GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION April 8, 2002 Amended Minutes
Members Present: Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Jack Burriss Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Tim Stypula, Bob Lavender, Mike Dager, Harvey Shapiro, Hugh Masterson, Kevin Reiner, Ken Dickerman, Janet Clayton, Mindi Wilson, Patrick Flynn, Brian Sutliff Citizens’ Comments: None
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of March 25, 2002: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kevin Reiner, 215 West Broadway – Third-Floor Dormers
Mr. Dorman explained that at our last meeting we tabled the application for dormers on the east and west sides, pending an elevation that showed how the dormers would look on the house. The dormers would have a flat gable roof with a 3/12 pitch and will be trimmed to match the existing house. Mr. Dorman talked with Mr. Burriss and he did have some concerns about the dormers. Mr. Burriss and Mr. Reiner met and the result is tonight’s revisions. Mr. Reiner explained the new window plan as a result of the meeting he had with Mr. Burriss. There will be a trio of arched windows on the east side. The roof pitch will be increased to be closer to the pitch of the main roof than the originally proposed 3/12 pitch. The windows will not be very visible from the street but could be seen from across the street. Mr. Parris appreciates the applicant will be making sacrifices on the inside to keep the integrity of the house on the outside. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether Mr. Burriss’ memo should be considered an addendum to this application, and the consensus was yes. Mr. Salvage thought the Planning Commission should have updated drawings. We could approve this with the stipulation that the applicant give revised drawings to Mr. Dorman.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-027, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THAT THE APPLICATION WOULD CONFORM TO JACK BURRISS’ NOTE APRIL 7TH, 2002; (2) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL SUPPLY REVISED DRAWINGS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Stypula Brothers Landscaping, 188 Westgate Drive – Freestanding Sign
Mr. Dorman said the application is for a free- standing sign, 4’ long x 2.5’ tall, to be placed on the corner property at Westgate Drive and Cherry Valley Road, from mid-April through June. It would be set on a sawhorse with an extender board from which a plant is hung. The owner, Mr. Lavender, has granted permission for this sign to be placed on his property. There was some concern about the sawhorse mounting system, and the applicant suggested instead that he would create a pole system whereby a pole attached to the sign would slide into a flush-mounted pole in the ground. The Planning Commission preferred this alternative. Mr. Wilkenfeld suggested that all businesses on Westgate get together and erect a joint sign, but apparently some businesses are unwilling to do so.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-029, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THAT THE SIGN WILL BE MOUNTED ON A REMOVABLE PIPE OR POLE, RATHER THAN THE SAWHORSE THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kenneth & Patricia Dickerman, 321 North Pearl Street – Exterior Improvements
Mr. Dorman said the application is proposing to install a fence at the end of the front driveway, an air conditioner on the north side, front steps and landings, and to extend the width of the rear driveway, including a retaining wall and to replace the existing gravel with concrete. The new fence will match the existing fence, and Mr. Dorman is asking the Planning Commission to retroactively approve the existing fence which never received approval. The fence is white and wooden with arrowhead pickets and posts with square caps. The neighbor is agreeable to the new fence extending into his yard and is also a participant in this portion of the project. The applicant would also eventually like to replace the timber retaining wall holding up the front yard, with a new stone retaining wall. Mr. Dickerman discussed the location and issues surrounding each part of the project. He said the side driveway is just for parking and is currently gravel. There may be old steps under the ground cover, which could be uncovered. He will make provisions to drain the runoff from the rear concrete driveway, into his backyard.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-035, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: (1) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THE OPTION TO SELECT THE SIDEWALK CONFIGURATION OF HIS CHOICE FROM THE OPTIONS PRESENTED; (2) THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES THE EXISTING FENCE IN THE UPPER REAR YARD ENCLOSURE; AND (3) THAT THE APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES BY THE BZBA.
Patrick Flynn, 348 North Granger Street – Backyard Fence
Mr. Dorman said the applicant wants to enclose the back yard with a 4’ cedar board fence, going east from the deck and connecting to the south neighbor’s picket fence, and with a gate connector to the north neighbor’s fence. The final color can be approved by the Village Planner at a later date. Mr. Flynn said erosion and damage from the school construction has caused the chain link fence at the rear of the yard to need repair and will be replaced with a new chain link fence.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-037 AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTIION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Janet Clayton, 119 East Elm Street (Rear) – Change of Use
The applicant wishes to change the use from an insurance office to Gifts from Cricket Hill.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-038 FOR A CHANGE OF USE AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Janet Clayton, 119 East Elm Street (Rear) – Sidewalk Sign
The applicant is seeking approval for a plastic-coated wooden white and green sidewalk sign on Elm Street at the top of the stairs. It is bigger than the maximum size so it will need a variance in order to be approved. Ms. Lucier had serious concerns about the location because it would be in the sidewalk and would not be visible from the road anyway. There isn’t really any good location for this sign in the very small sidewalk. We should not do anything to exacerbate an already cluttered situation. Ms. Clayton said she could move the sign closer to the road. (Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to move the newspaper box for USA Today to some other location to eliminate some of the clutter.) He suggested hanging a sign maybe on the stairway awning or on the corner of the building. The sign standards are in place, and this sign has limited visibility. He likes the logo and likes to see logos on signs. Mr. Parris knows the applicant has spent a lot of money on the sign before getting approval. Maybe she could cut off the little legs to make it within the sign code. He did not think this sign is any more obstructive than other signs in the area. He wants to see a picture taken from the street. Mr. Salvage said the applicant needs to keep the sign out of the way. She already has a sign in the rear. He would be concerned with putting it near the street. The Planning Commission did suggest that they would be in favor of locating the sidewalk sign on Main Street. Mr. Parris suggested tabling this and allowing the applicant to check on the possibility of placing a wall sign on the front of the building facing Elm Street.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-039 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Michael Dager, 329 East College Street – Privacy Fence
Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 6’ tall treated wood privacy fence in the side yard. The proposal is to continue an already existing wood privacy fence with decorative caps down 75’ of the applicant’s backyard. Harvey Shapiro stated that you cannot see the fence from the front. It would go from the existing fence 75’ south past the existing barn. The neighbor is supportive of the project. The stain will match the existing barn. Landscaping will be added later on both sides Mr. Wilkenfeld reminded the applicant that the finished side is to face the neighbor.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-040 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Richard Van Meter/Brian Sutliff, 122 North Pearl Street – Proposed Zoning Amendment
Mr. Sutliff has an investment planning service and he wants to move his business from Columbus to Granville, and has mostly already done this with the office he rents at Main/Elm Streets. He will have limited consultations, so parking will be no problem. Ms. Lucier asked whether the property has ever been VBD and was told no. Mr. Parris asked whether the change would obligate us to consider a busier business in the future. Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether we can restrict a future business, and Mr. Dorman said this would be a good question to ask the Law Director, and he will do so. Mr. Salvage said there have been other houses changed over to businesses. The problem arises with parking. Mr. Sutliff’s plan would be ok but we do not want to end up with a high traffic business, when and if he moves out. Mr. Salvage asked whether we could approve this without changing the zoning, but was told home occupations must be conducted in primary residence. He suggested the applicant send a letter to the Village Planner, stating what he would like to do and asking him to consult with legal counsel. Mr. Van Meter, the owner, said the neighbors think the plan sounds like a good idea. Ms. Lucier said she did not think this was an appropriate issue for a work session. The applicant’s should submit an application with the fee. This fee would defray Village’s expenses in having the Law Director research a rezoning amendment. Other Commission members and the Planner said they were comfortable with a less formal approach. Mr. Parris wondered if once we rezone the property could we put any other restrictions on it. A local businessman, Hugh Masterson, has an office in Clark Wilhelm’s former bookstore location and would be in favor of the present application. There are other businesses next to 122 North Pearl Street and this would be hemmed in.
Village of Granville – Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Mr. Dorman asked the Planning Commission members to read the paperwork on the zoning changes before the next meeting.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE (A) UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND (A, B, C, D, and F) UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF APRIL 5, 2002. MR WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Closing Comments: Methodist Church: Jim Siegel of the Tree and Landscape Commission said there are screening requirements for parking areas and dumpsters. We have never dealt with this and. Mr. Dorman thinks we should ask the church to address this. If trees are taken down, they need to be replaced with trees of same size or equivalent. The church has an issue with swapping land for its addition, which the Village owns and will be back when they straighten out these matters. They have approval from the BZBA.
Adjournment: 8:50 p.m.
Next Meetings: April 22 and May 13
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen