease now, and she is about ready to sell her property.

Carl Wilkenfeld added his comments: 1) There is nothing personal about this issue. He applauds citizens of the east end expressing themselves. (2) Wendy' s went in before the Comprehen- sive Master Plan and serves as a warning. When asked about fast food restaurants during development of the CMP, 800-900 people said No; 780 people signed the recent moratorium. 3) Every bcuosnindeitsiosnathlat wants to build at this intersection has filed for a use. We should be looking at the overall picture. 4) As far as increasing the tax base, a fast-food brings in very little compared to Owens Corning, DOW, and Cherry Valley Lodge.

4

5

The cost of improving the road will greatly exceed the tax

income; we are creating our own problems.

Ms. Caravana asked whether the drive-through could be

eliminated, and Joseph Harbaugh said that people in wheelchairs

depend on drive-throughs.

Ms. Caravana still had concerns about traffic. She wanted a

report from the traffic engineer and wants to ask him a few

questions about the close proximity between Cherry Valley Road

and the entrance drive, the distance between pick-up window and

the exit-is- it adequate when traffic is heavy; she would like bil

,4*She said that the traffic study did not take into consideration A J,J6-PKinformation

about the impact of a combined exit and entrance.

Fackler' s and the Country Hearth Motel.A All these businesses

generate traffic and that' s why they are conditional uses.

Fackler' s had to eliminate their drive-through. There are areas

in town which would not require a conditional use for McDonald' s. She would prefer the road remain two lanes. She would also like

to look at the unofficial traffic study and the petitiontl'i3,+ n .. .

BZBA members could not see their way clear to approving

0,WilsO M

application tonight. Ms. Caravana wanted more information on

traffic. Mr. Contini stated that the Master Plan did not address

large fast-food restaurants, and he could not in good faith vote _j«?C*[

lA) for McDonald' s despite good reports of the Kissacks.

have spoken to him on the street do not want a McDonald's. he design of the building is great, he said. He felt he could not vote for McDonald' s when he voted against Fackler' s, who claim only 10-15%drive-through traffic. Mr. Stewart agreed with Ms. Caravana.

Mr. Risska said that for every home sold, two cars and most of McDonald' s business comes from people on the the The problem with Wendy' s is that the drive-through is in wrong place.

Mr. Risska could see that the vote would be against the application and he requested it be tabled until members could study the traffic engineering study carefully. He would like to expedite this issue and requested a special meeting on September 12. Ms. Caravana would like Mr. Samuelson to be present at the next meeting, and she would like to see a count. She would like to know what the impact on intersection would be.

MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION UNTIL SEPTEMBER

12 AT 7 P. M. THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD CHANGE IS THE TRAFFIC

ENGINEER' S REPORT. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Adjournment: 9: 30 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 7/25/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

July 25, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: None

Also Present:Joe Hickman, Acting Village Planner; Sandy Ellinger, Acting Secretary

Visitors:

Minutes:June 27. 1996: Mr. Contini moved to approve minutes as submitted; Mr. Herman

seconded;MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens' Comments: None

New Business:

George Fackler, 1960 Newark-Granville Road

George Fackler has submitted a conditional use request for a multi-use development the southwest at corner of Newark-Granville Road and Cherry Valley Road. The development will

include a 1,500s- qf.t-. bank with drive-thru, a 6,500 sqf.t convenience center with drive thru,a 6,500s- q.ft-. restaurant,a 3,000 sq f.t-. real estate office,and a 5,000 sq.ft-. future retail/office space. The bank with drive-thru, convenience center with drive-thru,and the restaurant are all conditional uses in the Suburban Business District (SBD).The future retail/office space will have to submit a separate application when the type of use is determined. The real estate office does not need a conditional use permit.

Mrs. Caravana reviewed the criteria which must be met to qualify for a conditional use permit,as follows:

1) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met.

2) The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with existing use.

3) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, schools, and treatise disposal.

4) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses and will not entail a use, structure, or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property.

Mr. John Oney, the project architect,presented a site rendering on which he reviewed the revisions made pursuant to Planning Commission requests (e.g.,the addition of perimeter and interior walkways,the relocation of the curb-cut on Newark-Granville Road to the west its original position,the potential for shared access on the south side,and the potential for a bike pedestrian lane and stated the project meter exceeded provisions of Sections 1145, 1171, and 1175.

Virtually all of the succeeding discussion centered on the proposed drive-thru for the

deli-bakery/ convenience center,and addressed the issues of a pedestrian culture v. an auto

culture,traffic flow concerns ( especially in peak hours), and the project's overall image. Mr.

Phil Wince,attorney for the project's investors, maintained that the drive-thru was " an important

aspect of the overall concept. Mr. Wes Raynor,the principal investor, emphasized that the

intent was to market gourmet food,not beer and wine. Mr. Raynor also felt that the projected

hours of operation would preclude an emphasis on drive-thru beer sales..

Mr. Herman noted that,once approved, there would be no recourse for Village governing

bodies if the business were so successful that its owners decided to stay open later than 10:00

pm. Mr. Stewart felt the project's pedestrian orientation would suffer in direct relation to the

success"of the drive-thru. Mrs. Caravana asked specifically if the project's success depended

on the drive-thru,or if it was included just for convenience.

Several citizens' comments were heard at this time: Mr. John Ghiloni of Newark,one of

the project's investors, said he was all for it. Mr. Carl Wilkenfeld of Granville said the project

had his general support,except for the drive- thru; he also felt that " inside"customers would

spend more money. Ms. Cynthia Cort of Granville felt the drive-thru was incompatible with the

nature of the business.

Mr. Joe Ridgeway,the project team's traffic consultant,when asked to comment on whether there would bea total increase in non-passer- by traffic,cited Table II of the Traffic

Impact Analysis,and projected that the convenience center would be the heaviest generator of

traffic. Mr. Herman asked if this would be true with or without the carry-out;Mr. Ridgeway

was unable to give a definitive answer. Mr. Ridgeway also cited Table I,showing estimated

traffic flow of 19.75 vehicles/ 1,000 sq.ft. for the drive-thru. Mr. Herman asked how that

compared to other restaurant drive-thru's, and Mr. Ridgeway said it was " substantially lower,"

though he could not cite any specific numbers. Mrs. Caravana asked about stacking in the drive- thru lanes,and Mr. Ridgeway responded that it was not expected to go v"ery far"outside the building. Mr. Tim Snyder,the sitep-lan engineer,said three lanes is p"retty standardf"or bank drive-thru's.

Mr. Herman expressed concern that twot-hirds of the morning traffic was projected to be generated by the convenience center,referring to it as a " made-up"category whose projections

were not based on any hard data. He emphasized that it was critical to be as clear as possible because of the ramifications of the pending decision. Mr. Stewart expressed concern that Cherry Valley Road would be developed to the point where it could no longer serve as a

S

2

connector"between Newark-Granville Road and the areas on Cherry Valley Road south of S.R.

16.

Mr. Ridgeway noted that,at Mr. Tailford's request,they were requesting full access from

both Cherry Valley Road and Newark-Granville Road,and anticipating that no improvements

would need to be made if this were the case. Mrs. Caravana asked Dave Samuelson of

Worthington,Council's traffic consultant,to comment. Mr. Samuelson replied that any of three

conditions would provide satisfactory traffic flow: 1)to restrict outbound left turns onto

Newark-Granville Road,2)to restrict inbound left turns from Newark-Granville Road, or 3)to

add left-turn lanes to Cherry Valley Road and/ or Newark-Granville Road if traffic reached the

point of "unacceptable delays."Mr. Herman reminded everyone that the Village Council had

already said there would be no third lane added to Newark-Granville Road. Mr. Samuelson

remarked that this would simply shift the burden to Cherry Valley Road. Mr. Essman added that

all intersections in the area are already at Level B; restricting turns from Newark-Granville Road

<Cp- would movsf,herry Valley Road to a Level C. Mrs. Caravana raised the issue of the d/ tdheavtewloepneeres(d)Ttoooctoinngsitdheerbthilel tfootraQl tlreaffftit-curinmlpaancet oonf tChheefruryllVyad-elleveyloRpoeadd,and reminded everyone tract, not just the

individual impacts.

Mr. Contini emphasized to the project's investors that he felt the proposed layout was perfectt,h"e building was b"eautifula,"nd that a drivet-hru would r"ob their image"and detract

from the overall quality of their business enterprise.

Mrs. Caravana and Mr. Herman proposed the following: 1)that no left-turn lane on Cherry Valley Road would be required if Council could be assured of low traffic levels;2)that the deli-bakery/ convenience center drive-thru should therefore be eliminated; 3)that the bank

have only two drive-thru lanes instead of three;and 4)that there be no incoming left turns permitted from the NewarkG- ranville Road side. It was Mr. Samuelson's opinion that allowing incoming left turns without a turn lane would create more of a problem than diverting the traffic to Cherry Valley Road.

A straw poll of the Board showed that Mr. Stewart agreed about the convenience drive- thru but was unsure of reducing the bank from three lanes to two;Mr. Contini agreed about the convenience drive-thru,would prefer three lanes at the bank to potential stacking problems if there were only two,and was undecided about left-turn lanes;Mr. Essman agreed about the convenience drive-thru,and had no preference about two v. three lanes at the bank.

Mrs. Mary Kay Roberts ofGranville,who lives adjacent to the Fackler property on the Feaasctksleidre. ofCherry Valley Road,was recognized by the Chair and spoke in support ofMr.

Mr. Wince asked the Board iftheir objection to the convenience drivet-hru was solely because ofthe traffic issue,or also concerned the product to be sold. Mr. Herman replied that there was no way to guarantee the product,i.e.,to keep the drive-thru from becoming a beer

3

e a. dock. He also felt the traffic flow projection was highly speculative. Mrs. Caravana added that,

Sise,she felt the drivet-hru was in"compatible with the project's image"and the convenience

factor would be easily outweighed by the negative connotations of a drive-thru; that was not

sufficient reason to deny the use. Mr. Contini acknowledged that the Board could not " dictate

imageb,"ut reiterated that the drivet-hru did not fit the image the investors were trying to

project. Mrs. Caravana emphasized that it was the Board's job to limit nuisance factors in any

request,which meant limiting traffic and its negative effects as much as feasible. She felt that

the complex had an excessive number of drive-thrus ( 4).The deli-convenience store drive-thru

might generate substantial traffic at a crowded pedestrian walkway in a dangerous fashion and

that exhaust from the queued traffic would present a nuisance to the pedestrian and cafe areas.

Mr. Wince asked if the Board's stance on the drive-thru would change if the project investors

were to " entertain"installing the left-turn lane. Mrs. Caravana replied that the she was leaning

toward leaving the road alone,preferring to choose uses that produced less traffic, i.e.,that the

future needs of the road would depend on the types of businesses that went into this area. In this

way, a decision about a turn lane could be made when the next business to the south of this

project was approved.

Mr. Raynor emphasized that his deli-bakery was " not trying to emulate failure. It would

contain no wall of coolers, no neon, and no plastic beer signs; food is intended to be the primary product.

There was consensus among Board members that protecting the pedestrian ambiance is vital.

The project investors' team asked for a short recess to confer. Afterwards,Mr. Wince reported

they felt the Board's stance on the drive-thru was unfair because Wendy's has a drive-thru.

Also,they feel strongly that the drivet-hru is an integral part of their concept,and they are not selling anything not already being sold. Mr. Wince also noted that Mr. Fackler had been in

possession of a liquor license for 14 years without using it for commercial purposes.

Mrs. Caravana responded to Mr. Wince's statement by emphasizing that no-one but the investors

was in favor of the drivet-hru,in great part because of how much of a problem the Wendy's drive-thru has caused. She hoped the Board would not " be bound by [its]mistakes."

MRS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST BE APPROVED, WITH THE CONDITION THAT 1)THERE BE NO DRIVET-HRU ATTACHED TO THE DELIB- AKERYC/ONVENIENCE CENTER,and 2)THERE SHOULD BE NO INCOMING LEFT TURNS FROM NEWARK GRANVILLE ROAD; OTHERWISE THE PROPOSAL MEETS STANDARDS A,B,C,and D FOR CONDITIONAL USAGE. MR. HERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE BOARD APPROVED IT BY A UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE.

Adjournment: 9.45 p.m.

BZBA Minutes 6/27/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

June 27, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Jim Schmidt, Bill Anderson, Vince Messerly (Concepts

in Lodging), Steve &Carol Tunnicliff (31 Vill-Edge), Jurgen Pape

403 E. Broadway), Kevin Bennett (105 Mt. Parnassus),George

Griffin (4 Samson Place), Carl Wilkenfeld (317 West Elm), John

Kessler & Eloise DeZwarte (338 East College).

Minutes: May 23. 1996: Page 1, before Section (a),add title LOT

COVERAGE VARIANCE 6' from the side. .

Page 2, line 4 under first d),change quality to qualify.

Page 4, Paragraph 2, changed "provide more maintenance space and"

to relocate Mardenine area toward the street. Page 6, Paragraph

3, line 1, change allow to: allow. Mr. Herman moved to approve

minutes as presented; Mr. Stewart seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

Neil and Dixie Andrew, 236 West Elm -Variances

Mr. Andrew described a change from the plan for his carriage house, which was continued by BZBA at the last meeting. He has moved the structure back 6' a compromise with the McCluskey's request of 15, and lining s up with the screen porch. Mr. Andrew understood that there would be some lenience regarding lot coverage in order to compromise with the neighbors' concerns. The revised plan would require more lot coverage. He requests a paved drive instead of wheel-paths. The driveway will be exposed aggregate concrete.

The immediate neighbor, stated that they preferred moving it 15 . There are a lot of children in the neighborhood, and placing the garage on the property line would block visibility for cars and be less safe. She also requested that the location of the window facing their house be changed or removed.

Mr. Andrew stated that if they had left the plans as originally designed, it would be possible to move the window, but not with the revised plan. There would not be any direct alignment of windows.

Mr. Herman was concerned that someone in the future would

use this proposed variance as a precedent.

LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE: Ms. Caravana applied the criteria

to the application. (The walls do not require a variance):

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are

peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not

applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. It is a small lot and the structure was built before

the zoning ordinance. There is no other way the garage can be

located to provide protection for the car without moving closer

to the lot line. Originally the property included a summer

kitchen, so historical integrity would not be affected.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming

garages; therefore, applicant should not be denied the

privilege.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant has done

nothing to create special circumstances to the lay of the land.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Most

other neighbors have similar garages and driveways.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Members determined that visibility will not be affected by the new structure. The general welfare could be affected by increased lot coverage; but at the same time, the plan would provide more street parking and aesthetically property could be enhanced by the new structure. Safety is improved by off-street parking and more visibility for school busses.

