Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 12/13/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 13, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:   Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle, Mark Parris (Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld (Vice Chair)
Members Absent:  Jack Burriss
Visitors Present:  Joe & Nancy McDonough, John Noblick, Lisa McKivergin, Jodi Schmidt, Jeff Oster, Leslie O'Neill, John Roy
Also Present:  Joe Hickman, Village Manager
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Citizens Comments:  none

Minutes of October 11, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Minutes of November 22, 2004:  Page 1, The paragraph starting "Mr. Mitchell:" change to "Mr. Mitchell . . . stairway, and this met with approval of all members.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED; MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
New Business:

Granville Chamber of Commerce - Santa Shed

 The chamber wishes to house Santa Claus in the Alltel Park.  Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether people could still get around it in the alley and was told Yes.  He thought maybe it could be closer to the street.   Mr. Riffle asked where the reindeer would stay, and Mr. Hickman said, "on the roof."
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Joe McDonough, 418 West Broadway - Renovations

 The Village Planner revoked the occupancy permit upon learning the applicant had made substantial changes without an application.  He had intended to replace everything as is and did not realize he needed approval, but then he went ahead and made some design changes.  Tonight he is asking for approval of changes for windows, siding and front door. 
 Mr. McDonough apologized for the misunderstanding when he made the changes.  He supports all GPC efforts and realizes maintaining architectural strength of the village is necessary.  The house was in bad shape, and had lots of different windows, and different renovations were made randomly.  The neighbors are very supportive of his efforts.  All his actions were in good faith and he did not intend to break rules.
 Mr. Parris brought up the subject of zoning districts, all of which have different regulations, and we must be sure that this SRD-B/TCOD change is compatible with the neighborhood and provides smooth transition between the village and rural areas.   Mr. McDonough presumed it was not in the AROD so did not need this approval, but the he heard later that it was in the TCOD and that Mr. Burriss was uncomfortable with the windows and doors.  All his work is of high quality, and the wood windows are the same width but they have been made shorter and bordered by 1"x4" boards.
 Mr. Parris acknowledged that it is unfortunate that neither Mr. Strayer nor Mr. Burriss is present, nor did the latter provide a letter to explain his concerns. 
 Mr. Wilkenfeld thought he could put lintels over the windows.  Mr. Riffle said the windows do not fit the house and they should have been taller, but Mr. McDonough disagreed and said when they reframed them, they used the original framing.  Mr. Riffle is talking about historical window sizes.  The upper ones are as they would have been, but the lower ones would have been longer and narrower.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked whether he was given an OK to go ahead, and he said Yes, originally nothing was to be changed.  He will use new products that look old.
 Lisa McKivergin, who owns the house next door, knows the house well and feels it was the ugliest house in town, and the difference now is substantial and outstanding.  She said the interior of the house was so muddled that it could not easily be renovated.
 Mr. Mitchell said the code requires that architectural continuity and good design be promoted, and he would defer to Mr. Riffle about the architecture.  It looks fine to him and sees nothing wrong with the design.
 Mr. Parris thinks it looks better than it did, and the only criticism to the front of the house it that there could be some sort of mullion detail at least in the top sash to give it more detail and to strike the period. 
Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed with these comments.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-184 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Lisa McKivergin, 134 East Broadway - Sign

 For her yoga studio, Jody Schmidt desires a door sign to be hung under the dentist's sign.  It will have black trim and will match the dentist's sign and his sign will overlay hers. 
 Mr. Parris is concerned about setting a precedent with this situation and we need to justify what we do, since only one wall sign is permitted per business.  The maximum number of storefront signs is 4, and this would be only three.   Members discussed the location and appearance of the pair of signs. 
 Mr. Parris applied justifications:

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.  There are two tenants upstairs and we have no viable alternatives for another sign either as a projecting or free-standing sign.  The door does not lend itself to a window sign.  The front of the building does not lend itself to a projecting, and the awning would interfere with a projecting sign.
 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.  It would deprive because the other tenant has a sign and this new business has the right to identify itself.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  They do not.
D. That the granting 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.  No undue privileges since others have signs, and there is no other place for this one.
E. That the granting of the variance will 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.  Placing it on the door would prevent people from bumping into it.

 Ms. McKivergin brought up the idea of a long thin sign beside the door, keeping the same fonts and colors.  Mr. Parris said a projecting sign would have to be two-sided and must stay within the 10 sq.ft. maximum, or 5' on each side.  She thought 5' would be too short but will go and design a new sign.  But first she produced an earlier stab at a design, which the members liked.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A PROJECTING SIGN WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS:  (1) SIGN WILL BE A PROJECTING WALL SIGN ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DOOR; (2) NO MORE THAN 10 SQ.FT; (3) USING THE SAME GRAPHICS AND COLORS AS THE ORIGINAL DRAWING; (4) MR STRAYER WILL REVIEW THE FINAL DESIGN.   MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jeff Oster, 1159 Cherry Valley Road - Sign

 Mr. Oster wishes to replace the existing sign with a new sign with new design.  Mr. Oster said there was a change in the dimensions of the original sign to increase the size, but it still fits within the code.  It will be white background with blue and burgundy lettering. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-186 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SIGN WILL BE SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE ORIGINAL. THE CHANGES ARE LISTED ON THE DESIGN PAGE OF THE APPLICATION.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

John Noblick, 335 N. Granger Street (Kent Maynard)

 The applicant wishes to add a 1¾ story second-floor bedroom and bath above existing family room and extend both 5'6" toward rear of lot.  Nr. Noblick explained that there was a previous design change in 1900 as well as in 1890, and this one will be a different pitch but will look a lot like the original.  It will be a shed roof, and all materials will match. 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 04-187 AS PRESENTED.   MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Elizabeth Carr, 130 East Broadway - sign

 The sidewalk sign has already been set up, and it advertises the other business for these owners.  Mr. Parris was upset at the retroactive application.  The code says there can only be one sidewalk sign per building, but Commission members were unclear about how to interpret the language and asked for clarification.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE AND WOULD LIKE A RESPONSE FROM THE VILLAGE PLANNER OR LAWYER AS TO WHETHER WE CAN ADVERTISE TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES ON ONE SIGN, ONE OF WHICH IS NOT IN THIS LOCATION.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, ABND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Ms. Carr may not leave the sandwich board on the sidewalk until this is resolved.  Joe Hickman will talk with her.

Work Session:   

 865 Newark-Granville Road - Fence

 Mr. Strayer said the owner was denied a variance from BZBA for a 712" tall fence on the front lot line.  She wants to talk about different designs with GPC.
 Ms. Leslie O'Neill showed pictures and said they want to take down the bushes and gate and put in a fence and stone wall 24" high.  She wants 48" because the fence sits so low.  The house sits on the hill in the TCOD, and she believes a lower fence would look silly.  Their original plans called for a chain link in 8' lengths.
 Mr. Hickman thought a retaining wall seems like a good idea and will help retain the soil. 
 Mr. Burriss had asked the applicant for stone pillars matching the house at the pedestal gate at the corner to define those entrances more clearly.  He also said he would be available to talk to anyone tomorrow.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted to see what final design plans for a 48" fence would look like, vs. 42" maximum in the code.  The BZBA would give final variance approval as a modification.
 Mr. Parris said if they made the retaining wall, could they make it higher and would that need approval, and Mr. Hickman said the retaining wall could be an administrative decision, and as long as the fence is 42" they would not need a variance.
 John Roy said the soil is washing away and they need the retaining wall.
 Mr. Parris said that since this property is a centerpiece to the village, he wants to do this right.
 Mr. Riffle thought GPC could approve it pending approval from BZBA.

 Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD  MOVED TO APPPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A,B,C,D,E UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF NOVEMBER December 10, 2004.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Next Meetings: January 20 and 24
Adjournment:  9:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Betty Allen Hullinger

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.