Granville Community Calendar

04/27/2000

BOARD OF ZONING AND BUILDING APPEALS
April 27,2000
Minutes
Members Present: Ashlin Caravana Vice ChairaB)o,b Essman,Lon Herman,Eric Stewart
Members Absent: Greg Sharkey ( Chair)
Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner
Visitors Present:Ann &Richard Cherry,Marcia & Tim Dennison,Robert Montgomery,Bob Karaffa,Steven
Mershon C&andada Moore,Laura Main,Marc Brockman,Robin Bartlett
Citizens Comments: None
The Vice Chairman swore all those who wished to speak during the evening. }
New Business:
Ann and Richard Cherry,223 South Main Street -Side setback
Mr. Cherry explained that the furnace gave up and they want to add an air conditioner with the new one.
The most logical spot is the side yard,but there is not enough room to keep within the 10' setback,so a variance is
necessary. It is a very smalllot,and an A.C. unit would interfere with use of the back yard
Ms. Caravana asked about the fence,which was approved by GPC conditional upon BZBA approval. Mr.
Cherry said it wilI not be right in front of the AC but there is a door there. There is a lot ofplanting in the proposed
area. The neighbor to the south has done a lot of planting there.
MR.HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. MR.ESSMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Herman applied the criteria to the motion:
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 lot is irregularly
shaped,with a very small back yard. A variance would allow applicant to enjoy his yard.
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. A neighbor's garage is 5' away,and this will be 7'.The neighbor's house is 42' from the property line.
The air conditioner location should basically render it not objectionable.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances does not result from the actions of the applicant. A lot of
the applicant's property was bought offby others,making it very small.
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.
There are other lots,especially the neighbor's, with an even closer structure.
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. Adverse effects would
not result from the variance.
Marcia and Timothy Dennison,102 Miller Avenue -Rear setback
Mr. Denison explained that he wishes to build a one-story 16'x22' family room on the south side. A
variance is required because one corner of the new room would come within the setback. No objections have been
received from the neighbors. They originally tried to avoid a variance by angling off one side of the room,but it would be more useable squared off,as in the application. This is a dead end and no one will see it. Architecturally
it will fit better because there is a dormer directly above and this room will mimic that dormer.
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITIlED. MR.HERMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart applied the criteria 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 lot has peculiar angles
and the existing house is set at an angle so that one corner of the house already sits within the setback.
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 homes are within the setback. The neighbor's house is nowhere near the proposed location.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The
applicants could not come up with a room architecturally which would fit in with the house and make sense with the
rest of the structure.
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. Granting of the amended application would
not grant undue privilege.
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. It would not adversely
affect anyone.
Christine and Robert Montgomery,452 West Broadway -Side yard setback
Mr. Montgomery explained that they would like to locate the air conditioner on the west side of the house
within the setback because of the narrow lot and the desire to keep the deck apart from the unit. Placing it next to
the deck would also require a variance. There is no other location which would be suitable;there is an asphalt drive
comprising the east side. The unit needs to be fairly near the furnace. No objections have been received from the
neighbors. There are two big yew bushes at the proposed site,which rests in an ivy bed, and one would not be able
to see the AC from the street.
Ms. Caravana asked about building a shield, and Mr. Montgomery thought it would look even more
conspicuous with a fence. Other AC units are not shielded. Ms. Caravana recommended adding another yew bush,
and Mr. Montgomery agreed,but he wants to avoid hiding the basement window.
MR.ESSMAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT AN
ADDITIONAL PLANTING,PREFERABLY YEW,BE PLACED WHICH WOULD HELP SHIELD THE UNIT
FROM THE STREET. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr Essman applied the criteria 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. Special circumstances
involve the relatively small size and narrowness 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 in the zoning district have units within the setback.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The lot size
did not result from applicant's actions.
BZBA,April 27,2000; 2
BZBA,April 27,2000; 3
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. Other residences have AC units within the
setback.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health,safety and general
welfare ofthe persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Approval would not
adversely affect,especially with additional shrubbery.
Bob and Tracee Karaffa,311 North Pearl Street - Setbacks
Mr. Karaffa stated that they want to take out a locust tree and add a turnaround and concrete with sandstone
inlay retaining wall 1' from the property line. They also want to add an 8'x8'shed for storage 4'from property line.
The wall would be roughly 3 2/' high and will be level with the alley behind the garage,elevated to eliminate the
slope for parking. The project will improve appearance from neighbors'viewpoint.
Ms. Caravana wondered whether there could be a fence to shield,and Ms. Wimberger said the neighbors'
back yard is their gravel parking area. Mr. Karaffa did not think the project would interfere with the neighbors'
view except that they might see the roof of the Karaffa car.
Mr. Stewart thought the turnaround would make it easier for cars to access the driveway. Ms. Caravana
wanted to add plantings at the base of the wall,but Mr. Stewart thought roots might damage the wall. Mr.Karaffa is
willing to add planting on top of the wall.
