GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION May 13, 2002 Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld, Richard Main Members Absent: None Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Eloise DeZwarte, Constance Barsky, Jerry Martin, Jonathan Wocher, John Stephens, Brian Parsley, Dave and Cindy Farley, Carlos Brezina, Judy Duncan, Leta and Greg Ross, Flo and Bill Hoffman Citizens’ Comments: 1) Eloise DeZwarte – 338 East College Street: Ms. DeZwarte raised a concern about the unfinished state of the garage project that was approved for Deb Hibler over two years ago. As she understood it, the applicant had 1 year to start and 2 years to finish the project. Mr. Dorman explained that the time limit on her permit expired and that he requested she submit a letter to the Village Manager requesting a time extension, which she did and that she was given to the end of May to finish. The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of April 8, 2002 (This happened after the 7:00 work session):
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 2002 AS CORRECTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session (Started early at 7:00 p.m.):
Village of Granville – Continue Discussion of Proposed Zoning Code Changes
The Law Director started right into the discussion of the proposed changes, on page 21, where the Planning Commission left off at the special May 1st meeting:
Page 21: Mostly code revisions Lines 18 through 23 – Attempting to clean up the language Line 42 – The words “and recreation,” are being deleted Page 22: Line 52 – The word “Architectural,” is being deleted Page 23: Line 1 – The word “modifications,” is being deleted and “alterations,” is being added Line 23 - The word “modifications,” is being deleted and “alterations,” is being added Page 24: Line 3 – The word “Architectural,” is being deleted Line 30 – The words “and site plan,” are being added. Lines 31 and 32 – The words “recommendation for,” are being deleted in recognition that Planning Commission is actually approving the projects Lines 42 through 44 – Allowing the Zoning Inspector to approve minor modifications rather than the Planning Commission having to approve them
Mr. Parris asked if there could be a mechanism for the Zoning Inspector to report back to the Planning Commission on the modifications he/she has approved. Mr. Crites said yes, and that the intent of this change is not to decrease the Zoning Inspector’s communication with the Planning Commission. Mr. Salvage said that he wants the Zoning Inspector to still have the latitude to bring any modification back to the Planning Commission if he/she is uncomfortable making the decision.
Page 25: Line 11 – The words “and approval,” are added Lines 51 and 52 – The Planning Commission is actually approving the projects Page 27: An appellate procedure for the denial of a demolition permit is added Pages 28 and 29: The changes on these pages are code revisions Page 30: Language is inserted consistent with the Crossen Case, relative to the development plan approval procedure being legislative rather than administrative Lines 10 through 14 – This language is to cover the number of situations where PUDs have no approved site plan
Mr. Crites added, regarding Page 30, that it is common practice to not approve PDDs and/or PUDs without: (1) Approval of a development plan; and (2) Changing the zoning map.
Page 31: The changes here are mostly code revisions Lines 44 through 48 – The “fast food” definition is removed and placed under the definition section Page 32: The changes on this page are code revisions Page 33: (b) is former (c) and the rest are code revisions Page 34: There is an unnumbered or unlettered paragraph that has been made (c), and (d) becomes the large table Pages 36 and 37: The language is changed to allow the Zoning Inspector the ability to approve minor modifications in the PUD Page 38: Line 25 – The words “such as,” are being deleted to make it consistent with other sections Page 39: The changes here are code revisions, in lines 11, 13 and 16 the word “site,” is being added in front of plan Page 40: Line 23 – The word “Architectural,” is being deleted Lines 45 through 51 – Section (d), Allowing the Zoning Inspector the ability to approve minor modifications after the site plan has been approved
The Planning Commission members wanted to revisit Page 16. Mr. Crites explained that there are two types of variances, and use variances are not permitted. The new standard for area variances is “practical difficulty.” Mr. Crites said that after the BZBA reviews the changes he will put together a red line copy of the comprehensive changes to the proposal. Mr. Salvage revisited a concern he had on Page 18, relative to the BZBA being allowed to apply conditions regarding the character of the structures and he feels that the language may be stepping on the powers and authorities of the Planning Commission. This concluded the Planning Commission’s review of the proposed zoning code changes and the regular meeting proceeded with the review of the April 8th minutes.
Eloise DeZwarte, 338 East College Street – Extend Existing Fence in East Side Yard
Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a slide showing the house at the subject property. Next he described the project in that the applicant wants to extend the existing 6’ lattice fence, 17’4” to the north, and that additional plantings will be installed around the new fence. He then put up several pictures for the discussion of the project. Ms. DeZwarte explained that in 1994 the Law’s wanted to move their driveway over to the lot line and she was ok with that as long as he put up screening. Ms DeZwarte explained that she planted a vine around it. Mr. Burriss asked if the finish of the extension will be the same as the existing and he was told yes. Mr. Burriss wondered if it would be ok if that was made a condition of approval and Ms. DeZwarte said ok.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-059 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPOSED FENCE BE FINISHED THE SAME AS THE EXISTING FENCE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Newkirk Design Studio, 226 East Broadway – Install a Projecting Sign
Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a slide showing the building at the subject property. Next he described the sign in that it will be similar to the existing “Crown & Cushion” sign; it is to be 30” wide x 42” tall; it would be a wood sign with flat letters; and it will have a cream background with a watermark image and a dark green border and lettering. Mr. Dorman then showed a slide that simulated what the sign would look like on the building. He then redisplayed the slide with the picture of the sign and its details for the discussion of the project. Mr. Newkirk explained that the watermark image will be darker than it is portrayed in the presentation. Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned the nature of the watermark and was told that that Ms. Newkirk’s salon uses Aveda© products and that the company gave her several acceptable images and she choose the one proposed because those products have a wheat base and the image depicts an agricultural setting.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-060 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian and Stephanie Parsley, 316 West Maple Street – Build Full Front Porch and Other Exterior Improvements
Mr. Dorman introduced the project first with a slide showing the house at the subject property. Next he described the full front porch portion of the project. The plan includes remove the existing partial front porch and replacing it with a 27’ wide full porch that is to have 6” pine flooring; the porch would have 5” x 5” square posts with square-styled balustrades; crown moldings will be installed under the eaves and at the top of the porch skirt; there would be lattice under the porch skirt; and two sets of steps on either side of the porch. The second part of the plan is to put new siding on the whole structure. The existing siding will be replaced with 6 ½” beaded vinyl siding, sage in color with white trim. Crown molding will be installed at the top of the walls under the soffit. Gutters and downspouts will be added to the house and an octagon-shaped accent window will be installed on the east facade. Next the applicant is proposing a 450 square foot rear patio which would be installed near the northwest corner of the house and would have two (2) walkways between the two existing gates. The patio will be stamped concrete with a slate pattern and will be moss green and beige in color. The fourth project in the application is to install a retaining wall along the east part of the front yard to level the yard. The front walk will be rerouted to service both the east side and front walk steps and the new east steps on the front porch. New planter beds will be installed in front of the new porch and on the west side of the house. In addition the east side steps will be reconstructed to align with the new porch and to improve climbing angles and tread depth. In addition the applicant is proposing some improvements to the lower roofs on the east side. The project includes leveling and realigning the east lower roofs to create a single fascia line. All lower roofs will be re-shingled and the primary roof will be re-shingled from slate to asphalt shingle. Finally, the applicant is proposing to affix a stone veneer to the existing exposed foundation. Several questions were asked relative to the proximity of the projects and Mr. Parsley showed where each of the questioned projects would be located on the pictures Mr. Dorman provided for discussion. Mr. Parris asked about the siding on the house and Mr. Parsley said it is 20 years old and in bad shape. Mr. Salvage asked about the plans for the new porch. Mr. Parsley explained that the porch would be anywhere from 5 to 13’ in depth. Ms. Lucier asked if the front door was being moved and she was told no. Mr. Salvage asked about the trim at the top of the porch. Mr. Burriss began a discussion about the architectural details of the new porch versus the original detailing of the partial porch. Mr. Parsley explained that they were trying to accomplish a simpler architecture on the new porch. He accounted how he drove around town and looked at many different porches and found that half the porches he saw have square balusters. He discussed the size and rooflines that he found and how he and his wife both grew up with full front porches and that is the feeling they are trying to achieve. Ms. Lucier explained how when she screened in her porch they used some of the old wood from the original porch as decorative molding on the new porch. Mr. Parsley noted that the current posts are fluted and wondered that if he were to flute the new posts if that was a step in the right direction. Mr. Parris said you could start off with posts that have that detail or use a smaller post and wrap it with detail. Mr. Burriss noted that there are a couple porch examples in town that utilized inexpensive details. It was decided that the application could be approved pending additional front porch detail drawings being submitted and approved by the Village Planner and Mr. Burriss.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-063 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT RETURNS TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND MR. BURRISS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE FRONT PORCH DETAILS. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dave and Cindy Farley, 228 Sunrise Street – New Single Family Residence
Mr. Dorman introduced the project first by showing the existing house at the subject property. He then explained the proposed house: that it will replace the fire damaged home; that it will be a full two-stories with a gable peak; and that it will have a first floor footprint of 1,826 square feet. Mr. Dorman then put up several pictures and sketches for the discussion of the project. Ms. Farley explained that there are a couple proposed window changes and then shared a trace drawing of the elevations that showed the changes. Mr. Burriss asked to have the applicant show him the footprint of the existing house on the site plan. Mr. Burriss wondered what the height is of the house on the lot to the south, and Mr. Dorman did not know. Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed exterior materials, and Ms. Farley said it is proposed to be wood siding, taupe in color with white trim. Ms. Farley then showed Ms. Lucier the proposed window changes. Mr. Salvage asked about whether there will be a garage and/or a driveway and Ms. Farley said that there is an existing driveway between the school and the house and that a garage is not being proposed. Mr. Salvage asked about a landscape plan and Ms. Farley said they do not have one yet but will submit it when they do.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-064, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE WOOD SIDING BE PAINTED TAUPE WITH WHITE TRIM; 2) THAT THE WINDOW MODIFICATIONS BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED; 3) THAT THE ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION WHERE THE SITE PLAN SHOWS IT TO BE UNEXCAVATED IS APPROVED; AND 4) THAT A LANDSCAPE PLAN BE BROUGHT BACK FOR REVIEW BY THE TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMISSION AND REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Fackler Country Gardens, 1098 Newark-Granville Road – Install a Temporary Contractor’s Sign
Mr. Dorman introduced the application first by showing a picture of the work site as it currently exists. Mr. Dorman then explained the proposed sign and showed the actual sign to the Commission. The sign is to be 3 square feet installed at 3’ tall, about 13’ from the pavement’s edge at about the middle of the lot. The sign will have a white background with black lettering and a black and green logo. The Commission had no questions.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-065 AS PRESENTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Ross IGA – Continue Discussion of Parking Lot Improvements
The work session focused on the design of the ATM loop design, the sidewalk from Main Street and alternative configurations for the sidewalk. Mr. Salvage noted that at one point Certified Oil was willing to participate in the cost for the sidewalks and Dick Schulze (there representing Certified) said they are no longer willing to participate. Mr. Burriss initiated a discussion about bicycle parking. Dick Schulze from Certified noted that they would be installing a bike rack at their site. Mr. Salvage asked about any Village specifications for sidewalks and Mr. Dorman said he would check into it. Mr. Burriss encouraged the Rosses to create as much separation between the sidewalk and the approach as possible. A discussion ensued about how to do that with the limited amount of green space between the edge of the approach pavement and the IGA sign. At the end of the discussion the Planning Commission members felt as though the Rosses could come back with a formal application.
Speedway/ SuperAmerica – Continue Discussion of Proposed Gas Station
The representatives for Speedway identified themselves as Jonathan Wocher (Planning Consultant for McBride Dale Clarion), John Stephens (Project Manager for Marathon Ashland Oil), and Buck Withers (Design Consultant). Jonathan Wocher started the discussion by outlining the changes that were made to the site plan since the last work session. Mr. Wilkenfeld questioned the location of the parking spaces and noted that the code said they must be behind the front facade, and Mr. Wocher explained that his understanding was that they could be just behind the front facade line. Buck Withers explained the changes to the design of the building since the last work session. Ms. Lucier noted that the gas station representatives said this is an unusually large lot for such a development, and wondered if the proposed store was also unusually large. Mr. Stephens said that they have put similarly sized stations on much smaller lots. Ms. Lucier requested that Mr. Stephens provide Mr. Dorman with a list of locations in Columbus so he can get pictures. Ms. Lucier also questioned the number of dispensers and was told six (6). Mr. Salvage said from his experience that the proposed lot is very large for this application and that the industry is going to a 6 dispenser station. Ms. Barsky (an audience member) asked how many cars could be serviced by the pumps at any given time and was told twelve (12). She asked about the size of the entire tract that Speedway owns and was told 17 acres. Ms. Barsky then wanted to know how big the remaining two buildable lots were. Mr. Stephens did not know off hand but promised that information at the next meeting. Mr. Salvage requested a site plan showing the entire tract. Ms. Barsky asked the representatives if they were aware of the last architectural plans and said that the company went through a lot of trouble drawing plans were architecturally approved. She concluded her statements by stating that she just wanted to alert the Speedway representatives of citizens that are very concerned about the proposal. Mr. Wilkenfeld then wanted to make a general statement. He said that he is concerned about the effect this plan will have on traffic patterns. There is already a severe problem on SR-16 and he is not sure if anything will fix it short of an overpass. He said that his concern is that traffic oriented business may exacerbate the problem. Mr. Stephens responded by saying that Bob Evans and Speedway split the cost of road improvements to South Cherry Valley Road several years ago. Mr. Salvage responded that the development would generate very little destination traffic, but that it would take advantage of drive-by traffic, and that traffic issues should be addressed as part of the application. Mr. Wocher appreciated Mr. Wilkenfeld’s concern but felt that any existing deficiencies are not the responsibility of the land owner. Mr. Wilkenfeld countered that the Village Council has to take these things into account for the safety of the residents. Mr. Wocher revisited his concern about placing the sidewalk on any utility easements and both Mr. Salvage and Mr. Parris questioned why they pushed it back so far. Mr. Salvage suggested placing the sidewalk 5’ off the curb. Mr. Wocher cut to the chase and said that they were concerned about there responsibility for replacing any damage done to the sidewalk by utility work. Mr. Salvage suggested deeding the land to the Village. Mr. Burriss concluded the discussion by saying that the problem exists either way and that the further back the sidewalk is located the better and that we are all in agreement that the sidewalk needs to be moved back. Mr. Salvage asked for discussion on the architecture of the building. Mr. Withers noted that the sense he received from the last meeting is that they were getting to close to the Certified Oil expression and that another expression should be looked at. Mr. Burriss said perhaps a marriage of the previous scheme and this new scheme would be best. Much discussion ensued about the windows, the columns on the canopy as well as other details. Mr. Salvage then asked for anymore discussion on the site plan. Discussion ensued on issues relative to the landscaping, size of the building and questions as to the look of the building based on what the code specifies. The discussion ended and Speedway indicated that they may be ready to submit a formal application and the Commission said they would be happy to do as many work sessions as Speedway wanted.
Village Brewing Company, 128 East Broadway – Begin Discussion of Proposed Kitchen Addition
Jerry Martin opened the discussion with an outline of his proposed changes including going from a 1.5 story kitchen to a full two-story addition. Mr. Salvage said that the weakness in the plan is the stairway in the rear. Mr. Rader (audience member) chimed in and said that he is against the stairway in the back. Mr. Parris wondered if the stairwell had to be permanent or if it could a drop down and he was told it had to be permanent. Further discussion ensued on the project, but most of it centered on trying to relocate the stairwell from the rear of the building.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A THROUGH D UNDER NEW BUSINESS (DeZwarte, Newkirk, Parsley, Farley, and Fackler) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF MAY 9, 2002. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 10:30 p.m.
Next Meetings: May 28, 2002 June 10, 2002 Respectfully submitted, Seth Dorman