Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes December 12, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 12, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, and Tim Ryan.

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker; Assistant to Planning Department

Also Present: Kevin Reiner, Lisa Englefield, Hilah Williams, and Art Chonko

 

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

121 South Main Street – John & Maria Bishop, submitted by Kevin Reiner,  Application #2011-145

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of French doors

and the relocation of an existing window.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kevin Reiner

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 121 South Main Street, indicated that he was designing the interior of this home, but needed to make some exterior changes to improve the interior flow.  This application proposed the removal of the existing sliding door to be replaced with a French door and move the existing window.  The intent was to recycle the window and sashes to maintain the historical feel.  He indicated that he hoped to install a Colby & Colby true divided light, all wood French door, but a clad door could be purchased. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the doors would be true French door or just French door styled door with an astragal through the transom and would there be trim. He also asked the type of hardware that would be used.  Mr. Reiner indicated that the door would be a true French door with astragal, but the door had not been ordered yet.  There would be a two inch architectural element frame.  Mr. Reiner indicated that the hardware would be an almond-shaped knob of oil rubbed bronze to maintain the historical look.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-145:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes that the project was consistent with other projects approved in the area.

 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes that the proposed architectural changes were more historically accurate than the existing structure and thereby contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the French door was more historically appropriate than the existing door.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-145 as presented with the trim details as marked on Exhibit A.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-145: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

113 East Elm Street – Elms Pizza Parlor- Application #2011-149

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Lisa Englefield_. 

 

Discussion:

Planner Terry advised the Commission that a variance was needed for this sign as this request exceeds the maximum number of signs permitted by Code. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked is when the existing “Pizza” was on did that not indicate that the restaurant was open.  Ms. Englefield indicated that the inside of the restaurant was so dark that additional signage was needed to let people know when they were open.  The “Open” sign would be in addition to the “Pizza” sign.  Ms. Englefield indicated that Elms would be willing to remove the wooden letter wall “Elms Pizza” sign from the building.

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign was consistent with other structures, but not all structures, in the district.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as putting the second neon sign in the other window would bring balance to the façade and be compatible with the historic nature of that building. 

 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the existing “Pizza” sign has been there for many years and the two signs will be an enhancement more than just the single sign.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-149:

 

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 TRUE due to the location of the business and the existing building materials. 

 

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 as the applicant had a current business in that location and the new sign could help improve business. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Two Planning Commission members agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial, while Mr. Hawk felt is was 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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 agreed FALSE as the property owner purchased the property prior to the Code.

 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed that this application required a variance.

 

(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 that justice would be done.

 

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 and was not an unreasonable request.

 

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 indicated that the applicant would be required to remove the wooden letter “Elms Pizza” wall sign.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-149 with the variance to increase the maximum number of signs from four to five and to require the removal of the wooden “Elms Pizza” wall sign.  Second by Mr. Hawk.    Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-149:  Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

113 East Elm Street – Elms Pizza Parlor- Application #2011-150

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Lisa Englefield. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Ryan asked if the sign would be framed with cedar and placed in the location of the existing “Elms Pizza” wooden wall letters.  He also asked what color the trim would be painted.  Ms. Englefield indicated that the sign would be trimmed in cedar and painted either white or green.  It would replace the wooden “Elms Pizza” wall sign.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the top of the frame would be aligned consistent with the other windows.  Ms. Englefield indicated that the intent was to make it consistent.  The Commission advised that the hours of operation sign may need to be lowered to accommodate this new sign.  Ms. Englefield agreed.

 

a)   Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village

      District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is consistent with other signs      

      in the district and will have the appearance of a permanent sign.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the

      Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as framing the sign will

      make the sign similar to existing building architecture and maintain the historic

      character of the district. 

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as this business has been a presence in the community for the past 27 years.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-150:

 

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 TRUE as the applicant had a current business in that location for 27 years and the sign will help tell a story.

 

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 as the applicant had a current business in that location and the new sign could help improve business. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial as they are removing one sign and replacing it with another.

 

 

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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 agreed FALSE as the property owner purchased the property prior to the Code.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the code requirements.

 

(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 FALSE as this signage is being installed to help promote business. 

 

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 specified that the sign would have to be framed in cedar, painted green, and change annually to reflect the number of years in business.  The wooden letter “Elms Pizza” wall sign would also need to be removed.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-150 with the variance to increase the maximum number of signs from five to six, frame the sign in cedar, paint green to match other trim and permission to change the sign annually to reflect the number of years in business.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-150:  Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no).  Motion failed 2-1.  The application will be tabled until the January 9, 2012 meeting.

 

115 East Elm Street – Darlene and Paul Queen, Jr. on behalf of Subway- Application #2011-151

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

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

 

As the applicant did not appear, Mr. Hawk moved to table the application until later in the meeting as the applicant was not in attendance or to the January 9, 2012 meeting, if the applicant does not arrive.  Second by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 3-0.  (The applicant did not attend the meeting.  Application #2011-151 was tabled to the January 9, 2012 meeting.

 

204 West Broadway – Denison University- Application #2011-152

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a back-up generator to be located behind the Ace Morgan Theatre to service both Monomoy House and Monomoy Annex.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Art Chonko. 

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, representing Denison University, advised the Commission that the University wanted to install a generator to service Monomoy House and the Annex.  The generator would be installed next to an existing electrical unit between the buildings.  The unit would be hidden from any street views, but could be seen from an adjoining parking lot.  The unit being purchased will have sound enclosure included with the unit.

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village

      District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is consistent with other

      structures approved previously in the district.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the generator will help preserve the historic structure from weather and electrical events.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it will help preserve and contribute to the livability of the structure.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it will protect and enhance a major Village historical structure.  

 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-152 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-152: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-145: Kevin Reiner for John and Maria Bishop; 121 South Main  Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2011-145 as indicated.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-145. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-149: Elms Pizza Parlor; 113 East Elm Street; Neon Sign

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 #2011-149 as indicated.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-149. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes),.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-152: Denison University; 204 West Broadway; Installation of a Generator

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 #2011-152 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-152. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the December 12, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for November 28, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from November 28, 2011 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

Adjournment:  8:26 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, Second by Mr. Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 9, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes November 28, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 28, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept.

Also Present: Kraig and Michele Koester, Frank and Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini, April Kale, Tim and Kathy Klingler, Park Shai, Tom LeFevre, and Bob Stern.

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

338 West Elm Street – Frank and Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini Application #2011-136

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a stationary standby generator on

the east side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Frank OBrien-Bernini. 

 

Discussion:

Frank OBrien-Bernini, 338 West Elm Street, indicated he would like to install the generator on the east side of the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is any landscaping  proposed around the generator.  Mr. OBrien-Bernini stated there is existing landscaping to hide from the neighbors.  He stated the pine trees located in this area are about four foot (4’) tall.  He also indicated his house sits higher than the neighbors home.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any information submitted on the estimated sound decibels of the unit.  Mr. OBrien-Bernini stated the decibels are .63 when running.     

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-101:

 

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 for a generator is consistent with other requests for a generator.

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 existing landscaping is consistent with other materials used in this district.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-136 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-136:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-137

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated that he is a proposing signage for a new business on Westgate Drive.  He explained the purpose of the business is home décor and open two days a week - Thursday and Saturday.  Mr. Koester stated it is their intent to be off the retail location in a warehouse district setting.  Mr. Koester stated the business is set up as a destination type shopping and they will use heavy advertising to make the place known because there is not a lot of retail shopping on Westgate Drive.  Ms. Terry stated the 2.25 square foot size of the sign is permitted without a variance, but a variance is needed for window signs that are not permitted within the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed sign code changes the Planning Commission recently recommended to Council would eliminate the need for a variance in this particular case.  Ms. Terry stated clarified that if there was not a Transportation Corridor Overlay District, then this particular variance would not be needed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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 TRUE. 

 

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. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements.

 

(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. 

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-137 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-137:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-138

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated that the proposed wall sign would identify the building for their business.  Ms. Terry stated a variance is required due to the TCOD requirements.  She stated the proposed size of the sign is allowed and the applicant needs a variance to increase to the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 6 square feet to 24.75 square feet within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Mr. Ryan asked the applicant which sign he considers to be more important – the freestanding sign or the building sign.  Mr. Koester stated he may doubt he is at the right location if he chooses one over the other.  Mr. Ryan stated he asks this questions specifically because of the accumulation of the square footage.  Mr. Koester stated there is existing signage on the buildings located in this area today.  He stated for instance, Leader Printing has at least six signs.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant’s proposed signage is much smaller in comparison to some of the existing signage on Westgate Drive.  Mr. Johnson asked if in the next application the applicant would be seeking variance beyond the TCOD requirements.  Ms. Terry stated this is correct.  Mr. Johnson stated the Planning Commission needs to be consistent, but it is true they do not agree with the TCOD requirements within the sign code.  He stated they have not taken on the underlying zoning district zoning code to see if they make sense and they have only addressed the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if directional lighting is proposed.  Mr. Koester stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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 TRUE.  Mr. Johnson stated the TCOD requirements are restrictive allowing for the need for a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed sign is not an inappropriate scale to the structure it is being placed on.         

 

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. Burriss stated the use of the building – retail – has to have identification to mark the location of the business. 

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage would not alter the character of 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.  The Planning Commission agreed 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 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. 

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-138 with the following variances:

  1. 1.                  To allow for a wall sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);
  2. 2.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 6 square feet to 24.75 square feet in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-138:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-139

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig and Michele

Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated the proposed freestanding sign is ten foot (10’) high and one-sided.

Mr. Hawk asked if there are any setback requirements from the road.  Ms. Terry stated no, and the sign has to be located outside of the right of way.  Mr. Burriss stated given the area the sign is proposed for - it is not inappropriate for signage that already exists in this area.  He added the proposed signage is more discreet then some of the existing signage in this area and the sign offers style and detailing.  Ms. Terry clarified there is landscaping proposed for the base of the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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 TRUE.  Mr. Burris stated the building is distant from traveled routes and another building blocks part of the structure which is unique to this structure. 

 

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. Burriss stated the structure will house retail and needs appropriate signage.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated for the underlining zoning district, the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Hawk, and Mr. Burriss agreed.

 (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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements and unique location of the structure requiring signage.

 

(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. 

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-139 with the following variances:

 

  1. 1.                  To increase the maximum allowable square footage of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Community Service District (CSD) from thirty-eight (38) square feet to sixty-four point seven five (64.75) square feet total;
  2. 2.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Community Service District (CSD) from twenty-four (24) square feet to forty (40) square feet;
  3. 3.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay District (TCOD) from twenty-four-point-seven-five (24.75) square feet to sixty-four-point-seven-five (64.75) square feet.  (Which is a combined total of all signs requested for this property under GPC Applications #2011-139.);
  4. 4.                  To increase the maximum size of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay Corridor District (TCOD) from eighteen (18) square  feet to forty (40) square feet; 
  5. 5.                  To increase the maximum height of the freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay Corridor District (TCOD) from six (6’) feet to ten (10’) feet.  

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-139:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

203 North Mulberry Street –Chad Pepper/Greek Key Services - Application #2011-140

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a window replacements.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Mr. Reymenn.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Reymenn, Marysville, Ohio was present to address any questions.  He stated Mr. Pepper was unable to attend the meeting.  Mr. Reymenn confirmed they would be replacing the existing windows with Jeldwyn windows. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-140:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated new windows would preserve the existing historical structure.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-140 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-140:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

129 Westgate Drive – Granville Fitness/April Kale- Application #2011-142

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a parking plan for proposed recreational space.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Park Shai, and April Kale. 

 

Discussion:

April Kale, 129 Westgate, stated she would like to defer any questions to Park Shai, realtor.  Ms. Terry explained this matter is before he Planning Commission because the zoning code says recreational uses are to be set by the Planning Commission and they are not determined by the code or the Planner.  She stated she asked Ms. Kale to submit information so the Planning Commission had an idea on how many people could be using the property at one time.  Mr. Johnson questioned if ‘recreational use’ is defined as ‘fitness.’  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Kale stated fourteen (14) people is the maximum number of people that would be at the facility at one time.  She explained fourteen people wouldn’t be there all day, but rather in blocks of time.  Ms. Terry stated the other fitness use approved by the Planning Commission was for Lemonade Fitness in which the Planning Commission determined 540 square feet required having 3 parking spaces.  Mr.   Ryan questioned how many spaces are currently in place.  Mr. Shai stated ten, but he estimates they are able to add up to five more. 

 

Mr. Johnson asked if it is the goal of the business to increase in size.  Ms. Kale stated she wouldn’t want more space.  The Planning Commission determined the surface area is sufficient for 14 parking spaces.  Mr. Shai indicated in ‘Exhibit A’ where they could place four to five additional parking spaces.  Ms. Terry reminded the applicant that gravel cannot be placed within ten feet (10’) of any property line. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-142 on the condition that the parking be set per ‘Exhibit A’ with fourteen (14) parking spaces.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-142:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Work Session:

Tim and Kathy Klingler were present to discuss the potential purchase of the Bancroft House located on Park National Bank property on Elm Street.  Mr. Klingler stated he would like to have feedback from the Planning Commission on whether or not plans for a carriage house are acceptable.  Ms. Terry indicated variances have been applied for by the Klingler’s to the BZBA.  She stated the non-conforming status has lost its current status.  Mr. Klingler stated the house is on the historic register.  Mr. Johnson suggested looking at the grading and drainage issues in this area, although he feels any issues can be remedied.  The Planning Commission indicated they did not have immediate concerns with Mr. Klingler’s proposal.  Mr. Burriss stated Mr. Klingler has always built what was approved by the Planning Commission for similar projects in years past.   

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-136: Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini/Frank Bernini; 338 West Elm Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2011-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-136. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-137: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; Signage

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, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-137. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-138: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; Signage

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, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-138 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-138. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-139: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; Signage

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, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-139 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-139. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-140: Denison University; 203 North Mulberry; Exterior Modifications

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 #2011-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-140. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-142: April Kale/Granville Fitness; 149 Westgate Drive; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1183, Offstreet Parking and Loading, Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-142. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the November 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for October 24, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October 24, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for November 14, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from November 14, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Hawk abstained.)

 

Motion to approve 2012 Meeting Dates:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the 2012 Planning Commission meeting dates proposed by the Planning Department.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 12, 2011

Monday, January 9, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes November 14, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 14, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk.

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

Also Present: Dwight Davidson

 

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

115 West Broadway – United Church of Granville- Application #2011-131

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Deb Walker, and Dwight Davidson.

 

Discussion:

Dwight Davidson, United Church of Granville, indicated the lettering and size of the signage remain the same as what was previously in place.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant revised the lettering on the sign face, but the actual sign remains the same.  She explained that when the wording on the sign is changed a new permit is required.  Ms. Terry stated the signage is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) and if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the sign variances would be required as indicated in the Staff Report.  Mr. Davidson stated the signage does not have any lighting on it.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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 TRUE.  Mr. Burris stated the conditions applicable are also applicable to other structures in that same district, for instance, other church signs.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage is also located within the TCOD and they are in the process of making changes to the sign code related to the TCOD.        

 

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 the property where the signage is located is at a church.     

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated this is an existing sign which has already been in place for some time.   

 

(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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated the signage currently exists in this location and only the wording is being changed.   

 

(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. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed the granting of the variance is the most common sense solution.   

 

(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 the TCOD requirements are the one of the main reasons for the variances. 

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-131:

 

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 signage requests approved in the same zoning 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 signage is consistent with other signage in the same zoning district.  

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 the manner this is being projected is consistent with physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-131 with the following provisions for variances:

1)         To allow for a wall sign that is twenty (20) square feet in the Village Square District (VSD);

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six (6) square feet to twenty (20) square feet in the TCOD;

3)         To allow for a changeable copy sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD); 

4)         To allow for a wall sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-131:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

115 West Broadway – United Church of Granville- Application #2011-132

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of the face of a freestanding sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Deb Walker, and Dwight Davidson. 

 

Discussion:

Dwight Davidson, United Church of Granville, indicated the sign is the same as what was previously in place, but with the wording changed.  Ms. Terry noted the freestanding sign is for the church, but the sign is not located in the Village Square District (VSD), but rather in the Village Residential District (VRD).  She stated the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) requirements still apply, and therefore, variances are still necessary if the signage is approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss indicated he would be in support of approval of the application if the applicant would be willing to add landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign.  Mr. Davidson stated this would not be a problem. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-132:

 

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 the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Johnson stated this is a church in a residential district and the signage needs differ from other properties.  Mr. Ryan stated this is an application for an existing sign and the only change is in the wording. 

 

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 this is an annex building for the church. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated the character from what has been is not being altered because there was already signage in this location. 

 

(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. 

 (6)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimous agreed TRUE. 

 

(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.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-132:

 

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 signage requests approved in this district.

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 the presented signage is historically appropriate.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-132 with the following variances and condition:

1)         To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 7 square feet to 25.25 square feet in the Village Residential District (VRD);

2)         To allow for a freestanding sign in the Village Residential District (VRD) and the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);

3)         To increase the maximum allowable size of a freestanding sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) from 18 square feet to 25.25 square feet; 

4)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 6 square feet to 25.25 square feet in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);

5)         To require landscaping at the base of the freestanding sign and submit the landscaping design to the Village for staff approval. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-132:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-131: United Church of Granville; 115 West Broadway; Signage

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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-131 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-131. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-132: United Church of Granville; 115 West Broadway; Signage

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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-132 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-132. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Steven Hawk and Tom Mitchell from the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011 (Melanie Schott indicated she is unable to attend this meeting.)

 

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes October 24, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 24, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, and Jeremy Johnson.

Members Absent: Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe and Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker, Planning and Zoning Assistant.

Also Present: John Klauder, Maggie Sobataka, Jodi Melfi, Laura Hunt, Flo Hoffman, and Cynthia Cort.    

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Corner of North Main and College Street – John Klauder Associates for Denison University- Application #2011-121

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a three (3’) foot high brick retaining wall.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and John Klauder. 

 

Discussion:

John Klauder, 30 Old Farm Road, indicated he was approached by Denison University to do this project.  He stated they will step down the wall and make this area look very attractive.  Mr. Klauder presented an example of the proposed brick.  He stated it is not exactly the same, but is a very close match. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-121:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is a continuance of what is already existing at the Denison University entrance and that makes this improvement stylistically compatible.   

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 materials are consistent with other materials used in this district.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-121 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-121:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

134 ½ East Broadway – Dr. Devin Savage - Application #2011-127

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Dr. Devin Savage.

 

Discussion:

Devin Savage, 134 ½ East Broadway, presented an example of the signage to be placed on the window glass.  Ms. Terry stated there is a variance on file for the previous projecting sign.  Jodi Melfi, graphic designer and designer of the sign, was present to answer any questions by the Planning Commission. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-127:

 

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. 

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-127 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-127:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

134 ½ East Broadway – Dr. Devin Savage - Application #2011-128

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Dr. Devin Savage.

 

Discussion:

Devin Savage, 134 ½ East Broadway, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated the required variance would allow all of the signage for Day y Noche, the Yoga Studio, and the dentistry business to be compliant.  Ms. Terry explained that the variance would be needed because the previous dental business had only received a variance for the projecting sign and with the window sign on the door as well it necessitated the variance for the total increase.  Mr. Ryan stated the proposed sign is blue and white.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is proposing to exceed the maximum height because fourteen feet is the maximum allowable height.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the proposed signage is seventeen feet.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked why the code indicated a maximum height to the top of the sign since this is a sign for a second story location.  He stated the signage is for a business on the second story and the guidelines are taking the height from the ground floor which seems silly. Ms. Terry stated that this point can be considered when they are reviewing sign code changes in the future. Mr. Ryan stated the guidelines are not clear and someone might infer that the Planning Commission is looking at a seventeen foot high sign, which is not the case. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-128:

 

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 TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that another and similar application with a projecting wall sign had been approved for this location, and that the Planning Commission felt this type of signage was appropriate due to the location of a second story business and the façade of the building.  He stated the Planning Commission would not want any detailing of the building covered up.  Mr. Ryan state the second sign on the door is also adding to the need for a variance and the applicant needs to also have a sign on their door to indicate the location of the entrance.   

 

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 it would be difficult to identify the business without the signage.  Mr. Burriss stated the entry door sign and the projecting sign have consistent graphics.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated the character was not being altered because there was already signage in this location. 

 

 

(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.  The Planning Commission agreed the granting of the variance is the most common sense solution.   

 

(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.

 

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 that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-128:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage in the district.

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 the signage is consistent with historically accurate signage in the district.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-128 with the following conditions:

1)         To increase the maximum sign area square footage from 58.53 square feet to 61.733 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign;

2)         To increase the maximum number of projecting signs allowed for this zoned lot from one (1) to two (2) to allow for the installation of a second projecting sign; and

3)         To increase the maximum height of a projecting sign from fourteen (14) feet to seventeen (17) feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-128:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

113 North Prospect Street – Gallery M- Application #2010-60

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

The request is for a time extension for the relocation of a sandwich board sidewalk sign at

the northwest corner of North Prospect and East Broadway. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Marilyn Sobataka.

 

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, Pinehurst Drive, indicated the sidewalk signage in this location has significantly benefited her business.  The Planning Commission indicated that Ms. Sobataka had indicated at a previous meeting that she was going to look at some alternatives signage in this area.  Mr. Burriss stated there used to be a sign with an arrow for businesses on South Prospect Street that was located on the second floor.  He asked if there is anything in the regulations about someone putting their sign on another building.  Ms. Terry stated of course a business owner would need to have permission from the property owner, but this would also be considered an off premise sign, which is not currently permitted. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any complaints made about the sandwich board sign for Gallery M.  Ms. Terry stated no.  She indicated the Village received a letter in support of the sidewalk sign. Ms. Sobataka explained her investigation into alternative signage was currently only in the concept stage. She stated she was looking into something that is different for the Village that is not sandwich board signage.  Ms. Sobataka indicated she could take her proposed planter concept and make it singular on this corner of the town if this is desired by the Planning Commission.  She went on to say that the current location of the sidewalk sign is where a trash can used to be, and she tries not to place it in an inconvenient location for walking traffic. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60:

 

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. Burriss stated the vitality of the business is contributed to with the proposed sidewalk signage. 

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 #2010-60 with a time stipulation of twelve months for relocation of the sidewalk sandwich board sign. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-60:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

115 East Broadway – Granville Historical Society - Application #2011-64 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to modify some of the previously approved finishes and detailing on the exterior of the building, and to modify the western

door entry.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Laura Hunt, Flo Hoffman,

and Cynthia Cort .

 

Mr. Johnson recused himself from Application #2011-64 at 8:00 PM. 

 

Discussion:

Laura Hunt indicated she has been working as the architect on this project.  She stated they have some proposed changes, specifically to the exterior finish details.  Ms. Hunt explained the previously approved plan had stone corners that they would like to replace with quoins made of an EIFS material, and that they have studied various groove patterns and created a horizontal line to break up all three facades.  Ms. Hunt stated they would like to add a small roof over the west entry door, and lentils over each window.  She stated they are also changing the color of the exterior. Mr. Hawk questioned if “value engineering” is the reason for the proposed changes.  Ms. Hunt stated yes, and to break up the appearance of the facade.  Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed grout joint line.  He stated it seems arbitrary as to where it is being placed and it seems to indicate a floor line.  He went on to say that he is bothered by the way this line hits the corners because it does not line up with the corner quoins.  Mr. Hawk agreed, but stated dropping it down would create a problem on the west elevation.  Ms. Hunt stated they did look at some other patterns; she later presented drawings illustrating several additional options.  Mr. Burris stated he admires the front entrance to this building.  He asked why two paired columns are presented for the rear instead of matching the front singular columns.  Ms. Hunt agreed single columns would be more appropriate.  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds the porch roof for the entry.  He explained he thinks the entrance to the original structure is strong and appropriate, and that the rear entrance should be tied into the identity of the building to match this.  Mr. Burriss stated he would like to look at options for the brackets supporting the little roof on the southern façade, because they don’t feel as detailed as the rest of the building.  Cynthia Cort stated the front entrance door is recessed approximately 18” and that they are unable to recess the rear door this much.  The Planning Commission discussed the use of blind windows versus real windows.  Mr. Burriss indicated it would be appropriate to add an additional blind window for symmetry above the entry on the western facade.  Ms. Cort agreed and stated they would need to have blind windows to reduce the cost and because of the interior use of the facility.  Mr. Burriss stated there are blind windows on the old Sensibilities buildings and these were encouraged by the Planning Commission to break up the façade.  Mr. Burriss stated that if one looks at the fenestration pattern on the front of the building – everything is balanced and symmetrical and he would like to see this continue on the back of the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated they could also use shutters to give the blind windows a stronger look.  The Planning Commission discussed the proposed EIFS (Exterior Insulated Finished Systems) design modifications.  Ms. Hunt presented various sketch studies of the exterior with alcoves.  She stated the alcoves would be the same material and color.  Mr. Burriss asked how the horizontal band would stand out.  Ms. Cort stated it would have an inch and a half reveal.  Mr. Burriss indicated that on the eastern elevation, under the fire escape, the trash cans and air handlers need to be screened. Discussion focused on using a fence or screening design that replicated the hand railing from the fire escape be incorporated in this area. Mr. Burriss stated the applicant needs to decide the location for any hose bibs.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-64 AMENDED:

 

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. 

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 #2011-64 AMENDED with the following provisions:

The west exterior façade to be detailed per Exhibit "A" with the addition of two window ‘ghosts’ and a floor band as indicated, and the doorway on this elevation is to be detailed with single pilaster’s on either side of the door; and the south façade be detailed as indicated in Exhibit "B" to include a floor band, and the extension of both shed roofs to accommodate new support brackets; and the exterior elevation east side be detailed per Exhibit "C" to include a floor band and fencing to screen air conditioning units and other objects.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-64 AMENDED:

Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Johnson returned to the meeting at 8:15 PM.

 

Other Business:

Zoning Code Revisions - to amend various sign code provisions outlined in Section 1189, Table 1189b. 

 

Public Comments:  None. 

 

Planner Terry stated the Planning Commission is focusing on the TCOD requirements at this time.  She explained the district that allows for the most signage is the downtown Village Business District and this is because its based on linear frontage.  Ms. Terry presented a chart with all of the revisions previously discussed by the Planning Commission.  She stated the TCOD section has been removed and all parts that are impacted by the removal of the TCOD section have been addressed.  Ms. Terry stated this recommendation would be subject to approval by Council.  Mr. Burriss stated he is all in favor of simplification and clarification of the sign code. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion for recommendation of the TCOD sign code changes to Village Council and to recommend they approve the changes that were made consistent with the September 26, 2011 draft.  Seconded by Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-121: John Klauder Associates; Main/College Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-121 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-121. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-127: Dr. Devin Savage; 134 ½ East Broadway; Signage

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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-127. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-128: Dr. Devin Savage; 134 ½ East Broadway; Signage

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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-128. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-60 AMENDED: Gallery M/Marilyn Sobataka; 113 North Prospect Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-60 (AMENDED) as submitted with the added stipulation that the time extension be for a period of one year.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-64 AMENDED: Granville Historical Society; 115 East Broadway; Exterior Modifications

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 #2011-64 (AMENDED) as amended with provisions illustrated in Exhibits A, B, and C.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-64 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell from the October 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 26, 2011:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from September 26, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Hawk abstained.)

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes September 26, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 26, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Jeremy Johnson, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  Mr. Hawk and Councilmember O’Keefe. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Michael King; Asst. Law Director King; Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

Also Present:  Sabato Sagaria, Kent Jaquith, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Brian Miller, Brice Corder, Cynthia Feidler, Sam Rogers.   

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria- Application #2011-116

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a six (6’) foot

wood privacy fence to be located along the rear and side property lines, and installation

of a metal bollard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Sabato Sagaria, Dan Rogers, Cynthia Feidler, Brice Corder, and later Barbara Franks.  

 

Discussion: 

Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated the fence would have a finished look on both sides.  He indicated he would like to leave the fence unfinished.  Mr. Johnson asked if the fence would have any type of gate.  Mr. Sagaria indicated he is not proposing a gate, but he later changed his mind and added up to three potential gates to his application.  Mr. Mitchell noted the proposed fence doesn’t go between the two garages.  Mr. Sagaria stated it wouldn’t make sense for the fence to go between the two garages so he had it stop and start again at each end.  Mr. Sagaria stated his goal is to have the fence be located from the front of the back lot to the back front end of the neighbor’s garage.  He also stated the fence would be located entirely on his property.  Mr. Mitchell asked the reason for the metal bollard not being incorporated into the fence.  Mr. Sagaria stated he could make the bollard blend in with the fence if that is what the Planning Commission would like.  Mr. Sagaria stated the bollard would prevent people from destroying the fence.  He indicated he is proposing a round cylinder that is seven inches (7”) in diameter.  Ms. Terry stated the application indicates the bollard would be four foot (4’) high and the fence would be six foot (6’) high.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he is having difficulty picturing the bollard and the fence together.  He questioned if the fence starts after the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated yes.  He asked if the fence is abutting the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated no and it is maybe six inches (6”) away from the proposed bollard.  He indicated he would change this if the Planning Commission wished.  Mr. Johnson stated he believed a gate would be prohibitive to construct with the location of the proposed bollard.  He stated a gate could be attached to the first post.  Mr. Sagaria stated that if he needs to attach the fence to the bollard he would.  Mr. Burriss asked the reason for the gap between the fence and why it starts and stops again.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be willing to take the fence back to the garage.  He went on to say that if the fence were to be straight it would come two feet into his driveway and take away from any maneuverability.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be willing to angle the fence if need be and he would be willing to add fence in the corner of the garage on the west side so the fence goes over and across.  Mr. Mitchell stated a bollard does not seem appropriate to him for a residential area.  Mr. Sagaria stated he is willing to go with another recommendation, but he doesn’t want people to damage the fence.  He suggested he could encase the bollard in lumber.  Mr. Burriss asked the distance between the corner of the concrete curb and the proposed bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated his guess is 102-105 inches.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be any consideration in moving the bollard back.  He stated this is a tight dimension for a vehicle and if a gate is added it is even tighter.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be opposed to moving the bollard back.  Mr. Mitchell asked how Mr. Sagaria turns a car around.  Mr. Sagaria stated he pulls in and backs up to the north to exit the driveway.  He clarified the curb doesn’t go all the way to the driveway to prevent him from turning around.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, stated he thinks the fence is a fabulous idea and they are “pro fence.”  Mr. Rogers stated the proposed bollard is six inches (6”) in diameter and he asked if the size of the fence post would be 4x4.  Mr. Ryan stated the application states the posts would be 6x6.  Mr. Rogers asked how deep the posts would be required to be in the ground.  Village Planner Terry stated the applicant is required to have the posts thirty-two inches (32”) in the ground.  Mr. Rogers stated the issue with this situation has always been the property line and this line is a major issue because “it is crimping to such a degree that I cannot finish the barn.”  He went on to explain that it wasn’t Mr. Sagaria’s doing for the location of the garage, but it was previous owners that built the building so close that it hangs over his building.  Mr. Rogers stated the water comes off the south roof so fast that it comes on the north wall of his barn and the barn almost fell down due to this.  Mr. Rogers stated this water issue has not been solved and the eaves are hanging over the property line.  Ms. Franks presented pictures to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked how this information is related to the fence.  Mr. Rogers stated this is relevant because you cannot access the area between the two accessory buildings without walking on both properties.  He stated that the location of the fence could pose a problem for long term maintenance.  Mr. Rogers stated a gate is a good idea for full access.  Mr. Sagaria stated he disagreed with Mr. Rogers about accessibility to the back of his garage.  Mr. Ryan stated the application has been amended to extend the fence in this rear area.  Mr. Rogers indicated he wants to ensure the proposed fence will not restrict access to his property or access to perform maintenance related issues.  He stated he has invested $250,000 in the barn and he wants to make sure he can maintain this structure.  Mr. Sagaria stated he is not suggesting Mr. Rogers won’t have access to his own property.  Mr. Rogers stated he wanted to cut the corner of his building because of accessibility issues that currently exist.  He stated the bollard addition means there will be a “full on box to get in there.”  Mr. Ryan asked why Mr. Sagaria would like the bollard placed in this particular location.  Mr. Sagaria stated the bollard would protect his fence.  Mr. Rogers suggested the bollard could be made out of metal, rather than concrete.  He stated a gate could be hung from the bollard post. 

 

Barbara Franks was sworn in by Mr. Ryan.  She stated the fence is a great idea.  Ms. Franks stated there were some things handed down by a judge regarding a court ordered professional survey and an order of no trespassing.  She stated Mr. Sagaria or his workers are not allowed to walk on her property and the holes for the posts must be completely dug on Mr. Sagaria’s property.  Ms. Franks stated Mr. Sagaria’s home is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District and the Planning Commission should consider if the proposed fence and bollard design are historical.  She stated bollards were not considered in 1894 when her house was built or 1910 when Mr. Sagaria’s house was built.  Ms. Franks asked for the Planner to read aloud the fence permit definition and criteria.  Ms. Franks stated she would also like to request that she be allowed to place a gate or start her fence at the area where the bollard is located.  The Planning Commission indicated they cannot give permission for Mr. Sagaria to allow Ms. Franks the use of any portion of the fence on his property.  Ms. Terry read aloud Section 1135.01, 47, Fence (definition) of the code.  She also indicated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the AROD criteria for this application.  Mr. Ryan reminded the parties that the Planning Commission cannot get involved in any personal issues regarding a court order.  He stated this is a civil matter and the Planning Commission is only charged with approval/denial of the aesthetics of the fence and if all of the setback requirements have been met.   

 

Cynthia Feidler stated the driveway is narrow for both parties and she has stopped using her driveway because of damage that occurred to her car twice.  Ms. Feidler stated they have one way in and out and the neighboring property has two ways to come and go on their property.  She indicated she has been harassed by the neighbor.  Law Director King reminded all parties that the only matter before the Planning Commission is the application for a fence.  He stated any other issues are considered to be civil matters between the two neighbors.  

 

Mr. Sagaria stated a survey of the property has been completed.  He read aloud an excerpt from the survey referring to lots 181, 182, 187, and 188.  Mr. Sagaria stated there is a pin in the front portion of the lot and a pin in the back.  Ms. Franks stated a judge has indicated that a middle pin has to be set and the survey Mr. Sagaria is referring to has only the four corners pinned.  Law Director King stated this information is not relevant to the Planning Commission in rendering a decision on the proposed fence.  Mr. Rogers stated Mr. Sagaria would have to be north of the property line for the installation of the foundations for the fence.  Ms. Franks stated this area is used for her ingress and egress and she wants to make sure the Planning Commission isn’t granting Mr. Sagaria permission to block her.  Mr. Mitchell reiterated that defining where the corner lot is - is a civil matter.  Ms. Terry stated there would be an inspection of the post holes and they do not inspect their location in relation to the property lines.  Mr. Johnson later clarified that the Village Planner only checks the depth of the post holes.  Ms. Franks stated that in theory Mr. Sagaria would be given permission to build a fence on her property.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if this were the case, Mr. Sagaria would be liable.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant is allowed to have a six foot (6’) high fence in the rear.  Ms. Franks stated she would like to make a suggestion that if Mr. Sagaria is building a privacy fence he should turn off his cameras.  Mr. Ryan asked for all comments to be directed to the Planning Commission and for only comments relevant to the installation of the fence be made.  Mr. Rogers asked if the Planning Commission has firmed up where the west point of the fence will end.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission has asked Mr. Sagaria to terminate the fence at his garage and he agreed.  He stated on the west side the fence would turn back to the building.  Mr. Rogers suggested a gate be installed.  Mr. Sagaria stated he had no plans for a gate, but he later changed and amended Exhibits A, B, and C to show the possibility for three gates to be installed.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on the two different styles of fence presented in the application.  Mr. Sagaria stated the fence would resemble the fencing shown on the bottom (second) picture.  Mr. Rogers asked if there could be one point of attachment for two fences in case he decides to install a fence.  He stated this would make the most sense, rather than having two or three poles in the same location.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission doesn’t have an application for a fence before them for Mr. Roger’s property.  He stated they cannot consider the approval of a fence without an application.  Mr. Johnson agreed the Planning Commission cannot grant Mr. Rogers attachment rights to Mr. Sagaria’s proposed fence.  Mr. Rogers commented the police would be contacted if the fence is built on his property.  Law Director King indicated to Mr. Rogers that this would be a civil matter, not a police matter, and that the property owner's would need to go through an attorney for a restraining order if they determine that the fence is located on their property.  Law Director King indicated that it is not a zoning related issue or a police issue, it's a civil issue.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Sagaria if he would consider the fence post being used to “house” the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated that if this is a sticking point he would make the bollard look like a fence post.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission is charged with considering the architectural character of the neighborhood and there are some aesthetic concerns with the bollard as presented.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Johnson stated the digging of the post hole location will have to be decided amongst the neighbors and they may have to be eighteen inches away from the property line to not have any portion of the fence on the neighboring property.  He reiterated this is between the two neighboring properties and not up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burris indicated he would like to see a sealant on the proposed fence.  He stated the presented plan for a natural fence doesn’t seem like the “correct vocabulary.”  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is a major architectural element on the property.  Ms. Franks questioned how the fence would be painted without the applicant or his worker’s going on her property.  Mr. Sagaria stated the fence would be prepainted on both sides.  He also indicated that with future paint jobs he would take down the fence, paint it, and put it back up.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the bollard function is incorporated into the fence post it should be similar in style to the balance of the other fence posts.  Mr. Sagaria agreed. 

 

Mr. Ryan indicated the Planning Commission has to be in agreement to each of the criteria.  Mr. Johnson stated with the incorporated bollard disguised, he can agree to the AROD criteria.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss agreed.

 

Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if he would agree to cap each of the fence posts as depicted in the bottom drawing.  Mr. Sagaria agreed.   Mr. Sagaria also agreed he has amended his application to request up to three, four foot swinging inward gates.  Mr. Burriss clarified he is unsure the gate on the side can be four foot wide.  The Planning Commission requested the fence panels to be of equal length.  Mr. Sagaria agreed.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-116:

 

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 fences with the amendments to finish the fence.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the proposed changes to finish the fence, the fence is appropriate. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality is achieved by enhancing the property.    

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 #2011-116 with the following conditions:

1)         That the fencing installation is to adhere to remarks per Exhibit ‘A’;

2)         Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ depict the installation of three (3) gates, with the gate on     west property line to be 4 foot-wide and each gate is to be an in swinging gate;

3)         Exhibit ‘C’ (bottom - second drawing style) is the approved style for the fence;

4)         The bollard function to be incorporated into the fence post similar in style to the             balance of the fence posts; 

5)         All surfaces of the fence are to be painted or stained; and

6)         Each panel of fencing located on the south property line will be of equal length
Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-116:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria- Application #2011-116

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items

1)         New concrete steps with railings at the front of the structure

2)         Pergola to be located in the rear yard; and

3)         Replacement windows on the northern and southern side of the home

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Michael Sabato Sagaria. 

 

Discussion:

Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated the existing front steps do not go with the house and they are dangerous in the wintertime.  Cynthia Feidler agreed.  Mr. Sagaria distributed a design of a porch in German Village with the continuation of railings.  He stated a design such as this is more fitting for his home.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing to paint the front steps.  Mr. Sagaria stated no.  Mr. Burriss stated he is aware of one home in the Village where the stone steps were turned over and were able to be reused.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he would prefer to see the stone steps stay in place, but he is only one vote.  Mr. Sagaria was unsure on the type of steps he would like to use or the exact location for the railings.  The Planning Commission also discussed the location of the windows, as this was not depicted on a drawing for the application.  Mr. Sagaria agreed to get additional information to the Planning Commission on the steps, railings, and windows.  He asked to table this portion of the application.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would like to move forward with consideration for the pergola.  Mr. Johnson asked the type of wood Mr. Sagaria would like to use for the pergola.  Mr. Sagaria stated pressure treated lumber that would be painted in one year. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-116 (only for the pergola) other portions of application were tabled until a later meeting:

 

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 pergola is consistent with structures approved in 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 a pergola is architecturally appropriate for this district.    

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 a pergola is an appropriate architectural element of our historic past.    

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-117 only regarding the pergola and to table the part of the application referring to approval for the replacement of steps and windows, and with the following conditions:

1)         The construction of the pergola would be with pressure treated lumber; and

2)         Pergola will be finished in white at the appropriate time. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-116:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

951 Burg Street – Kent & Tammy Jaquith - Application #2011-118

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) (standards apply due to the size of the proposed structure)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of an addition on the front and eastern side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kent Jaquith. 

 

Discussion:

Kent Jaquith, 951 Burg Street, stated that he is before the Planning Commission for approval of an addition.  Mr. Mitchell asked what is the Planning Commission oversight for this project.  Ms. Terry explained the AROD criteria applies, but only as it relates to the addition because the addition is more than 20% of the gross livable area of the existing structure.  She indicated the rest of the home can be resided without Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Jaquith stated you cannot really see the home from Burg Street.  Ms. Terry stated the application meets all of the setback and height requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked for a description of the proposed siding.  Mr. Jaquith stated they are contemplating using board and batten with cedar or Hardie-plank.  He stated he is leaning towards the use of cedar.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lantern lights would be used.  Mr. Jaquith stated this has been changed to be can lights only.  Mr. Jaquith explained the addition would come out a total of sixteen feet and allow for a foyer, bathroom, and closets.  He stated the board and batten would be broken up with the use of cedar plank and stone.  Mr. Johnson asked if the entire foundation would be split face block.  Mr. Jaquith stated yes, except for a small stone area on the front of the home.  Mr. Jaquith stated the porch would have a standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Johnson questioned if this could be interfaced due to water tightness.  Mr. Jaquith stated that there is also a change to his submitted application for the windows.  He stated the windows are currently shown as double hung windows, but this is not feasible for the closet.  He stated these windows would be shortened to look like the small windows on the drawing.  Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Jaquith is proposing a casement style window for all of the windows.  Mr. Jaquith stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant did not have to clarify if he would use the standing seam metal roof and the Planning Commission could approve the metal roof or a shingle roof.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-118:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the addition is consistent with other approvals for additions in the same 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 addition is a benefit to the existing home. 

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. Burris stated the proposed detailing on the materials used are more historically correct than what is existing on the home.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-118 per exhibits ‘A’ and

B.’  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-118:  Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

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 of this proposed Zoning Code revision.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend various Sign Code provisions outlined in Section 1189, Table 1189b.  

 

Discussion:

No one spoke in regards to the public hearing. 

Ms. Terry stated the language in red is per the Planning Commission comments at the last meeting.  She asked for clarification from the Planning Commission regarding freestanding signs in the PCD (Planned Commercial District).  Ms. Terry reviewed the changes the Planning Commission recommended at the work session that all signs in this zoning district should be ground mounted.  She stated the signage for Arby’s and Bob Evans are ground mounted.  Ms. Terry asked if the Planning Commission wants to take this language out or leave it up to the applicant for the option to apply for either ground mounted or freestanding.  Mr. Ryan agreed this area (PCD) may change once the highway changes are made.  Mr. Mitchell stated he feels comfortable with the decision recommended at the last meeting.  Mr. Burriss stated he would not feel comfortable with a twelve foot high sign being applied for in this zoning district.  Ms. Terry indicated she has some additional information that could be helpful for the Planning Commission regarding signage in this zoning district.  The Planning Commission asked for Ms. Terry to present this information before they make a final decision on signage recommendations to the TCOD. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to table the sign recommendations and hold a second public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-116: Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect Street; Fence

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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-116 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-116. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-117: Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect Street; Porch

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 #2011-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-117. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-118: Kent and Tammy Jaquith ; 951 Burg Street; Addition

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 #2011-118 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-118. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 12, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from September 12, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:35 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, October 24, 2011

Monday, November 14, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011