Special Notes about the Variance: As a result of suggestions by the board to address the neighbors concerns regarding privacy and' decreased sunlight, the plan was altered by the applicant and the lot coverage was increased. Part of the reason BZBA is granting coverage this large is because of these issues and because if applicant takes out the turnabout, it would not be as safe for cars who would have to back into the street. Also, the fact that he has a 6' high wall which will block almost all the view by the public will mitigate the large area of concrete.

Lest precedent be set here, Mr. Herman reminded the group that the lot coverage variance is

granted in response to the neighbor' s concern about sunlight. This is a unique and particular

concern relative to this situation only.

ALL MEMBERS THEN APPROVED THE REVISED PLAN WHICH WOULD

APPROVE LOT COVERAGE OF 72. 3 PER CENT. There was one abstention

Mr. Stewart) for being a close neighbor.

SETBACK VARIANCE: Members applied the criteria to the

setback variance of zero, requested by the applicant:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are

peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not

applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. This is a very narrow lot, built before the ordinance

was put in effect. A garage of any size would require reduced

setbacks. Other structures in the neighborhood are built on the

lot line.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming

setbacks; therefore, applicant should not be denied the

privilege.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant has done nothing to create special circumstances to the lay of the land.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance other to lands or structures in the same zoning district. Most other neighbors have similar setbacks.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. By moving the structure back, we have addressed the general welfare of the people closest to subject property. There is adequate light reaching the neighbor s house, and windows will not line up with each other. Safety does not appear to be a factor.

MEMBERS VOTED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE OF ZERO ON REVISED PLAN. There was one abstention (Mr. Stewart) for being a close neighbor.

New Business:

David Longaberger, 537 Jones Road

Mr. Longaberger is requesting to continue the wrought-iron

fence around the rest of the property without the stone pillars.

He wishes to increase the height of the fence to 8 in the back

areas because of the topography and for security reasons. A

variance of 2 is required for most of the fence and 5. 5- for the

Jones Road side of the property.

Jim Gimeison stated that they would like to replace a

chain-link fence and continue the fence style as in the front,

with standard posts rather than pillars, around the property for

security. The rolling topography precludes a firm 6 fence

everywhere and stair-stepping would result. The height will vary

with the contour of the land. Mr. Longaberger, in his May 1

letter, wishes to "maintain and restore the unique historical

significance and architectural elegance through appropriate

attention to detail of materials and consistency of structures.

There are ponds and a swimming pool, and security is crucial.

People could easily climb over a 3- fence atop a dip in the

contour.

Jim Bascom (15 Thomas Road) expressed his hope that there could be a gate to allow access to the land-locked property beyond by tractors and emergency vehicles. It s a very steep bank. Mr. Gimieson stated that they have not planned to add a gate. The fence is in 7' sections, so if they needed to, they could remove a post, which would be expensive. He will consult with Mr. Longaberger about a gate.

Ms. Caravana stated that the gate issue is not apropos to the variance itself, and a variance cannot be withheld for this reason. The gate issue has to be determined between neighbors.

Ms. Caravana applied the application to the criteria for variance in height:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which peculiar to the land are or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The topography creates the special situation. The 50-acre parcel is unique to the village, and applicant wishes to continue the design of the pre-existing fence in the front area. The aesthetics suggest aboven-ormal sizes to match the imposing size of the mansion. This is not likely to set an example for any other property in the village.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The property is approximately 50 safety features, which others in the village.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant purchased

the property and wishes to protect it.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The

unique and peculiar circumstances are the massive size of the

house.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. Safety will be enhanced with a fence protecting

the ponds and swimming pool. An evenly topped fence will

look better than one following contours of the land.

THE APPLICATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Notes on the Variance: The neighbors will work out the gate

issue. Also, for the record, the enormous scale of the property

and house are unique and require a different approach. There are

no neighbors close to the fence and no negative impact would

result from a higher fence.

Adjournment: 8: 10 p. m.

Next Meeting: June 27, 1996, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 5/23/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

May 23,1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Neil Andrew (236 West Elm), Carole Sue McCluskey (128 S. Cherry), Janet

Derr (3248 Raccoon Valley), Larry Terry Dickson (438 Fern Hill), Jim Gimieson

Longaberger B,ob Daganhart 4(4 Waterford), Jim Bascom (15 Thomas Road)

Minutes: April 25. 1996: Page 1, under 2( ):In "addition, 6' from theside Page.2", line 4

under first (d), change quality to qualify. Page 4,Paragraph 2,change "provide more

maintenance space and to relocate gardening area toward the street. Page 6,Paragraph 3, line

1, change allow to allow. Mr. Herman moved to approve minutes as presented; Mr. Stewart

seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

Old Business:

Neil and Dixie Andrew,236 West Elm -Variances

Mr. Andrew described a change from the plan for his carriage house,which was continued by BZBA at the last meeting. He has moved the structure back 13.6',a compromise with the McCluskey's request of 15',and lining up with the screen porch. Mr. Andrew understood that there would be some lenience regarding lot coverage in order to compromise with the neighbors' concerns. The revised plan would require more lot coverage. He requests a paved drive instead of wheel paths. The driveway will be exposed aggregate concrete.

Ms. McCluskey, the immediate neighbor, stated that they would have preferred moving it

15'. There are a lot of children in the neighborhood,and placing the garage on the property line would block visibility for cars and be less safe. She also requested that the location of the window facing their house be changed or removed.

Mr. Andrew stated that if they had left the plans as originally designed,it would be possible to move the window,but not with the revised plan. There would not be any direct alignment of windows.

Mr. Herman was concerned that someone in the future would use this proposed variance Ms. Caravana applied the criteria to the application. The walls do not require a

That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. It is a small lot and the structure was built before the zoning ordinance. There is no other way the garage can be located to provide protection for the car without moving closer to the lot line. Originally the property included a summer kitchen, so historical integrity would.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming garages; therefore,applicant should not be denied the privilege.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicant has done nothing to create special circumstances to the lay of the land.

d)That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. Most other neighbors have similar garages and driveways.

e)That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Members determined that visibility will not be affected by the new structure. The general welfare could be affected by increased lot coverage;but at the same time, the plan would provide more street parking and property could be aesthetically enhanced by the new structure. Safety is improved by off-street parking and more visibility for school busses.

Special Notes about the Variance: As a result of suggestions by the board to address the neighbor's concerns regarding privacy and decreased sunlight, the plan was altered by the applicant and the lot coverage was increased. Part of the reason BZBA is granting large is because of these issues and because if applicant takes coverage this out the turnabout, it would not be as safe for cars who would have to back into the street. Also, the fact that he has a 6' high wall which will block almost all the view by the public will mitigate the large area of concrete.

Lest precedent be set here,Mr. Herman reminded the group that the lot coverage variance is granted in response to the neighbor's concern about sunlight. This is a unique and particular concern relative to this situation only.

ALL MEMBERS THEN APPROVED THE REVISED PLAN WHICH WOULD APPROVE LOT COVERAGE OF 72.3 PER CENT. There was one absence Mr. Stewart for being a close neighbor.

Members applied the criteria to the setback variance of zero,requested by the applicant:

a)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. This is a very narrow lot,built before the ordinance was put in effect. A garage would require reduced setbacks. Other structures in the neighborhood are built on.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning under the provisions of this Ordinance. Many of the neighbors have nonconforming therefore, applicant should not be denied the privilege.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

not be affected. the applicant. The applicant has done nothing to create special circumstances

to the lay of the land.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue

privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. Most other neighbors have similar setbacks.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the

health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of

the proposed variance. By moving the structure back,we have addressed the general welfare

of the people closest to subject property. There is adequate light reaching the neighbor's

house, and windows will not line up with each other. Safety does not appear to be a factor.

MEMBERS VOTED TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE OF ZERO ON REVISED

PLAN. There was one abstention Mr. Stewart for being a close neighbor.

New Business:

David Longaberger, 537 Jones Road

Mr. Longaberger is requesting to continue the wrought-iron fence around the rest of the property without the stone pillars. He wishes to increase the height of the fence to 8' in the back areas because of the topography and for security reasons. A variance of 2' is required for most of the fence and 5.5' for the Jones Road side of the property.

Jim Gimeison stated that they would like to replace a chain link fence and continue the fence style as in the front,with standard posts rather than pillars,around the property for security. The rolling topography precludes a firm 6' fence everywhere and stair-stepping would result. The height will vary with the contour of the land. Mr. Longaberger in his May 1 letter, wishes to "maintain and restore the unique historical significance and architectural elegance through appropriate attention to detail of materials and consistency of structures."There are ponds and a swimming pool, and security is crucial. People could easily climb over a 3' fence atop a dip in the contour.

Jim Bascom (15 Thomas Road) expressed his hope that there could be a gate to allow property beyond by tractors and emergency vehicles. It's a very steep stated that they have not planned to add a gate. The fence is in 7' sections, could remove a post,which would be expensive. He will consult with a gate.

Ms. Caravana stated that the gate issue is not apropos to the variance itself and a neighbors cannot be withheld for this reason. The gate issue has to be determined between

Ms. Caravana applied the application to the criteria for variance in height:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures

involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.

The topography creates the special situation. The 50 acre parcel is unique to the village,and

applicant wishes to continue the design of the pre-existing fence in the front

area. The aesthetics suggest above-normal sizes to match the imposing size of the mansion.

This is not likely to set an example for any other property in the village.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would

deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning

district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The property is approximately 50 acres,and

requires safety features,which others in the village already enjoy.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The applicant purchased the property and wishes to protect it.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue

privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. The unique and peculiar circumstances are the massive size of the house.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the

health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of

the proposed variance. Safety will be enhanced with a fence protecting the ponds and

swimming pool. An evenly topped fence will look better than one following contours of the

land.

THE APPLICATION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Notes on the Variance. The neighbors will work out the gate issue. Also, for the

record, the enormous scale of the property and house are unique and require a different

approach. There are no neighbors close to the fence and no negative impact would result from

a higher fence.

Adjournment: 8:10 p.m.

Next Meeting: June 27, 1996, 7 p.m.

BZBA Minutes 4/25/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

April 25, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: Lon Herman

Also Present: Joe Hickman,substituting for Doug Tailford, Village Planner; Rufus Hurst, Law

Director

Visitors: Dixie Neil Andrew (236 West Elm), Brett April Faris (428 E. College), Buddy

Carole Sue McCluskey (128 S. Cherry), Dorothy Garrett (45 Donald Ross), Tim Klingler

(218 East Elm), Richard Downs (4174 Loudon St.),

Minutes: February 22.1996: Mr. Stewart moved to approve minutes as presented;Mr. Contini

seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business.

Brett and April Faris, 428 East College -Variances

The Farises are applying for two variances for a one-story garage: ( 1)lot coverage and

2)setback. The variances are needed because the house was built before the ordinance code,

and the construction of a two-car garage would violate the code. The owners request a garage

to protect their automobile,and on this corner lot,there is no room for flexibility. Adhering to

the code would only permit a garage too small to use.

1) The garage will require an additional 528 sq.ft.,which together with the house, totals

a 5% coverage from the side property line on the north is requested,whereas the code specifies

12' setback.

There have been no objections from the neighbors. The driveway will be gravel until

such time as they can pave with brick or similar material. Mr.Essman would encourage brick

pavers on the driveway,as opposed to concrete and asphalt;brick is more attractive and would

BZBA members agreed but did not want to place a condition on this subject,

although Ms. Caravana reminded the group that water runoff is addressing potential problems

connected with increased lot coverage. Mr.Fans stated that he liked interlocking brick.

Ms. Caravana stated that 6' would be ample space to maintain the lawn and building,and other lots in the neighborhood have short setbacks. Mr. Contini added that the garage will enhance the property and the street and provide off-street parking.

Mr. Stewart applied the request to the criteria for lot coverage.

a)That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structures (involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. It is a small lot, a corner lot, and the structure predates the current owner. A 5% violation will not crowd the residence very much.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would

deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning

district under the provisions of this Ordinance. Quite a few properties in the area have

garages either on the property line or within the setback distance,so the applicant should also

have this right.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The owners have done nothing to affect the special conditions of the lot.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue

privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. No others have been denied the right and this does not due privilege for

the applicants. Applicant should be able to protect the automobile as others do.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the

health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of

the proposed variance. Rather than adversely affecting the safety and general welfare, it gives

promise of enhancing it. There is still a lot of green space and open area on the lot.

MR. CONTINI MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR.ESSMAN

SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

2) Mr. Stewart suggested that the setback request be granted, as applied to the criteria:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or

structure(s)involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures iii the same

zoning district. It is a small lot and there is no other way the garage can be located to provide

protection for the car without moving closer to the lot line. This still allows room for

maintenance and does not crowd the neighboring structures. No special circumstances exist.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would

deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning

district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The applicants are one of the few owners

who do not have a garage so this would accordingly bring them up to par with others.

c) That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of

the applicant. The applicants bought the property in this condition.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue

privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. Other structures in the area do have similar structures.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the

health,safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of

the proposed variance. No one has objected to the proposal and it should not adversely affect

anyone. It will not deny access to emergency vehicles or neighboring homes.

MR ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATIONS MR-CONTINI SECONDED,

AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Neil and Dixie Andrew,236 West Elm -Variances

Mr. Andrew stated that they have completed a great deal of work already and are

attempting to maintain historical integrity but now a challenge arises because of the corner lot

configuration. They have tried to balance functionality and aesthetics and still adhere to the

ordinances.

The Andrews will need three variances: ( 1)instead of the 10' setback,they wish to place

the garage on the property line; 6'brick wall/fence around the side and back yard;vs. 42"

maximum for front yard fences;3 ()a 60.6%lot coverage including paved driveway instead of

the 50% maximum in the code.

I) Mr. Andrew stated that moving the garage farther east would consume more lot

coverage and ruin architectural lines and decrease privacy. Leaving it as in the plan would

simplify entrance for emergency vehicles, etc.

2) Mr. Andrew stated that the pillars will be 6' high. The brick wall on Cherry Street

side will be in line with the wall of the house,or 6' from sidewalk and approximately 16' from

the curb,which should not affect visibility. The concept will enhance privacy and reduce noise.

2) Ms. Caravana stated that Mr. Tailford had reviewed the proposed variance for a wall

along Cherry Street and determined that it was not necessary. The wall is offset 1' from the

property line. Walls can be between 42"and 72"and this wall meets two of the other criteria;

therefore we will forego this variance.

3)They plan on exposed aggregate for the driveway with attractive flower beds The site

plan includes a turnaround for cars to provide safety, provide more on-street parking,and

enhance convenience.

3)The lot coverage is actually 59.5% taking into account an increase of area resulting

from a 6' dedicated right of way on east side granted to the property owner.

Although the architect attempted to preserve as much historical integrity as possible,

there remain some concerns about cutting off light from the neighbor's house and the problem

of a window in direct view of the neighbor.

Mr. McCluskey,neighbor on north side,voiced his concerns about shutting off light to

his property and about the proposed wall and carriage house crowding his lot. The roof will be

3' beyond the McCluskey roofline and a window would be on a level with his guest bedroom

window. He would prefer that the building be built approximately 15' farther back on the lot. In

such an event extra green space would be acquired. Mr. McCluskey provided photographs of

possible impact of diminished lighting resulting from the construction.)When the two men

originally started talking about this proposal, Mr. McCluskey had the impression it would be a

one-story garage,rather than a two-story carriage house. He did not think the wall on the

property line was a very good idea and was concerned about forfeiture of green space.

Ms Caravana was concerned about the height of the building,and Mr Contini added that

it would block the light and cast a shadow for the neighbor and the neighbor could look right

in the window.

Ms Caravana expressed her preference for brick pavement because it can also be used

a part of the overall design Sliding the garage back and adding a wheel path would provide

gardening area. Andrew stated that he wanted a 30'x30' garden

spot,and also his privacy would be interfered with if he moved it back. If it is moved back,it

would be close to the Leavell property The balance and functionality of the lot would be

reduced by moving the structure.

Mr Contini thought the plans were attractive per se but he lS concerned about Mr

McCluskey's apprehensions The closer the carriage house is to the neighbor's house,the less

attractive will the skylights be He would be inclined to be lenient as far as lot coverage is

concerned but would prefer that the two neighbors come to an agreement Ms Caravana

agreed and suggested Mr Andrew speak to his landscape gardener to shift the flower beds

Moving the building back would make it less imposing Mr Andrew said he would be willing to

consider a one-story garage but would prefer the plans as submitted.

Mr Andrew, realizing that a positive vote at this time was uncertain,asked for a

continuance of the application so that he could study the plans further MR. ESSMAN MOVED

TO TABLE THE APPLICATION, MR CONTINI SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:

Legal Issues with Law Director

1) If the BZBA feels it needs more time to consider evidence to decide on an

application,what is the proper procedure?Should we hold a special meeting,and how

does this affect the tabling procedure?

Mr. Hurst replied that the Board might consider amending the code to provide it with

more time to act,for there is no procedure at present to gain extra time

The only means at hand now to gain time is for

the applicant to request a continuance.

The sixty-day time-frame starts with submission of application BZBA may hold extra meetings

if they choose,but may have to act sooner than desirable Having an option to extend the time

limit is a good idea,and it would be up to the BZBA to draft an amendment and submit it to

Village Council in writing.

l. BZBA must make the decision to propose an amendment to Village Council, if they desire the

option of more time to make decisions.

2. All decisions 'of this board must be in.

writing, must be completed within 60 days, and

must be accompanied by a Finding of Fact.

items?

2)When should we allow public comments,especially for the high-conflict agenda

Mr. Hurst stated that it does not matter,as a matter of law. it's easier to defendants if you

allow the applicant to fully present his/ her case and then receive input from the public. You as

a board control the action. The affected property owners must receive notice and are clearly

entitled to present their side of the story.

3)Do we need to worry about swearing- in people?

Mr. Hurst's position on this point is that the process of hearing an application is not a mini-trial and not a proceeding. At this time he does not feel that this administration level does not require swearing in. If you have an appeal,contact the Law Director, get a court reporter,and swear people in.

4) On controversial decisions,should one member go over the criteria and apply

them to the situation?

Mr. Hurst replied that whether this is a difficult solution,he would encourage every

board member to give input.

Should there be a Finding of Fact and when should it be done?

Mr. Hurst replied that is the problem with 1139. You need someone to take responsibility of drafting the preliminary draft. Everyone concurs on the finding of fact and then at the next meeting you approve the finding of fact as issued. Any minor concerns must be listed there. The comprehensive finding of fact for Marathon should be your model for the future.

The formal finding of fact does not have to be done within the sixty days. There is no

right to a conditional use. Applicants have to prove that they have met the criteria. If'an

applicant wants to change something, it must be in writing and must explain how Application 2

varies from Application 1.

Board members might disagree on a finding. An individual board member may write an

explanation on his own. if the dissenting voter requests including his reasons for the findings,

that is legitimate,but he does not have to. The majority finding counts. An applicant cannot

impose his will on a neighbor. The aggrieved partying neighbor can appeal BZBA's decision.

Ms. Caravana requested Mr.Hurst to draft an amendment to an extension of time. Sometimes it is not appropriate to hear an application upon receipt and the board needs the option administratively to extend the time for their consideration. The applicant must be told in writing that the hearing decision has been continued and that the clock runs sixty days from the time the hearing was concluded rather than sixty days from receipt of application. Mr. Hurst will follow up on this matter.

Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.

Next Meeting: May 23, 1996, 7 p.m.

BZBA Minutes 3/22/1996

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr.,Village Planner

March 22, 1996

Meeting on Thursday, March 28, 1996

The March meeting has been canceled due to a lack of applications.

BZBA Closing Comments:

If you have read the paper this week,then you are aware that a McDonald's conditional use

application is in your future. I will keep you informed as this issue develops.

A motel and bank are also in the works for the Erinwood property. Also,I expect to hear from

Mr. Fackler since his liquor issues all passed on Tuesday.

The next regularly scheduled BZBA meeting is April 25,1996.

BZBA Minutes 2/22/1996

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS

February 22, 1996

Minutes

Present: Ashlin Caravana, Don Contini, Bob Essman, Lon Herman, Eric Stewart

Members Absent: none

Also Present: Doug Tailford, Village Planner

Visitors: Doug Plunkett

Minutes: October 26. 1995: Mr. Stewart moved to approve minutes

as presented; Mr. Herman seconded, AND MINUTES WERE UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

Citizens Comments: None

New Business:

Granville Athletic Boosters, New Burg Street

Mr. Plunkett described the proposed relocation of the Harmon Burke Field from the Granville Elementary School to the grounds of Granville High School. 1) This property is in the Institutional District in which stadiums and athletic facilities need a conditional use. They also request a (2) chainlink fence at a height of 6-- 8' for safety and protection, which would require a variance in this district. The fence would be properly landscaped or screened, and the fence will be in black or y dark green plastic-coated material. Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for conditional uses to the existing circumstances of the Athletic Boosters:

a) The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. All appropriate standards have been met.

b) The proposed use is in accordance with for the appropriate plans area and is compatible with existing land use. Such a use is in accordance with future plans for the schools.

c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services, such as streets, utilities, schools, and refuse disposal. No undue burden will be placed on local services.

d) The proposed use will not be detrimental or disturbing to existing neighboring uses and will not entail a use, structure, or condition of operation that constitutes a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. A parking lot is already there. and the schools are in need of playing fields close to their facilities. A pathway with lights on poles will be built.

The second part of the application will require a variance

for the chain link 6-8' fence. Again, the criteria for variances

were applied together:

a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which

are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are

not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning

district. A school is a unique community which requires athletic

fields, and a tall fence is necessary for security of the

property, safety precautions, and for restricted access to games.

No other type of fence would be appropriate.

b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this

Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly

enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the

provisions of this Ordinance. This condition is not applicable

here.

C) That the special conditions and circumstances do not

result from the actions of the applicant. This condition is not

applicable here.

d) That the grant of the variance will not confer on the

applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to

other lands or structures in the same zoning district. No undue

privilege would be conferred.

e) That the granting of the variance will in no other

manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of

the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the

proposed variance. The neighbors would not be affected; other

fields already exist, and there is sufficient buffer space between the school and the houses. The

fence will ensure safety.

MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR. HERMAN

SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Nomination for Chair and Vice Chair:

Mr. Herman nominated Ms. Caravana as Chair Mr. Stewart for another term; seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Ms. Caravana nominated Mr. Herman for Vice Chair; Mr. Essman seconded, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Announcements: Mr. Tailford will copy Gil Krone s proposal for new members. He also updated members on conclusions come to by the Merger Commission.

Adjournment: 7: 50 p. m.

Next Meeting: March 28, 1996, 7 p. m.

BZBA Minutes 1/12/1996

MEMO

Granville Board of Zoning and Building Appeals

Douglas Tailford Jr., Village Planner

January 12, 1996

Meeting on Thursday, January-25, 1996

There is one application for the Board to hear at the January meeting. The hearing before the Board has been scheduled for Thursday,January 25, 1996, at 7:00 p.m.,at the Village Offices, 141 East Broadway. The letters of notification to the concerned property owners have been sent. If there are no objections, your agenda is as follows:

Review and Approval of Minutes:

A) October 26, 1995

New Business:

A) Donald and Marta Contini.431 East College Street /444 East Broadway:

Mr. and Mrs. Contini wish to construct a second-story entrance room over an existing room at the rear of the building located on the East College Street side of the property. The second building on the property is a non-conforming use within the Village Residential District (VRD). The building is commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor. It is obvious that the commercial is a non-conforming use in VRD. However,the residential unit on the second floor is second residential unit a on the property and therefore it is also a non-conforming use of the property. This request is regulated by Section 1149.02 of the Codified Ordinances and is subject to review by the BZBA under Section 1149.03. The application is enclosed for your review.

BZBA Closing Comments

The Village Council is expected to.appoint the new members to the BZBA at the January 17th meeting. These new members will not be seated until the February meeting.

Next Regularly Scheduled BZBA meeting is February 22, 1996.

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.