Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Friday
Dec122014

Planning Commission December 8, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 8, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Doug Eklof (Vice Chair), Steven Hawk (Chair), Craig Potaracke and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting)

 

Members Absent:  Bill Wilken

 

Staff Present: Planning Assistant, Debi Walker

 

Also Present: Ken Rittenhouse, Paula Colman, Meredith Clark, Alessandra Camealoss, Daniel Fierentini, Samantha We, Dan Kemper, Jesse Smith and Shelby Kaplan.

 

Citizen Comments:  As no one appeared to speak, Chair Hawk closed Citizens Comments.

 

New Business:

 

129 South Mulberry Street – Ken Rittenhouse on behalf of Gary and Judy Stansbury - Application #2014-177  Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a sixteen-foot (16’) long by forty-two inch (42”) tall white vinyl lattice screen to be installed to screen the air conditioning units facing West Elm Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Ken Rittenhouse. 

 

Discussion:

Ken Rittenhouse, 950 Old River Road, advised the Commission that he was speaking on behalf of the Stansbury family, and as a representative of John Klauder Landscape.  He would like to install a lattice unit to screen the air conditioning unit on the south side of the home.

 

Planning Assistant Walker indicated that staff was in support of this installation.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-177:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; as the project is consistent with other projects that have been approved in the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; as the proposed materials are appropriate in color, appearance, screen a modern air conditioning unit and is an upgrade to the home thereby upgrading the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the materials and design selected contribute to the vitality of a home improvements designed to screen a modern convenience, it contributes to the vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; that although the proposed replacement materials are modern, the appearance is consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby screening a modern convenience, the improvements protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-177 as presented.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.    Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-177:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

123 East Broadway – Lee Anne Faler on behalf of Art @ 43023 - Application #2014-178:  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. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Paula Colman. 

 

Discussion:

Paula Colman, 123 East Broadway, advised she was a partner of Art @ 43023.  Ms. Colman noted that the Commission had a picture of the sign.  It was a little more modern in design, would be attached to a pole with a pendant light.  The light could be put on a timer.

 

Mr. Hawke advised that signs go dark in the Village at 10:00pm. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked about changing the Tickleberry Moon sign.  Assistant Planner Walker indicated the wall sign would be replaced.  As long as the same color and lettering would be used, the sign could be changed without GPC approval, the business owner would simply need to secure a sign permit from the Village Staff. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-178:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage is consistent, complimentary and similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage has artistic merit and contributes to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and maintains the historical nature of the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure, which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage is appropriate and timely for the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-178 with an amendment to include that the pendant lighting be extinguished at 10:00pm.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.    Roll call vote to amend Application #2014-178:  Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.   

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-178, as amended:  Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-177: Ken Rittenhouse on behalf of Gary and Judy Stansbury, 129 South Mulberry Street, Lattice Screening of Air Conditioning Unit(s)   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 Section 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-177 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-177. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-177: Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

Application #2014-178: Lee Anne Faler on behalf of Art @ 43023, 123 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 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs,  and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-178 as amended to turn off the pendant lighting at 10:00pm.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-178. Second by Mr. Potaracke. Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-178: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse Bill Wilken from the December 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

There was not a quorum of members who attended the meeting to approve the minutes of the November 24, 2014 minutes.

 

Motion to approve Planning Commission Meeting dates for 2015:

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve the Planning Commission meeting dates for 2015. Second by Mr. Potaracke. Motion carried 4-0.

 

There were a number of Denison University students in attendance.  Mr. Hawk asked for questions and comments from the students.

 

Mr. Hawk declared the December 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment:  7:26pm

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 12, 2015

Monday, January 26, 2015

Monday, February 9, 2015

Monday
Dec082014

Planning Commission November 24, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 24, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Chair), Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio).

 

Members Absent:  Mr. Eklof and Mr. Burriss.

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present:  Craig & Maureen Severson, Bruce & Lisa Westall, Sue Barton, Kathy Tatham and Fred Abraham.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

 

941 Newark-Granville Road – Craig & Maureen Severson - Application #2014-169

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for review and approval of a stone retaining wall along the driveway and within the right-of-way adjacent to the public sidewalk. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Craig Severson.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Craig Severson, 941 Newark-Granville Road, stated he wishes to have a low retaining wall to mitigate water drainage. Planning and Zoning Assistant Walker stated that in addition to Planning Commission review and approval the Village Council would need to grant a general use permit for this structure as well.   The wall is eleven inches in height, is similar to other walls in the area, and is constructed of a Brussels style concrete block type product. There were neither questions nor objections from the Board.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-169:

 

1)         Fences, Walls or Barriers.  No fence, wall or other artificial barrier shall be erected and/or constructed in this district without approval of the Planning Commission.  Approval shall be based upon review of an application as set forth in Section 1137.05 of the Codified Ordinances of Granville, Ohio.  Planning Commission review shall include type, location, height, compatibility with the area and such other features or characteristics as may be appropriate.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, it is compatible with the area.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-169 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-169:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

315 South Pearl Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2014-172

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a new, two-story, single family home, driveway, sidewalk and rear deck.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Bruce & Lisa Westall.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street, stated his intention to build a single family home behind his present home along South Pearl Street.  The architectural style would be “steamboat” gothic and he researched the style to make sure it would fit in with Granville architecture. Mr. Hawk asked if the architect is licensed in Ohio and the answer was “Yes.”  Zoning and Planning Assistant Walker said that the BZBA had granted a variance for the northern side yard setback, due to the topography, under Application 2014-144.  She showed plans, elevation details and materials to the Board and indicated the proposed structure met the AROD requirements. The Board felt the home would be welcome in the historical district.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-172:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed home, driveway, sidewalk and deck are similar in style to other homes and projects approved in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed materials, design, colors and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, that as above in item b, the proposed design and materials contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed home, driveway, sidewalk and deck protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-172 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-172:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

230 South Mulberry Street – Kathy Tatham - Application #2014-173

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of seven (7) replacement windows. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Kathy Tatham.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Kathy Tatham, 230 South Mulberry Street, stated she would like approval to replace seven windows in her house.  The four downstairs windows are original and the three upstairs windows are old replacement windows.  She has lived in the home for 33 years and it was her grandparents’ home before that.   Zoning and Planning Assistant Walker stated that the replacement windows would preserve the structure, conserve energy and are consistent with the style of the house.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-173:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed replacement windows are similar in style to other projects approved in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, that as above in item b, the proposed design and materials contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE; the proposed replacement windows protect the home and therefore achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-173 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-173:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-169, Craig & Maureen Severson; 941 Newark-Granville Road; Landscape 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 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-169. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-169.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-172, Bruce & Lisa Westall; 315 South Pearl Street; New Single Family Home, Driveway, Sidewalk & Deck:  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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-172. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-172.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-173, Kathy Tatham; 230 South Mulberry Street; Window Replacements:  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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-173. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-173.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  Mr. Wilken made a motion to excuse Mr. Eklof and Mr. Burriss.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 3-0.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 10, 2014:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 10th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Potaracke seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

December 8, 2014

January 12, 2015 (Tentative)

January 26, 2015 (Tentative)

 

Mr. Hawk declared the November 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

Monday
Nov242014

Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 10, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Eklof (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Chair), Mr. Burriss, Mr. Eklof, Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Mitchell, and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio). 

 

Vote to elect Vice-Chair: 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to elect Mr. Eklof as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director.

 

Also Present:  Kevin Reiner, Anastasia Kakias, Marvin Rutter, Craig Severson, Maureen Severson, Michael Carey, Brenda Carey, Victor Terebuh, Patti Urbatis and Mike Urbatis.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Old Business:

130 South Mulberry Street - Kevin Reiner Design on behalf of Dan & Patricia Finkelman - Application #2014-124

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Removal of existing stone steps at the northeast corner of the home and replacement with sandstone veneer concrete steps and sandstone flagging;

2)         Installation of a one hundred forty-three (143) square foot sandstone patio; and

3)         Installation of a pea gravel patio area with sandstone border. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Eklof swore in Alison Terry and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Kevin Reiner, 130 S. Mulberry Street, stated the application was to remove unsafe steps and lay a 4 inch pad of concrete topped with a sandstone veneer finish.  He also stated that a 14’ in diameter round sandstone patio would be installed on a concrete pad topped with 2.25” sandstone with mortared joints. The sandstone finish would be compatible with the historical sandstone elsewhere on the property. Existing gravel in the patio area would be removed and replaced with pea gravel and a sandstone border.

The board asked Planner Terry if the proposed changes met criteria and she stated that they did.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-125:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed materials are appropriate in color and appearance and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality of an historic home with historically accurate improvements and contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that although the proposed replacement materials are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improve the home with historically accurate materials and improvements which protect the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2014-124 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-124:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (absent).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Hawk arrived at the meeting at 7:12 p.m.

 

New Business:

119 East Elm Street – Anastasia Kakias; Aegean Ambitions - Application #2014-158

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a window sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Anastasia Kakias.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Anastasia Kakias, 185 West Church Street, stated she was looking at gaining approval for two (2) signs at her business location, a window sign and a sidewalk sign.

 

Planner Terry indicated both signs met the zoning code requirements.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-158:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does protect and enhance the business and structure.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-158 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-158:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

119 East Elm Street – Anastasia Kakias; Aegean Ambitions - Application #2014-159

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Anastasia Kakias.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-158 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-159:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does protect and enhance the business and structure.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-159 as submitted with the following conditions:  1) That the location of the sign shall be per Exhibit “A”; and 2) That the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-159:  Potaracke (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.


332 North Granger Street – Michael & Brenda Carey - Application #2014-160

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following modifications:

1)         Removal of a metal staircase to the second floor and associated hand railings surrounding a rooftop deck;

2)         Removal of an over-roof wood deck above the one-story addition at the rear of the structure;

3)         Removal of a door on the eastern elevations second floor;

4)         Removal of a window located near the southeastern corner of the second floor;

5)         Removal of an exterior light on the second floor adjacent to the door listed under item #3; and

6)         Replacement siding as needed to match existing vinyl siding.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Michael Carey.

 

Discussion:  

Mr. Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, stated he desires to enhance the property value with the improvements. 

 

Mr. Potracke asked why the window is being closed off.  Mr. Carey replied that the window was not originally part of the structure as seen in photographs dating back to 1925. The window would also interfere with his interior remodeling plans. 

 

Mr. Wilken stated that the siding should therefore run between the two remaining windows as a continuous siding rather that a piecemeal look, to which Mr. Carey agreed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-160:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is compatible with other new, renovated and old structures.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by restoring the structure to its previous appearance it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a residence it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-160 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-160:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

1820 Newark-Granville Road – Spring Hills Baptist Church - Application #2014-161

The property is zoned Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request is for approval of a minor revision to a PUD to allow for the following improvements, in association with the softball field:

1)         Four (4’) foot high chain link fencing, with a vinyl guard on top, to be located around the perimeter of the outfield and on both of the foul lines;

2)         Six (6’) foot high chain link fencing to be located on the north side of the softball field, adjacent to the foul line fencing. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Marvin Rutter.

 

Discussion:  

Mr. Marvin Rutter, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, stated how the proposed fencing would be constructed and Planner Terry clarified the zoning requirements.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-161:

 

(a)                A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and more convenience in the location of accessory commercial uses and services.   Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does lead to a more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

(b)               A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation, and prevents the disruption of normal drainage patterns.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does preserve and utilize the natural features.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

(c)                A more efficient use of the land than is generally achieved through conventional development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utility lines and streets.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed softball field fencing will not require or influence utility lines in the area of installation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

(d)       Commercial areas that: reflect the pedestrian scale and varied traditional architectural styles of the commercial downtown Granville: increase tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance; and preserving or enhance, rather than harm, neighborhood, Village and Granville Township quality of life and property values.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed softball field fencing will be installed adjacent to and in conjunction with the existing recreational fields on the lower level of the parcel and is sited well within the Spring Hills Baptist Church property.  All other members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

(e)                A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities objectives of the comprehensive plan.   Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, it is in keeping with this requirement.  All other members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-161 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-161:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

120 East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-162

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a seventeen point five (17.5) square foot awning sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Patti Urbatis, 120 East Broadway, stated the name of the business is changing and there would be new colors of cream and cabernet replacing the old colors.  The name change and color would apply to all four of the proposals.  Mr. Potracke asked if there would be any lighting added and Ms. Urbatis said “No”. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-162:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-162 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-162:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

120 East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-163

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a one (1) square foot window/door sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-162 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-163:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-163 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-163:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

120 ½ East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-164

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a two point six (2.06) square foot window/door sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-162 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-164:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-164 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-164:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

 

120 East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-167

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a fourteen point thirty-two (14.32) square foot sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-162 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-167:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-167 as submitted with the following conditions:  1) That the location of the sign shall be per Exhibit “A”; and 2) That the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours..  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-167:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Eklof recused himself from the next agenda item, as he is a neighboring property owner, and went to sit in the audience.

 

931 Newark-Granville Road – Victor Terebuh - Application #2014-151

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for review and approval of a three-rail horse fence, and stone pillars with a gate.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry, Victor Terebuh and Craig Severson.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Victor Terebuh, 308 Bryn Du Drive, stated his intent is to enhance the property and he was considering installing an automatic gate next spring.  Mr. Hawk asked if the automatic gate is addressed in the code and Planner Terry indicated there is nothing in the code which specifically regulates gates.

 

Discussion followed about lights on the stone columns, the brightness of the lights, localization of light, warmth and times the lights would be on.  Mr. Terebuh stated he would comply with whatever the Commission wants with the lighting. Mr. Hawk asked what would happen if there was a power failure with the gate and there was some discussion about how the fire department would be able to access the property. Mr. Terebuh indicated he would investigate those questions.

 

Mr. Craig Severson, 941 Newark-Granville Road, asked whether a real survey had been done of the property to ensure there would not be encroachment on his property.  He said he is not against the project but wanted to be on record as questioning the property line.  Planner Terry stated that the property owner had submitted drawings which were considered acceptable and that the planning office does not survey the property lines when inspecting post holes.  She also indicated if there was a potential encroachment issue it would be considered a civil issue, not a zoning issue. When asked if Mr. Terebuh had discovered any of the survey pins on the property he stated he had not.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-151:

 

1)         Fences, Walls or Barriers.  No fence, wall or other artificial barrier shall be erected and/or constructed in this district without approval of the Planning Commission.  Approval shall be based upon review of an application as set forth in Section 1137.05 of the Codified Ordinances of Granville, Ohio.  Planning Commission review shall include type, location, height, compatibility with the area and such other features or characteristics as may be appropriate.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is compatible with the area.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2014-151 as submitted with the understanding:  1) That the project be contained within the boundaries of the property; 2)          That the light shall be contained within the property boundary; 3) That the light shall be a warm colors: and 4)  That the light shall be on a timer to be turned off between midnight and 2 a.m. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-151:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Recused), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2014-124, Kevin Reiner, on behalf of Dan & Patricia Finkelman; 130 South Mulberry Street; Landscape 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 Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-125. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-124.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Abstain).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-158, Anastasia Kakias Aegean Ambitions; 119 East Elm Street; Window 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-158. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-158.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-159, Anastasia Kakias Aegean Ambitions; 119 East Elm Street; Sidewalk 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-159. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-159.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-160, Michael & Brenda Carey; 332 North Granger Street; Remodeling: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1162, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-160. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-160.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #2014-161, Marvin Rutter, Spring Hills Baptist Church; 1820 Newark-Granville Road; Softball Field Improvements: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development District (PUD) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-161. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-161.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-162, Patti Urbatis; 120 East Broadway; Awning 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-162. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-162.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-163, Patti Urbatis; 120 East Broadway; Window/Door 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-163. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-163.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-164, Patti Urbatis; 120 ½ East Broadway; Window/Door 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-164. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-164.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-167, Patti Urbatis; 120 East Broadway; Sidewalk 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-167. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-167.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-151, Victor Terebuh; 931 Newark-Granville Road; Fencing, Pillars, Gates: 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-A (SRD-A) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-151. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-151.  Seconded by Mr. Potracke. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Abstain), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  None.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 27, 2014:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 27th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

November 24, 2014

December 8, 2014

 

Mr. Hawk declared the November 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

 

Friday
Nov142014

Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 27, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Swearing in of Planning Commission Member:  Craig Potaracke

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair), Mr. Burriss, Mr. Eklof, Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Mitchell, and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting, ex-officio).

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director, Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present:  Ben Rader, Nadine Rader, Paul Jakob, Jean Hoyt, Kathryn Raker, Richard Pinkerton, Sharon Sinsabaugh, Carrie Mumma, Zach Matek, James Jung, Sarah O’Donnell, Madion Vanscoder, and Daniel Fiorentini.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

130 South Mulberry Street - Kevin Reiner Design on behalf of Dan & Patricia Finkelman - Application #2014-125

 

Planner Terry indicated the applicant has requested this application be tabled.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2104-125.  Mr. Wilken seconded.  Roll Call Vote to table Application #2014-125:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

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 Revision, to amend Section 1159.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to uses within the Village Residential District (VRD) and Village Business District (VBD).

 

Planner Terry stated that there were two modifications within the Village District Code, one to the Village Residential District (VRD) and one to the Village Business District (VBD) section. In the Village Residential District code section the proposal is to move the non-profit uses from a permitted use to a conditional use (designated on the schematic as colored in yellow and bordered in green).  This affects the properties currently designated as educational, civic, religious and social. 

 

Planner Terry indicated the Village Business District (VBD) code section proposal would be to allow for conditional use approval for two-family residential. She went on to explain that several years ago the Planning Commission had discussed a similar change within the Village Business District to allow for two-family and multi-family uses.  At that time, the Planning Commission wanted to place restrictions on where residential uses would be allowed within what they termed the “Core Business District.”  The Planning Commission’s concern centered around businesses on the main thoroughfare switching over to a residential use on the first floor which would break up the synergy of the commercial area.  The green bordered area on the schematic provided a visual for where two-family occupancy would be allowed only on the second floor.  Outside of the “Core Business District” area there could be first floor and upper floor residency if approved by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, but only on a case by case basis. 

 

Parking was discussed among Commission members following questions by Ms. O’Keefe and Mr. Wilken.  Planner Terry explained parking is still required and would be a stipulation of conditional use approval.  Planner Terry explained that in some cases a conditional use code may reduce the parking problem.  New properties are required to have four spaces for a two-family dwelling.  Some structures are grandfathered in terms of parking spaces, so a residential use might actually be a reduction in the parking required for this use. 

 

Mr. Mitchell expressed support for the two-family residential conditional use, citing examples of cities and towns that have a first floor business use and a second floor dwelling use that tends to support the businesses below. 

 

Chair Mitchell opened the floor for discussion. 

 

Paul Jakob, 115 West College Street commented that the existing dwellings in Granville were traditionally for larger families and was concerned that houses may be split.  He stated that he would like to have the board consider the intent of the original code when written, considering culture, history, etc. and that it should be revised on its merits, not as a blanket approval. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, expressed concern that there was a property in town wanting to turn a building into some kind of sports museum.  His concern was to preserve the historical aspect of the district.  If the code was modified to change the non-profit section from a permitted use to a conditional use, it might make it harder for such ventures. Additionally, unwanted changes would increase traffic pressure on the streets in the affected districts.  Mr. Rader pointed out that non-profit businesses are not always “not for profit.” Law Director King commented that non-profit does not indicate non-commercial, and that the code change would have the intent of making a change to this use more difficult and would seek a balance so that criteria would be more stringently satisfied.  Mr. Hawk asked if this would create a problem for the Village and Law Director King said there would be no problem. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked when a residence would become a rooming house if a two-family building was subdivided into a four-family dwelling. Planner Terry and Law Director King stated that this could not occur due to the language in the code.  Multi-family (three units or more) would not be allowed within the Village District.  Some discussion ensued as to the character of the homes in the district, citing incidences where double occupancy homes have actually reverted to single family dwellings (i.e.: the clockmaker’s house). Planner Terry explained that the Planning Commission would still have to approve any changes to the dwellings, under the Architectural Review Overlay District criteria, on a case by case basis.

 

The draft language from the 2010 proposed code modification would eliminate the phrase “and multi-family residential” and reference “two-family residential” only.  Mr. Mitchell asked Law Director King if he agreed with the proposed 2010 language and Mr. King replied, “yes.”

 

Jean Hoyt, 117 Locust Place, read a statement considering the Granville district value and expressed support for the Village Residential District code change. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend to the Village Council approval of the proposed zoning code revision to Section 1159.02 with the language contained in the draft dated 9/15/2010 as it relates to two-family residential uses only.  Mr. Hawk seconded.  Roll Call Vote to recommend to the Village Council approval of the proposed zoning code revision to Section 1159.02:  Wilken (No), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-1.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  None.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 14, 2014:  Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 14th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

November 10, 2014

November 24, 2014

December 8, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

Friday
Nov142014

Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 14, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair), Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio), Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD) Mr. Wilken (arrived at 8:01 p.m.), Mr. Eklof, Mr. Burriss (arrived at 7:07 p.m.) and Mr. Mitchell (Chair). 

 

Members Absent: None.

 

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

 

Also Present:  David Bussan, Joe Galano, Jennifer Valenzuela, Julio Valenzuela.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Old Business:

 

221 South Mulberry Street–Travis & Sarah Landry—Application #2014-113

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of slate shingles and replacement with ‘Timberline’ asphaltic dimensional shingles in the Williamsburg Slate color on the front and back of the second story roof.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the ratification of Application #2014-113.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve the ratification of Application #2014-113:  Wilken (Absent) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

420 East Broadway – David Bussan —Application #2014-114

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a concrete sidewalk and replacement with a Unilock concrete paver walkway with granite inset; and installation of two (2) Unilock ‘Brussels Block’ retaining walls.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the ratification of Application #2014-114.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve the ratification of Application #2014-114:  Wilken (Absent) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

 

317 West Broadway – Joe Galano —Application #2014-120

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the rear accessory structure which includes the expansion of the first floor footprint and a second story addition. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Joe Galano.

 

Discussion: 

Joe Galano, 317 West Broadway stated he was planning on reducing the size of the art studio and taking the addition straight back.  Mr. Hawk asked if the plan was approved and if it conformed with zoning requirements.  Mr. Galano said that it did and the neighbors also approved of it.  Variances were granted at the last BZBA meeting. Planner Terry read off the materials list and described the appearance of the house from the street as a reduced T-shape roofline.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Burriss and Mr. Hawk questioned and discussed the front elevation’s carriage style doors; whether the windows will be double hung; will the green roof match the rest of the roof and the vertical board and batten siding giving a barn siding appearance. Construction is planned to begin in January or February of 2015.  There were no comments or questions from the audience.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-120:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition is similar in style to other structures in the District and the front structure on the lot.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition is historically complementary to the other houses in the District and does in fact achieve this.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition contributes to the vitality of an existing accessory structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-120 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-120:  Wilken (Absent), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

203 East College Street, Suite A – Jennifer Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC —Application #2014-125

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the parking requirements for a commercial certificate of occupancy for a fitness use.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Jennifer Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Jennifer Valenzuela, 203 East College Street, Suite A, stated that it was her understanding that two parking spaces were grandfathered in. Mrs. Valenzuela discussed the fact that there would be a bicycle rack for 12 bicycles and classes would go on throughout the day, each class lasting from 45 minutes to 1 hour each.  Mr. Valenzuela felt that many participants in classes would be Denison students who would walk from campus.

 

Joe and Demaris Rosato expressed concern over the lack of parking in their residential neighborhood. They stated that they had been given no notice of the zoning board meeting and only attended because they saw the sign posted in front of the business building.  They felt other neighbors would have attended the meeting had they been notified.   

 

The Commission had a discussion regarding the Rosato’s right to speak on this application, as they did not receive a letter of notice regarding the hearing.  Mr. Burriss made a motion that the Rosato’s be allowed to speak as interested parties.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Wilken (Absent), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (No) and Mitchell (Yes).Motion passed 3-1.

 

The Rosato’s stated that when they purchased their home two and one half years ago and restored it there was no business in the building at 203 E. College.  Had they known multiple businesses would be occupying the building they would not have purchased their property.  They expressed concern also that E. College allows cars to be parked for 72 hours on the street, and even though they have a driveway, it is cumbersome to pull each car in and out to let one another out and visitors would not be able to find parking close to their home. 

 

The commission members asked Planner Terry as to the code requirements for parking had this been a new building. Planner Terry stated the two available spaces were grandfathered in before code was established.  Commission members discussed concern for property improvement and tenants of the business.  Planner Terry added that if the bottom floor business tenants were anything other than restaurants Mr. Valenzuela may be required to apply for a parking spaces variance.  Discussion followed concerning the lack of downtown parking.  Mr. Mitchell asked the Commissioners if they felt three spaces were required or if they were inclined to reduce the three space requirement.  Mr. Hawk asked if the Commission was able to require a variance. 

 

Mr. Valenzuela commented that he owned property on Linden place that could provide extra parking spaces if needed.  Mr. Potaracke questioned if tenants of the apartments on Linden place would have precedence over other people for parking.  Mr. Mitchell expressed concern that if compromise was allowed in this case it would set a precedent for other businesses to lower the requirement. Planner Terry commented that two spaces were already technically grandfathered, the applicants would be required to obtain a variance for one more.  Mr. Eklof asked about putting up signage on the Linden place spaces but expressed concern that that as a solution would still not keep people from parking on the street. Discussion followed about the pros and cons of living in the Village.  There was a brief discussion about creating permit parking in this area such as in the West College Street area.  Mr. Rosato asked about the possibility of permits and Planner Terry stated Council determines all permit parking areas within the Village.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-125 as submitted, with the condition that there shall be at least 3 parking spaces required for this use.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-125:  Wilken (Absent), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

130-142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-127 The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior building lighting.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Julio Valenzuela, 815 North High Street, Columbus, stated that he has been granted State and Federal Tax Credits to develop the building at 130-142 North Prospect.  He had originally thought he might put a sign on the building designating it as "The Warner Building" in honor of the original livery business that existed there historically, but has since abandoned the idea.  He stated that he needs approval from the Village, as well as State and Federal approvals for the exterior building lighting.  Discussion ensued about the type of fluorescent lighting beneath the black awnings which would illuminate the awnings without creating an unattractive or harsh lighting.  Other types of lighting include a recessed type of lighting no brighter than 60 W LED.  Hours of lighting would be basically from dusk to dawn.  Gooseneck lighting would be on a timer. 

 

Mr. Burriss commented on the warmth of the lighting color and brightness, referencing the harshness of light at the old Harold's Dairy Bar.  Mr. Valenzuela stated the State and Federal permits require unobtrusive lighting.  Lighting inside the businesses would need to be somehow regulated.  Per the schematic, Light Fixture A would be decorative, a warm tone not to exceed 75W and would be on a timer.  Light Fixture B would be on a primary dusk to dawn with a dimmer.  Light Fixture C would be a safety sconce style light. Light Fixture D would be operated by the tenant. Light Fixture F would be the fluorescent light facing upward under the black canvas awning.

 

Mr. Burris expressed a desire for continuity in the lighting.  Mr. Wilken concurred.  Mr. Mitchell would like the building light fixtures to be consistent and not their operation under the control of the tenants. Mr. Valenzuela stated he could put that into the lease agreement.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the fluorescent lighting would function with one bulb and referenced the overly bright lighting that first graced the Bryn Du Polo Field.  Mr. Mitchel asked to add to the approval that all lighting be controlled by the building owner, and that the applicant install different fluorescent lighting at half the lumens per light as initially discussed.  Mr. Hawk and other Commission members concurred that the intensity, temperature and color must match the D style light fixtures.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-127:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting is similar in style to other lighting within the commercial District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting restores and upgrades the character of the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr.Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting contributes to the vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting is historically appropriate and does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-127 as submitted with owner control of the exterior lights, flexible control of the fluorescent brightness and continuity of the color, warmth, and temperature of the lighting.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-127:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

132 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-128  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

The Planning Commission decided to review all of the proposed signage as one package, to vote once on the standards and criteria by considering all signage at the same time, and to make individual motions for the approval of each separate sign application.

 

Planner Terry stated that the BZBA had granted variances to approve the signage at the October 9, 2014 Hearing. Mr. Potaracke inquired whether the signage would be consistent across the project.  Mr. Valenzuela stated yes; the style would be standing stainless letters at the edge of the girder awnings; and perpendicular blade signs with a 2 (two) foot projection.  Mr. Wilken asked about the inside signage. Mr. Valenzuela stated it would be subject to approval by the Commission on a case by case request.  Planner Terry indicated such signage would need to be less than eight square feet and less than fifteen percent (15%) of the window area. Signage would also be subject to building owner approval including the State and Federal Tax Credit project criteria.  Mr. Hawk commented it must be tastefully done.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-128:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-128 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-128:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

136 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-129  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-129:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-129 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-129:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

140 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-130  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-130:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-130 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-130:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

134 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-131 The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-131:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-131 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-131:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

138 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-132  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-132:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-132 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-132:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-133  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-133:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-133 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-133:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-134  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) foot projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-134:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-134 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-134.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-134:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

203 East College Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-135  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) foot projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-135:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-135 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-135:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

130-142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-140  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) foot projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-140:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-140 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.   Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-140:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

423 East College Street– John Noblick on behalf of Scott Kennedy —Application #2014-145  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of the attached one-story garage and replacement with a six hundred and eight (608) square foot two-story addition on the eastern side of the home. 

 

Discussion: 

The applicant asked that the application be tabled.

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2014-145.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to table Application #2014-145:  Wilken (Yes) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked to recuse himself from the meeting as he was the next applicant on the agenda.

 

303 South Main Street– Tom Mitchell—Application #2014-146  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of three-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with three-tab asphalt shingles in a slate-look, either Owens Corning Devonshire or Berkshire series in a dark gray color, on the second story roof structure and Qualiform Metal standing seam roofing on the one-story addition in a red color.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Tom Mitchell.

 

Discussion: 

Tom Mitchell, 303 South Main Street, stated he would like to revise the metal roof color to forest green and use the Berkshire shingle.  Existing gutters would be utilized and the roof would have raised ridges with a gray painted metal cap and valley.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-146:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed roofing materials are consistent with other new and renovated structures within this District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed roofing materials upgrade the historical character of the property and the surrounding area.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed roofing materials contribute to the vitality of a residence therefore contributing to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the roofing materials protect an existing structure and enhance the example of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-146 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-146:  Wilken (Yes) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Recused).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Mitchell rejoined the Commission at the table.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #2014-113, Travis & Sarah Landry; 221 South Mulberry Street; Roof Material Modification: 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-113. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-113.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Hawk (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Burriss (Yes), and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-114, David Bussan; 420 East Broadway; Sidewalk and Retaining Wall Improvements: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-114.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-114.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-120, Joe Galano; 317 West Broadway; Garage 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 1159, Village Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-120. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-120.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-125, Jennifer Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC; 203 East College Street, Suite A; Parking Requirements for a Fitness Use:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-125, as detailed in the motion of approval. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-125.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-126, Leigh Brennan; A Place to Call Om; 203 East College Street, Suite B; Parking Requirements for a Fitness Use:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-126, as detailed in the motion of approval. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-126.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-127, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 130-142 North Prospect Street; Exterior Building Lighting:  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 Business District (VBD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-127. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-127.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-128, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 132 North Prospect Street; Canopy 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-128. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-129, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 136 North Prospect Street; Canopy 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-129. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-129.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-130, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 140 North Prospect Street; Canopy 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-130. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-130.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-131, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 134 North Prospect Street; Canopy 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-131. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-131.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-132, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 138 North Prospect Street; Canopy 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-132. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-132.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-133, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 142 North Prospect Street; Canopy 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-133. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-133.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-134, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 142 North Prospect Street; Projecting 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-134. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-134.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-135, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 203 East College Street; Projecting 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-135. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-135.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-140, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 130-142 North Prospect Street; Projecting 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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-140. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-140.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #2014-146, Tom Mitchell; 303 South Main Street; Roofing Materials Modification:  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 Residential District (VRD)  and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-146. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-146.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Recused).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  No members absent.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 8, 2014:  Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from September 8, 2014.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Abstain).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 22, 2014:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from September 22, 2014.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Eklof (Abstain), Burriss (Abstain), Wilken (Abstain), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 2-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

October 27, 2014

November 10, 2014

November 24, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the September 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.