GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION September 8, 2003
Members Present:, Matt McGowan, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Tim Riffle, Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier Citizens Present: Drew McFarland, Judy Guenther, Barbara Hammond, Pamela Powell, Cindy Farley, Sylvia Brombeck, Nancy Graham, Kathleen Reagan, John & Georgia Denune, Brian Newkirk, Mark Evans, Mary Mulligan, Jerry Martin, Flo Hoffman, Charles & Lisa Whitman, Joe Durham Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. The Chair welcomed Chris Strayer, new Village Planner
Minutes of August 25, 2003: MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Pamela Powel/HER Real Estate, 230 East Broadway- Change of Use and Parking Mr. Strayer said the applicant is seeking a change of use for first floor and basement from retail to a professional office. The application includes paving for the lot, as 5 spaces require a paved lot. The reason this application was tabled, he added, was because of confusion with the issue of parking. The total required for the business and the 1st Federal is 5 spaces, but with 5, you need a paved parking lot. The applicants have provided a new survey that lines out the lot, and there is a shared contract. There will be a shared easement between the two properties. The lot fits 12 cars, which puts it above the required number for two parcels. The change of use is determined to meet all codes. Keith Myers, neighbor, said the problem is there is no outlet for storm water; it all goes back onto his property. He would have a serious concern about the paved parking lot without dealing with the water management system and an inspection by the Village Engineer. Mr. Salvage added that a letter from another neighbor recommends that approval be conditional upon a site drainage plan, and Mr. McFarland replied that Joe Hickman has suggested such a plan. John Denune, neighbor, said he would have no problem with the proposed parking because the more off- street parking there is, the better. Mr. Salvage asked whether GPC could make a determination to have the lot be not paved, and Attorney Durham, sitting in for Law Director Crites said it would have to be decided by BZBA. In 1159.03,e.3 Mr. McFarland noted that if a change of use does not result in a greater parking requirement, a BZBA review is not required. So a variance is not required; he would rather have it not be paved. Brian Newkirk said they would have to remove the second tree, a 26” maple, in order to pave the lot and make everything fit Mr. Strayer said it’s because of the 1st Federal’s lease that the project needs additional parking. This discussion should center on paving. The fence required will be addressed in the next application. Mr. Parris would like to see the tree stay, and as long as we are agreeable that there is enough parking space, he would rather see it remain gravel. Mr. Salvage would like to go ahead and approve this tentatively for gravel pending appeal to BZBA. If the applicants want to appeal to BZBA for variance to omit the paving, he would be in favor, and Drew McFarland said they would like to do this. Mr. Myers said this would be wise. In general in the Village parking is limited and it is good judgment to look at each individual case rather than adhering strictly to the code. Paving the area would strain a water system already at its maximum. Mr. McFarland thought they could pave only the parking slots, but that would not work very well.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-106 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: (1) APPLICANT SHALL HAVE OPTION TO USE THE PARKING LOT WITH GRAVEL NOW AND APPLY TO BZBA FOR VARIANCE FOR THAT CONDITION; (2) FENCE TO BE INSTALLED ON EAST PROPERTY LINE WILL BE 72”; (3) APPLICATION IS CONDITIONAL UPON APPROVAL OF FENCE FOR NORTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Mr. McFarland asked to amend the next application to have the fence be 72”.
Brian Newkirk, 226 East Broadway - Fence
Mr. Strayer said a fence is required along east side of parking lot described above. Although this ordinarily would have been part of the Powell application, it was received too late for enclosure and to expedite the situation, is offered separately. Mr. Denune thought the fence should be 6’ tall in order to make the area safer, and Mr. Newkirk said the size doesn’t matter as long as it satisfies the neighbors. Mr. Newkirk said the application is for new fence connecting to and matching the existing fence. A wrought iron gate will be between the two properties for security and privacy. He will put a similar type fence across the open area. The code requires a fence around any parking lots with more than 4 spaces. He will bring to the Village Planner a sample gate style.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-114 WITH CONDITIONS: (1) FENCE IS TO BE 72” HIGH; (2) FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING FENCE; (3) APPLICANT TO PRESENT GATE PLANS TO VILLAGE PLANNER. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Charles Whitman, 128 East Broadway – Change of Use
Mr. Strayer said the application is to change the use from retail to food/drug/beverages. The applicant wishes to move Whit’s Frozen Custard from North Prospect Street to the spot where Hare Hollow was. Parking is no problem, as it is a lesser use. Applicant will submit application for awning later. Quoting Fred Wolf, Mr. Salvage said that this would make 6 food establishments. Barbara Hammond is concerned about having another restaurant rather than a retail shop, since retail is what draws people to Granville as a destination spot. Brian Newkirk said having a restaurant with people coming and going is better than an empty shop awaiting tenants. Drew McFarland said we all agree with Ms. Hammond in theory; we tried to get retailers in vain because of the high rentals. Nancy Graham shares Ms. Hammond’s concerns. We have lost 5 shops lately, and her customers are not coming into the James Store as much any more because there is not enough shopping available. Keith Myers spoke in favor of the application. It’s a slippery slope when the Village defines basic locations for businesses, and we have to rely on the market to manage this issue. Whit’s draws a lot of people. Mr. Salvage did not think GPC was the appropriate body to decide this issue. Matt McGowan thought this was an issue for the Chamber of Commerce. Village Council is not trying to keep any business from coming in. The problem is the high rent. Mr. Riffle noted empty storefronts are the worst thing downtown. We need to support businesses trying to move in Mr. Parris said we do have a problem with a shortage of retail downtown, but as far as us being the gatekeeper of who can go in there depends on what the code says. It’s frightening to see retail leaving, but where are the new businesses?
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 03-118 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kathleen Reagan, 444 W. Broadway - Remodeling Mr. Strayer summarized the request for roof, windows, aluminum siding, and gutters. Roofing and gutters will match materials previously used, and the basic footprint will not change. A landscaping plan will be done later. Ms. Reagan further described the plan and materials. Vinyl siding will be applied after the old siding is removed. She loves old houses, and this one will be in form with its neighbors. She will enlarge the tiny window in the kitchen and will change the height of the window upstairs because of the fire code requirements, and other windows will be brought up to code. Mr. Riffle stated that sometimes the wood underneath the siding is in good shape and it may be cheaper to restore it and keep all window trim, and it will look nicer than vinyl. The applicant will consider this. Mr. Salvage wanted to be sure the Village Planner sees the materials. He would like to give the applicant the right to restore any wood siding.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 03-119 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ROOF AND SIDING TO VILLAGE PLANNER BEFORE INSTALLATION; (2) APPLICANT HAS OPTION OF RESTORING WOOD SIDING UNDERNEATH THE ALUMINUM SIDING; (3) APPLICANT WILL BE ALLOWED AS NECESSARY TO CHANGE WINDOW SIZE AND LOCATION TO MEET EGRESS AND FIRE REQUIREMENTS. MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Prudential Residential One, 142 East Broadway – Awning Mr. Strayer said the applicant wants to replace the awning with a blue and white one of the same material. Mark Evans said they will replace the sign over the awning.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-120 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Prudential Residential One, 142 East Broadway – Sign
The wall sign for the above business will be 10.6x2.76 sq.ft on the Prospect Street side. This is a multi-tenanted building and though we allow one wall sign per business, the applicant was approved for the variance when the original changeover was made 14 months ago. The sign over the awning will be painted to match the awning and use same lettering. The one on the side will also repeat the stripe design with the same lettering.
MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 03-121 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Powell) AND ITEMS A,B,C,D,E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2003. MR. RUFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Work Session: Sinnett House Mary Mulligan, who lives directly south of Sinnett House, and was concerned about the alley behind Sinnett House. Mr. Strayer said it is proposed to run along south side and end in a parking lot and loading dock. He invited her to come to his office tomorrow to view the plans for the house. Mr. McGowan said the alley is going to be closed off except for deliveries. Mr. Salvage added that they will leave the bush there and add a sidewalk.
Other Comments: Brian Newkirk expressed thanks that their application was passed. His commitment to people is that they should be able to rent and buy buildings here. He wondered whether his situation was considered differently from Whit’s because people looked ahead at the parking. His businesses don’t have the required number of spaces and he felt he was singled out. Mr. Salvage reminded him that the drawing submitted was incomplete. Mr. Newkirk said they tried to come to agreement and move 1st Federal’s spaces around. He was afraid his wife’s business would be jeopardized for lack of parking. None of that happened, replied Mr. Salvage. “Decisions are made here, and we are sensitive to issues. We want to encourage businesses to thrive in the Village, and if you have further problems, we will put you on the agenda.” Mr. Parris added that we had no accurate drawing or contract or the number of spaces required. Drew McFarland assumed everything was OK with the sketch because they thought for a lesser use, they did not need a permit. Mr. Newkirk said it’s a good decision not to pave the lot. You have given me some good advice, and it’s all part of Village government.
Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.
Next Meetings: September 22 and October 13
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen