Granville Community Calendar

BZBA 10/11/07

Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals

October 11, 2007


Members Present: Amber Mitchell, Jean Hoyt, Jeff Gill, Fred Ashbaugh, Bill Heim (Chair).
Member’s Absent: None.
Also Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner. Laura Andujar, Mrs. Ross, and Jean Crumrine.
Mr. Heim explained that the meeting is not a public hearing, yet it is open to the public and it is a quasi judicial proceeding.
New Business:
Speedway Superamerica LLC, Speedway Drive, #07-073
Planned Commercial District (PCD); Suburban Business District (SBD)  
Variance request was submitted by Laura Andujar for the property located on Speedway Drive (vacant lot) west of the Arby’s restaurant and owned by Speedway Superamerica, LLC. The request is for approval of the following variances:
1)      To reduce the requirement that roofs shall have a minimum pitch of 8/12 to a zero pitch requirement to allow for the construction of a flat roof. 
2)      To increase the number of signs permitted from one (1) to six (6) total. 
Mr. Heim swore in those witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing.
Discussion: Laura Andujar, 88 Arden Place, Hebron, stated that a flat roof was more appropriate to the building structure, than an 8/12 roof pitch. She explained that additional signage was requested due to multiple tenants in the building. Ms. Terry stated that she advised the applicant that a variance was needed before going to the Planning Commission with a formal request. She stated that the applicant had several work sessions with the Planning Commission, but there was not an endorsement of any kind at this point, nor had a formal application been submitted. Ms. Mitchell asked why and when an 8/12 type roof pitch specified in the Code would be desired. Ms. Terry stated that this restriction had been in the Code for a long time. She was unsure of the rationale. She stated that it was intended to preserve the historical character of Granville. Ms. Hoyt asked if the 8/12 pitch was desired for water run-off. Ms. Terry stated that this could be the case, but any pitch can still be effective for water runoff. She explained that newer retail structures generally do not have an 8/12 roof pitch. Ms. Hoyt asked if Arby’s was required to get a variance for their roof pitch. Ms. Terry stated that in the Planned Commercial District (PCD), some of the Suburban District Regulations apply and some did not. She questioned if former staff viewed these as recommendations, rather than requirements. Ms. Terry stated that upon further investigation of the Code, she found that the 8/12 pitch was a requirement. Mr. Gill asked if the proposed roof pitch was believed to be best for the proposed building style or because it can be less expensive to build. Ms. Andujar stated that they felt a flat roof was more appropriate for a retail space and a one story structure. She stated that a flat roof also allowed the property owner to place the HVAC units on the roof which is a cost savings.  Ms. Andujar stated that she had not designed a retail building with a pitched roof in the past. Mr. Heim stated that the Code referred to the aesthetics when specifying roof pitches. Mr. Heim stated that he was interested in a precedent being set regarding roof pitches. He stated that Bob Evan’s had a pitched roof, while Arby’s did not. Ms. Terry asked Ms. Andujar if she had considered a mansard roof style – similar to that of Bob Evans. Ms. Andujar stated that they had addressed these styles, but the Planning Commission preferred the current drawings. 
Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he would like to speak in regards to Application #07-073. Ms. Terry stated that because this is considered to be a hearing, only interested parties that could have a direct impact if the application is approved or denied are allowed to speak. Mr. Thornborough stated that he believes the Board should hear anyone who wishes to speak. He went on to say that he believes property that he owns on River Road will be affected with the approval of the application. Ms. Terry suggested that the BZBA Board hear the testimony by Mr. Thornborough and then table the application pending a review by the Law Director, Mike Crites. Mr. Heim explained that the BZBA Board must follow a set of guidelines handed down to them and they act differently from Council’s legislative hearings where the public can speak. 
Mr. Thornborough submitted a letter to the Board and read it aloud. A copy of the letter is attached as part of these minutes. Mr. Thornborough stated that the variance requests do not meet what is currently in the Code or the 1998 Comprehensive Plan update, which states that new development should have a feel of old Granville even if it is outside of the downtown area. Mr. Thornborough stated that he has constructed several commercial buildings and he built them to the 8/12 roof pitch specifications as stated in the Code. 
Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the property Mr. Thornborough feels will be affected by Application 07-073 is located within the Village. Mr. Thornborough stated that the property is located in the Township and he lives in the Village. Mr. Ashbaugh stated that the application is for property located in the Village. 
Ms. Terry stated that the Code does not differentiate between the number of businesses in a building and this is why the applicant is requesting six signs. She stated that some Codes address signage by the number of commercial tenants in one building.   Ms. Andujar stated that there are also two fronts to the building design where additional signage would be appropriate. Ms. Terry stated that the BZBA Board can determine if an 8/12 roof pitch or something else is appropriate. She stated that the current Code states that a building shall have a minimum roof pitch of 8/12 and if this is to be changed a variance is required. 
Mr. Heim asked if there was any more discussion or did anyone have a motion to Table application #07-073.
Mr. Gill made a motion to Table Application #07-073 pending review by the Law Director. Second by Ms. Mitchell. 
Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-073 is Tabled.
Ms. Terry told the applicant, Laura Andujar, and Jack Thornborough, that she will let them know the Law Director’s decision regarding testimony and moving forward. 
Andy Ross of Granville Market, 484 South Main Street, #07-074
Suburban Business District (SBD)
Variance request was submitted by Laura Andujar for Granville Market located at 484 South Main Street for owner Andy Ross. The request is for approval of the following variances:
1)      To increase the maximum square footage for a single tenant from 4,000 square feet to 30,186 square feet. (The current structure is 29,636 square feet, the applicant is proposing an addition of 550 square feet to the front of the structure.)
2)      To reduce the required 8/12 roof pitch to a 3/12 roof pitch for the addition.
3)      To reduce the requirement that all other buildings shall be a minimum of two (1) stories to a one (1) story minimum. 
Mr. Heim swore in those witnesses who planned to speak during the hearing.
Discussion: Ms. Andujar stated that they are requesting additional square footage to improve the façade of the building and they see the additional square footage to be small compared to the current size of the building. Ms. Andujar explained that the existing roof pitch is 3/12 and they would like to keep this the same. She also explained that the two story requirement needs a variance since the building as is now is a one story structure. Mr. Heim stated that they currently have a flat roof, but it has never been “legitimized.” Ms. Terry stated that it is a non-conforming building as is and the proposed addition needs a variance. Mr. Heim asked if the addition would come out ten feet. Ms. Andujar stated yes. Ms. Mitchell reviewed the elevation plan and asked if there is a newly proposed roof for the two side doors. Mrs. Ross explained that there is a roof already in these locations. Ms. Terry stated that these are not part of the square footage of the building and the BZBA would be making a decision based upon all three roof pitches currently at a 3/12 pitch. Mr. Heim asked if anyone had any additional concerns or comments. None were stated.
Jack Thornborough, 33 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he has no complaints regarding this application because the Suburban Business District (SBD) regulations were imposed on them after the building had been constructed. He stated that he does not see this application as setting a precedent for the Code. 
Mr. Heim read aloud the Duncan Standards (Findings of Fact) and asked the BZBA Board to review them giving weight to each standard. 
Ms. Hoyt moved to approve Application #07-074 as submitted with the proposed variances.  Seconded by Mr. Ashbaugh.  
Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that the motion should be amended to include an exhibit referencing the particular variances included.
Mr. Gill moved to amend Ms. Hoyt's motion to approve Application #07-074 to include the exhibit dated September 20, 2007 which entails a request for three variances.  Seconded by Mr. Heim.   
Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend Application #07-074:  Mitchell (yes), Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Motion to amend is approved.
Roll Call Vote to approve Application #07-074 as amended: Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Gill (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-074 is approved as amended.
Finding of Fact
Ms. Mitchell read the following Findings of Fact:
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 districts. YES.
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 the Ordinance. YES.
c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  YES.(A majority of the Board believed this to be true.)
d)      That the granting 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. YES (A majority of the Board believed this to be true)
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.  YES.
Mr. Gill moved the approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-074. Second by Mr. Ashbaugh. 
Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes),  Gill (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Hoyt (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The Findings of Fact for Application #07-074 are approved. 
Approval of the Minutes
September 27, 2007
Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Second by Mr. Gill. 
Roll Call Vote: Gill (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ashbaugh (yes), Mitchell (yes), Heim (yes). Motion carried 5-0. The minutes are approved as presented. 
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Heim (Chair) made a motion to Adjourn.
Next Meeting November 8, 2007

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.