Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 7/14/03

 GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 2003 Amended Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: None Citizens Present: John Compton, Scott Walker Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of June 23, 2003: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business: 

First Federal Savings, 126 North Prospect Street – Building Renovations {Mr. Riffle recused himself from this application.} Mr. Dorman said that for their renovations, the bank wants to upgrade the exterior and give the building a face lift. The roof would be reconfigured and shingled with dimensional asphalt shingles, and three dormers with real windows will be added. There will be a recessed porch and a little patio with landscaping. The brick on three sides will match the existing and they will paint the east side. The footprint will remain the same. The off-site parking spaces were approved by the BZBA last Thursday. Scott Walker said after the work session, they changed the exterior design of the second floor and added cedar siding on the south, and wood trim, including wood shutters. There will be a garden wall of brick where the kids can eat their ice cream. He showed brick, shingle and paint color samples. The second floor is for storage. Lights will be added in the recessed porch, and a pair of decorative light fixtures will be on either side of the south door. John Compton said the rendering does not show the actual color of the sign. They will come back later with a sign application. It will be a 12 square foot sign, with metal posts on each side, made of wrought iron. It will be smaller than Unizan’s. They will have lights that shine up from the ground. Mr. Salvage thought the faux windows on the south side really improve the appearance. 

MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #03-080. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED 4 TO 0 WITH 1 ABSTENTION (MR. RIFFLE). 

Work Session: Village Ordinance Changes

 Mr. Dorman and the Law Director have been trying to make some major changes and updating the language of the document, and they are looking for GPC’s comments at this time before the changes go to BZBA and Village Council. A couple of statements have been added to aid the Village Planner in his work, among them the ability to revoke a permit or issue a stop order. Page 13. Ms. Lucier was concerned about the distinction between ‘occupancy’ and ‘use.’ Mr. Dorman said that after he goes out and inspects a new single family residence, and finds it in order; he will issue a Certificate of Occupancy. This is different from a building permit. A building has to be finished before it can be sold. Ms. Lucier wondered if it is appropriate for a building to be used before it is finished, and this is something the Law Director will think about. The group agreed that the Law Director should look at this section. Page 21. Mr. Salvage suggested changing the word ‘predicament’ in line 25 to ‘situation.’ Mr. Dorman said the language comes down from the Supreme Court. However, the GPC recommended changing it to ‘situation. ‘ Page 23, Line 15 and 18. Mr. Salvage questioned the need for sections (a) and (b), and Mr. Parris thought we shouldn’t be making restrictions. Ms. Lucier thought the intention is to make sure the primary structure remains primary, and she liked the draft language as proposed. We have lot coverage restrictions now, added Mr. Parris, and people will still need to come before us for approval. Mr. Dorman said lot coverage only applies to the first floor of a garage. It’s a policy decision. Do we want large garage structures in town? There are other districts where big barns would fit in. It’s hard to visualize massing from a picture. By a 3-2 vote, the Planning Commission is recommending the sections will deleted. Page 23, Line 28. Mr. Salvage asked whether this is a problem, and Mr. Dorman said there have been problems where projects are under construction and builders leave junk around, but they usually keep supplies in their trucks. If they are using the supplies, it is not a problem. Ms. Lucier said if it is not a problem, it is not a hardship. Mr. Parris wondered how one could enforce this evenhandedly. Page 23, Line 35. Again, Mr. Salvage questioned storing things outside. This is for the yard, replied Mr. Dorman. People don’t like to see ‘stuff’ in the yard but it’s OK in the driveway. Mr. Parris said PUDs have covenants and people are aware of restrictions when they buy, but adding restrictions after the fact is not fair. Mr. McGowan pointed out that property owners are limited by zoning restrictions regarding these items already. It’s a problem of interpretation and difficult to administer evenhandedly and an enforcement nightmare. Mr. Dorman replied that it has not been a big issue; you have to make some judgment calls. Page 33, Line 32. Mr. Salvage said we don’t want to force out businesses who want to build. Drive-throughs should be permitted. Page 35, Line 28. Consensus agreed that ‘shall be provided’ should be changed to ‘may be required to provide’ Ms. Lucier wondered what a ‘major street’ was, and Mr. Dorman replied that the Comprehensive Plan has provided a roadway classification system, but it is not consistent with ODOT’s roadway classification system. The group agreed unanimously to change the language. Page 35, Line 43. Mr. Dorman wants to remove any reference to PCD from this PUD section and add them to the PCD section. Also referenced on Page 36. The Law Director will look at Pages 35 and 36. Page 37, Lines 5, 6, 7, and 18. Mr. Salvage thinks this is unrealistic and Mr. Parris agrees. Mr. Dorman said there are no longer standards or requirements, just guidelines. If this is a real issue, GPC needs to take time and look at the guidelines, but he does not think you can accomplish this now. PDDs are about flexibility. Mr. Salvage wants to remove this section and let the applicant come in. Page 38, Line 34. Mr. Salvage said there are floodplain guidelines, and why can’t a person fill in a floodplain? Ms. Lucier did not think GPC should be discussing these policy issues. We should make recommendations within the scope of the GPC. Page 38, Line 47. Mr. Salvage wondered why parking is limited to behind buildings. Page 39, Line 1. Mr. Salvage thought this item unnecessarily strict. Mr. Dorman said people don’t like to see a sea of asphalt. It’s an aesthetic thing and a safety thing. Page 43, Mr. Salvage finds this page unnecessarily strict. Page 44, Materials. Mr. Salvage thinks chimneys can be of other materials. Pag3, 45, Mr. Salvage does not think drive- throughs should be prohibited in the front. Page 45, Line 18., Mr. Salvage wondered why garages may only be 9’ wide. Mr. Burris wanted to invite Keith Myers to be involved in any future discussions in terms of changes to the development guidelines for the Planned Development Districts. It was agreed that the restrictions and guidelines of the zoning code should be reviewed and updated after the new planner is up to speed.

Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDING OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER NEW BUSINESS (1ST FEDERAL) AND WE FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF JULY 9, 2003. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business: The chairman referred to the memo from Seth Dorman regarding his resignation. He offered congratulations on the new position and said it is with deep regret that we will lose him. At the next meeting he will present a resolution of commendation. ”You are the best Planner we have had and we wish you well and Good Luck!” Seth said. “This is a bittersweet decision, but the opportunity is too great to be passed up. You all will be missed.”

Adjournment: 9:05 p.m. Next Meetings: July 28 and August 11 Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen 

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.