Granville Board of Zoning & Building Appeals
April 14, 2016 7:00 p.m.
Call to Order: Mr. Smith called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
Members Present: Roll Call: Mr. Kemper, Mr. Zimmers, Mr. Burge, and Mr. Smith.
Members Absent: Mr. Gill
Also Present: Debi Walker, Acting Village Planner, and Michael King, Village Law Director
Visitors: David Solomon, Karl Schneider and Jack Lucks
Citizen Comments: None.
Description of Procedure: Mr. Smith provided a description of the procedure for the meeting as follows:
Note: The items listed on this agenda under New Business are open to the public, but are not public hearings. Any witness offering testimony or presenting evidence at a hearing shall be placed under oath prior to offering testimony or evidence. The following persons may appear at hearings as parties and be heard in person or by attorney:
- The applicant;
- The owner of the property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;
- The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and
- Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.
A person authorized to appear and be heard may:
- Present his or her position, argument and contentions;
- Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support of his or her position, arguments and contentions;
- Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions;
- Offer evidence and testimony to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to his or her position, arguments and contentions;
- Proffer any evidence or testimony into the record if such evidence or testimony has not been admitted by the Board.
Application #2016-17, submitted by David Solomon, of Larson Design Group, on behalf of Greg and Patricia Ream for the CVS Store #0396, located at 200 East Broadway: The request is for review and approval of a variance to reduce the required number of on-site parking spaces from seventeen (17) to sixteen (16). The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).
Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in David Solomon and Debi Walker.
Discussion: David Solomon, of Larson Design Group, 1000 Commerce Park Drive, Suite 201, Williamsport, PA, 17701, stated that CVS Store #0396 has a contract with Larson Design Group for architecture, interior, and exterior remodel work. The variance request is for a parking variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces from seventeen (17) to sixteen (16), in order to provide an ADA handicapped van accessible parking space that will meet the current ADA code. Mr. Solomon shared the required size of a van accessible handicap parking space as being eleven feet (11’) in width. The current space measures nine feet (9’) in width. Mr. Zimmers inquired as to the original required number of parking spaces? Ms. Walker and Mr. King stated the original number of required spaces required for the structure was twenty-one (21). Also noted was the fact that the property owner reduced, without a variance, the number of spaces from twenty-one (21) to seventeen (17) at approximately the same time of the creation of the drive-thru lane on the north side of the structure. Staff added that no documentation could be found in the property file addressing any change through the BZBA. Mr. Zimmers questioned if the request was related to pressure surrounding a current settlement from a CVS lawsuit. Mr. Solomon stated the increase was not due to a lawsuit, but every year CVS tries to become more ADA compliant. Mr. Burge asked Mr. Solomon as to the possibility of removing the wall currently adjacent to the handicap parking space. Mr. Solomon noted the wall was Village property and CVS was originally required to install the wall in its current location. Mr. King responded to the statement noting he was not aware that the Village required CVS to install the wall as a condition of the original approval. He further added that if the wall was removed, it could possibly create the space needed without reducing the number of current parking spaces. Mr. Solomon countered Mr. King’s statement by saying without the wall in its current position, the possibility of a driver going through the store may increase. Mr. Solomon shared there are already customer complaints related to the lack of handicapped parking on site. He added that CVS typically likes to have three (3) or four (4) handicapped parking spaces, which were not currently available at this current location. He went on to add that the proposed handicapped space (that staff offered as an alternative solution) on the street would not count towards CVS requirements. Mr. Burge asked if it would be possible to narrow all of other parking spaces on site in order to gain the required width for the handicapped space. Mr. Solomon stated it would be tight, but if Village is willing to grant a variance CVS would consider reducing the size of other parking spaces. He summarized stating that CVS’ goal was to provide anyone with a disability adequate parking on site.
The BZBA reviewed the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-17:
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. Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Burge stated True; Mr. Kemper and Mr. Smith voted False (the expressed that they were unaware of other businesses in the Core Business District facing the same handicapped parking issues as CVS).
b. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property. The BZBA unanimously agreed this criteria was True.
