GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 1.2000,7:30 a.m.
Members Members PArbesseenntt::Jack Burriss,Barbara Lucier,Richard Salvage,Keith Myers Carl Wilkenfeld
Also Present:Seth Dorman,Village Planner Visitors Present:None
A)Proposed Heritage Overlay District t(o replace TCOD)and amendment to Architectural Review Overlay District
Mr. Myers started with a little history on the original document that Frank Elmer A&ssociates worked on. He said that Council contracted Mr. Elmer to create Architectural Standards during the Comprehensive Plan process, and the committee that Mr. Burriss and myself served on saw a copy of the German Village Architectural Standards. Eventually problems evolved with Mr. Elmer and finally at one meeting things blew up and Mr. Elmer was asked to submit what he had and the piece sat for awhile, until recently when Mr. Bellman decided to pick it up and present it. There are two parts to the Ordinance in front of us, a section to amend the AROD and the other to amend the TCOD. Mr. Myers said he agrees with amending the AROD but is not convinced that amending the TCOD is the way to go. As he sees it the objective is to create Architectural Development Standards for new development areas, but just commercial not residential. Further he feels that some parts of the proposal are good but it crosses the line between a thesis paper and a code, and his initial reaction is to look at the standards in various sections of the existing code and to amend those where Planning Commission is concerned.
Mr. Salvage mentioned that he does have a problem with the Chapter 1176 proposal. Mr. Burriss stated that when this was first started there were several proposals for Cherry Valley Road and
we were concerned that there was nothing to help determine the character of that area. Ms. Lucier asked if that is still true and Mr. Burriss said no.
Mr. Myers said that there are some nice examples in here, to which Mr. Burriss agreed, and
some illustrations of scale and lot placement that I still feel are very good, like the reference to the
Field Guide to American Houses. In addition, Mr. Myers liked the dissertation on the Granville
Vernacular in that it is fairly protective. For example, if he came to Planning Commission with a
garage addition and its not Colonial Revival like his house, that is ok because the Granville Vernacular is a mix of styles.
Mr. Myers said that he still struggles with ascertaining what this is telling you to do, and as a code it is ineffective. His first question is to find out if the purpose of the proposed 1176 is to regulate
McDonalds on Cherry Valley Road. Do we think we have enough to do that in the current code,this proposal does not as it reads.
Mr. Burriss noted that the Fackler Shopping Center proposal under the pree-xisting code was a good building architecturally and had some merit. We were able to develop that building under the
existing standards. In addition, Mr. Burriss stated that he feels privileged to be on this Planning
Commission, but we are not all going to be here forever, and he would like to leave a legacy of clear
and concise information. Ms. Lucier added that way we will not have to rely as much on who is on
Mr. Myers said in order to structure the discussion he would like the objective to be looking at
regulations specifically geared toward IGA and that area of South Main Street and Cherry Valley Road.
His idea was to skim through Mr. Elmer's proposed Chapter 1176 and pick out things that have merit.
Ms. Lucier asked if we did not have Chapter 1176,what would we be relying on for those
areas,just the SBD information. Mr. Myers added the PCD,and Ms. Lucier said and not the TCOD?
Mr. Myers said primarily the TCOD establishes setbacks. Ms. Lucier said so we will be pulling out
pieces of 1176 to enhance the SBD and PCD. Then she asked,do you think the TCOD is good enough
as it is for what it is?Mr. Myers said my sense is that the TCOD was intended to set development
back from historic roadways, and it has a pretty simple purpose that we should not muck up.
The following are the excerpts from the code amendments proposed in Ordinance1 #70-0 that
Planning Commission found merit in and would like to incorporate into the appropriate sections of the
Chapter 1176 - Village Heritage Overlay District
1176.02 -Purpose: The purpose statement could be incorporated into the General Provisions section
of the existing code.
1176.06 -Adopted References and Advisors: The word adopted should be removed from the
heading, and the words,w "hich is hereby adopteds,h"ould be removed from sentence one. This
clause could be added to the SBD, PCD and AROD chapters of the existing code. However the
reference to A Field Guide To American Houses should be removed from the clause for the SBD and
PCD, and the NPS Guidelines should be added to the reference list for the AROD. Mr. Burriss
mentioned that the book Main Street is out of print and hard to get although he and Ms. Wimberger
were able to track down some copies. Mr. Myers said he would like to have two copies of each book
listed in the reference section, available at the public library. Mr. Myers suggested that Mr. Dorman
could find the appropriate location for the clause in each of the various chapters.
1176.07 D-esign Standards and Criteria For Business Buildings,C ( )The Two Part Commercial
Block: 3 ()This statement has value and can be used somewhere. 6 ()This statement can be placed
under the building massing discussion of the existing code,provided the work "zone"is replaced with
story." 7 ) T(his statement has value and can possibly be used under the windows discussion of the
existing code. 1(2)The first sentence could be placed in the building massing discussion of the current
code. The second,third and fourth sentences need to be restructured into a series of small statements
rather than a few run-on sentences. Mr. Myers felt that this was more to the point with the commercial
buildings in the area than what is in the SBD right now.
Ms. Lucier clarified that Planning Commission's recommendation is to leave the original
Chapter 1176 alone, to which Mr. Myers said yes. Ms. Lucier asked if there was nothing in the
proposal that would help, and Mr. Salvage said there is nothing that we do not already have control
Mr. Myers said in review that Planning Commission's recommendation to Council is to take
Mr. Elmer's proposed Village Heritage Overlay District, bust it apart and add pieces to the existing
zoning categories it is aimed at. Planning Commission was in agreement, and Mr. Burriss said we
could simply state that as a form of simplification and ease of use, rather than adding a whole new
section. Mr. Myers asked the Planner to try amending the SBD and PCD with the recommendations
and to highlight the changes so Planning Commission can look at them. Further, he said, as a group
we would prefer to review that next, and what we pass to Council may be different than the Ordinance
Mr. Bellman has sent us to review.
Chapter 1161 - Architectural Review Overlay District
1161.02 -Purpose: The purpose statement is good and the entire section should be utilized.
1161.03 -District Area: The statement has value and will be used.
1161.04 -Application For Zoning Certificates: This statement has value and will be used.
1161.05 C-ontents of Application: The words to" scale"should be added to the end ofthe b( )1()and b4)()statements, and all else is acceptable.
t1it1le6.1.06 A-dopted References and Advisors: See comments under Chapter 1176 section of same
Mr. Burriss stated that were this to be adopted in its current form, it would lead to more confusion and less productivity. In addition,were we to dissect and adopt particular sections and apply them to our existing code,we would develop a more useful document.
The group discussed communicating there feelings to Council through a resolution.
Mr. Burriss asked about addressing Mr. Wilkenfeld's thoughts as established in his letters to Planning Commission. The group felt that his issues could not be addressed in the framework of the existing task at hand.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WHILE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS A
SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF USEFUL INFORMATION IS CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED
CHANGES TO CHAPTERS 1161 AND 1176 OF THE ZONING CODE,WE BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE # 17-00 AS PROPOSED ARE NOT
STRUCTURED IN A WAY THAT IS USEFUL TO THE APPLICATION AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE ZONING CODE. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSED
ORDINANCE BE WITHDRAWN. IF THE ORDINANCE IS WITHDRAWN,PLANNING
COMMISSION WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHANGES TO THE APPROPRIATE
SECTIONS OF THE EXISTING ZONING CODE,TO MAKE USE OF THE APPLICABLE
INFORMATION IN A MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER. MR. BURRISS SECONDED THE
MOTION,AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9: 15 a.m.
Next Meeting:Monday, November 13.