Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 8, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Fred Abraham, Randy Tipton, Bill Hoekstra, Abram Kaplan, John Noblick, Jeff Hussey, Bob Needham, and Leta Ross.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

133 East College Street – Granville Township - Application #08-160

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a new handicap ramp, removal

of the southeast corner bay window and new ADA compliant rear entry door.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeff Hussey.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-160:

Jeff Hussey, Chief of Granville Fire Department, stated he is representing Granville Township.  He stated that they would like to convert the structure as depicted in the plans submitted to the Licking County Building Department.  Mr. Hussey stated that the Licking County Building Department approved the building and they added a handicap ramp for ADA compliance, as well as a rear door.  Mr. Hussey explained that the bay window on the southeast corner of the structure was a concern of the Building Department’s because it is right on the property line.  He stated that they asked them to remove the window due to the glass.  Mr. Hussey stated that all of the work would be done in the rear of the property and there would be very minimal impact to the outside of the structure.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposal is for a wood handicap ramp with wood balusters.  She stated that she does not have a copy of what the actual door would look like.  Mr. Hussey stated that they would attempt to match the existing door minus the screen door.  Ms. Reeves asked if the ramp will be painted.  Mr. Hussey stated that they intend to use pressure treated lumber with a clear sealer and no paint.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to make sure that the front door does not feel like an exit door.  Mr. Hussey stated that they are going to reverse the door and there would not be any change in appearance.    

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-160:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the removal of the bay window is a move towards restoration of the structure.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that removal of the bay window moves towards restoration of the structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the handicap ramp will allow all people to enter the home.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated that the home is being restored to how it previously looked especially with removal of the bay window. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing the complete removal of the bay window on the southeast corner of the home and replacement of the window with siding materials to match the remainder of the home, removal of the rear door and replacement with a similar door to meet ADA standards, and installation of a wood handicap ramp with side rails for ADA compliance. 

f)       Use of Details:  The applicant is proposing the complete removal of the bay window on the southeast corner of the home and replacement of the window with siding materials to match the remainder of the home, removal of the rear door and replacement with a similar door to meet ADA standards, and installation of a wood handicap ramp with side rails for ADA compliance.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-160 with the condition that the wood ramp on the exterior of the building has a finish coat.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-160 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

484 South Main Street – Granville Shopping Center - Application #08-162

SBD (Suburban Business District) – TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)

The request was for approval of a replacement for the existing freestanding tenant sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Leta Ross.

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-162:

Leta Ross, Granville Shopping Center, stated that they would like to repaint the existing sign and drop one line of tenants.  She added that they would need to add Knuckleheads as a tenant and this is not noted in submitted information.  Ms. Terry clarified that they will still have four tenants listed on the sign.  Ms. Ross agreed.  Mr. McClow asked if the sign is lit.  Ms. Ross stated that there is ground lighting shining on the sign.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the lighting will be the same.  Ms. Ross stated that the lighting will remain as is.  Ms. Reeves asked if the current sign was approved by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry noted that the total square footage of the building is 30,186/100, 128 sq. ft. and she stated that the replacement sign is the same square footage as the existing sign.  Ms. Terry stated that three variances are needed regarding the maximum square footage for a free-standing sign, the height, and the maximum number of freestanding signs needs to be increased from one to two.  Mr. Mitchell stated all of the previous signs exist and are grandfathered and since there is a change to the sign - these variances are needed.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified that our records indicate that a variance was never granted and this needs to be done.  Ms. Terry stated that once these variances are recorded you can indicate these three variances and they then stay with the property.  She stated that the applicant may have to get review and approval of graphics, but no subsequent variances. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-162:

 

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 he same zoning districts.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Ryan stated that in this case the grocery store plus we have a shopping center and we don’t have a shopping center any place else.  We also have the kiosk for the bank.  Mr. Mitchell stated that another special circumstance is because the building is so far back and a reason to increase the square footage, height, and number of signs.  Mr. Ryan stated that all of these signs also already 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 the Ordinance.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Ms. Reeves stated that the structure is set far back from the road.  Mr. Ryan stated that there are five businesses located with the property and this is not common to other businesses in the same zoning district.  Mr. Burriss stated that these are all reasons to increase the height, size of the sign, and number of signs.         

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.   Ms. Reeves stated that the signs are pre-existing.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the height, size and number of signs have been in existence for quite a long time.  Mr. Burriss stated that this sign is a huge improvement over its predecessor.

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Burriss stated that their site specific reasons to allow this sign and increase the size, height, and number of signs.

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true. Ms. Reeves stated that the signs pre-exist.  Mr. Ryan stated that the height, size, and number of signs are increasing the safety.  Mr. Burriss stated that this graphically matches the changes the structure.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-162 with the three variances:

1)      To increase the maximum square footage from twelve (12) square feet to sixty-four (64) square feet.

2)      Maximum height from eight (8) feet to ten (10) feet.

3)      Maximum number of free-standing signs from one (1) to two (2). 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-162 is approved with the above stated variances. 

 

 

484 South Main Street – Granville Shopping Center - Application #08-163

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign for Granville Video.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Leta Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-163:

Leta Ross, Granville Shopping Center, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Reeves asked if the lighting on the sign will remain the same.  Ms. Terry stated that the lighting would go with this approval as well.  Mr. Ryan indicated that he likes the proposed lighting.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the sign will be lit all night.  Ms. Ross guessed that it would be. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-163 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-163 is approved as submitted. 

 

843 Burg Street – Jerry McClain Construction - Application #08-164

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A) - AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District) standards apply for this application due to the proposed size.

The property owners are Abram Kaplan and Carol Goland.

The request was for architectural review and approval of a front porch and rear two-story

addition.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, and Robert Needham.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-164:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, stated that they are proposing an addition off the back of the home.  He stated that the garage roof will come off and be reformatted and the addition will go further back in the back yard and it will have a second story.  Mr. Noblick stated that this location allowed him to be able to keep the height down and the addition sets back further in the woods.  Mr. Noblick stated that the existing house will be dressed up with the existing stone and a Craftsman style front porch with a concrete foundation will be added.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the home will have a flying gable style of roof.  He went on to say that the rest of the windows in the home will be updated to be thermal efficient.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant should be complimented for the completeness of the submittal.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed brick will be used any place else.  Mr. Noblick stated no.  Mr. Burriss asked what the bumps on the east side elevation on the bridge roof between the house are.  Mr. Noblick stated that these are solar tubes.  He stated that these are already in place and they are not visible from the road.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there are any other unique environmental features that will be incorporated in the home.  Mr. Noblick stated that the owner is doing a high grade efficiency window and the solar tubes allow passive light to come in to the home using a parabolic lens which picks up the light and reflects it back in.  Mr. Burriss stated that he did not see any indication of a generator or air conditioning unit and wondered if this would be added.  Mr. Noblick stated that homeowner will use the existing air-conditioning unit on the east side of the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the walkway on the front is brick and will it remain the same.  Mr. Noblick stated that the sidewalk will remain brick.       

 

Bob Needham, 815 Burg Street, stated that he lives to the east of the property and they feel the proposed changes are positive.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-164:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are other additions in the community that have enhanced an existing structure.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the addition introduces a style that is more unique than what currently exists on the structure.  Ms. Reeves stated that there are other Craftsman type structures in the District. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the addition will improve the structure that is currently there.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Ryan stated that the late 50’s style home and the changes will enhance the livability of the home. 

e)      Height: The proposed addition is a total of 25 feet tall, which meets this requirement.

f)       Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

                                                   a.       Simonton vinyl windows in addition & replacing the balance of the existing wood windows (the applicant notes that most of the existing windows are white vinyl);

                                                   b.       Wayne Dalton, overhead garage door, wood grained, painted metal;

                                                   c.       New shingle shake wood siding above existing stone line on front faces of house facing Burg Street;

                                                   d.       Hardie-plank siding on the balance of the addition - color to match the house;

                                                   e.       New front porch to have beaded fir wood ceiling, wood fascias, soffits, window, and beam trim on porch and on gables per elevations - all items will be painted;

                                                   f.       New 30-year asphaltic dimensional shingles on entire house;

                                                   g.       Replace existing wooden basement door with new painted steel exterior Bilco stairway access door unit.

g) Use of Details: The applicant is proposing additional detailing on the front of the structure to make it have a craftsman style appearance with the wood shake shingles, stonework, front porch and column

               detailing and flying gables with trim/beam detailing in the peaks of the flying gables.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-164 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-164 is approved as submitted. 

 

133 South Prospect Street – Bill and Mary Hoekstra - Application #08-165

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of removal of a three story arched

wood windows and replacement with arched vinyl windows.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Hoekstra.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-165:

Bill Hoekstra, 133 South Prospect Street, stated that he would like to replace the third floor windows to make the home more accommodating for his children.

Mr. Mitchell stated that in two of the windows Mr. Hoekstra would just be putting in new sashes.  Mr. Hoekstra agreed and he presented a sample of the window.  Mr. Burriss asked if the muntin bars on the new window would match the existing side windows or be very similar.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that they would match as close as possible.  Ms. Terry stated that all three third floor windows on north, east, south will remain the same style and they will be changed from wood to vinyl.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that he is unable to get wood windows, only vinyl.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-165:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the home will be properly maintained.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that nothing changes on the home stylistically.

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing replacement of the three (3) arched wood windows with custom built vinyl windows, and simulated glass to increase energy efficiency.

f)       Use of Details: Again, the applicant is proposing replacement of the three (3) arched wood windows with custom built vinyl windows, and simulated glass to increase energy efficiency.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-165 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-165 is approved as submitted. 

 

464 South Main Street – Abe’s Automotive - Application #08-166

CSD (Community Service District)

The property is owned by Fred Abraham.  The request was for architectural

review and approval of a new tenant panel wall sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Fred Abraham.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-166:

Fred Abraham, 1901 James Road, Abe’s Automotive, stated that he would like to install a tenant sign.  He stated that he chose a sign that would match the style of his building which is a pre-manufactured metal building.  Mr. Abraham clarified that the tenant signs will be individual signs.  Mr. Mitchell stated “fair enough - two signs go down and one goes up.”  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Abraham would consider moving the sign more to the left of the corner.  Mr. Abraham stated he would move it and center it between the last two panels.  He explained that the sign may appear elevated and this is because of cars parked in this general area under where the sign will be located.  Mr. Burriss asked if a tenant were to leave the building what would you see on the sign.  Mr. Abraham stated that this is a good question and he hasn’t given it much thought.  Ms. Terry suggested moving the tenant panels up and leaving the bottom one blank.  She also suggested removing the text and leaving the background color in place.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if all of these businesses are inside the building.  Mr. Abraham stated yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-166 with the following conditions:

1)         To move the proposed sign one (1) to two (2) feet from the corner of the building

2)         If a tenant sign is removed in the future, the panel is to be the background color matching that of the remaining signs.

3)         That ‘Abe’s Body Shop’ on the south elevation of the building will be removed from the building.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-166 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

14 Westgate Drive – Bill Mickey/ReMax - Application #08-167

CSD (Community Service District)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a temporary sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Randy Tipton.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-167:

Randy Tipton, 14 Westgate Drive, stated that they will be moving to another location in April of 2009.  Ms. Terry stated that the current temporary sign expires at the end of December 2008.     

 

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-167 with the condition that the approval is valid until April of 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-167 is approved as submitted.

 

Other Business:

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-160:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-160 with the condition that the applicant will use a clear coat sealant on the exterior of the wood for the ramp.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-160.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-162:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-162.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-162.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-163:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-163.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-163.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Application #08-164:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-164.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-164.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-165:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-165.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-165.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-166:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-166.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-166.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-167:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-167.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-167.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Review and Approval of Planning Commission meeting dates for 2009

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the meeting dates for 2009 as presented by the Village Planner and amended to cancel the second meeting scheduled in December of 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

November 24, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the November 24, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

December 8, 2008

**Note** The December 22, 2008 meeting has been canceled.

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 24, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Tom and Linda Clark, JoAnn Geiger, John Noblick, Christine Oliver, Charlie Bachmann, Richard Liebson, Ed Vance, Gail Zear, Crawford Lipsey, Eugene Agan, and Don DeSapri.  

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

404 West Broadway – Tom and Linda Clark, Application #08-148

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for approval of a generator.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tom and Linda Clark.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-148:

Tom Clark, 404 West Broadway, stated that the generator unit would be screened with a fence and oak leaf hydrangea.  Mr. McClow asked if the unit is natural gas.  Mr. Clark stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked how far the unit is from the closest neighbor.  Ms. Terry estimated twenty to twenty-five feet away at least.  Mr. McClow questioned the level of noise that comes from the generator.  Mr. Clark stated that the installer has told them that the unit has a lower sound rating than a lawn mower.  Ms. Clark stated that she has been told it will be a little louder than an air-conditioning unit.  Mr. Clark stated that he has had a conversation with his neighbor to the west regarding the installation of the generator and his neighbor had no issues.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-148:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the unit will be hidden.  Mr. Burriss stated that the unit will be fully screened.    

 

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it enhances the livability of the historic structure if the electric were to go out.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it enhances the livability of the historic structure if the electric were to go out.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this generator will protect the home from becoming un-livable during a power outage.    

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing installation of a generator.  Mr. Burriss stated that the unit will be screened by natural material – landscape/wood fence.

f)  Landscape Material – The generator will be screened with oak leaf hydrangea.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-148 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-148 is approved as submitted. 

 

527 Newark-Granville Road – Acuity Brand Technology Services, Application #08-154

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a free-standing sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Crawford Lipsey, and Eugene Agan, 2 Parnassus Village Drive .

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-154:

Crawford Lipsey stated that they are changing the color of the current blue to be dark blue and this will match their corporate logo.  Mr. Lipsey clarified that the sign was previously put up within the last month without a permit.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign does meet the size requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the only change to the sign will be in color.  Ms. Terry stated yes and she explained that the bottom of the sign is sandblasted, while the top is flat panel vinyl.  She went on to say that the same sign was once fully sand-blasted and routed with an McDonald Investments logo and this had previously been approved by the Planning Commission.    

 

Eugene Agan, 2 Parnassus Village Drive, stated that he is amazed to learn that this sign was put up without the knowledge of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Agan stated that the residents see the sign everyday – twice - going and coming.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that Council is aware that there have been a lot of signs that have gone up without prior approval.  She stated that they have worked with the staff to address this and an article was recently put in the newspaper regarding procedure and permit requirements (Sentinel).  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that Council has also suggested putting something on the water bill that lets people know that they need to check and see if their exterior modifications require Planning Commission approval.  Ms. Terry stated that the staff is also working on sending out new information packets to new residents and there is information on the Village website regarding what modifications require Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Mitchell stated that with regards to Mr. Agan’s comments –many signs have been installed without receiving Planning Commission permission in the past - but this has improved recently.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the enforcement just hasn’t been done for years and the new staff is doing a terrific job to remedy this situation.  Mr. Mitchell stated that “we are improving at a rate that doesn’t need any further attention.”  He went on to say that the Village could look at fining people who do not seek the proper approvals prior to installing a sign, if need be.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Village Planner, Alison Terry, is doing a terrific job.  Mr. McClow added that word of mouth is helping people understand that they need to get proper approvals before they begin work.  Mr. Lipsey stated that Ms. Terry did a good job notifying his business about the signage approval.  He stated that he believes information regarding signage changes should have been included in his lease.  Mr. Agan wanted to know if the sign will be internally illuminated.  Mr. Lipsey stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-154:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a vinyl sign with vinyl lettering.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-154 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-154 is approved as submitted. 

 

221 East Broadway – Counting House - Application #08-155

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Chuck Bachmann.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-155:

Chuck Bachman, 6254 Lexington Avenue, Thornville, stated that he had a historical reference that depicts how the sign was decided upon.  He presented a book to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if the sizing requirements were met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Bachman stated that they have some flood lights to light pathway, but the sign will not be lit.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the store will continue to be open after the Christmas season.  Mr. Bachman stated that they hope to remain open if it is economically feasible.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-155:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a two color wood sign that will not be externally illuminated.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-155 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-155 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

221 East Broadway – Counting House - Application #08-156

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Chuck Bachmann.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-156:

Chuck Bachman, 6254 Lexington Avenue, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the biggest concern with this sign is the placement.  Mr. Bachmann stated that they place the sign out on the sidewalk just during the hours that they are open.  He clarified that the sign is being placed closer to Broadway – instead of closer to the business.   Ms. Terry stated that it is an A-frame type sign.  Mr. Bachmann stated that the sign is placed on museum property next to a flower bed that the museum owns.  The Planning Commission reviewed where they felt the sign should be placed on the sidewalk.  They depicted this on what they labeled “Exhibit A.”    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-148:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a black wooden sign with gold lettering.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-156 on the condition that the sandwich board sign be located per Exhibit “A.”    Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-156 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition. 

134 South Mulberry Street – Jerry McClain Company, Application #08-157

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The property is owned by Richard and Leah Liebson.  The request was for architectural

review and approval of a new two car garage, new driveway area, removal of rear entry

enclosure, and a new sidewalk between the rear of the home and the new garage. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-157:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, stated that there are a couple changes per the materials that he previously submitted.  He stated that the sidewalk will be stepping stones for the time being, rather than brick pavers.  Mr. Noblick stated that there is a shed entry that would be removed because it is not architecturally styled with the house.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the garage will meet the maximum lot coverage requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes, it will not exceed the 50% lot coverage requirement.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that it is surprising that the property has that much land.  Mr. McClow asked if the separation between the garage and the house is ten feet.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  The owner of the home, Mr. Liebson, stated that he spoke with the Finkleman’s, Schnaidt’s, and Brennan’s and they had no complaints regarding the proposed changes.  Mr. Mitchell asked what will be used as brackets.  Ms. Terry showed them a picture of what the applicant intends to use.   Mr. Noblick stated that they will have to get a curb cut.  Ms. Terry stated that they will need to apply for a right of way permit.  Mr. Noblick stated that Mr. Hopkins indicated that there will be several inspections regarding the curb cut.  Mr. McClow asked if the right-of-way permit will handle the tapering, grade, visibility, etc. involved with a curb cut.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the trim around the windows will match the rest of the home.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Noblick stated that the house color may change in the spring, but that has not yet been determined.  Mr. McClow asked what material the Wayne Dalton doors will be.  Mr. Noblick stated a wood grain texture, metal insulated, door which is the same material used on Sinsabaugh’s home on Broadway.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the height of the garage is an issue.  Ms. Terry stated that it meets the Code requirements.  Ms. Terry read aloud the materials list.  Mr. Noblick stated that they will be coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of some landscaping design that is considered to be a permanent structure.  Mr. Burriss asked if the railing detailing will match what is on the front of the home.  Mr. Noblick stated that it is so far away from this area that he didn’t feel an exact match was necessary.  Mr. Burriss stated that typically this type of detailing – especially up that high - would be black iron.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a very nice job of picking up the architectural details of the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that one of the most comparable projects previously approved by the Planning Commission would be the garage for Monomoy House.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not sure of the railing on that roof.  Mr. Burriss stated some of the additions on the applicant’s home are a result of the home being a fraternity house long ago – possibly in the 1930’s.  Mr. Burriss questioned the detailing on the widow’s walk.  Mr. Mitchell stated it seems a little big to him.  Mr. Noblick stated that if they can find something properly scaled with a Victorian mode they will look at possible changes.  Mr. Noblick stated that he wanted to point out that the driveway entrance is off of West Elm and not West Maple Street.  Ms. Terry noted the correction.  Mr. Burriss asked what would be done with collected rain water.  Mr. Noblick stated that they are using downspouts with splash blocks.  He stated that the excavator would like to move water to the curb, but right now they are unsure if this is possible and it would be possible to drain onto the lower portion of the property.  Mr. Burriss asked if the main house roof seams have a metal flashing detail at the corners.  Mr. Leibson and Mr. Noblick stated that they were unsure.  Mr. Burriss wondered if it might make sense to articulate the corners on the roof’s peak – as it is on the main house.  Mr. Burriss stated that this seam is visible and the detailing could add to the look of the garage.  Mr. Noblick stated that another firm did the drawings and perhaps this is a drawing detail that could be remedied.  Mr. Noblick stated that he is not sure if this is a prefinished metal and he would have to get up there and take a look.  He stated it may be metal or a shingled cap.  Mr. Noblick asked what if they use a different color of shingle in this area that may also work.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant can ask for an amendment to the original application without being charged again if this becomes necessary.         

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-157:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the architectural details are consistent, complimentary, and enhancing with other architectural details in the area.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the removing the existing entry enclosure is preferred and the changes are consistent with other homes in the area.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the garage is architecturally consistent and complimentary to the main structure.   

e)      Materials: The applicant is requesting the following items in this application:

a)         Removal of rear entry enclosure and replacement with new 9-lite rear entry door facing east - Thermatru, fiberglass swing door with grilles between panes;

b)         New Detached Garage:

1.         Wayne Dalton overhead single divided garage doors that are wood grained, metal with muntins and divided pane glass panels per provided elevations, see submitted cut sheet;

2.         Thermatru, fiberglass swing door with grilles between panes on the western elevation;

3.         200 Series Anderson wood windows prefinished white with grilles between glass panes on west, east and northern elevations;

4.         Asphalt Duration, dimensional asphaltic shingles to match the existing shingles on the house, rubber roof on the flat portion;

5.         Hardie-plank 4 5/8" siding with color and exposure to match the house as closely as possible;

6.         Rooftop railing to be treated or manmade materials consistent with submitted elevation;

7.         Brackets to be 3 3/4" w x 14 1/2"h x 9 11/16" d, detailed corbel of urethane or similar material, see submitted cut sheet;

8.         Coach lighting to be wall torch with clear beveled glass panels, antique brass finish, see submitted cut sheet;

c)         Sidewalk to be stepping stones and driveway to be concrete.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-157 with the following conditions:

1)         That the driveway will be poured concrete and the walkway between the garage and the main structure will be stepping stones; and

2)         The ridge cap on the garage will match in appearance the ridge cap on the main structure of the existing home.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-157 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

143 East Broadway – Readers’ Garden -  Application #08-158

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The property is leased by the Readers’ Garden, JoAnn Geiger.  The request was for

architectural review and approval of a new freestanding sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and JoAnn Geiger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-158:

JoAnn Geiger, Readers’ Garden, stated that the sign is the same as what was always there, but the logo has been changed.  Mr. Ryan asked if it meets the Code.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the sign is vinyl lettering on wood and it has a light shining on it.  Mr. Geiger stated yes and this light was previously there.  Ms. Reeves asked if the shape of the sign is the same.  Ms. Geiger stated yes and it is just a new logo.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Alison Terry had reminded the applicant that approval was needed.  Ms. Geiger stated yes.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-158:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a wood sign with vinyl lettering. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-158 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-158 is approved as submitted.

 

 

143 East Broadway – Reader’s Garden - Application #08-159

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The property is leased by the Readers’ Garden, JoAnn Geiger.   The request was for

architectural review and approval of a window sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and JoAnn Geiger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-159:

See above discussion.

Ms. Terry indicated that all of the requirements have been met for the window sign.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-159:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing vinyl lettering on a window.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-159 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-159 is approved as submitted.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to continue and hear Application #08-160 at the December 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Other Business:

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-148:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-148 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-148.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-154:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-154 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-154.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-155:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-155 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-155.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-156:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-156 contingent upon the location of a sidewalk sign being placed per Exhibit “A.”

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-156.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-157:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-157 with the following conditions:

1)         That the driveway will be poured concrete and the walkway between the garage and the main structure will be stepping stones; and

2)         The ridge cap on the garage will match in appearance the ridge cap on the main structure of the existing home.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-157.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-158:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-158 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-158.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-159:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-159 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-159.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

November 10, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the November 10, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:20 PM

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

December 8, 2008

**Note** The December 22, 2008 meeting has been canceled.

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 10, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Peter and Laura Pauze.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

323 North Granger Street, Peter and Laura Pauze, Application #08-145

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a slate roof with

asphalt shingles.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Peter and Laura Pauze.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-145:

Peter and Laura Pauze, stated that they would like to replace the slate shingles on one part of the home to tie it in with the rest of the home.  Mr. Pauze explained that the front part of the roof is the only part that is slate.  He stated that they want to change it because it seems silly to have one small portion slate and the rest asphalt shingles.  Mr. Pauze stated that the roofer is willing to cut them a deal and the proposed changes would unify the look of the house.  Mr. Mitchell asked how old the roof is – the part that is not slate?  Mr. Pauze stated the roof is twelve years old and he stated that they do not know the original brand of shingles used.  Mr. Pauze stated that the roofer recommended a shingle that will match as closely as possible.  Mr. McClow asked why the slate was left when the home was re-roofed twelve years ago.  Mr. Pauze stated that his guess is that they thought it would look quaint.  Mr. Mitchell stated he is the one that normally objects to this type of thing – changing slate to shingle – but since the other part of the roof is already done he doesn’t have a problem with the application.  Ms. Reeves agreed with Mr. Mitchell.  Ms. Terry stated that the majority of the homes in close proximity to Mr. Pauze’s home are asphalt shingles.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-145:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that it makes the roof compatible with itself.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it updates the house.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a new roof is an improvement.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the roof will protect the home and there are homes with asphalt shingles in the same zoning district. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing removing the slate roof on the front primary roof and replacing it with 3-tab onyx black asphaltic shingles to match the shingles on the remainder of the house.  See exhibit “A” submitted with the application for further details.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-145 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-132 is approved as submitted. 

 

Other Business:

 

Note: This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review and the proposed Zoning Code Revisions. 

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1189.09, 1189.10, and 1189.11 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to Temporary, Exempt, and Prohibited Signs. 

            Discussion: Ms. Reeves asked who is proposing the changes depicted in red lettering.  Ms. Terry stated the staff, as well as the Planning and Zoning Committee.  Ms. Terry stated that they are looking to significantly reduce the temporary sign fee.  Ms. Reeves stated that a time period should be specified – with a maximum of one year.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the timeframe states it may be for a maximum of one year already.  Assistant Law Director Crites suggested removing the December date and specifying a timeframe of one year.  Ms. Terry stated that every sign approved so far from this Board has been for one year.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked under what circumstances would someone need a sign for less than one year.  Mr. Ryan stated the ‘For Rent’ sign by Cherry Valley Road office building would be one example.  Ms. Reeves stated that banner signs are an issue and in her case (for Welsh Hills School) it would require approval every thirty days and this is cost prohibitive.  Ms. Terry explained that there has been an issue with some applications.  For instance, Granville Dental proposed putting up a ‘New Business’ sign and as the Code reads now they can’t put it up for thirty days and then there is a ten day appeal period, because it has to go through Planning Commission review and approval.  Mr. Mitchell suggested having Ms. Terry approve temporary sign applications for up to thirty days and anything longer should require Planning Commission approval.  Ms. Terry also stated that many applicants would like to have a temporary sign that is more than six square feet.  The Planning Commission opted to leave the temporary sign size as it currently is in the Code.

 

Ms. Terry stated that they have proposed removing contractor signs from a section of the code, but have outlined them in a later section.  Ms. Reeves asked why the size differentiation with temporary development signs.  Ms. Terry stated that if you have a small parcel – you don’t need a large sign.  The Planning Commission felt these sizes were small and too restrictive.  Mr. McClow asked where the size suggestions originally came from.  Ms. Terry stated that these numbers were previously in the Code and must have been decided upon by a previous Council.  The Planning Commission discussed possible locations of temporary development signs.  They discussed that larger tracks of ground would require larger signage to be around 32 square feet – and smaller tracks of land with 16 square foot signage.  Ms. Terry stated that any sign would have to be set back fifteen feet from the right of way.  Mr. McClow suggested leaving the signs the same size.  Ms. Reeves suggested changing the sizes of the signs.  Mr. McClow asked if there have been any complaints with the current size.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he could go either way.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission would be granting variances if they leave the size of the temporary development signs as is.  Ms. Terry noted that the Planning Commission appeared to be split in their decision on the size of the temporary development signage and suggested that Planning Commission member Jack Burriss could help in the decision-making process. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed signage for non-commercial campaigns or events.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if someone could ask for a thirty day extension for their sign.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the current language deals with one calendar year.  Mr. McClow suggested changing “calendar year” to “up to one year.”  Ms. Terry questioned if this would allow for more than one thirty day permit per year.  Ms. Reeves inquired about the fish fry at St. Edwards Catholic Church.  She stated that as the Code currently reads, their sign can be a 32 foot square foot sign.  Ms. Terry stated that this is consistent with other median signs.  Ms. Reeves stated that she prefers allowing the signage for sixty days.  Ms. Terry stated that when the permit is applied for it could be indicated if it will not be consecutive days or for a period of up to one year.  Mr. Ryan stated he preferred language that would allow an applicant to use the permit for a period of time and then reusing it again later (within the same year of issuance).  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the newly proposed language allows this.  Ms. Crites stated that the staff can interpret the current language to allow it.  Ms. Crites stated that “a” can be added to say it can be used multiple days for up to sixty days. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed temporary signage for Businesses.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign should be to the scale of the building it will be located on.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that a temporary sign should be allowed to be larger than a permanent sign.  Mr. Ryan and Ms. Reeves agreed.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the parameters used to size a permanent sign should be used to determine the size of temporary signs as well.  Ms. Terry reviewed the current language in the Code for wall signs and she stated one sign per building is currently allowed.  Mr. Mitchell suggested changing the permanent sign language to allow one per business, rather than one per building.  Mr. McClow stated that this system regarding signage seems to be based on a first come first serve basis.  Mr. Mitchell stated that individual businesses in a building should have the right to a sign without coming to the Planning Commission for a variance.  Ms. Terry explained that the Code allows for one business to have a wall sign, one to have a projecting sign, and/or one to have a free-standing sign.  She stated that she will have to make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and further review this section in the Code.

 

The Planning Commission discussed grand opening banners.  Ms. Reeves asked why they are only permitted to be up for a period of fifteen days.  Ms. Terry stated that this is a typical time period for a new opening.  Other members of the Planning Commission agreed that fifteen days is sufficient.  Ms. Terry asked if 32 square feet is too large or large enough.  The Planning Commission stated this was an appropriate size.

 

1189.10 Signs Exempt from Regulation under this Chapter:

            (4) Mr. Ryan stated that he would have a problem with only allowing one government flag.  Mr. Ryan stated that this could be more of a problem for businesses rather than residential.  Ms. Terry stated that we currently do not regulate flags at all in the Code.  Ms. Reeves also did not agree with the language to allow only one governmental flag.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if someone wants more than one flag, they can still ask the Planning Commission for a variance.  Mr. Terry stated she will also address this area of the Code.  Ms. Terry suggested exempting yard flags. 

            (5) Mr. Ryan questioned signs that are located inside a building that you can see from the outside of the building (i.e. neon signs).  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that this would be hard to regulate.  Mr. Ryan questioned if anyone sees the proposed language as a problem.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that having language in the Code pertaining to inside signage being seen from the outside of the building doesn’t mean it can be enforced.  She stated that it may however encourage people to hang a neon or bright sign further away from the window.  The Planning Commission opted to leave this language as is proposed. 

 

Also under exempted signs – the Planning Commission discussed contractor signs.  The Planning Commission questioned if one can have three different contractor signs for work being done to a home.  Mr. Mitchell stated that these types of signs are temporary in nature.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there should be a more specified time limit for these types of signs.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that she reads the proposed language to state that only one contractor sign would be exempt.  She stated that the Planning Commission could choose to remove the word “one” and make signs plural.  And the words “long term” could be replaced with “short term.”  The Planning Commission agreed with these suggestions. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed ‘Prohibited Signs.’  Mr. Ryan questioned if a computer sign in a window would be prohibited.  Ms. Terry and Assistant Law Director Crites clarified that they would be prohibited.  Ms. Crites stated that if it communicates the logo it would be in violation – according to this new language.  She went on to say that if it is currently in existence it would be grand-fathered and allowed.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to further review and discuss the sign code provisions at a later time.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  4-0.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 1177.07, and 1177.08, of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio  pertaining to the Flood Hazard Overlay District. 

            Discussion:  The Planning Commission agreed to individually review the document outside of the public meeting and bring any comments and concerns to be discussed during a public hearing in the future.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-145:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, as indicated below. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-145.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Excuse Absent Planning Commission Member:

Ms. Reeves moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the November 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

October 27, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the October 27, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. McClow moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

November 24, 2008

December 8, 2008

December 22, 2008 – (The Planning Commission agreed to cancel this meeting.)

 

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 27, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Todd Naille, Bethany Black, John Brungart, Nate Fouty, Andrew Ross, Greg Ehrlich, Dick Schulze, and Chuck Eitel.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

226B East Broadway – Bethany Black – Noir Investments, Application #08-132

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a door sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bethany Black.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-132:

(Jack Burriss recused himself from discussion and voting on Application 08-132.  He left the Planning Commission table and was seated in the audience at 7:05 PM.)

 

Bethany Black, explained that she would like to place the sign under the glass in the door.

Ms. Terry explained that there is an existing door sign on a door for Ace Express.  She stated that the proposed sign by Ms. Black is .649 square feet, so it meets the square footage requirements.  She explained that the applicant would like to hang the sign below the window on the door.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code states that the maximum number of signs per building is one and this request would exceed that requirement.  Therefore, the request for a variance is before the Planning Commission.  She stated that the proposed sign is classified as a wall sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-132:

 

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 he same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded this statement to be true.  Mr. Ryan stated that it is a building that has more than one use in it and there are several other buildings like this in the Village.  He went on to explain that although they are not a precedent setting board they have granted this type of variance in the past - and this can be a consideration. 

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.  The Planning Commission concluded this statement to be true. Ms. Reeves stated that the applicant is adding her hours on the door and this occurs with other businesses in the Village.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the business name will also be on the door. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded this statement to be true.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant did not subdivide the building.

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-132 as submitted - adding one additional wall sign.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss (recuse), Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-132 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition. 

 

(Mr. Burriss re-joined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:12 PM.)

 

 

475 West Broadway, Todd and Lori Naille, Application #08-133

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)

The request was for review and approval of a retaining wall.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Todd Naille.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-133:

Todd Naille, 475 West Broadway, stated that he did not previously apply for a permit “out of ignorance, he was simply replacing an existing railroad tie wall with a new concrete paver wall.”  He went on to say that the previous retaining wall did not have any drain tiles.  Mr. Naille explained that he hoped the new wall would alleviate flooding occurring in his neighbor’s basement.  Ms. Terry stated that the retaining wall is located within one hundred feet of the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District) and this is why it is before the Planning Commission.  She stated that the application meets all of the Code requirements.  Ms. Reeves asked if there had been any objections by the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated that a portion of the wall was built on the neighbors property and it is now completely on Mr. Naille’s property.  Mr. Ryan questioned if any portion of the retaining wall is located in the right of way.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Naille stated that James Housteau owns the property behind him and there was a misunderstanding of the access between all the parties involved.  He went on to say that he has been told that he cannot pave his parking area because of various issues – and this stems from generations of different owners.  Mr. Ryan clarified that no one has objected to the retaining wall.  Mr. Naille confirmed that there have been no objections by the neighbors.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the driveway is owned by James Housteau.  Mr. Naille stated that it is a shared driveway between him and Mr. Housteau.  Mr. Ryan stated that the shared driveway is not the issue.  Mr. Burriss indicated that had this application come before the Planning Commission before the retaining wall was installed he would have had no problem approving the application.  Mr. Mitchell stated he would agree with Mr. Burriss.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-133:

The Planning Commission discussed the type, compatibility, height, and location of the proposed retaining wall and found them to meet the Code requirements in Section 1176.04. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-133 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Application #08-133 is approved as submitted. 

 

211 Sunrise Street, Craig and Dianne McDonald, Application #08-136

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review of the removal of a gravel limestone driveway and

concrete sidewalk (from the house to the garage) replacing both with old Burg Street bricks. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-136:

The applicant’s – Craig and Dianne McDonald were not present at the Planning Commission meeting and there was no one in attendance to speak on behalf of the application.  It was noted that the applicant was sent notice of the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Terry stated that she became aware of the exterior modifications when Mr. McDonald came to a public auction to buy bricks previously located on Burg Street.  She stated that the applicant would like to replace the gravel and sidewalk area with the bricks.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant has to put in drainage.  Ms. Terry stated that they would want a base and this is not something that the Planning Commission typically makes a condition of approval.  Mr. Ryan asked if the Planning Commission should review the application without the applicant being present.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is a pretty straight forward application and he would have no problem approving it.  Mr. Burriss asked if the surface of the driveway will meet up with the same level as the street.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission could indicate this stipulation or condition for approval.  Mr. Burriss questioned what the edging detail would be and it was noted that the application did not indicate edging. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-136:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it is an improvement over the grass that is currently growing through the gravel.  Mr. Mitchell added that the new surface will be historical bricks.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant will use historical bricks from Burg Street. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Burriss stated that this enhances the historical character.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is using materials consistently used in past generations.

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing using Burg Street bricks.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-136 be approved as submitted.

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-136 is approved as submitted. 

 

230 East College Street, John and Suzanne Brungart, Application #08-137

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of new vinyl siding, shutters, and

gutters/downspouts. 

                                               

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Brungart.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-137:

John Brungart, 230 East College Street, stated that he apologizes that he did not seek approval prior to beginning the project.  He stated that he was under the belief that his changes did not require approval by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Brungart stated that the existing siding is wood and he would like to cover it with vinyl siding.  He added that the gutters and downspouts would also be replaced with white aluminum.  Mr. Brungart stated that the shutters would be black, which is the same as what is currently in place.  He said that he would be adding some additional shutters to windows that currently do not have any.  Mr. Brungart stated that they currently have six inch (6”) wood lap siding and the new vinyl siding width is three inch (3”).  Ms. Terry reviewed the previous materials and newly proposed materials.  Mr. Brungart stated that there are two different styles of gutters on the home that are rusting.  Mr. Ryan asked if the overhang/soffit is aluminum.  Mr. Brungart stated that the soffit would be white aluminum.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shutters are the same style.  Mr. Brungart stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shutters currently on the home are vinyl.  Mr. Brungart stated yes and the new shutters will also be vinyl.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the age of the home.  Mr. Brungart guessed that home was built somewhere around 1928.  He went on to say that the home has no historical significance when compared to other homes next to him.  Mr. Burriss recalled that this particular home went through major renovations in the early 1950’s or 1960’s.  Mr. McClow asked if vinyl siding has been approved in this particular area in the past.  Ms. Terry stated that vinyl has not been approved since she has been here for any other primary structures.  She went on to say that there are other homes in the district with vinyl or aluminum siding and this most likely occurred before the AROD guidelines were put in place.  Mr. Burriss asked about the five inch gutters and if Mr. Brungart knows the measurement of the gutters that were removed.  Mr. Burriss went on to explain that some of the new aluminum gutters have been too small when used on hip roofs in the past.  Mr. Brungart stated that he thinks the house will look more uniform with all the gutters being the same size and shape.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Brungart is matching the gutters on the car port.  Mr. Brungart stated that he thought the carport had “K style” gutters, and they will attempt to match these. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-136:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have approved these materials on other applications.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not think so unless one is going for the look from the 1960’s.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it downgrades the look of the house and the historical character of the district and he feels it is a good looking house and he doesn’t think that the materials presented are compatible.  Mr. Burriss stated that if Mr. Mitchell were proposing this for his own home he would take issue, but because of the significant remodeling that has changed the look of the home he does not feel the improvements take away from the historical character of the Village.  Ms. Reeves stated that she feels the modifications will be an improvement, especially if there is rotting going on.  She went on to say that it is already a 1950’s style home instead of a home of 1920.  Mr. Burriss added that the home once had long windows in it and now there are many different sizes of windows.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not argue that the vinyl will unify the look of the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the look of the home – this makes the whole district improve.  Mr. Brungart provided a list of homes with either vinyl or aluminum siding on his block.  The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposed improvements to the home would improve the district.      

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the maintenance on the home contributes to the continuing vitality.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it will protect what is on the home – the physical surroundings.

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

1)      Alcoa Carved Wood Triple 3" Vinyl Siding - Colonial Yellow; Vinyl J Channel 5/8" with 1" Face - Colonial Yellow; Matte outside corner 4" x 3/4" - Colonial Yellow;

                                                   2)      Alcoa Protech Soffit Triple 4" - White;

                                                   3)      Vinyl Shutters - Black

                                                   4)      Seamless Aluminum Gutters 5"; and

                                                   5)      Aluminum Downspouts 3".