The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:
- Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return; Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith. Or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Smith stated True; all other BZBA members concurred with Mr. Smith.
- Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Zimmers voted False; Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper, and Mr. Smith stated True; (They added their vote was based with consideration for the number of parking spaces originally required for the structure and the applicants’ narrative addressing this criteria).
- Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance. All members voted False.
- Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). All members voted False.
- Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. All members voted True.
- Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Burge, Mr. Kemper and Mr. Zimmers voted True; all agreeing the brick wall could come down creating additional needed space. Mr. Smith voted False: stating the applicant’s desire is to not have the enlarged parking space directly in front of the businesses door.
- Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. All members voted True.
c. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. All members voted False. The members stated their vote was based on previous actions taken by the property owner – specifically the four (4) parking spaces removed adjacent to the drive-thru lane shortly after the installation of the drive-thru window – which has resulted in fewer parking spaces overall on the property.
d. 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, All members voted True; and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, All members voted True; and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, All members voted True; and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. All members voted True.
e. In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section. Each member of the BZBA agreed that there are no special conditions to be imposed.
Mr. Zimmers made a motion to approve Application #2016-17, as submitted. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Burge (no), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 3-1.
Mr. King stated he wanted to make the Applicant and Board aware that should they chose to table the application, Mr. Solomon could provide additional information for the Board to consider at the next meeting. However, if the Board denied the application, they could not accept the same application again. Mr. Solomon, on behalf of CVS would then be required to go to Licking County Common Pleas Court to have them overturn the Board’s decision.
Application #2016-23, submitted by Karl Schneider, of Raccoon Creek, LLC, for the 8.379 acre parcel (No. 020-042252-00.001) located at the northeast corner of Columbus Road and Weaver Drive.: The request is for review and approval of a Conditional Use, to allow for senior independent living cottages. The property is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).
Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Smith swore in Karl Schneider, Jack Lucks and Debi Walker.
Karl Schneider, of Raccoon Creek Senior Living LLC, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 305, Columbus, Ohio, stated that he was a partner in the group that owns the parcel located at the northeast corner of Weaver Drive and Columbus Road, and the adjacent Middleton Senior Assisted living facility property. Mr. Schneider stated the group is aware of an increased demand for independent senior housing and feels this parcel would be a natural location for approximately fifteen (15) independent garden cottages, which will be approximately 1,200 square feet and contain two (2) bedrooms and two (2) bathrooms. The cottages would be associated with the Middleton facility, and leased to individuals age of fifty-five (55) years old and older. Mr. Burge asked if the buildings would be similar in appearance to the Middleton facility proper. Mr. Schneider stated fourteen (14) units would be in the form of duplexes; one unit would be a triplex. He shared the exteriors may be white brick, similar to the Middleton Assisted Living main building; but felt the materials would be mixed, to create a separate and distinctive feel for the project. Mr. Schneider added the future residents of the garden cottages would have access to amenities offered by the Middleton facilities main building, including work-out opportunities, and places to socialize.
Jack Lucks, 152 North Drexel Avenue, Bexley, Ohio, stated added that all units would have attached garages. Mr. Burge asked Ms. Walker if there had been any feedback from the adjacent property owners. Ms. Walker stated there have been no communications from the adjacent property owners. Mr. Zimmers and Mr. Kemper both had concerns to the potential traffic generated by the cottages and the speed limit on Columbus Road. Mr. Schneider stated he would work with the Village to discuss speed limit related options as needed.
The BZBA reviewed the following Chapter 1145.03 Conditional Use Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2016-23:
1) Section 1145.03, Criteria for Approval:
The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals shall make the following determinations with respect to an application for a conditional use permit:
(a) The proposed use is a conditional use with the zoning district and the applicable development standards of this Zoning Ordinance are met. The proposed use is a conditional use within this Zoning District under 1173.02
(b) (10) “Mixed-use combinations of multi-family residential, retirement community, nursing homes, or assisted living structures”. All members voted True.
(c) The proposed use is in accordance with all current land use and transportation plans for the area and is compatible with any existing land use on the same parcel. In the Comprehensive Plan it states under Expanding Housing Opportunities, II. Goals:
2) Recognize the Limited Number of Affordable Housing Opportunities for Seniors:
“Because of a low supply of rental unit and higher housing prices, there may be greater demand for affordable rental housing. Generally, the cost of rent is significantly higher in Granville area than statewide. The housing market could be met by the private sector… Further, as a communities population ages, many of the senior residents would prefer to remain in the area to be with friends and family. As many people are living much longer than they used too many years ago, they often have a longer duration where they will be retired in their lives. This puts a premium on creating housing opportunities that can allow them to stretch their retirement savings much longer than had been previously needed. This means building smaller senior villas for empty nesters to downsize into as they will need…
Also, the Purpose & Intent of Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District states "the purpose and intent of the Village Gateway District is to create an attractive, well-designed entrance into the community that will provide suitable areas for mixed uses in a visually-integrated, high-quality neighborhood setting. The Gateway District will have residences along with a moderate concentration of various types of compatible businesses and offices to service neighborhood needs. Special enhancements will include the preservation of existing natural resources, a useful pattern of open space and walking trails, integrated architecture and design that reflects the traditional architectural styles of Granville, adequate parking, appropriate landscaping and screening, desirable aesthetics, and creative site design intended to eliminate adverse effects of traffic congestion. The Village Gateway District is intended to provide increased tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance and preserving or enhancing the quality of life and property values in the Village and Granville Township."
Based on the above, staff feels this use meets the intent of both the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Gateway District purpose. The requested conditional use is also in accordance with transportation plans for the area. This is the only requested use on this parcel. All members voted True.
(c) The proposed use will not create an undue burden on public facilities and services such as streets, utilities, schools and refuse disposal. Additional supporting narrative submitted by the applicant for the proposed Independent Living Cottages addresses this criteria as follows: “Current Village services (sewer, water and trash) all are located on or near site and meet capacity for proposed development. This development will have no impact on the Granville Schools as the use is for residents 55 and older.” All members voted True.
(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. Staff does not believe this use will be detrimental or disturbing to neighboring properties. The independent living cottages will be located adjacent to the Middleton Senior Living facility. The applicants’ intention is to provide the garden cottage residents with select services through the Middleton facility. The proposed cottages should not constitute a nuisance or hazard to any persons or property. All members voted True.
(e) The proposed use will not significantly diminish or impair established property values with the surrounding areas. (Ord.15-08. Passed 1-7-09) Staff does not believe that the proposed use will diminish or impair established property values within the area. All members voted True.
Mr. Burge made a motion to approve Application #2016-23, as submitted. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes), and Smith (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Findings of Fact
New Business: Application #2016-17; David Solomon, of Larson Design Group, on behalf of Greg and Patricia Ream for the CVS Store #0396, located at 200 East Broadway; Parking Reduction Variance: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading.
Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-23. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Application #2016-23; Karl Schneider, on behalf of Middleton Senior Living, LLC, 8.97 Acre Parcel No. 020-042252-00.001; Conditional Use: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. Chapter 1145, Conditional Use, Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District, and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading.
Mr. Kemper moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-5. Second by Mr. Zimmers. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Excuse Mr. Gills’ absence: Mr. Burge made a motion to excuse Mr. Gills’ absence. Second by Mr. Kemper. Roll Call Vote: Smith (yes), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes) Kemper (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to Approve Meeting Minutes: Mr. Kemper made a motion to approve the BZBA meeting minutes from March 10th, 2016. Second by Mr. Burge. Roll Call Vote: Smith (unable to vote), Burge (yes), Zimmers (yes), Kemper (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Next Meetings (Tentative):
May 12th, 2016
June 9th, 2016
Motion to Adjourn
Mr. Smith made a motion to adjourn. Second by Mr. Kemper. All in favor voice vote in the affirmative.
The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.