Granville Community Calendar

GPC 09/08/97

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 8, 1997
Minutes
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montg6mery, Keith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members ASbaslveangt:e, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)G, reg Ross, Art Morrow, Steve Cramer, Kevin Cramer, Eloise Dezwarte, Katherine Blake, Mary Albright, Bob Parsley, LeaAnn. Parsley, Doug Kaiser, Shawn Redman, Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, Dave Banan, Scott Pryor, GBaurebnatrhaerM, cfarland, Larry Dickson, Joe Hickman, Judy. and Dennis Fred Anderson
Minutes of August 11, 1997:
Page 1, under Paragraph (1),change "The only" to "A."Page 2, second paragraph, 4th line, change p" ossible" to "preferred. " . Third paragraph, change to "Conceptually, Ms. Robertson concludes that Mr. Reagan' s advice is to think of the plan as an addition to the Education Building."Same paragraph last 3 lines, change to "a third building would look out of place between the two existing buildings. " 4th paragraph, 5th line, change to "portico; it should not be two stories high."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None
Old Business:
Stephen and Katherine Blake, 212 East Elm
The applicants received partial approval in May to restore their home and will follow the alternative Zoning Certificate procedure as described in 1161. 03(d).Now the applicants wish to convert the section to the east, facing the alley, into a screen porch and add a new door and two new windows to the rear. The windows to be
removed from the front will be installed in the back, and new windows will be put in the front.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Greg Ross, IGA, 484 South Main Street
Mr. Reyazi reported that this application for a sign was remanded to GPC by Village Council after its denial by GPC, stating that the Finding of Fact was inadequate in conveying the infor- mation GPC had considered in arriving at its decision. The applicant wishes to replace the existing 57 sq. ft. ground sign with another of the same size at the same location, in the TCOD. Because of size and height, it is a nonconforming use, and the business has 113 sq. ft. of total signage. This should be tchoinssidinesretadncaer,equest for a variance from the sign requirements. In under 1189. 10 GPC handles this situation.
L.
Mr. :Stansbury stated that· under· 1189·, our. -reasoning toward··· denial was: (1) any change made must be brought to a new sign in nonconformance into consistency with existing code, including 444 changing lettering on the sign; (2) it is more than 12' high and it is.410 sq.ft; (3)t,hey can only have one ground sign per lot and 3!it sthqe.rfet.are two; (4) maximum signage is 24 sq.ft, and this is 113
Mr. Art Morrow, attorney for IGA, stated that the application did not get presented right to GPC. The application did not in- clude a variance request. A Finding of Fact, conclusions, and reasons for the decision are required. All the applicant wants to dimoprisovecmhaenngte. the lettering on the sign, which would clearly be an He could have applied for a new sign but because of the expense and visibility, he preferred to apply for a variance. Mr. Morrow does not believe the change would affect health, safety,
and general welfare of the public. He cited criteria under
1147. 03: (a) special circumstances are that the business sits quite
a way from the road and needs a sign; (b) a literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive applicant of rights enjoyed by othersa-l-l they are asking for is a change in lettering; (c) special circumstances do not result from actions of applicantt-h-ey have not done anything to this point; (d) this would not grant special privileges to applicant; (e) the nearest residence is
Briner' s, and they cannot see the business from their house. Mr. Ross added that he was told to wait because of the Certi- fied situation, but that will be a long time. IGA would like to
make a change now.
Mr. Wilkenfeld stated that (1) we are trying to encourage pCeeorptliefietdo change nonconforming old signs to adhere, as with the sign. If we accept this for IGA, we must do so for everyone. 2) The sign is in the right of way, and the Village is liable in case of injuries. 3) the Village has potential for
gsirgannt money which will allow us to upgrade that whole area, and the or its location may have to be changed anyway. Mr. Morrow
traekspeonded that the grant money has not been awarded yet, and may a long time. He added that Certified is much more visible than the IGA. All the applicant wants ted-aisEfm th-ee--- regulations.
Ms. Robertson found it interesting that Mr. Morrow brought up visibility. Somebody told her that the sign was too high and Ms. Robertson is not sure the sign is doing what IGA wants it to do. Mr. Ross said they want to capture some Rt. 661 business as well as local traffic. Ms. Robertson would like to work toward a sign
everybody can agree on and which would conform with the code. People working on the sign code thought about that sign and others and were concerned about them, so it was written with the hope that as People replaced or changed signs, they would do so meeting code. Maybe another type of sign would be more visible and more con- forming.
Ms. Montgomery thought there are special circumstances because it is part of the whole multi-tenant sign that advertises the other businesses. Mr. Salvage added that the TCOD was created after IGA was annexed, and if it were not in the TCOD, there would be no problem. Mr. Reyazi disagreed, but Mr. Salvage does not see a big
2
C
3
problem.
Mr. Myers looked at the criteria to be considered in 1147. 03:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist Peculiar which are to the land or structure involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. According to Mr. Morrow, circumstances appear to be the location of the business and the fact that we should not interpret vthaeriacnocdee. in the manner it is written and we should grant a
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Certified had to conform to the
1
1. I. ordinance. enjoyed ijoes il.erai in,erpretation deprive 11*uL 11.9.- 6-8 by others (like Certified)w?ould Certified enjoy other rights when they came in under the same ordinances? M(r. Morrow thought not.)
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The IGA did not place their store in that location. Mr. Morrow responded that the sign was in the township and when annexed, it nonconformed. Mr. Myers thought in that case the business should carry through the criteria which
awnonueldxaatpiopnly. to the code eucn though the IGA -di=d**a*pp=ly for
r 4
D) Granting of the variance will ot confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. If we were to grant a variance here and then deny a similar request by Certified or others, that might set a precedent along that strip. Certified
might like as many square feet as the .IGA sign has. E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. Having the sign in the right of way is a major obstruction under the health, safety, and general welfare criterion, and liability issues may occur.
More discussion ensued about the multi-business sign, the 24 sq. ft. limit, the height of the sign, total signage, monument signs, the other sign across the drive (Mr. Ross said that will be removed)a,nd the location in the right of way. Mr. Reyazi did not want to make the right of way an issue here. Liability is a con- bceilrint,y,he stated, but this can be obtained by a release of lia- issue eitahned rh.e did not want to make improvements to Main Street an and Ms. Robertson thought the sign could be designed now moved later on if necessary. We could plan ahead.
Ms. Robertson said they researched other communities with similar circumstances when the sign code was written, and tre have been no liability issues arise. The code was designed to make j the area more attractive. She suggested redesigning the sign to / mreadkuecea pheaiigrhot.f signs side by side rather than atop each other to j
10s t- )-, 5.'L .=/
frtif<41
Mr. Morrow stated that the last there- in»' sentence of 1189. 04(k) was not 1995··,·T,h:e' sentence limists people, ,from, using their s-igns and should be removed. Mr. Myers respectfully disagreed. Mr.
Wilkenfeld thought a work session would be appropriate. Ms. Robertson said there is a precedent for multi-businesses sign at Elm and Main Streets where they had to conform.
Compromise could be possible, members thought. Mr. Morrow
does not see how a variance could be achieved at this point. Mr.
Ross asked whether he could keep the multi-business sign as is and leave in the one on the other side 12- 0
MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION. MR. SALVAGE
SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 1 IN FAVOR AND 4 OPPOSED. CjS-5*0
New Business:
Steve Cramer, 235 East Broadway
Mr. Cramer wishes to install an adjustable basketball back- board and hoop on the edge of the driveway. This is considered a structure because of its permanent location. MR. MYERS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. WILKENFELD
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Lawrence and Marie Dickson, Lots 147 and 148 Bryn Du Woods
The Dicksons wish to acquire a 0. 16 acre parcel of the adjoin- ing property, which would lead to Lot 147 being reduced to 0. 71 acres and Lot 148 increasing to 2. 99 acres. Mr. Dickson said the
Parcel is a small triangle which related more to the Dickson property than to ·the neighbor 's. GPC members determined that the
request was for a minor modification.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Board of Education, 130 North Granger Street
Mr. Joe Hickman stated that the school district has submitted
an application for demolition of part of the old school. The applicant has already obtained a demolition permit. The bids are out and it appears to be affordable. Community meetings have been held and were generally positively received. He cited a letter
from neighbor Robin Bartlett in support of the demolition. Ms. Robertson asked about asbestos removal, and Mr. Hickman said there are set regulations to be followed in the process. It will be done first.
Mr. Reya·34 can approve this with GPC approval, which was granted. 0.
Scott Ryan, Leader Printing, 56 Westgate Drive
The applicant wishes to replace the existing ground sign, which was damaged by storms, with a new 9 sq. ft. ground sign.
i--
4
There are other signs which area. T·h-e,e«xist,ing sign ..is appear to exceed maximum allowable sign noneon-f·orming' and· any,"change must "bringthe
sign into conformance. Mr. Ryan said the old sign was quite high and ugly and the storm broke it apart. It could be made to
resemble the navy and gold signs at Erinwood, the same size as the old sign but lower down, maybe 4' high. It' s just to show people where to turn into the business.
Mr. Reyazi said there are three signs there now, in the side, back, and front, and Mr. Ryan said the homely building is enhanced by signage. Members agreed that they are only considering the sign that blew down, not total signage at this point. The criteria were applied to the application:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
dapisptlircicabtsle. Ttohisothceorndlaitniodns oisr nsotrtucatpuprelicsabinlethie:s*aSme-e-r€32ltZ12y- --:-7-=-- j»6*1 C+C3-- Ej0»»35'*»
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. There are special circumstances under CSD. This is not in the TCOD. Although 1189. 04(k)
required compliance, members did not think this application should refer to all other signage. This sign would be in compliance.
Approval of this sign would not relieve applicant of bringing other signs into compliance at a later date.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The sign was damaged by a storm or an act of nature.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
anY undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. We are looking for
compliance on the property. Condition placed on approval is that compliance be achieved with each new sign application.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the Pvaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed of The sign needs to be at least one foot outside the right way.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBJECT
TO (1) APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY APPROVE 0l/ ANY OTHER OF THE NONCONFORMING SIGNS BEYOND THISS-G+N, AND (2)
THAT THE SIGN BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Judy and Dennis Guenther, 120 West Broadway, Gift Basket Shop
in The applicants wish to refurbish and change the existing sign front of the property, install an awning with a sign on it to the rear, paint the exterior of the house, install flower boxes in
5
front and rear of instail-" the structure, install a picket fence, and approvedlibgy hBZtBf-iAx.tures ron the· buirlding .-T·h' e'"' n·-onconforming u-se-<was ' -
Ms. Guenther explained that the color of the house will be pale yellow with white trim and green shutters. The finished side
of the picket fence will have to face the neighbors. Signs are a
separate issue and a separate application.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF EVERYTHING ON APPLICATION
EXCEPT SIGNS ; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Because the business is in a residential district, the signs require a variance. Signs are not permitted in residential
districts. But the sign in front has been there for many years as a nonconforming sign. Since BZBA already gave permission to have the business, the sign needs to be approved. Only one sign per· business is permitted, but the awning sign would be facing the alley and not very visible from the front. Variances would be for
the size of the sign, the number of signs, and the fact that it is bnoutildoinngth.e bCuoinldsiidnegr,ataioltnhough there is not room for a sign on the of the criteria is as follows:
A) Special circumstances or conditions exist which are Peculiar to the land or structure involved and which are not
applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. This is a nonconforming commercial use in a residential neighborhood, which BZBA approved. Special circumstances are the configuration of the building which precludes a sign on it.
B) A literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this ordinance. Mr. Pinkerton next door recently
changed his sign.
C) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. The applicants bought the property in its present location.
D) Granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant
any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands
or structures in the same zoning district. Since Mr. Pinkerton got
approval for his sign, no undue privileges are present here.
E) Granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the vPaerrsiaonnscer.esiding or working within the vicinity of the proposed No adverse effects are apparent.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE REQUEST FOR VARIANCES ON SIGNS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Calvin Shaw, 137 North Plum Street
6
The applicant ·would, like .to enclose.the :perch in ·the ·northwest '· ··-
Corner of his house so that The a washer and dryer can be placed there. house.space above the porch is occupied by the second story of the
Mr. Fred Anderson, contractor, said there are several mistakes on the application. The total area to be enclosed is 50 square feet (10'x5')n,ot 150. There will be no digging; it' s on a concrete slab. There will be a 36" exterior door and a 36"x30" window. They could use either vinyl siding or lap siding in front. The old siding is no longer available. Consensus agreed that vinyl would be acceptable.
MS. ROBERTSON MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION WITH VINYL; MR.
WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road
The applicant wishes to replace existing sign with a new 10' ground sign bigger than the maximum permitted. A variance is required because it is in a residential district. No one was
present to describe the sign, and since the application says it is
720 sq. ft, members chose to table application.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MS. ROBERTSON
SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session:
Douglas J.-Kaiser
Mr. Kaiser explained that his wife Susan has been operating a catering home occupation since 1990. She offers cooking
demonstration classes, but the business has increased and she would like to expand her operation. It would require more parking and bringing in an additional employee. There are no suitable Commercial locations, and the Kaisers offered to buy a 1. 7-acre lot on Newark-Granville and Fern Hill with contingency to obtain approval for the business within sixty days. Neither the Village
nor the Township allows a home to be turned into a business. Mr. Kaiser would like to initiate a motion to add cooking schools to htheearlinisgt. of conditional uses under 1181 and arrange for a public
residMenr.tiaRleyazi thought it possible to add a conditional use to a district. The business would be attractive to Granville. The definition would be specific, i.e.,cooking school, and define that precisely.
Mr. Salvage thought this would be hard to write. He feels
Strongly about converting residences into business districts. We have a VBD so that we can restrict residential areas. He sees this
as a beginning of an erosion process. Mr. Myers stated such an idea should be site-specific, for it' s hard to change the overall
7
code. A specific property is precise.. different because you can be very and write .t.hat into the .text ·as .a..contract zoning to ,PUD Mr. Reyazi thought it easier to modify PUD. Mr. Myers added that if we change home occupation uses, there are other things we cannot anticipate if we make it general. Mr. Reyazi thought you could set
an initiative to change the zoning or think about it and talk about it at a later meeting.
Mr. Kaiser could come in with a cooking school definition and list the activities to be done there. Mr. Stansbury said we could limit the number of employees, etc.,but he is disinclined to change the ordinances. Mr. Wilkenfeld feels there other avenues, i. e.,SBD, where there are other lots available. Mr. Salvage would
prefer looking at such applications on a site-by-site basis. This would require BZBA approval.
Consensus was that GPC should not initiate any kind of recommendation to VC. GPC will explore this further a€* language new comes in. f
Lighting Guidelines
Mr. Reyazi included drawings of what sites would look like in residential and commercial streets. Please examine these and bring in your comments.
GPC Rules and Regulations"
Mr. Reyazi provided some language regarding ex parte contact for your review. Mr. Hurst is not entirely satisfied with Section VIIIF, so read it and bring in your suggestions.
Finding of Fact
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR BLAKE AND ITEMS B THROUGH F UNDER NEW BUSINESS AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT. MS. ROBERTSON SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment:
Next Meetings:
10: 55 p. m.
September 22 and October 13, a holiday.
Respe6tfully submitted,
Betty Allen
8

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.