GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 22, 2002 Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Richard Main Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Janet Clayton, Mindi Wilson, Brian Sutliff, R.A. Van Meter, Steven Stein, Evelyn Frolking, Brian Koker, Joe Zupsic, John Stephens, Jonathan Wocher, Phil Watts, Douglas Mill, Darren Kennedy, Mark Cobun, Dave Farley, Mistie Berschet, Jim Gorry Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of April 8, 2002: Consideration of Minutes was postponed in order to allow more time to read them.
Janet Clayton, 119 East Elm Street (Rear) – Sidewalk, Wall and Window Signs
At the previous meeting, the sandwich board was found to be located in an unsafe and inappropriate place and the applicant was asked to see if she could hang up a sign on the wall. Now she is applying for three signs: (1) an 8 square foot coated wood sandwich board on the south side of the rear entrance on Main Street in the right of way; (2) a wood wall sign placed under the existing “parking in rear” sign on the northeast corner of building; and (3) a 2.4 square foot oval window sign showing the logo, double-sided and hung inside on a chain. Mr. Dorman thought the only variance would be for the number of wall signs. Consensus of the group had no problem with this sign; it’s a difficult facade to deal with. Mr. Salvage thought the applicants would be better served with a projecting sign. If the sign is double- sided, the surface coverage would be doubled. Such a sign could be single-sided. Mr. Salvage would want to make such a sign contingent upon the approval of the landlord and the Village Planner’s approval of the drawing.
Mr. Wilkenfeld applied the criteria for variances to the application:
A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The fact that we asked the applicant to move the location as a safety issue; and the unique nature of the multi-tenant building. B. That 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. Applicants would not be able to advertise their business as others do in the same building. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The applicants did not build the building. D. That the 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. If we denied this application, it would confer privilege to others in the building, and we are trying to be consistent. E. That the granting of the variance would 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. True, we are worried about protecting the safety of pedestrians and vehicles.
MR WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WE GRANT A VARIANCE ON THIS SIGN PACKAGE AS IT MEETS ALL FIVE CRITERIA AS PUT FORTH IN THE ZONING CODE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-039, GIVING THE APPLICANT THE OPTION OF INSTALLING A PROJECTING SIGN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LANDLORD AND PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Doug and Mistie Berschet, 326 West Maple Street – Modification Application
The applicants are seeking a modification to allow for the removal of the old and construction of a new unpainted pressure-treated deck and to build retaining walls in the west and rear yards. The previously approved plans are finished and there are several things they would like to do now: (1) have a new deck on the east side, 26’x14.9’; (2) add a stamped concrete pad to the east of the deck; (3) install a landscaping area at the rear of the house, which would be framed by a decorative stone wall 2’ in height on the west side tapering to the ground on the east side ; and (4) 2’ timber retaining wall on the west property line to prevent erosion and they will add aggregate and stepping stones. Ms. Berschet stated that there was a deck there previously, but they got into foundation issues and termite damage. The entire yard would be enclosed by a white picket fence and there would be a matching gate between the gravel driveway and the concrete; the fence existed previously and they would just be reinstalling it.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #00-137 AS PRESENTED. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Darren Kennedy, 142 ½ East Broadway – Change of Use
The applicant wishes to change the use from an apartment to a computer video and graphics production studio. Mr. Kennedy said the space has been both an office space and apartment over the years. This is not retail space, and there would be no walk-in traffic; rather, he will meet clients there. MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-043 FOR A CHANGE OF USE. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Darren Kennedy, 142½ East Broadway – Wall Sign
Mr. Dorman said the applicant wishes to install a wood wall sign, 3.5 square feet with no lighting. This would be under the “Woeste” sign on North Prospect Street. This is the second wall sign in this spot, but he needs a way to indicate his business is in the building. Mr. Wilkenfeld was a little concerned about the color and asked the applicant if he could soften and mute the white. Mr. Kennedy said yes. The final color can be approved by the Village Planner.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-044 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WHITE BACKGROUND IS SOFTENED TO OFF- WHITE AND A REVISED DRAWING BE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Milling Company, 280 South Main Street – Exterior Remodeling
Mr. Dorman said the equipment was moved to the large building and now they want to repair the roof, replace the siding, and add a new overhang along the entire north side. Phil Watts said there will be a new overhang across the whole north side and the old siding will be taken down and replaced with metal siding. The new roof will be asphalt shingle. There will no longer be any trucks under there and no machinery; the building will be used for storage. They will remove the existing windows on the west facade, but are keeping the sliding doors on the north side. Mr. Burriss said this would be an improvement and asked about the rear roof and was told it would be metal, the same color as the siding and the same configuration. There will be no gutters and downspouts and there is sufficient drainage. No modifications will be made on the south side. Mr. Wilkenfeld said this is a minor modification to a fairly historic business, a disappearing way of life.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-046 AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dave and Cindy Farley, 228 Sunrise Street – Demolition
Mr. Dorman said this is a demolition following a fire, but the shed will remain as is. The front setback would not be sufficient and will need variances for front and side setback and maybe lot coverage. The shed footprint will not change, so the setback violations are grandfathered. Mr. Salvage said that in order to maintain the integrity of the street, the front setback should be approved. Mr. Farley said they will put in a new foundation and home and raise the shed roof a little bit and make it an exercise room.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02- 050 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. Mark Cobun, 324 Summit Street – Exterior Improvements
Mr. Dorman came across this project mid-stream. The front porch has been completely reconstructed and the front facade replaced. So he called the applicant in to see the Planning Commission. Mr. Cobun stated that he straightened the front wall of the house and the wall had shifted off the foundation some, so he worked on the house. It was literally falling down. The porch continued around the side of the house and it was a poor renovation job. He jacked up the porch and saved the posts and duplicated them. Mr. Burriss and Mr. Salvage commended the applicant for his good work so far.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-051 FOR RENOVATIONS THAT HAVE OCCURRED TO DATE AND WITH A CONTINUANCE OF THOSE RENOVATIONS AS LONG AS THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Welsh Hills School – Multi-Purpose Addition
Architect Steve Stein said they have been working with the school on expanded facilities, programming, auditorium, and some athletics in a field house setting without bleachers. By placing the new building behind the existing school it will not be overwhelming or overpowering. They changed the elevation of the floor to be 3’ below the existing floor. The new roof will be 41’, and you will be able to see the roof from Newark-Granville Road. Mr. Salvage thought this will not hit you as far back from the road as this is. The roof will be metal with a portion in shingle. They wanted to continue the farmhouse design, following the example of the original farmhouse, moved to accommodate the school. Mr. Burriss encouraged them to be even more barn like in design. Dormers do more toward making it barn like than this design. Steve Stein said they are looking into this type of architecture. There were silos and cupolas at the previous barn location. A landscape architect is working on plantings. Mr. Wilkenfeld remarked that there are woods around the school so it will be partially screened from the road. The Comprehensive Plan recommends maintaining the rural heritage of Granville. He would like to see photos of the plans. Mr. Burriss applauded their articulation and colors and materials. Mr. Salvage stated the idea is well received.