                                                The applicant indicates in their narrative statement the following:

                                                “We currently have a 1 x 6 (wood) lap siding that is deteriorating

                                       horribly.  To repair siding and repaint would be an expense that we cannot afford.  The maintenance of wood siding had become too costly.  Continual repairs are needed and painting needs to be

redone at6 a minimum of every five years.  In today’s economy that is nearly impossible.  The most cost effective and long term solution is to install a vinyl siding.  The siding we have chosen is Carved Wood Series 2 by Alcoa.  It is a triple 3 siding.  This is a special order siding that is made to replicate wood.  It has a 4" lap and is grained to look like cedar.  We will also be installing new 5" seamless aluminum gutters and 3" downspouts.  We currently have both half round and “k” style gutters.  Both are rusting out and are showing signs of age.  We will be wrapping our fascia, windows, and doors with a wood grain aluminum.  Upon completion of the siding and gutters, we will be installing new vinyl shutters to replace the existing vinyl shutters”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

f)  Use of Details: In evaluating building details, the primary concern is for appropriateness to the scale and overall design concept of the building and its environment.  Building details may attempt to recall the spirit of an earlier period detailing contemporary application.  If the applicant chooses to reproduce historic details, such as colonial window treatment, etc., it becomes important that some historical authenticity is maintained.  In older structures, detailing may be highlighted through painting.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-137 be approved as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-137 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

484 South Main Street, Ross’ Granville Market, Application #08-138 & #08-139

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Andrew Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-138:

Andrew Ross, 484 South Main Street, was available to address any concerns/questions by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained the location of the signage.  She stated that there are existing signs for Boxes and Bows, Chase Bank, and Granville Video and these businesses are all tenants of the applicant.  Ms. Terry stated that when adding the additional signage to this building, the current signage has to be taken into account.  Ms. Reeves asked if the applicant obtained variances for all the other signs.  Ms. Terry stated that these signs have been in place for quite some time and she was unable to locate any applications for variances in the files.  She believed they are considered to be grandfathered sign approvals.  Ms. Reeves asked if the requested variance includes a variance for all of the signage that is in existence now.  Ms. Terry stated that the request is for two variances – one above the door and one on the building.  She stated that the Ordinance deals with a zoned lot – not per building.  Ms. Terry stated that they had a similar situation with Abe’s Body Shop who has multiple buildings with multiple signs.  Mr. Ross stated that they always intended on requesting additional signage, but they were waiting to do this for when they did the front of the building.  Ms. Terry explained that there are also other signs used by the applicant that are considered to be customer convenience signs – such as exit and entrance signs - which are incidental signs.  Councilmember O’Keefe said that there are people whom have said that they didn’t know a market was there.  Mr. Burriss complimented Mr. Ross on the new façade.  He went on to say that he applauds the work done with the monument sign as well.  Mr. Burriss stated that one concern he would have would be with the proposed graphics because they don’t seem to match the graphics on the front on the monument sign.  He stated that he would like to keep this more consistent.  Mr. Ross stated that they went with matching fonts on the inside of the building.  He went on to say that his next project will be to change the font on the monument sign to match the font on the building.  Mr. Burriss clarified that Mr. Ross would consider changing the font on the monument sign.  Mr. Ross stated he would consider doing this at a later time.  Mr. Burriss asked if  “Ross’ Granville Market” might appear stronger if on a sign by itself – with a backing/frame - instead of placing individual letters on the building.  Mr. Ross said that he didn’t see a backing he would like to use.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the sign would pop out more – and feel more appropriate to detailing added to the façade already.  He added that it would also be more consistent with signs already in the Village that have a frame and background.  Mr. Burriss stated that the strongest sign solutions in the downtown district have been framed and presented signs, which they (the Planning Commission) have tried to promote with the Granville Mill, Certified, and Abe's Body Shop.  Mr. Ross stated that the painted sign is 3D and has some dimension and he feels it looks better this way.  He also stated that their business is far away from the road compared to other businesses in town and it can be a little harder for people to see what type of business they are.  Mr. Ross stated that he is hopeful that the new signs are visible and he is hoping to use a spot light or overhanging light above the signs.  Mr. Burriss asked how far off of the surface the “Market” letters would be.  Mr. Ross stated maybe three inches.  Mr. Burriss asked about shadow lines and questioned if the siding being horizontal would create problems with the letters coming out three inches.  Mr. Ross asked if he would need to spell out tonight exactly what the signage lighting would be because he needed to further research if there would be shadow lines.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission really appreciates that the applicant came through and very considerately talked about the changes to the building and they appreciate the time and money put into this solution.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would just like to see the signage up to that same caliber.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the lighting is something that is not part of the application.  Mr. Ross later stated that the lighting is something he feels he can address and fix if need be.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code really just deals with internally illuminated signage.  Assistant Law Director Allison Crites stated that the granting of variance can deal with any factors that the Planning Commission sees as relevant.  Mr. Ross stated that he would not be sold on a board sign for the wall and he would light the painted sign with gooseneck lighting or side lighting.  Tim Ryan stated that the lighting is Mr. Ross’ issue and his application does not require lighting approval, but rather a variance for the sign.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the plans before them are a poor illustration of the signs, but it seems to him that they would look pretty nice once installed.  He agreed that the signs will be difficult to light without casting shadows and this is the applicant’s problem. 

 

The Planning Commission was instructed that they could combine the two applications per Assistant Law Director Allison Crites. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-138 and #08-139:

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 he same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that historically, it has been a building with multiple signs and tenants.  Mr. Mitchell agreed.   

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.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that this allows each tenant to have their own sign.  Mr. Burriss added that this has been allowed with other businesses in the same zoning district.      

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Burriss stated that an existing building is being improved and the tenants in the building have long standing.       

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.  Each member of the Commission agreed that this statement was 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-138 and #08-139 be approved as submitted with the following variances:

1)      To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to five (5); and

2)      To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 302 square feet to 306 square feet total.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-138 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition. 

 

 

466 South Main Street, Certified Oil Company, Application #08-140

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign & a freestanding sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Chuck Eitel, Greg Ehrlich, and Dick Schulze.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-140:

Chuck Eitel, represented National Sign Company.  Greg Ehrlich and Dick Schulze, represented Certified Oil Company.

 

Greg Ehrlich, Certified Oil Company, stated that they have invested a lot of funds in this particular property.  He stated that they have not done a good job with a consistent image and this has been a problem, so they hired an image consulting firm to bring some brand consistency.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that their intent in this particular location is to accomplish replacing the old logo with a new image.  He added that this should be an improvement in the community.  Mr. Ryan asked if the monument sign would remain the same.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that it would have the same monument sign with the inside being replaced.  Ms. Reeves asked if the proposed sign above the door is internally lit.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that the blue will be faint and only the lettering shown in white will show thru with light and he stated that there is not a lot of volume – but it is very tasteful.  Mr. Eitel added that the sign will be the same square footage as the existing sign.  Ms. Terry stated that as she reviewed the files she could not locate any paperwork granting a variance for the signs on the property now.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission worked on this for almost three years and he recalls some conversations regarding signage.  Mr. Burriss recalled lengthy discussions and the Planning Commission was very happy with the end result.  The Planning Commission asked the applicants if they had anything regarding a variance for the signage.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that if they do have something they do not have it with them.  Ms. Terry stated that she is not saying a variance wasn’t granted, but she just can’t find it in the files.  She went on to say that this isn’t to say that this board can’t grant variances for the sign anyways.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is going from four signs on the monument sign to two signs – which are preferred.  He also stated that on the gable sign they lose a word and get a symbol which he also prefers.  Mr. Burriss stated that he cannot remember how they approved the internally lit sign in the gable.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the internally lit sign can be lit with exterior lighting.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does recall that they were trying to cut down on utility light fixtures on the building, as well as de-cluttering and de-commercializing the building.  Mr. Burriss also recalled there being an issue with canopy lighting.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked which uses less electricity – internal or external lighting.  Mr. Eitel stated that more electricity is used with external lighting.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he likes the presented signs.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels changeable copy is essential to the business and the price of fuel.  He also stated that the proposed graphics package offers a much more uniform look. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-140:

 

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 he same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  The Planning Commission concluded that poor visibility from the road was the special circumstance (internally illuminated); sign needs to be read by passing motorists (size & height); yes, because of the use (changeable copy). 

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. No (internally illuminated); Yes, smaller in size and height than other signs on adjacent property (size & height); no, but it is necessary for this use (changeable copy).  

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. The conditions & circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant (internal illumination); They do not, there is another adjacent sign that partially blocks this sign (size & height).  No, because of the use & Type of business (changeable copy).

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.  True (internal illumination); Because it sets back from the road & is partially blocked by the canopy (internal illumination); True (size & height); True, specific to use (changeable copy).

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 will not adversely affect them, lighting is critical because of the nature of the business in relation to the late hours & increases the safety on the property (internal illumination); It will not (size & height); It will not (changeable copy).

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-140 be approved as submitted and grants variances per Exhibits “A” and “B” and grants the variances for the following:

A)    Suburban Business District – To allow the proposed wall sign to be internally illuminated;

B)     Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) – To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six (6) square feet to seventy (70) square feet total;

C)    To allow a changeable copy sign;

D)    To increase the maximum size for a freestanding sign from eighteen (18) square feet to thirty-two (32) square feet; and

E)     To increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from six (6) square feet to ten (10) square feet.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-140 is approved as submitted with the above stated variances and conditions. 

 

Mr. Ryan noted that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.  He went on to explain that the current wall sign for Certified Oil Company is already internally illuminated.  He asked Councilmember O’Keefe to relay to Council that these particular circumstances were specific to this application.

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-132:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-132 as submitted with one additional wall sign.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-132.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss (recuse), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-133:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and Chapter 1187 Height, Area & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-133 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-133.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-136:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-136.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-137:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-137.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-138 and #08-139:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-138 & #08-139 with the following conditions:

1)      Increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to five (5); and

2)      To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone from 302 square feet to 306 square feet total.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-138.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-140:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and Chapter 1189 Signs, and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-140 with the following conditions:

1)      Suburban Business District to allow the proposed wall sign to be internally illuminated;

2)      Transportation Corridor Overlay District:

  1. a.       To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six square feet to 70 square feet total;
  2. b.      To allow changeable copy sign;
  3. c.       To increase the maximum size for a freestanding sign from 18 square feet to 32 square feet;
  4. d.      To increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from 6 feet to 10 feet.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-140.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

October 14, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the October 14, 2008 minutes as amended.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. McClow abstained since he did not attend the October 14th meeting.)

 

Adjournment:  9:45 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

November 10, 2008

November 24, 2008

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 14, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Lyle McClow.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Sabato and Cynthia Sagaria, Linda Clark, Richard Nevil, Rhonda Aller, John Noblick, Johnny Adkins, Garret Moore, and Mike Cloud.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

223 East Elm Street – Keith and Courtney McWalter, Application #08-94 - AMENDED

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review of the placement and screening of a generator

and two air conditioning units on the east side of the house.  John Noblick represented

the property owners.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.  Garret Moore was later sworn in.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-94:

John Noblick stated that they would like to move the air conditioning units down about eighteen inches to make room for the generator.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant previously applied for a variance from the BZBA, but the application was tabled to research whether or not the generator could be placed that close to the home.  She went on to say that the building department indicated that the placement defaults to the manufacturer’s recommendation.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant later withdrew the application because they were able to meet the setback requirements.  Ms. Terry indicated that the unit should be screened and the applicant has already received approval for a fence along the property line.  Mr. Ryan asked if the two air-conditioning units already exist on the east side of the home.  Mr. Burriss asked what is proposed to be the ground cover under the generator.  Mr. Noblick indicated that there will be a pad supplied by the generator manufacturer.  Mr. Burriss asked what type of greenery will be around the concrete pad.  Mr. Noblick said he has not been involved in this part of the project – landscaping.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would think the landscaping materials used would have to be non-flammable.  Mr. Burriss stated that he recently read an article that a common use is gravel and this can amplify the sound of a generator.  He stated that his comments are not a condition of approval though, rather a suggestion.

 

Garret Moore, 207 South Pearl Street, stated that he is concerned with the proposed location of the generator.  He stated that it will be placed closer to his house and approximately fifteen feet from his bedroom window.  Mr. Moore stated that the generator will make too much noise.  He went on to say that the homeowners do not plan to live there year round – only part time – and they won’t hear the racket as much as he will.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Moore lives to the east of the McDaniel’s home.  Mr. Moore stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified on the map that Mr. Moore’s residence is at least 21’ from the proposed placement of the generator.  Mr. Moore concurred.  Mr. Mitchell asked what kind of fence is proposed by the applicant.  Ms. Terry stated it would be wood.  Mr. Mitchell asked how high it would be.  Mr. Moore stated six foot high.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Mr. Moore had an alternative suggestion for placement of the generator.

Mr. Moore suggested placing the unit on the southwest corner near the garage building.  Ms. Reeves asked if it needed to be located close to the house.  Mr. Noblick indicated that it is cost effective to have the unit near the house.  Mr. Ryan asked if the unit will run with natural gas.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked what type of generator it is.  Mr. Noblick stated ‘Guardian.’  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is an accessory silencer kit.  Mr. Noblick stated he hasn’t asked the manufacturer this question.  Mr. Noblick explained that there is a voltage droppage that would occur if the unit is further away from the house.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the Planning Commission were to deny the application the applicant could still use a portable generator and these tend to be noisier than the type of generator the applicant is suggesting.  Mr. Moore stated that if they only use it three months of the year – he could live with that.  Mr. Mitchell questioned that if the homeowner is not there then the generator unit won’t be used.  Mr. Moore stated that the natural gas run generators will come on once a week automatically for a couple of minutes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it does appear to be a legitimate issue being so close to the bedroom of an existing home and it would be nice to investigate this given we have a neighbor with a concern – and what he sees as a legitimate concern.  Mr. Noblick stated that they could look into placing the unit in alternative locations.  Mr. Burriss stated that other than location of the generator – the noise factor is something not dealt with in the Code.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is anything regarding being neighborly in this regard in the Code.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that they can encourage the applicant to accommodate the request by the neighbor.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is sympathetic to Mr. Moore’s concerns but they have to adhere to the Code.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the proposed location is the only place the unit can be placed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is the most cost effective and most efficient location.  Mr. Moore stated that cost is not a factor with all the improvements that have been done to the home.  Mr. Noblick asked about other homes up and down the street that do not have enough space to place a generator.  He asked if a precedence was being set.  Mr. Ryan and Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.  Mr. Noblick later stated that if a noise muffle were available by the manufacturer he would think people would have one.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it doesn’t seem as though the Planning Commission has the capability to deny this application.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant would have to be the one to request that the application be tabled.  Mr. Moore stated that if the Board has no authority to do anything he is wasting his time.  Mr. Burriss stated that they (the Planning Commission) do not write the Code - the only enforce it.  Mr. Moore stated that the Planning Commission allowed for a Port-A-John to be placed next to an outdoor eating area near his home.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Village contacted the homeowner and it was moved within a few days.  Mr. Noblick stated that he is unsure he has the authority to table the application since he is filling in for Kevin Reiner (whom submitted the application.)  Mr. Burriss stated that certainly we can in good interest ask the applicant to look into muffling the generator unit.  Mr. Noblick stated that he would certainly do this and he can also look at cost projections to place the unit further away from the home.  It was clarified that Mr. Noblick agreed he would provide some additional information but this would not be part of the motion to approve the application.  Assistant Law Director Crites added that it can be difficult to enforce the encouragement of the applicant to muffle the noise generated by the unit.  Ms. Crites stated that given the additional testimony, she would like the Planning Commission to please review the criteria again.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-94:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the unit will be next to two existing air-conditioning units already in place.  The unit will also be screened. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the screening provides for visual integrity.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the livability of the structure within the district which contributes to the vitality of the district. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated with the appropriate screening the units – visually – disappear.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing adjusting the location of the generator and two air conditioning units only.

f)        Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing adjusting the location of the generator and two air conditioning units only.

g)      Use of Live Plant Material: The applicant is proposing a boxwood hedge between the air conditioning units/generator and the property line to screen this equipment from the neighbors.

h)      Use of Landscape Design: The applicant is proposing a boxwood hedge between the air conditioning units/generator and the property line to screen this equipment from the neighbors.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-94 AS AMENDED with attachment of Exhibit “A” dated 9/22/08.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell (no), Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #08-94 is approved as amended. 

 

404 West Broadway, Tom and Linda Clark, Application #08-126

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of storm/screen windows for all

windows on the house, except for the garage addition windows.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Linda Clark.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-126:

Linda Clark, 404 West Broadway, presented a sample of the storm windows.  She stated that they wanted to keep all of the old windows in the house and none of them opened.  Ms. Clark stated that they had all of the windows restored and unfortunately old windows are not energy efficient and they feel they need storm and screen windows on the existing house.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he has the same problem on his home.  He went on to say that he is looking into getting some of the historically correct wooden storm windows, but they are expensive.  Ms. Clark stated that just about every window in the house is different – some with different depths.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission can consider if approving the application because the storm windows would be protecting the original windows and original glass.  Mr. Burriss added that the applicant has done a phenomenal job on this property and it is not necessarily their fault that some of the previous remodelings have been done hit or miss.  Mr. Burriss stated that we would want to be assured that the windows on the divided storm window are as consistent as can be with the divider on the existing windows.  Mrs. Clark stated that she has been assured by the installer that this can happen and she would like this in writing prior to installation.  Mr. Burriss asked if the screen can be removed.  Mrs. Clark stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this a not a material that the Planning Commission has been particularly thrilled with in the past, but the owners have done a very good job on the property at restoring what they could.  He also stated that this does allow for an original window to continue in use and he thinks this ought to be considered.  Mrs. Clark said that she cannot find any other option to make them energy efficient.  Mr. Burriss asked if the aluminum finish is a baked on finish and can it be painted?  He stated that he asks this not for condition of approval, but for the applicant to know if they can ever be painted in the future.  Mrs. Clark stated that she did not have this information.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-126:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Mitchell stated that there are a lot of these type of windows in this district.  Mr. Burriss stated that the house is white and the proposed windows are also white.  He stated that these will stand out a little less than some others.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that this allows for the original windows to remain.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the original windows will remain.  Mr. Burriss stated that this allows the home to be more easily occupied with being energy efficient. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this will protect and help maintain the original windows which are an architectural gem.

e)      Materials and Textures: The window frames are white aluminum and any hardware needed will be painted to math the house and/or existing windows.

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing screen/storm windows for all windows on the house, except for the garage addition.  The applicant has further indicated in their narrative statement that they are proposing the following:

                                                a.         21 White double hung, combination storm/screens, 2 track windows that will go on all windows that open (with the exception of the new windows in the addition); and

                                                b.         5 Storm window (white) panels will go on the windows that do not open.  These are the floor to ceiling windows on the Plum Street side.  Horizontal bar will line up with top of lower sash (no screens).

The supplier is National Pride Storm Windows & Doors, and Granville Lumber will supply and install the screens/storm windows.  The window frames are white aluminum and any hardware needed will be painted to match the house and/or existing windows.  The division of the screen/storm windows should match the division in the existing windows.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-126 with the condition that the horizontal division in the window match the existing windows.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-126 is approved with the above stated condition. 

 

404 North Granger Street, Richard Nevil, Application #08-127

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review of a second story dormer addition on the north

side of the home.  The property is owned by Rhonda M. Aller.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Richard Nevil.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-127:

Richard Nevil, 324 East Maple Street, stated that they would like to add a two foot expansion to accommodate a bathroom.  He stated that they are proposing a box bay dormer that extends six inches beyond the gutter and it will perpetuate the same detailing used on the house.  Mr. Nevill stated that they intend to switch from T111 to horizontal wood lap siding.  Ms. Terry stated that they submitted for a variance from the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals for a side yard setback & that it was granted.  She added that the applicant would also be adding a downspout.  Mr. Burriss stated that one of the richest details in the house would be the cutout trim on the gable front porch.  He questioned if the applicant considered reproducing this detail and using it on the dormer.  Mr. Nevil indicated that he was not proposing taking it to a new level than it was before.  Mr. Burriss stated that it seems to be an appropriate thought to add that level of detail since the dormer will be visible from the road and neighbors.  Mr. Nevil indicated that he likes the suggestion and would consider doing this.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a lot of work to keep the dormer in style with the existing home and the proposed dormer is so close to the gable – that it seems appropriate.  Mr. Ryan stated that he understands the suggestion, but it would have to be a smaller detail than what is on the gable.  Mr. Burriss stated that the bracket supporting the dormer has rich detail too.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be willing to approve with the condition that the gable bracketing detailing be submitted to Village staff prior to installation.  Mr. Nevil stated that he would provide this information if he can find it.  Mr. Nevil indicated that he could do something at the top of the dormer to add the detailing in.  Mr. Nevil stated that as for the brackets, he hopes to use a Fypon bracket.  Mr. Burriss asked if the underside of the overhang will have detailing.  Mr. Nevil stated that this will be plywood paneled a couple of times to pick up where the brackets are placed.  Mr. Burriss asked what is the current detail of the porch ceilings.  Mr. Nevil stated that it is a beaded board. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-127:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed changes will make it more cohesive and historically whole to the rest of the home.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by restoring the architectural detail – it makes the dormer consistent with the rest of the home.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is enhancing by bringing the entire structure into a consistency of appropriate detailing. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that it enhances by bringing the entire structure into a consistency of appropriate detailing.

e)      Roof Shape: The roof shape will remain the same pitch, it will just be enlarged to accommodate the additional space within the second story dormer area.

f)        Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

1.         The dormer has T1.11 plywood siding on it now.  With the proposed renovation the applicant will be replacing the siding on the dormer addition with wood lap siding to match the rest of the house, along with 5/4 x 4 wood corner trim;

                                                2.         Existing louvered wood shutters will be replaced with similar new wood louvered shutter to fit the new window;

                                                3.         Existing roof shingles are brown fiberglass and the dormer will be re-shingled to match;

                                                4.         Roof trim will match the existing roof trim;

                                                5.         A new downspout will be installed at the front of the house with the dormer addition, 3" x 4" aluminum, pre-finished white;

                                                6.         Below the box bay of the dormer 2 decorative brackets will be installed, as is traditional.  The decorative brackets will be either resin reproduction or salvage wood brackets - Victorian in style.

                                                7.         New window, if needed, will be wood frame painted to match the existing windows.

     g) Use of Details: The applicant is attempting to reproduce details on the proposed addition that are consistent with the Victorian style – decorative brackets below the box bay of the dormer; consistent louvered shutters; wood frame windows; wood lap siding, etc.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-127 be approved on the condition that:

-There will be two not three decorative brackets under the extended dormer;

-There will be gable trim added to the addition to be reviewed by staff; and

-The type and style of the brackets shall be per Exhibit “A” or salvaged brackets.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-127 is approved as submitted with the above listed conditions. 

 

Other Business:

 

Informal Discussion regarding changes to existing Billboard Signage, submitted by Barnes Advertising for their property located on Lot 8 of Westgate Drive.  The property is zoned Community Service District (CSD).  Chad DeMatti and Joe Panzica represented Barnes Advertising.

 

Informal Discussion regarding replacement of windows and exterior modifications to the rear of the structure, for the property owned by Sabato Sagaria located at 117 South Prospect Street.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Business:

 

            Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of the proposed Zoning Code revisions.

 

            Additional Review of the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1109.11, 1133.03, 1135.01, 1137.01, 1137.02, 1137.05, 1137.07, 1137.08, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, 1141.06, 1143.04, 1145.03, 1145.04, 1147.03,  1147.04, 1149.01, 1149.02, 1149.03, 1159.02, 1159.03, 1159.04, 1159.05, 1161.01, 1161.02, 1161.03, 1163.01, 1163.02, 1163.03, 1167.02, 1167.03, 1175.02, 1175.04, 1175.05,  1183.01, 1183.03, and 1189.03, and to amend and change the section number of Sections 1137.03, 1137.04, 1137.05, 1137.06, 1137.07 and 1137.08, and To Enact New Sections 1137.03, 1137.10, 1157.14, 1157.15 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, Ohio. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to send the proposed Zoning Code revisions to Council with their recommendations.  Seconed by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call: Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.   Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-94:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-94 with the following conditions:

-To approve Application #08-94, as amended, with attached Exhibit “A” dated 9/22/08.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-94.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #08-126:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of the application, as indicated below:

-To approve Application #08-126 with the condition that the horizontal divisions in the new windows match the existing.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-126.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Application #08-127:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-127, with the following conditions:

-There will be two, not three, decorative brackets under the box bay extended dormer;

-There will be gable trim added to the addition to be reviewed by Village staff;

-And the type and style of the brackets shall be per Exhibit “A” or salvaged brackets.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-127.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

September 22, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 22, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Burriss asked that issues surrounding the use of generators be addressed by Council.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she would relay this to Council.

 

Adjournment:  9:22 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

 

Next meetings:

October 27, 2008

November 10, 2008