Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 5/10/04

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2004
Minutes

Members Present:  Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Mark Parris (Chair), Tim Riffle
Richard Salvage (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld 
Members Absent: none
Citizens Present:   Catherine Cunningham, Joan and Gil Krone, Kathryn and Jim Jung, Carol Whitt, Art Chonko, John Noblick, Jay Callander, Mike Frazier, Ruth Owen, Jim Smith
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Jim Gorey, Law Director
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.

Citizens Comments:  There was discussion as to whether citizens here because of the Milner Road application were to be allowed to speak.   If not, they could speak now.  The Law Director said this is not a hearing, rather, an opportunity to look at the finding of fact for the earlier decision and to answer 5 questions from Village Council {VC}.  If additional testimony is offered, the hearing would have to be reopened.  Any new evidence can only directly refer to these 5 questions.
 Mr. Salvage thought the information in our packets from the two sides tells us where each party stands.  Mr. Parris did not know what new could be brought into the mix.  Mr. Burriss has not had time to read the material, and he will concur with consensus.  Mr. Riffle feels we should consider the 5 questions VC presented to us.   The Chair wanted to give each party 5-7 minutes to state any information and consensus agreed.

Minutes of April 26, 2004:   MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business:

Genesis Land Development, Milner Road - Lot Split

The application is for a lot split and curb cuts for a 52-acre property at Milner and Jones Roads. The original application called for 7 curb cuts and it was modified to 5 cuts.  The land is in the Township and the road is in the Village.
VC has remanded back to GPC their decision concerning the lot split as a result of Gil Krone's appeal of the decision.  VC asked GPC to consider 5 questions relating to the road. 
 Gil Krone wanted to bring to the Commission the objections he made at the last meeting.  Some evidence is heresay that the Village Planner has referred to  the engineer, so Mr. Krone feels he has the right to cross-examine those people and his objection should be ruled upon at some point.  In response to each of the 5 questions;
 (1) he specifically questioned the definition of a minor collector.  The definition must take into consideration those roads feeding into Milner, such as Jones and Sharon Valley as well as the houses at the Village on Deer Creek.  We can rule out the definition of a local road as referenced in the Master Plan. The Village Engineer said Milner was a collector road.  A local road takes traffic from residences abutting Milner. That ruling, given the traffic coming from a major collector onto Jones, says we are not dealing with a local road, but a collector. 
 (2) A volume published by ASHTTO says that volume of traffic needs a certain number of lanes and speed limits, etc. 
 (3) Milner is a collector road.
 (4) Licking County regulations certainly do apply because the developer has relied on those regulations.  He needs to incorporate the one significant portion, which is the space of driveways on both sides.
 (5) If we had an access management plan, we would be obligated to follow it, but we don't.  We have to refer to the south side, as safety affects both sides of the road.  We should refer to the Access Management Plan of the State of Ohio, which is to eliminate driveway accidents.
 Atty. Catherine Cunningham spoke for the applicant and made reference to the report previously distributed.  The only regulations that apply are under the village's subdivision general design standards.  It says traffic safety measures shall be required by GPC within recommendations of the Engineer.  There are no obvious criteria.  The Village has not adopted a thoroughfare plan or access management plan.  They hired a traffic engineer and tried to establish driveway cuts.  Both the Village Planner and the Engineer say its safe, and no other objective criteria exist.  In looking at VC's 5 questions:

(1) The Village does not have a definition of minor collector road.  It is not a design
standard.
(2) You don't have to consider traffic volume.
(3)  It is not a minor collector, it's a local road.
(4) The Village is not obligated to adhere to Licking County regulations.
(5) Whether the Village should consider both sides of the road is not specified in the ordinances.  Look at safety and visibility; they do consider both sides of the road.  County regulations do not apply.
 
 It is the applicant's position that the questions asked by VC are not appropriate.  You got it right the first time even if it was not what you wanted to do.  You should grant Genesis 5 curbcuts.
 Mr. Parris asked where Mr. Strayer got his data and was told from Access Ohio from the Ohio Department of Transportation. There was a statewide study done and those were general answers.  For #3 and #4 he spoke with Tim Lolo, County Engineer, and he said it's inside the village so the county has no say in what kind of road it is. It falls under 'local road.'  For #5 he was simply going back to the original plan.  We do not have an access standards plan.  The studies turned in by the applicant takes into consideration both sides of the road because it is a site distance study and traffic needs to be considered on both sides.  The Village Engineer also considered this.
 Mr. Salvage does not think we are prepared to define a minor road or other roads when we apply them to a particular application.  If they want us to make recommendations as to standards, that is fine, but not on a remand of an application.  He wants to return this to VC without an answer to #1.
 Mr. Parris said we have already done that.  We reviewed that information based on the code and made the original definition.
 The Law Director said there is no definition in our code for a minor collector.  Their request therefore must be a general generic definition, and he finds the first response in Mr. Strayer's review to be correct and appropriate and he thinks GPC should adopt that.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld has been through this with his own business.  When local codes do not speak to an issue, the law to look at is the Ohio Revised code. The Law Director said usually that's correct, but this refers to issues of Granville.  The state is not really relevant.  A general traffic engineer's definition of a collector road is appropriate.  VC is asking whether these 5 questions would constitute a safety hazard.  You have to rely on general case law.  There is an objective standard on curb cuts and addresses safety. It does not matter whether it's in the township or in the village.  He requested the GPC to address these 5 questions and consider traffic safety

(1) Everyone agreed with Mr. Strayer's definition and that it was A definition, but not THE definition.
(2) Does the definition Mr. Strayer provided us of a minor collector include traffic volume? All in favor of finding that this answer and its source are valid? The vote was 4 Ayes and 1 Nay (Mr. Wilkenfeld)
(3) Is Milner a minor collector?  A vote on whether we agree with Mr. Strayer's statement was 4 Ayes and 1 Nay (Mr. Wilkenfeld)
(4) Should the village adhere to L.C. regulations?  The vote was 5 nays.
(5) Should both sides of the road be considered?  Site distances do consider both sides.  The vote was 5 ayes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE FIND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE CODE THAT WOULD SUGGGEST THAT WE RECONSIDER OUR PREVIOUS DECISION, AND WE THEREFORE REAFFIRM OUR PREVIOUS DECISION.    MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Gorey clarified. Can we make a specific finding that we don't think there is a traffic hazard.  GPC's previous decision is vacated and you can't reaffirm that.  Mr. Parris noted that safety was considered in Question #5.

 MR. SALVAGE WITHDREW HIS MOTION.

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE GPC TO CHANGE ANYTHING WE DID IN OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION.  BECAUSE OF THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS MODIFIED. 

 MR. SALVAGE MOVED THAT WE FIND THAT ALL SAFETY ISSUES WERE PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED AND DOCUMENTED, AND THERE IS NO SAFETY ISSUE FOR US TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND HE MADE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.  THIS IS THE FINDING OF FACT AS TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 4 AYES AND 1 NAY (Mr. Wilkenfeld).

 FOR THE MOTION ON THE APPLICATION, THERE WERE 4 AYES AND 1 NAY (Mr. Wilkenfeld).

MR. SALVAGE RESIGNED FROM GPC. Mr. Parris realized he has to go and appreciates all the notice he gave to us.

Susan and Daniel Schmidt, 225 South Prospect Street - additional curb cut
 The application was withdrawn. 

New Business:
Denison University - New Residential Buildings

 Art Chonko from Denison explained exactly where the two double dorms would be located, between Sigma Chi and Sunset.  They will begin in June and complete the work in the fall of 2005.  There will be brick colored stone on the hillside.  There will be handicapped accessible rooms on the first floor. 
 Mr. Strayer explained that several parking spaces were waived by Staff  for space limitations.  Mr. Chonko said there will be a driveway to the parking lot.
 Mr. Burriss wanted to see a complete landscaping plans, and it will be forthcoming.
 Mr. Riffle said that when plans are final, any changes will be approved by the Village Planner.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-051 FOR NEW RESIDENCE HALLS WITH FINAL PLANS TO BE LOOKED AT BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER AND JACK BURRISS.  LANDSCAPING PLAN WILL COME BACK TO GPC FOR REVIEW AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Denison University - Signs

 Denison wishes to install generic looking directional and informational signs, and when their need arises to erect these signs, they will come back to us.
 Mr. Chonko said that with all the changes on campus they are redoing all signs and need approval for bronze plaques to identify the east gate. New street signs have already been installed. These signs are only visible on campus and at Bancroft House.   In answer to a question, he described the 5' posts as black steel with baked-on semi-gloss finish.  The construction signs have been removed.
 
     MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 05-052 WITH THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO BRING IN A SAMPLE OF THE POSTS FOR APPROVAL.   MR. WILKENFELD  SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Callander Cleaners, 474 South Main Street - Signs

 Mr. Strayer said the application is for 4 temporary signs already put up.  The business has moved from Prospect Street to the space shared with Boxes and Bows.  Mr. Callander is making new signs and will return to GPC for them in a couple of months.  The sidewalk sign would require a variance.  The signs are:

 (1) Projecting Sign to be combined with the Boxes and Bows sign and repainted
 (2) Window sign
 (3) Window sign at the Video Store
(4) Southwest freestanding sandwich board which needs a variance, even though it's temporary
(5) He is also working on a sign tag for the big sign at the entrance, which may not need approval

 The applicant was reminded to take the sandwich board sign in at closing times.  Mr. Parris applied the criteria to the application:

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.  The store is in the rear with limited visibility.  
 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.  Other tenants in the complex have signs.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Applicant does not have full control over the signs for the building.
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.  We could limit that sign to 2-3 months with option to return for more time.
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. 

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT WE APPROVE VARIANCE FOR THE MOVEABLE SIGN FOR THREE MONTHS, CITING Ch. 1147.04, SPECIFICALLY No. A BECAUSE IT IS LOCATED BEHIND THE BUILDING AND CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE FRONT AND No. C BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER SIGNS FOR THE BUILDING.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BUT FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 04-056 FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS AS PRESENTED FOR A TIMEFRAME OF ONE YEAR MAXIMUM WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MOVEABLE SIGN.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Public Library - Demolition

 The applicants plan to remove the kitchen and portico to enable the Sinnett House to fit on the Pyle lot. 
 Ruth Owen explained that they worked hard and long to try to keep the doctor's office and it will remain.  They have agreed with all codes to be sure that the width of the driveway was acceptable.  The BZBA approved the side yard setback variance.   Mike Frazier added that the architect will attend the meeting of the Board on Wednesday and we will have most of the project designed.  They would like to do the work within 30 days.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER THE DEMOLITION OF THE KITCHEN AND FRONT PORTICO.  

Granville Public Library - Relocation

 The Library Board wishes to move the Sinnett House to the former Pyle lot at 122 South Prospect Street

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 04-059 FOR RELOCATION OF SINNETT HOUSE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Carol Whitt, 139 West Maple Street - Storage Shed

 The applicant wishes to erect a 10x10x12  storage shed in the rear of her yard the same color as the house.  The house is owned by Linda S. Cole. 

MR. RIFFLE MOVED TO APPROVE 04-060 AS SUBMITTED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway - Addition

 The proposed second-story addition will be over a previously added rear portion of the house.  John Noblick stated that they will remove the deteriorated slate roof on the two-story portion of the house and reconstruct and install new shingle roof on house and front porch.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether the new addition will resemble the house and was told by Mr. Noblick that some of the windows will have grills and they will remove the solar collectors.  Clapboards will be white, and a couple of windows will be moved a little bit.
 Mr. Burriss noted the new shingle roof material is more consistent with what was originally there.  Slate was not original.  With the addition, the view will be improved historically because it will no longer look like a two-story ranch.
 Mr. Parris asked about the pitch, and Mr. Noblick said they will probably put in ice guards.  It has shingles now.   They will remove the white paint on the bricks and clean and regrout and seal them.  The rafters will be retained.

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 04-062 FOR A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION  AS SUBMITTED.  MR. RIFFLE SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR ITEMS A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A,B,C,D,E,F,G 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 MAY 7, 2004.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Work Session:  Granville Christian Academy- sign

 The school is requesting a sign with logo on the awning to make people aware that the building to the east is for the academy. Mr. Strayer said 4 sq.ft. identification signs are permitted,  with only the name and address.   Under PUD a wall sign is not permitted.  What else can they do?  The representative said they want to differentiate the academy from the Welsh Hills School.  The administrator requests a crest.
 Mr. Parris said we had to grant variances to grant the monument sign since under PUD it was not allowed.  The only reason they were allowed is that other institutions enjoyed some of those features and since it was institutional, it was OK.  You have the right to apply for anything you want.
 Mr. Burriss would be willing to look at something similar to what Denison proposed for some of their street signs, like a free-standing sign with a bracket.  This would be preferable to another monument sign.  He would also appreciate appropriate landscaping around the pole.  The buildings are large and flat and a sign would relieve that.  He would discourage the applicant from a changeable sign, but he likes the idea of a crest.
 Mr. Riffle would like to see it either in the island or to the front of the building.

Adjournment:   9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:   24 and June 14

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.