Speedway/ SuperAmerica, Cherry Valley Road at State Route 16 – Proposed Gas Station
Jonathan Wocher explained the project to date. The 17-acre site will be subdivided into four lots, with the gas station using 2.08 acres and one lot for dedicated green space. There will be an access drive. The gas station will be 3800 square feet with 6 pumps. Sidewalks will be along Cherry Valley Road. A landscape plan is being finalized with 110 shrubs and with small and larger trees. Parking for 12 cars is behind the building line. The dumpster will be enclosed. They meet the lot coverage requirement. The monument sign will be on northwest corner of the property. Buck Withers explained the building itself: it will have a hip roof with shingles, gray, variegated. There will be a cupola; the building will be brick with 6 coins in pilasters. Building will have cut stone detail. Mr. Parris thought there should be a wider turning radius and the representative thought that would be ok. Mr. Burriss thought the sidewalk should not be so close to the road. The building could be pushed back to allow more green space on the SR-16 side. The hedge could be moved to create more space. Be sure to screen the dumpster. Brick is not necessarily always better. You don’t necessarily have to copy Certified. Play down the scale of the canopy. Lighting of canopy must be toned down, with zero spillover of light. He should have a copy of the lighting requirements. The canopy does not need to be absolutely like the building, to break up the massing. Try brick and board and batten, fiberglass. Landscaping needs to have a creative use of trees and be consistent with the other lots. Plan a tree canopy on SuperAmerica Way. Jonathan Wocher said the lighting will be recessed under the canopy. Ms. Lucier asked about a Traffic Study, and Mr. Dorman said it is in the process of being reviewed by the engineers.
Brian Sutliff, 122 North Pearl Street – Proposed Zoning Amendment
This is a follow-up from the last meeting. Mr. Sutliff said he sent a letter to Mr. Dorman about what he would like to do and to get advice from the Law Director, about whether he can use it as a home occupation without changing zoning, and the answer was no. Jim Gorry said rezoning is a two-step process: (1) Amend the map, placing the parcel in the VBD; and (2) determine the use category to put it in. If this is a financial planning consultant’s office, it goes into 1159.02 (a) (2) (c), Business and Professional Offices. You could also create a separate category “Financial Planning Office.” The standard presently would be to amend the map and designate a category and add it in one process. So the property can then be used for any of the other uses. You can limit the text. Can you restrict the future use? Mr. Gorry said the next guy can do anything in (c) and if he did not change anything he would not need approval from the Planning Commission. You can always impose new conditions when applications come in. To go from (c) to (d) an applicant would need a change of use. Mr. Salvage stated that it seems to make sense to come up with a new classification. His concern is still when the next business comes in there may be more traffic. Mr. Dorman said each new business gets a hearing on change of use. Ms. Lucier feels this should be looked at from a community point of view. She is not sure we do not have enough places zoned commercial already. Mr. Burriss said the GBPA is looking for more business space. Mr. Sutliff stated this is not a suitable rental for families with little children and would work better as a small business office. Mr. Van Meter, landlord, thought there is a big need for more office space. He would rather have a quiet professional working there than a family with little kids and all their toys out in the front yard. Mr. Parris agreed that it is not a suitable location for a family. Mr. Gorry said you could attempt to approve this with conditions, but that does not guarantee it would survive. Mr. Salvage said we can make a recommendation to Village Council to add a category “I,” and Mr. Gorry can put in any restrictions he wants. Courts frown on taking zoning away if it meets all conditions under the code. This could be a new conditional use, (b) (2) (f), Small Business. Mr. Salvage thought this was an access situation. Mr. Paris said Mr. Sutliff needs to talk to an attorney some more. They can figure out how to write this either under (I) or a conditional use that would hold up when tested.
Village of Granville – Proposed Zoning Code Changes
Mr. Salvage said that considering the lateness of the hour, this should be postponed. The group agreed upon Wednesday, May 1, 8 a.m. to 10a.m.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE A AND B UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Clayton and Berschet) AND A, B, C, D, AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF APRIL 18, 2002. MR BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10:30 p.m.
Next Meetings: May 1, 8 a.m. (Zoning Changes) and May 13 (regular meeting)
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen