Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 14, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Councilmember O’Keefe.

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Don DeSapri, Craig and Dianne McDonald, Larry Miller, Rick Baltisberger, Doug Eklof, and Karen Chakoian.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Ms. Terry noted later during the Planning Commission meeting that Lemonade Fitness/Don Moxley (Application #09-149) requested that his application be tabled because he was unable to attend the December 14, 2009 meeting. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to table Application #09-149 per the applicant’s request.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

New Business:

 

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #09-144

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

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

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-144:

Don DeSapri, 250 Potter’s Lane, was available for any questions that the Planning Commission had regarding the request for a freestanding sign for the Robbins Hunter Museum.  Ms. Terry explained that the proposed color of the sign is green and white and that the applicant did indicate that there is existing lighting on the front of the building that will also shine on the freestanding sign.  Mr. Burriss asked if one of the posts on the sign is fluted and the other is not.  Mr. DeSapri stated that both of the posts would be fluted on three sides including the end post.   Mr. Burriss asked if the Open/Close portion of the sign would be a slide.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.    Mr. Burriss stated that he did not feel additional landscaping was needed because the applicant is not adding any additional lighting. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-144:

 

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 sign is consistent with other signs approved for this district.   

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 proposed sign is for a historical building and is a historical sign. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss indicated that by contributing to a museum in this district, the whole district experiences continued vitality.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the historical nature of the museum protects and enhances physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

e)      Materials:  Plywood covered with aluminum.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-144, adding that there is not any lighting in the application, and that the proposed posts are fluted on three sides, and there is not any landscaping proposed in this application.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

211 Sunrise Street – Craig and Dianne McDonald - Application #09-146

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a 3-tab shingled

roof and replacement with a new dimensional asphaltic shingled roof. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Craig and Dianne McDonald.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-146:

Craig McDonald, 211 Sunrise Street, presented a sample of the roofing material and stated that they would like the color of the roof to be slate.  Mr. Ryan asked if the entire structure will be re-roofed.  Mr. McDonald stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the applicant is doing the valleys and hips.  Mr. McDonald was unsure, but he guessed that they would be constructed with metal since the current roof has metal valleys and hips.

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-146:

 

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 material is consistent. 

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 preserving the house the applicant is upgrading the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that by preserving a house in this district it 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 that by having a roof that will continue to protect a historic structure, the physical surroundings in which past generations lived are protected.

e)      Materials: Owens Corning dimensional shingles in the color of slate.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-146 with the proposed color of Colonial Slate and the roof valley’s are to be constructed of metal with the entire roof being replaced.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

110 East Broadway – First Presbyterian Church - Application #09-147

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

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

 

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

 

Jack Burriss requested to be recused from discussion and voting on Application #09-147 and was seated in the audience at 7:30 PM.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-147:

Karen Chakoian, 110 West Broadway, was available to address any questions or concerns for the Planning Commission.  She stated that the purpose of the sign is to advertise Saturday worship and they plan to only put the sign out on Saturdays.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is required because sidewalk signs are not permitted in the Village Square District.  Ms. Terry asked the applicant the proposed location of the sign and Ms. Chakoian indicated that it will be located on the southeast corner of the property next to the monument stump.  Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any other sidewalk signs approved in the Village Square District.  Mr. Ryan noted that there is an existing  sign at Centenary.  Ms. Chakoian stated that she believed Centenary Church does have a sign advertising for Vintage Voices and the Presbyterian Church is modeling something like that.  Ms. Terry stated that Centenary United Methodist Church did submit an application for two sidewalk signs, but they later requested to withdraw the application.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Baptist Church has signs.  Mr. Ryan stated yes and they also have a banner.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn’t see how the Planning Commission cannot approve a sidewalk sign in the Village Square District given that they are already all over town.  He went on to say that the Planning Commission doesn’t particularly like sandwich board signs, but they can’t stop them because they are a permitted sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission has approved two historical signs at Opera Park.  Mr. Johnson questioned if this sign would require a variance if it was a freestanding permanent sign.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Ms. Chakoian explained that they would like to have the ability to advertise their Saturday service at the Saturday Farmer’s Market.  Mr. Johnson asked if a variance is the only way to go about approving the sidewalk sign because the Planning Commission typically only approves variances for the size and color of the proposed signage.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is the only option because sidewalk signs are not permitted in the Village Square District.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Presbyterian Church shouldn’t be penalized because they happen to be the one entity that requested a sign to be placed in the Village Square District.

 

The Planning Commission also reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #09-147:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  The Planning Commission members agreed that this criteria is not applicable because this is a non-profit use.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  The Planning Commission agreed that this criteria is not applicable in this particular case.     

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the use of the sign is the best way to get the word out of the church’s plans for a new service.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the circumstances are caused by the actions of the community.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.   

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed to designate a particular location for the placement of the sign.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-147 as proposed so long as the sign is displayed on Saturday’s only and the colors on the sidewalk sign are blue and white, and the location of the sidewalk sign be per Exhibit ‘A’.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (recuse), Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3 (yes), 1 (recusal).

 

Mr. Ryan requested that it be noted that the Planning Commission found that there were more items in the Criteria for approving the variance than criteria that was against the variance and therefore the Planning Commission ultimately approved the variance for First Presbyterian Church.

 

Mr. Burriss re-joined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:40 PM.

 

560 West Broadway – Rick and Jane Baltisberger - Application #09-148

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a lot split/lot combination.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Larry Miller, and Rick Baltisberger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-148:

Rick Baltisberger, 560 West Broadway, stated that he had a discussion with the property owner at 590 West Broadway, Larry Miller, and he had a large open space between their driveway and his property.  He stated that he asked Mr. Miller about purchasing some land so if he ever chooses to renovate his barn he will not need a variance in terms of distance and the extra land gives him some free space in the rear yard.

 

Lawrence Miller, 61 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he owns property at 590 West Broadway and he and his wife, Eloise, are in favor of this lot split/lot combination. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that all of the requirements have been met and it will be required that the applicant combine the existing lot with his current lot so it is not its own separate lot. 

Mr. Burriss asked for clarification regarding the location of the utilities.  Mr. Miller indicated that these lines are located no where near the location of the lot split. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-148 with the condition that the 0.227 acre lot for the property owned by Lawrence and Eloise Miller, shall be required to be combined with the 0.971 acre lot owned by Richard and Jane Baltisberger, to create a lot that is a total of 1.196 acres for 560 West Broadway.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

 

907 Newark-Granville Road – Doug and Gail Eklof - Application #09-150

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

The request is for review and approval of a wood cedar three split rail fence with wire

Mesh located in the rear and along the east side of the property.

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-150:

Doug Eklof, 907 Newark-Granville Road, was present to address any concerns or questions by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked the reason for the wire on the fence.  Mr. Eklof stated that they hope it will keep out deer and debris and it is their intention to connect to the fence that is next door.  Mr. Eklof indicated that the wire is like a chicken wire and it is also on the fence next door.  He also noted that there has been a change in the material of the fence from cedar to hemlock.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the whole length of the fence will get wire.  Mr. Eklof stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the applicant if he wants to place the fence on the west side of the property.  Mr. Eklof stated that the neighbor’s fence is on the west side.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the wire will be on the inside of the fence.  Mr. Eklof stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the fence will have any finish other than the natural color.  Mr. Eklof stated that it will be the  natural wood hemlock.  Mr. Eklof indicated that the wire will be a stainless steel color.

Ms. Terry stated that all of the requirements have been met. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-150 as submitted with the condition that the wire mesh be installed on the inside of the fence.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson

 

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

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-144: Robbins Hunter Museum

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, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-144 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-144.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-146: Craig and Dianne McDonald

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-146 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-146.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-147: First Presbyterian Church

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, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-147.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss (recuse), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3 (yes), 1 (recusal.)

 

Application #09-148: Rick and Jane Baltisberger

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-148 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-148.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-150: Douglas and Gail Eklof

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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-150 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-150.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Other Matters:

Mr. Ryan stated that he wanted to thank Council for supporting the Planning Commission decision at their last meeting regarding the appeal for 123 North Prospect Street.  He asked Councilmember O’Keefe to let Council know that they appreciate their efforts and they also understand why Councilmember O’Keefe chose to vote no on the decision. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the November 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Mitchell abstained)

 

Approval of 2010 meeting dates:

Mr. Burriss moved to remove the meeting date of ‘Tuesday, October 12, 2010’ from the Planning Commission meeting date schedule for 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Adjournment: 

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

January 11, 2010

January 25, 2010

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 23, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Shawn Bogan

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

123 South Prospect Street– Jeanetta Pyle - Application #09-143 REVISED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a slate roof replaced with

dimensional asphaltic shingles in a slate color.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Shawn Bogan.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-143:

Shawn Bogan, roofer, stated that he was representing the homeowner, Jeanetta Pyle, because she was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Bogan indicated that he would be the roofer.  He provided a sample of the exact shingle to be used.  Mr. Burriss questioned how the ridge detail would be handled.  Mr. Bogan indicated that the ridge detail and finials would be the same as the existing details and color.  Mr. Johnson asked if the eaves would be vented.  Mr. Bogan indicated that the vents would be installed in the soffits.  Vents will also be vented in the ridges.  The vents would be two-inch round and painted to match the trim.  Mr. Burriss asked if the ridge lines would be higher.  Mr. Bogan indicated that the ridges would be perhaps one half inch higher. There will be no changes to the gutters or down spouting.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-143:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Other slate roofs have been permitted to be replaced in this district. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  As the applicant would be maintaining the same ridge and finial details and using materials that would maintain the look of slate, the applicant would be maintaining the historical character of the district.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  By contributing to the vitality of a structure in the district, it maintains the entire district. The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The improvements are a reproduction of the original material and detail, which protects and enhances the physical surroundings. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve amended Application #09-143 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-143 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-143: Jeanetta Pyle

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, hereby gives their recommendation of approval for Application #09-143.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-143.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval of Absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Tom Mitchell from the November 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the November 9, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:20 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Next meetings:

December 14, 2009

January 11, 2010

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 09, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember OKeefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Joy Wujek.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

224 East Broadway – Joy Wujek/Petali Teas - Application #09-142

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

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

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-142:

Joy Wujek, 5230 Moots Run Road, Alexandria, indicated that she would like to install a sandwich board sign on the sidewalk in front of her business Petali Teas. Mr. Ryan questioned if the sign would be four colors with white, green, blue and black.  Ms. Wujek stated yes.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Code requirements for this application have been met.  Ms. Terry noted that the black border is not proposed to be around the entire sign, consistent with what the Planning Commission has required of other applicants.  Ms. Wujek stated that they would be willing to make this change and incorporate the black border around the entire sign.  Mr. Ryan noted the proposed location of the sidewalk sign and the Planning Commission agreed with the location.  Ms. Wujek stated that the sidewalk sign will be made by the same sign company that did the wall sign for Petali Teas and everything will be consistent. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-142:

 

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 sign is consistent with other sandwich board signs in the district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the proposed sandwich board sign emulates sandwich board signs in New England and presents a “homey” environment.   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign will allow the  public to be made aware of business news at their establishment.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-142 with the condition that Staff Recommendations 1 and 2 be adhered to and the black border shown on the plan shall be extended to the full perimeter of the sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-142: Petali Teas

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 Application #09-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-142.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the October 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the October 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

November 23, 2009

December 14, 2009

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 26, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Robin Lantz, Christi Adamkosky, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason & Christi Adamkosky - Application #09-96 (AMENDED)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to amend the application for an

additional column to support the Porte Cochere. 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-96:

Christi Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that the contractor is requesting that one additional column be installed.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the support is structurally necessary and he stated that he was not certain the column affects the aesthetics.  Ms. Adamkosky indicated that the extra column would provide additional support.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could justify the installation of the column due to the space of the columns in the front of the structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-96:

 

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 applicant’s request for an additional column is consistent with other structures in the district.

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 applicant should be commended on their efforts to upgrade the historical character of the structure. 

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 made a motion to approve Application #09-96 as amended.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

New Business:

 

46 Waterford Drive – Mark Clapsadle - Application #09-139

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a first floor and lower level

addition.  The application is before the Planning Commission because the proposed

addition is more than a twenty (20%) percent increase to the existing structure.

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-139:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, stated that he is the architect for the project and is representing the homeowner, Virginia Abbott.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the house is very lineal as it is now and it is a one-story gray horizontal home.  He went on to say the he wants to make the addition look compatible with the original home and everything will match identically.  Ms. Terry stated that the lot coverage, height, and setback requirements have been met.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant will be adding a fireplace and will it be stone.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to complement the architect on the thoroughness of his application.  Mr. Ryan questioned why the Planning Commission is addressing this application given its location is not in the AROD.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code requires that any addition that is more than a 20% addition to the original structure requires Planning Commission approval, if located in the Suburban Residential District. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-139:

 

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 addition is consistent with other renovations approved in district and the proposed addition is consistent with the existing architecture as well.

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.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed addition is consistent with the original structure it protects and enhances.

e)      Materials:

                              Roof: asphaltic dimensional shingles, gray, to match the existing;

                              Siding: 6” cedar, light gray, and manufactured stone, limestone –                                       buff gray, to match the existing;

                              Windows: aluminum clad casement, Andersen Terratone, to match                                           the existing;

                              Gutters: ogee gutters, light gray, to match the existing;

                              Fascia: 6”, light gray, to match the existing; and

                              Screened Porch: screens and 6x6 posts, painted.

h) Height:          The proposed building height at the front grade elevation is 13 feet, meeting the maximum 30 foot height requirement.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the home is a ranch style home.

i) Massing:       Mr. Burriss noted that the horizontality is kept throughout the addition and is consistent.

      j)   Roof Shape: The applicant is proposing a 6:12 roof pitch, with                                                          dimensional asphaltic shingles, consistent with the existing                                                  roof pitch and materials on the main structure. 

      k) Use of Details:

Roof: asphaltic dimensional shingles, gray, to match the existing;

                              Siding: 6” cedar, light gray, and manufactured stone, limestone –                                       buff gray, to match the existing;

                              Windows: aluminum clad casement, Andersen Terratone, to match                                           the existing;

                              Gutters: ogee gutters, light gray, to match the existing;

                              Fascia: 6”, light gray, to match the existing; and

                              Screened Porch: screens and 6x6 posts, painted.

 

The applicant is proposing a first floor and lower level addition as follows:

1)                    Front Yard Setback: 239’6” setback, to meet minimum 35 foot setback requirement;

2)                    Side Yard Setback: 285 foot setback, to meet minimum 14 foot setback requirement;

3)             Rear Yard Setback: 285 foot setback, to meet minimum 14 foot setback requirement;

4)             Maximum Building Lot Coverage: The existing lot is 232,083 square feet.  The existing and proposed house footprint is 6,639 square feet or 3% total lot coverage, to meet the maximum 15% coverage requirement; and

5)             Maximum Height: 13 feet total building height (at the front elevation), to meet the maximum 30 foot height requirement.             

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-139 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

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

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Thrift Shop – Application #09-140

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-140:

Robin Lantz, Granville Thrift Shop, stated that they would like to reuse the sign that was previously located on the front of their building.  Ms. Terry stated that this is the same sign they used to have next to the front door and the applicant wants to move it to the side door where they often have deliveries.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is needed because the maximum number of signage per building is one.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is just one business at this location.  Ms. Lantz stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned the location of the sign and will it be next to the door.  Ms. Lantz stated that Fred Abraham, the landlord, would be hanging the sign on the building and he has only indicated that it will not be on the door.  Mr. Burriss noted that the location ought to be specified in the approval of the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-140:

 

 

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 the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss noted that the public supplies the merchandise for this business and they utilize the side door.   

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is a service type business to the community.      

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.    Mr. Johnson noted that it is a 100% increase in what is allowed and he would consider the variance to be substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated that he agrees with Mr. Johnson, but it is in keeping with signage on that property as it exists.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t believe it is a substantial difference to the neighborhood.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the request for a variance is not substantial for this property.  Mr. Mitchell stated the variance is not substantial.  

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. Mr. Burriss stated that the request is consistent with other signage in the neighborhood.    

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with          knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission      unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated the spirit of the zoning Ordinance is not compromised by the approval of this variance.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Commission agreed that there should be clarification as to where the sign will be located.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-140 with a variance to increase the maximum number of signs from one to two and for the proposed sign to be mounted no higher than the top of the doorway and to the right of the existing doorway.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-140 is approved as with the above stated conditions.

 

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason & Christi Adamkosky - Application #09-141

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear patio, seating wall

surrounding the patio, and concrete steps.

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-141:

Christi Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that they want to get rid of the existing mound of dirt in the rear yard and they will use this with the construction of the patio.  She stated that there will be a seating wall around the patio and they plan to use the same type of stone to match the foundation of the house.  Ms. Terry noted that the setbacks and lot coverage requirements have been met.  Mr. Johnson asked the approximate height of the seating wall.  Ms. Adamkosky stated that from the rear elevation it will be about four foot (4’) tall and there is a slope to the back yard.  Ms. Adamkosky went on to say that they eventually hope to tier the back yard with landscaping.  Mr. Johnson indicated that a building permit would be needed if footers were used.  Ms. Adamkosky agreed.  Ms. Terry stated that if modifications to the seating wall are made it may require Planning Commission review.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the applicant uses interlocking block with a stone finish they would not need footers or Building Code Department approval.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any consideration for entrance to the sides of the patio.  Ms. Adamkosky stated that the Porte cochere side could potentially have an outside fireplace in that area and this would be incorporated into the patio area.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-141:

 

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 application is consistent with other projects that have been approved in the Village.  

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 improvements add to the livability of a structure within the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvements add 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 that the proposal is part of a restoration of an existing historical home and it enhances and protects examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a rear patio, seating wall surrounding the patio, and concrete steps.  The patio will be constructed of the following materials:

1)      Patio Surface: Concrete

2)      Exterior patio & seating wall surface: sandstone to match the existing foundation; and

3)      Steps: Concrete

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-141 with the condition that the stone facing on the patio walls match as closely as possible the foundation of the home. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-96 (AMENDED): Jason & Christi Adamkosky

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 recommendation of approval for the amended application.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for amended Application #09-96.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #09-139: Mark Clapsadle

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their recommendation of approval of Application #09-139.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-139.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

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

 

Application #09-140: Granville Thrift Shop

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, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-140 with a variance.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-140.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #09-141: Jason & Christi Adamkosky

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 #09-141 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-141.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

November 9, 2009

November 23, 2009

Monday
Aug272012

Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 13, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Law Director, Michael Crites.

Visitors Present: James Browder, Jim Brooks, Ann Hinkle, Sam Sagaria, Steve Keeler, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, and Sharon Sellito.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder - Application #09-133

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an air conditioning unit.

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-121:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that he intends to shield the unit with evergreen landscaping material.  Ms. Terry explained that the air conditioning unit would be located on the north side of the house and she stated that Mr. Browder received a variance from the BZBA for the placement of the unit. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-121:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that air conditioning units have previously been approved as long as they were screened with evergreen plant material.

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 air conditioning unit makes the home more livable.   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the air conditioning unit makes the home more livable.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the screening around the unit enhances the physical surroundings.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-121 with the condition that the applicant screen the air conditioning unit with evergreen plant material equal to or greater than the height of the air conditioning unit.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-121 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition.

 

(Mr. Burriss made a motion to move Application #09-135 to the third item heard on the agenda because James Brooks was not present to provide explanation of the submittal.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.)

 

434 East Broadway – Ann Hinkle – Application #09-137

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of existing wood

windows with vinyl windows. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Ann Hinkle, and Steve Keeler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-137:

Steve Keeler, 434 East Broadway, stated they are wanting to replace the outdated and inefficient windows on the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if these are the same type of windows that will not disturb the trim.  Mr. Keeler stated yes and that the windows will be caulked in.  Mr. Keeler believed that the sash will not be different than what is existing now and he went with these type of windows because they are low profile.  Mr. Burriss asked if the dividing pattern would be six over six.  Mr. Keeler stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if all of the windows would be replaced.  Mr. Keeler stated that they intend to replace the first floor windows and two basement windows in the back.  Mr. Burriss stated that the east side elevation currently has slider windows and Mr. Keeler indicated that these will become awning windows with a two grid pattern and center mullion strip and the rest of the width will be divided into six panes evenly.  Mr. Burriss noted that the existing door is in eight panes and even though they are not on the same side as the dormer, he would hate to see too many window patterns used.  Ann Hinkle, stated that the dormer window will be replaced with the same awning window to make this match.  Mr. Burriss asked if there will be a grid on the outside of the window.  Mr. Keeler stated that the grid will be located between the panes and internal to the glass.  Mr. Burriss asked if this is consistent with other new windows already installed.  Mr. Keeler stated yes. 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-137:

 

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 windows are more historically accurate for the structure than the current windows. 

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 architectural features are being restored to the original. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed windows will make the home in this district more historically accurate. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed windows will restore the home to be more accurate of how past generations lived. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-137 as submitted adding the two additional windows in the rear elevation of the home. 

 

Mr. Johnson seconded.

 

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

 

Application #09-137 is approved as submitted.

 

 238 East Broadway – James Brooks – Application #09-135

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

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-135:

James Brooks, 238 West Broadway, stated that he would like to make a revision to his submitted plans for the sign and change it to have a black background with white lettering.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Brooks already has a sandwich board sign, a freestanding sign, and a projecting sign on the property and the Planning Commission did ask if this would be all of the signage Mr. Brooks would be requesting.  Mr. Brooks stated that he understands what Mr. Ryan is saying, but there is not adequate signage on the property for Goumas Candyland and the one freestanding sign is the only sign that is lit.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Brooks is proposing to light the wall sign.  Mr. Brooks stated no.  Mr. Brooks submitted two drawings that Ms. Terry marked as Exhibit’s “A” and “B.”  Exhibit “A” has the proposed sign superimposed on the house and Exhibit “B” is a rendering of the sign itself.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if one will be able to identify the house number with the proposed placement of the wall sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that the house number would move to the corner of the home.  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Brooks is required to have the house number located on the structure.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Brooks is within the Code limitations regarding size and number of signs permitted.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the applicant is allowed four signs per business.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is a sign on the front and the side of the building.  Mr. Brooks stated that there is a projecting sign, freestanding sign, and a sandwich board sign.  Mr. Ryan noted that there is also an “Open” sign on the door.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he took this sign down.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color of the proposed sign is not consistent with the existing signage for the building and he understands that it is a different business and different graphics.  Mr. Brooks stated he didn’t feel a matching sign with a red background would look appealing on the home and he wanted to stay consistent with the existing colors on the home itself - black.   Mr. Burriss agreed red wouldn’t look good on the home.  Mr. Burriss questioned if having a Goumas sign panel added below the existing real estate freestanding sign would be the most appropriate way to go.  He stated that the restoration of the home was fantastic and a key architectural detail is the doorway of the home and he is trying to keep the work that has been done showing at its best advantage.  Mr. Brooks stated that he understands what Mr. Burriss is saying and he has pondered the idea of adding an additional sign all summer and debated on what to do.  Mr. Brooks stated that he does feel that the candy store is in need of more effective signage.  The Planning Commission questioned how effective the existing projecting wall sign is on the side of the home.  Mr. Brooks stated that he doesn’t think it is effective and he had it relabeled and he doesn’t feel it is legible from the road.  Mr. Burriss suggested that a projecting sign by the door might also be more appropriate.  Mr. Brooks stated that the occupant (Goumas Candyland) is adamant that they want people driving by to be able to read the sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of businesses on that block have perpendicular signs.  Mr. Brooks stated all but the other Goumas and Petali Teas, which have wall signs.  Mr. Burriss stated that they also have a freestanding sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that he thinks an appropriate hanging sign like the sign on the side of the building would detract less from the building and at the same time allow the doorway to remain as is.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he may be the only Commission member who feels that the proposed sign, from a business standpoint, allows the building to appear as though the entire structure is occupied by Goumas Candyland.  Mr. Brooks stated that the business’s best chance of survival is not possible without the appropriate signage.  Mr. Brooks clarified that the proposed sign will be cut on the ends and appropriately fit in the space above the doorway and it is not to be a square sign.  Mr. Ryan asked the thickness of the sign. Mr. Brooks presented an example of the material for the sign and the proposed thickness.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he agrees with Mr. Burriss somewhat, but he doesn’t think that he needs to make it more apparent that a real estate business is also in the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that another option would be combining the two businesses located in the building with the one freestanding sign already in place.  He suggested resizing the proposed wall sign to hang below the freestanding sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that he would be comfortable with adding a panel hanging sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that this would be less confusing as far as knowing what businesses exist in the building.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he didn’t know adding to the freestanding sign was an option.  Mr. Burriss stated that with other multi tenant properties in the Village this type of signage is what they have encouraged because it keeps all of the signage for the building in one location.  Mr. Brooks stated that another advantage is that the existing freestanding sign has lighting.  Mr. Ryan questioned what colors could be used for the hanging sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that he would propose a sign with a red background and white lettering.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would need a variance for the size, and sign variances are heard by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be in favor of granting this variance.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he agrees with this suggestion by Mr. Burriss.  The Planning Commission suggested tabling the application so Mr. Brooks could make the revisions and present something visual at the next meeting.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #09-135.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Application #09-135 is approved as Tabled.

 

123 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers – Application #07-042 (REVISED)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications and a

Landscape plan, required by the original approval given by the Planning Commission on

January 28, 2008.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Barbara Franks.  Dan Rogers was later sworn in by Mr. Ryan. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-042:

Barbara Franks, 123 South Prospect, stated that they are no longer going to install a wall air conditioning unit, so this can be removed from the original application.  She later stated that a landscape plan shouldn’t be required because she is not in need of screening the air conditioning unit.  Mr. Burriss later asked Ms. Franks if she wished to leave the air conditioning unit in the application in case she changed her mind regarding installing it.  Ms. Franks stated that if she leaves it in the submittal it has to be done within two years and she does not believe she will ever have a need to install the air conditioning unit.  Mr. Ryan indicated that a brick patio was to be installed per Ms. Franks proposed site plan.  Ms. Franks stated that the original plans show a patio on the west and south sides of the building and when they get the money will put the rest of the patio in (currently it just exists along the western side of the building).  She later noted that the brick patio is heated and part of the heating system of the entire structure.  Mr. Ryan questioned if a portion of the patio – the brick walkway – encroaches on Park National Bank’s property.  Ms. Franks presented a letter from Park National Bank which indicated that the Bank does not have a problem with the sidewalk that was installed.  The letter from Park National Bank was labeled as Exhibit “A.”  Ms. Terry read aloud the letter from Park National Bank stating that the bank does not have an issue with the brick sidewalk.  Ms. Terry indicated that the brick sidewalk is an impervious surface and would require a variance from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for setbacks and potentially lot coverage requirements.  Ms. Franks indicated that she is willing to seek a variance as long as it doesn’t cost $500.  Mr. Ryan stated that he can not speak to this because the Planning Commission only handles variances for signs.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the applicant would have to address getting an easement from Park National Bank if the brick walkway indeed does encroach on their property.  Law Director Crites later clarified that for this matter before the Planning Commission, the letter from Park National Bank labeled as Exhibit “A” is sufficient information for the Planning Commission to move forward.  He stated that an easement would be a civil matter between Ms. Franks and Park National Bank.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant has installed “eyebrows” over the doorway and this was a change from the original submitted plan.  Ms. Franks indicated that they later discovered after the improvements were done that these eyebrows or awnings were essential to keeping weather elements out and she thinks they look appropriate to the structure.  Mr. Burriss asked if the installed steel doors without windows are different from the original application presented by Ms. Franks.  Ms. Franks stated that these doors are a change from the original approval and that she cannot financially afford to change the doors and add windows to the doors at this time.  Ms. Franks stated that these steel doors cost $800 each and once she opens and can sell things perhaps she can change this and add windows to the doors.  Councilmember O’Keefe for clarification concerning which doors have awnings above them.  Ms. Terry stated that the awnings are already installed above the doors on the south side of the structure.  Mr. Burriss noted that there is recessed lighting installed in the awnings and this needs to be clarified in the approval and conditions because it was not part of the submitted plan.  Mr. Johnson asked where the vented vinyl soffit is located.  Ms. Franks stated that she believes it is underneath the west elevation and she thinks it is wood instead of vinyl (which is a change from the original approval). 

 

Dan Rogers clarified that the soffit is not vinyl and it is wood.  Mr. Burriss stated that this will need to be altered in the approval and conditions.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the sidewalks can be used as open area or do they count against lot coverage.  Ms. Terry stated yes they count against lot coverage because they are considered to be an impervious surface.   Mr. Ryan asked if the total lot coverage is affected by the brick patio.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Ms. Franks asked if anyone on the Planning Commission is going to comment on how wonderful the building looks compared to the dilapidated building that once was there.  Mr. Ryan stated that he believes this was mentioned in the past when Ms. Franks originally submitted her plans for improving the structure.  The Planning Commission later ended their comments by stating that the improvements to the structure are very nice.  Ms. Franks inquired as to why a ten (10’) foot setback requirement (variance) was not required for the installation of the wall air conditioning unit she originally proposed and a ten (10’) foot setback is needed for the brick patio.  Ms. Terry explained that in Height, Area, and Yard Modifications of the Zoning Code there is an allowance for encroachment of projecting features and that because the air conditioning unit was going to be attached to the structure as a wall hung unit it met the code requirements.  Mr. Burriss suggested adding language to the approval and conditions pertaining to the awnings over the doors.  Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Terry if she has inspected the previously noted conditions and checked them against the application.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the list of conditions will have to be modified to address all of the revisions. Mr. Ryan stated that the projecting lights on the west exterior door need to be added to the approval and it should be noted that they match the existing lights.  Mr. Burriss stated that the final approval should note that the windows have wood exterior trim, rather than vinyl as originally approved. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a list of items that were changed from the original approval and listed them on Exhibit “B.”

 

Mr. Ryan asked why the Planning Commission is establishing the use of this structure when they have already determined that it has been used for storage of items for the front retail structure located at the front of the property.  Ms. Franks stated that the structure has always had its own use, always stood on its own, and it has always had its own address.  She stated that they have been over this for years now.  She stated that this has only been an issue since Ms. Terry has been the Planner and “the previous fellow had no problem with this.”  Councilmember O’Keefe asked why the Planning Commission is discussing the use and aren’t they just reviewing the exterior modifications.  Ms. Franks agreed.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code states that the approval for the structure requires that a use classification be assigned if one has not previously been established and that this is required for all VBD properties.  Ms. Franks stated that the Planning Commission has indicated to her that the structure is zoned retail and they said no to a restaurant.  Mr. Ryan clarified that Ms. Franks withdrew her previous change of use application and the Planning Commission did not vote on a change of use for a restaurant. Mr. Johnson stated that what he recalls is the Planning Commission having a discussion as to what they felt the use was before the application was tabled.  He went on to say that as he recalled there was new language added to the Code and no formal decision was rendered.  Ms. Franks stated that the barn has been used for commercial use since 1838 and it is one of the oldest commercial retail buildings in Granville.  Ms. Franks stated that the reason she bought the property is because there were five separate rental opportunities available.  Ms. Franks stated that she doesn’t think it is legal to change the zoning and take away someone’s property rights and she suggested that the Village have Law Director Crites check into this.  Ms. Franks stated that she didn’t realize the Planning Commission would be discussing the use of the property this evening.  Mr. Ryan stated that establishing a use for the property is part of their approval.  Ms. Franks asked if the language pertaining to establishing a use for the property is new to the code, and if it was passed after this project was started.  Ms. Terry stated that this is existing code language.  Ms. Franks asked when it went into effect.  Ms. Terry stated that she has this information in her office and she can get it to Ms. Franks.  Ms. Terry read aloud Section 1159.05  “c” and “d” page 67 of the Zoning Code which pertained to the Planning Commission establishing a use classification for the property.  Mr. Ryan concluded that he is “looking at accessory use to your retail in the primary building.”  Ms. Franks indicated that she was approached by Tim Tyler about selling bikes from the barn structure and she is asking if Mr. Ryan’s conclusions mean this cannot be done.  Mr. Ryan asked if Ms. Franks is asking for a change of use.  Ms. Franks stated no because it is a retail space.  Mr. Ryan stated “for an accessory building.”  Ms. Franks stated that she doesn’t think she needs approval for retail and she can sell whatever retail items she wants to sell out of the barn.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if she can get a clarification on what a retail use is in an accessory building.  Ms. Terry stated that accessory means that the structure is dependent on the principle structure for its existence and it is a portion of the principle structure’s use, and not an independent use.  She stated that for instance, a garage is an accessory use to a house.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he was confused as to why the Planning Commission is discussing the use of the structure at this time because if someone adds a window, they don’t usually talk about use of the structure.  Ms. Terry stated that this is typically because the use has already been established or a change of use was requested by the applicant at the same time.  Ms. Franks asked how the use of Barb Hammond’s building will be established now that Mr. Ream has purchased it.  Ms. Terry stated that she will have to review the file and the first thing she will look to see is if a previous change of use was ever applied for and what signage was applied for and what type of businesses may have been there previously.  Ms. Franks asked how Ms. Terry has come to the determination that the barn was a furniture store.  Ms. Franks stated that she has a problem if the Planning Commission is trying to tell her that she can’t rent out the rear structure.  She stated that she is going to move parts of her business out there and she wants to have the ability to rent it out to someone else.  Mr. Mitchell stated that she will need to acquire a change of use just like anyone else and the current use is an accessory use to the front building as far as the Planning Commission is concerned.  Ms. Franks argued that it is a separate business and it is retail so why should it require a change of use.  Mr. Johnson stated that the fundamental issue here is parking and there is not enough parking back there for it to operate as an independent use.  Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Terry when the language regarding accessory use & accessory structures was altered.  Ms. Terry stated in January 2009.  Mr. Ryan stated that everyone here has come to the understanding that the use is an extension of the existing business in the front primary structure.  Mr. Ryan noted that the Planning Commission does not have an application before them for a change of use and they are being asked to establish the existing use.  Ms. Franks stated that the Planning Commission is putting a financial hardship on her and her barn was not an accessory structure when she started this and it was never an accessory structure because it was there before the house.  She stated that technically the house is the accessory structure to the barn.  Ms. Franks stated that she wants the Planning Commission to determine that the structure is a retail structure and lose the word “accessory.”  Ms. Terry stated that the language for accessory use changed in the definitions section.  Ms. Franks stated that it didn’t change until after she submitted her application.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a new definition for accessory use in the definitions section of the Code.  Ms. Franks stated that she is correct in her assumption to sell retail and to sell exactly what she is selling.  Mr. Rogers stated that “this is an important point of value for us.”  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would have to get a change of use for a retail designation.  Mr. Johnson questioned what would stop the applicant from putting a restaurant in the barn.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant would have to request a change of use to a different category and Ms. Franks is arguing that a change of use is not required because she is staying within her current category – retail.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission is charged with making the final determination as to what the structure should be classified.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #07-042:

 

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 restoration including the sympathetic use of original materials is in conjunction with other things approved in the district. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss added that by returning this building in the historic district to its original it is now well maintained and the proposed materials contribute to the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the architecturally and  historic enhancements are appropriate and add to the district

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the structure is being restored to its original state.

e)      Building Massing: The applicant submitted photographs for the exterior modification change showing eyebrows (awnings) above the southern doors.  Mr. Burriss stated that these need to be considered as a shed roof overhangs or awnings.  Mr. Burriss stated that the use of materials match the roofing material and the slope and siding are all consistent.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson agreed. 

f)        Roof Shape: The applicant is proposing eyebrows (awnings) above the doorways on the southern side that must be reviewed and approved.  The eyebrows (awnings) will have standing seam metal roofs with a drip cap along the top edge and oak sides and trim.  The pitch of the roof on the eyebrows (awnings) did not change from what was originally in place.  

g)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a brick sidewalk for their landscape plan and has added eyebrows (awnings) above the doorways on the southern side.  A variance will need to be granted by the BZBA.

h)      Use of Details: The applicant is proposing a brick sidewalk for their landscape plan and has added eyebrows above the doorways on the southern side.  Mr. Burriss stated that the use of brick is more historically correct and the Planning Commission favors this over the use of concrete. 

i)        Landscape Design: The applicant is not proposing any landscaping at this time.  This is a change from the original submittal.  Mr. Burriss indicated that if landscaping is ever proposed in the future, a separate application will need to be submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell read aloud the modifications to the exterior modification list dated January 28, 2008.  The modifications made at this Planning Commission meeting were for the following:

 

                        a.         Reduction in rear yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero (0') feet;

                        b.         Reduction in northern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero         (0') feet; and

                        c.         Increase in maximum lot coverage from seventy (70%) percent to          the actual total lot coverage percentage (this information has yet to   be submitted by the applicant);

 

 

 

“Exhibit B”:

 

a)         The installation of fire treated plywood under the rough sawn oak wood siding as required by the Building Code Department;

b)         The submission of a landscape plan, at a later date (Landscape Plan withdrawn from application);

c)         12-inch rough sawn oak wood siding on the exterior;

d)         True divided lite windows with fixed windows on the lower level and operable casement windows in the upstairs with all windows having a wood interior and vinyl exterior (windows were revised to be all wood windows);

e)         Metal doors that measure 3 feet by 7 feet with true divided lite windows in all doors (pedestrian doors were revised to non-lite);

f)          Non-operable garage doors constructed of wood panels with true divided lite panels with a fixed pane glass;

g)         3-inch trim board made of rough sawn oak wood to match the exiting siding;

h)         Vented vinyl soffit (soffits were revised to wood soffits with round vents);

i)          4-inch aluminum gutters as indicated by the applicant;

 

j)          Air Conditioning unit has been withdrawn from the application;

k)         Add two (2) awnings with metal roofing that matches the roof structure in color and slope over the two south side doors, including recessed canned lighting;

l)          Add brick walkway along west property line contingent upon approval of a variance from the BZBA for rear and side yard setback, and possibly lot coverage if needed;

m)        Add two (2) matching light fixtures at either side of the west door; and

n)         East elevation windows modified to four (4) lite single awning windows.

 

Mr. Mitchell made the following motion:

To approve amended Application #07-042 REVISED for exterior modifications according to Exhibit “B” & Exhibit “A” from Park National Bank; and that the existing established use for the structure shall be classified as VBD-I, Accessory Uses, buildings or structures to the previous A-H; therefore any proposed use other than the continuation of an accessory use shall require a change of use from the Village; That the applicant shall be required to receive approval from the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals for the following variances, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Village of Granville and prior to any use of the structure:

 

                        a.         Reduction in rear yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero (0') feet;

                        b.         Reduction in northern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero         (0') feet; and

                        c.         Increase in maximum lot coverage from seventy (70%) percent to          the actual total lot coverage percentage (this information has yet to   be submitted by the applicant);

 

“Exhibit B”:

 

a)         The installation of fire treated plywood under the rough sawn oak wood siding as required by the Building Code Department;

b)         The submission of a landscape plan, at a later date (Landscape Plan withdrawn from application);

c)         12-inch rough sawn oak wood siding on the exterior;

d)         True divided lite windows with fixed windows on the lower level and operable casement windows in the upstairs with all windows having a wood interior and vinyl exterior (windows were revised to be all wood windows);

e)         Metal doors that measure 3 feet by 7 feet with true divided lite windows in all doors (pedestrian doors were revised to non-lite);

f)          Non-operable garage doors constructed of wood panels with true divided lite panels with a fixed pane glass;

g)         3-inch trim board made of rough sawn oak wood to match the exiting siding;

h)         Vented vinyl soffit (soffits were revised to wood soffits with round vents);

i)          4-inch aluminum gutters as indicated by the applicant;

 

j)          Air Conditioning unit has been withdrawn from the application;

k)         Add two (2) awnings with metal roofing that matches the roof structure in color and slope over the two south side doors, including recessed canned lighting;

l)          Add brick walkway along west property line contingent upon approval of a variance from the BZBA for rear and side yard setback, and possibly lot coverage if needed;

m)        Add two (2) matching light fixtures at either side of the west door; and

n)         East elevation windows modified to four (4) lite single awning windows.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #07-042 is approved with the above listed conditions.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-133: James Browder

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 recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-133.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

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

 

Application #09-137: Ann Hinkle

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 #09-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-137.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #07-042 AMENDED: Dan Rogers

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 #07-042 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-042 (Amended).  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the September 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

(Mr. Burriss abstained from voting because he was not present at the meeting.) 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

October 26, 2009

November 9, 2009