The shed will be on a pad and painted to match the house,and Mr. Karaffa showed the exact location,
which is hidden behind a fence and trees. The fence will be retained.
MR. HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS AMENDED. THE RETAINING WALL IS
TO BE APPROPRIATELY SHIELDED FROM PUBLIC VIEW WITH SHRUBS OR TREES ON TOP
OF THE RETAINING WALL. MR. STEWART SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
APPROVED.
Mr Herman applied the criteria 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. Mr. Herman would have a
hard time finding a lot with a more peculiar topography as well as placement of existing buildings.
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 this right. The applicant proposes to create a space that would allow for safe turnaround
of cars as well as allow outdoor implements to be stored in shed safely.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant
was not responsible for topology nor did he place the structure in that location.
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. There are numerous encroachments in the
surrounding neighborhood properties relative to property lines; therefore, others have enjoyed similar
encroachments. In fact,someone built a sidewalk on the Karaffa property.
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. In fact,granting of the
variance may improve ingress and egress by cars,bikes,and motorcycles from the alley
Steve Mershon and Candada Moore,411 and 417 East College Street - Shared Driveway
Ms. Wimberger explained that the Village has received legal counsel regarding the shared driveway,which
BZBA did approve. The driveway was to serve all three of these lots off Granger Street. Now the applicants would
like to have one driveway for the corner lot from Granger and a shared drive for the other two lots off College
BZBA,April 27,2000; 4
Street. We are still awaiting legal counsel advice on-the process the applicants driveway need to eliminate the shared that was created by the GPC lot split approval. She said that one of the reasons for a shared alleyway was 1)traffic congestion on College;however,she thinks there is argument both ways. The school traffic is heavy. 2 () The group also wanted to reduce curb cuts;4 ()the lots are narrow and this would maximize the amount of space available for building. Mr.Mershon has looked at other properties and found them with about 50' frontage consistently,and his proposed lot is wider.
Mr. Mershon said they would like to change one item on the application: the house it is to be on the
southeast corner,not the northeast corner. They heard from the homeowners nearby that they did not want a back
alley. The school board has looked at the use they have made at their parking lot,and it is a very busy place. If you put the driveway on the lot line next to the parking lot,you are going to have a very congested area. Across the
street there are apartments and houses with more congestion. The proposed house would encroach into the 10'
easement. They have no plans for the other two lots at this time. In the shared driveway,each property would have a 5' drive,or 10' wide total. These lots are at the edge of the residential district,next to an institutional lot,and Mr.
Mershon wanted to make the transition smoother. Ms. Moore added that eliminating the alley would increase green
space by reducing the amount of asphalt.
Robin Bartlett was concerned about lights shining into her home and would recommend garages at the
shared driveway placed to block the light.
Ms. Caravana stated that a shared driveway would have to be contingent upon GPC's approval of
Application No. 00-051
MS. CARAVANA MOVED THAT APPLICATION 000-057 SUBMITTED FOR 411 AND 417 EAST
COLLEGE STREET FOR SHARED DRIVEWAY BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED, CONTINGENT
UPON GPC APPROVAL,WHICH WOULD MAKE THIS MOTION NULL AND VOID. MR.HERMAN
SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ms. Caravana applied the criteria 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 land has not yet been
developed,and we are trying to find the best way to use the land for everybody.
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.A literal interpretation would deprive applicants of rights. There are several shared driveways in the
district. It's not that unusual.
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. Granting a variance would not confer undue
privilege.
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
would be granted.
Steve Mershon and Candada Moore,405 East College Street -Rear setback and Height
Mr. Mershon said they tried to mimic other architectural styles of the neighborhood,and the 396!/' height
should not be an issue because there are no other houses adjacent. The garage should go into the rear setback
because 1( )it would create a private area on the east;2 ()it would shield the view of the parking lot;and 3( )it would
make the house look less massive. Other garages are closer to the lot lines. The plan is agreeable with Kathryn
Lowry,Superintendent.
Ms. Wimberger said that GPC has authority to regulate height according to Section 1161.05 (a),
Architectural Reviw Overlay District. The section notes that all new construction should be within 10 per cent of
the average height of the existing adjacent buildings, unless Planning Commission finds that it is not in the best
interest of the community that a common height be maintained. No letters of objection have been received.
Ms. Caravana added that there would be green space with trees and other foliage behind the garage. The
encroachment would not be into a neighboring yard,rather,a parking lot. Our approval would be contingent upon
GPC's agreement to eliminate the single driveway easement for the properties ( accessed from Granger Street).
MR. STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND REAR SETBACK,
CONTINGENT UPON GPC'S AGREEING TO VACATE THE ALLEY. MR.ESSMAN SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. Stewart applied the criteria 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. This is a vacant lot
usunrrreoausnodneadblbeyrevqaucaesntt.property. not reside7·s'o it does not encroacnhei@ghbors'residences. This is not an 3 0K
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 deprive applicants of rights because we have seen pictures of other houses close to the lot line
and there are houses that are higher.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances does 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. Granting a variance would not confer undue
privilege. The proportions of the house plans are appropriate.
