Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 07/22/99

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
JULY 22,1999
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana,Bob Essman,Greg Sharkey
Members Absent: Lon Herman,Eric Stewart
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors:Mark Gearhart,Dick McGuinness,George Parker,Terry and Sue Van Offeren,Bob and Jean
Mason,Ed Cohn,Debra Llewellyn
Minutes of June 24,1999: MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PROVIDED.
MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
All those who wished to speak during the evening were sworn in by the Chairman}
Citizens'Comments: none
New Business:
Terry and Sue VanOfferen,210 South Mulberry Street -Setback Variance
Mr.VanOfferen publicly thanked Kathryn Wimberger for her assistance in this process.He
stated they wish to (1)demolish the one-car garage and ( 2)build a new two-car wooden garage with
windows and shutters to fit within the footprint, 3()remove brick driveway,4 ()install a blacktop
driveway,expanded near the second garage entrance. The north wall will be 11'beyond the existing wall.
A variance for south side setback is needed for the 1.4'setback. The peak will be 4'taller than the
existing garage.
Ms. Caravana is concerned about the proximity to the neighbors'property. She felt that 1.4'is
not sufficient to maintain or paint the garage without going onto the next lot and asked whether the
applicant could move it to 2' from the line. Other Board members agreed. Mr. VanOfferen thought that
could be done.
Bob Mason,the neighbor,said the garage has been there for many years and has been no
problem.
Mr. Van Offeren said that in order to fit within the setback they would lose three trees and a lilac bush.
With the new garage there will be extensive landscaping done.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE
2' SETBACK FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. MR. ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria for variance:
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.
A garage already exists on the property,and they would like to maintain the historic look as much as
possible.
Lp
BZBA Minutes;July 22,1999
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 garages exist in the setback.
C: That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.N/A
D. Granting 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 Board does not feel that the
variance would confer any undue privilege in that there are other garages encroaching into the setback in
this district.
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
Board does not feel that the health, safety or general welfare would be affected,and believe that it would
maintain the historic look of an attached garage and make it more architecturally appealing by pushing it
toward the center of the lot
Later in the meeting,Mr. VanOfferen requested that his application be reopened to make use of
the location survey. He preferred the location as submitted. He said that maintenance at south side of
garage would be tight and shouldnE/t be compared with the Schnaidt house,which is a lot bigger. It's
only to be 9 M'high and they did not want gutters, so painting will be easy. They did not want an
attached look . It is on a hillside and they would be farther to the house when they back the cars out. Ms.
Caravana thought 22' would be plenty of room for the garage, or they could push it further back into the
yard. But Mrs. VanOfferen said that would require cutting down more trees.
Mr. Sharkey said they are not trying to be difficult,but 2' is probably a better way to go and
would like to see them try to do it, or take the 7"out of the garage or the wall. The Board doesn't want to
place the applicant's relationship with neighbors, now or in the future, at risk. If a neighbor wanted a
fence,it would be tough.
Mr. Sharkey stated that the Board is happy to amend their prior approval that should the
applicant decide to move the structure back up 2' from where it is in the plan,that is fine with the Board.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO AMEND THE FINDING OF FACT FOR THE VANOFFEREN
APPLICATION AT 210 SOUTH MAPLE TO ALLOW THEM THE OPTION OF PUSHING BACK THE
LOCATION OF THE GARAGE UP TO 2'FARTHER EAST IF APPLICANT DESIRES. MR.
ESSMAN SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Old Business:
Debra Llewellyn, 415 East Broadway -Variance for side yard setback
This application had been tabled at the last meeting. Ms. Llewellyn staied that she wishes to add
a 12'x14' wood deck on the west side which would require a variance to 8'10"from the 10' requirement.
It will have a lattice overhead to hang ferns for shade and extensive landscaping. The Papes next door ( to
west)have no objection to the application. In order to fit within the ordinance she would have a long,
narrow deck,which would be unsatisfactory and less aesthetic. This is a logical place for the deck,given
the orientation of the house. The rest of the property is asphalt for parking. It is quite far from the street
and would be hard to see from the street.
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITI'ED. MR. ESSMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
2
BZBA Minutes;July 22,1999
Mr.Essman applied the criteria for the 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. The orientation of
the house limits the possible location of the deck. The length of the property between the house and the
neighbor's house creates a more than adequate buffer. The existing asphalt precludes placing it anywhere
else.
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 property owners have added decks and the applicant would be deprived of the
opportunity to enjoy a deck.
C: That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. N/A
D. Granting 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 location is out of sight both from
the street and the one neighbor. She's asking for only a 3'12"variance.
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. This
application will not affect the health,safety or general welfare.
Bank First National -Conditional Use application
This application was tabled on March 25, pending additional information.
George Parker,Dick McGuinness,and Mark Gearhart explained the changes in the application
which were requested earlier: 1()traffic study,2 ()site plan, 3()elevation. Mr. McGuinness explained the
Traffic Survey,saying the ATM machine would be replaced by a free-standing ATM with vacuum air tube
and drive-through covered by a canopy. The traffic study was undertaken on a Friday afternoon and
Saturday morning and was distributed to the Board. They ran a capacity analysis through various
scenarios of growth. They looked at studies at other banks with drive-ins. What they came up with was
minimum delay patterns: 6 seconds for people exiting the parking lot, and there should be no adverse
effect on Prospect Street traffic. He added that a lot of the parking is used by the coffee shop.
Regarding pedestrian traffic, he said the report was random. A lot of people cross the street,and they
counted those crossing the bank's driveway. More discussion ensued on the traffic study, particularly the
pedestrian traffic.
Mr. Sharkey asked about expectations for the future, now that the Bennett station is empty and
the businesses on the north side are low impact establishments. As averages,these increases are included
in the traffic report.
Mr. Parker and Mr. Gearhart showed the landscaping plan and described the equipment. There
will be a walk-up window for the ATM with sidewalk. The canopy will be extended about 12' in order to
get all the equipment under roof. Trees will hide most of the facility with dense screening under the trees.
They will fill in the missing hedge portions and,with permission, trim existing shrubbery belonging to the
Bennetts. They will remove one parking spot along the sidewalk and plant a tree and low ground cover.
It needs to be low in the NW island so as to provide a clear view of sidewalk before people get to it. The
sea of blacktop will be relieved by attractive planting. They would prefer limiting the parking lot to bank
parking,but people will likely use it for the coffee shop and other errands.
All signage will be improved at the rear entrance. At this point signs include (1)arrows pointing
onew- ay in and onew- ay out; 2()arrow on the pavement sayingd "o not enter"3;) t(he big sign B"ank 1st
National"at the entrance;and (4)a stop sign or " pedestrian crossing"sign at the exit. Lamp posts will be
replaced with posts of similar style as is used by Denison University and there will be adequate lighting at
night. They will remove the unattractive white posts at the entrance.
3
BZBA Minutes:July 22,1999
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR CONDITIONAL USE AS SUBMITTED
WITH CONDITIONS: ( 1)LANDSCAPING TO REFLECT DISCUSSION DURING THIS MEETING
AND (2)RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGN AT DRIVEWAY
AND SIDEWALK INTERSECTION. MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms.Caravana applied the criteria for conditional use:
A. The proposed use is a conditional use within the zoning district and the applicable development
standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The bank is a conditional use,and all standards are met.
B. The proposed use is in accordance with appropriate plans for the area and is compatible with the
existing land use. A bank is already in existence at this location.
C, The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets,
utilities,schools, and refuse disposal. Traffic studies and observations of the Board indicate that the
increase in traffic will not be a burden on public facilities at the location.
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.
The proposed use would not be detrimental to neighbors and could possibly enhance the town by changing
to an improved pattern especially with conditions imposed by the Board to increase visibility of the
sidewalks when existing the property. This would enhance the driveway even with increased use. With
proper lighting it would not be a hazard to people. Also,with the addition of a sidewalk it would enhance
safety.
Finding of Fact: MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF THE BOARD THIS
EVENING AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MR. SHARKEY SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Sharkey will write up a formal Finding of Fact for Bank First National's conditional use.
Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.
Next Meeting:August 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
4

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.