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
have been noted. .
Ocitu 166264
Ruth L*ous asked about drainage,and Roger McLain stated they need to make certain that drainage is
addressed when applications come in for the other houses.
Old Business:
First Presbyterian Church,110 West Broadway-Variance approval modification requestfor tree replacement
Ms. Caravana stated that the Church is before the group because the tree that BZBA required to stay has
been cut down. Screening is necessary and BZBA now wants to know what landscape plans will be used. Laura
Main,from the Church's Properties Committee, stated that the tree was damaged by construction and diseased,so it
was removed. The disease was not noted until construction began. They did replant some trees to replace those
removed. but not in the exact spot of the big tree removed because of other trees in that location. They want to add flower gardens.
Mr. Herman stated that BZBA was very concerned about massing of this structure and what it would do to the historical portion of the building. When the church assured that the tree was going to provide adequate screening,BZBA felt OK,but the tree is gone and there are no plans to replace it. It was 203- 0' high. Marc Brockman said several smaller trees could be planted close to the spot; adding up to the diameter of the lost tree. They don't want to shoehorn trees where they will not grow. They would coordinate with Tree and Landscape Committee. Village trees should be pruned. He added that the agreement with Mr. Siegel was to replace trees in the etrneoeulgahwn,and they did that. Mr.Herman emphasized that any new trees should be evergreen yeara-round trees,tall to provide adequate screening
Marc Brockman described the landscaping plan and varieties of trees planned..
Ms. Caravana concluded that now that the church and Marc Brockman know what BZBA requires,they can work together with Tree and Landscape Committee to arrive at an appropriate solution.
BZBA,April 27,2000; 5
BZBA,April 27,2000; 6
MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO MODIFY OUR APPROVAL OF 97090 TO REFLECT THAT THE COLORADO
BLUE SPRUCE WAS REMOVED DUE TO DAMAGE AND DISEASE AND THAT ANOTHER CONIFER OF
APPROPRIATE SPECIES TO BE DETERMINED BY TREE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITIEE AND
APPLICANT BE ADDED SO AS TO PROVIDE YEAR-ROUND SCREENING OF THE NEW ADDITION
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE AS IN ORIGINAL PLAN.
RECOGNIZING THAT THE NEW TREE WOULD BE SMALLER THAN THE ONE TAKEN OUT. MR.
STEWART SECONDED,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLTY APPROVED.
, Minutes of April 6,2000: Page 2, second motion,last name is Mr. Stewart.
Page 3 of the minutes requires some clarification,and a new page is to be substituted for the original one.
The immediately following text should be replaced with the second paragraph of text,
The ordinances would force people to put garages in the middle of the yard. A minor variance
helps people preserve their yards as well as being fair.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
This criterion does not apply.
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. Granting of the amended
application is a fairly minor modification.
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.
With screening and increasing the setback, granting approval would not affect health, safety,and
general welfare. Location of the garage lessens impact of minor variance. The garage is set well
to the rear of the applicant's yard and will also be at the rear of the neighbor's yard in a fairly open
area."
A literal interpretation of the amended application would deprive the applicant of rights because
many garages built before ordinances. were enacted have been located substantially closer to
property lines than 10 feet. The ordinances would force people to put garages in the middle of the
yard. A minor variance helps people preserve their yards as well as being fair.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. This criterion does not apply.
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. Granting of the
amended application is a fairly minor modification.
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. With screening a' nd increasing the setback, granting approval would not
affect health, safety, and general welfare. Location of the garage lessens impact of minor
variance. The garage is set well to the rear of the applicant's yard and will also be at the rear of
Qthe neighbor's yard in a fairly open area." 1
HERMAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MS. CARAVANA SECONDED,
AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact.MS. CARAVANA MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD AS FORMAL
FINDING OF FACT. MR. STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9:45 P.M.
Next Meeting: May 25
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen
BZBA Minutes, pril 6,2000;
people to put garages in the middle of the yard. A minor variance helps people preserve their yards as well as being
fair.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicnt. This criterion does
not apply.
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. Granting of the amended application is a fairly minor modification.
E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely alTect the health,safety and general welfare of
the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. With screening and increasing the setback,
granting approval would not affect health,safety,and general welfare. Location of the garage lessens impact of minor
variance. The garage is set well to the rear of the applicant's yard and will also be at the rear of the neighbor's yard in
a fairly open area.
Minutes of February 24,2000: Page 1, second paragraph, 4th line, change to " Mr. Stewart asked if the upstairs
window might look down on the air conditioning unit. Mr. Darfus thought the foliage would screen the unit."
MR STEWART MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.HERMAN SECONDED,AND
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:MR HERMAN MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING OF THE BOARD AS FORDIAL FINDING
OF FACT. MR.STEWART SECONDED,AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8:40 P.M.
Next Meeting: April 27
Respectfully submitted,

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.