Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2007


November 13, 2007




Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair)

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Law Director - Michael Crites, Assistant Law Director - Allison Crites, Village Planner - Alison Terry, Mollie Prasher – Clerk of Council

Visitors Present: Leta Ross, Kris Harrison, Kirsten Pape, Doug Wagner, Laura Andujar, Jeanne Crumrine, John Klauder, Brian Miller 

Approval of Minutes

Tim Ryan moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2007.  Second by Jack Burriss.  Motion approved.  4-0

 Citizen’s Comments:

No Citizen Comments 

New Business:

136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-082


Mr. Riffle swore in all witnesses wishing to address this application 

The request is for the approval of a sidewalk, sandwich sign. 

Mr. Ryan asked if a second sandwich board was permitted for this building. 

Planner Terry indicated that the Commission could ask forward this application to the BZBA for a variance; however, under Section 1189.12 the Commission has the authority to approve an additional sign.  

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Greek Eats had a sandwich board sign.  Mr. Riffle indicated that they did not have a sign. 

Mr. Blanchard asked how much overlap would exist from when Mr. Torabi’s sign and Delmar’s sign would be in use.  An hour or two was suggested. 

Mr. Riffle indicated that the proposed sign meets several of the criteria.

Chip Blanchard moved to approve the sidewalk sign as submitted with the conditions that the sign be moved when closed and during non-business hours, and that the sign’s colors be consistent with the signage on the front of the existing business.  Second Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote for Application #07-082: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle.  Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-082 is approved.  

484 South Main Street – Laura Andujar on behalf of Andy Ross and Ross’ Granville Market – Application #07-083


Mr. Riffle swore in all witnesses wishing to address this application 

The request is for approval of a site plan and architectural review and approval of a 550 square foot addition and façade renovation.

Laura Andujar, architect, advised the Commission that a variance had been granted by the BZBA for the renovations proposed to the Granville Market.  She presented the Commission with revised drawings and samples materials. 

Mr. Riffle questioned if the roof over the entrance door had been made smaller.  A larger roof would provide more of a colonnade appearance.  Mr. Burriss suggested realigning the columns to improve the tenant face.  One column was located directly in front of the video store entrance.  He also suggested watching where the gutters and the hose bib are located to prevent problems with water run-off during storms and winter’s ice/thaw.  Mr. Blanchard questioned how the brick return would be handled.  He also asked about the siding and shingle color.  The applicant provided samples of each.  Planner Terry advised that the applicant would also be responsible for paying a portion of the construction costs of a five foot (5’) sidewalk in front of the property to provide for continuous access to the pedestrian bridge being constructed. 

Mr. Blanchard moved to approve application #07-083 as submitted with the following conditions:

  • The brick installed on the building will be the Cape Cod Engineered Series as per sample provided,
  • The shingles color replicate Owens Corning Estate Gray as per sample provided,
  • The ends of the flanking roofs have hips consistent with the pitch consistent with the front façade of the building,
  • The columns of the flanking roof lines be consistent with the separation on the main entry,
  • Increase overhang on the flanking roofs by twenty-four inches (24”) with the column relationship with the outside edge remaining the same maintaining a five foot (5’) egress,
  • The siding color will be James Hardie Cobblestone (JH40-10) as per sample – Exhibit B, with the scallops trimmed in James Hardie Country Lane Red (JH90-20),
  • The gutter color be consistent with the trim, and
  • The applicant will be required to pay the proportionate share of the five foot (5’) pathway across the front of the property from the south point of the driveway to the new pedestrian bridge – Exhibit A

Second by Mr. Burris.  Roll call vote for Application #07-083: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 4-0.  Application #07-083 is approved.   

Public Hearing for the Proposed Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance 

Mr. Riffle swore in witnesses who wished to speak during the public hearing. 

John Klauder, 30 Old Farm Road, advised that the River Road steering committee had initially suggested ten (10) units per acre.  After several meetings with the Planning and Zoning Committee, a compromised was reached of six (6) units per acre.  The proposed text now indicates a four (4) units per acre density with an additional two (2) units permitted if open space is provided.  Mr. Klauder asked that the units per acre density be increased back to the agreed upon six (6) units.  Mr. Klauder indicated that at four units per acre, he is unable to make his project work successfully.  Mr. Klauder also questioned the lot coverage issue of not exceeding 50%, while the open space area the lot coverage shall not exceed 70%.  Also, what is dedicated open space? 

Planner Terry indicated that both of these percentages are correct.  If a property is developed at four units per acre, the developer would be permitted 50% lot coverage.  If the density bonus were elected which provides for open space, the development may have six units per acre with a 70% lot coverage.  The open space would have to be accessible to the public, not private green space at the expense of the property owner.  

Doug Wagner, 300 Pinehurst Drive, would like to develop a commercial property.  He expressed concern regarding the density issue of 5,000 total gross square feet per acre.  This density level was reduced substantially form the original level of 10,000 square feet per acre.  This suggested code is too restrictive for commercial development.  The River Road area has a variety of property types.  The zoning needs to allow for more flexibility that can be tailored to a variety of lots styles.  The annexation of this area was to help provide additional tax revenue for the school district.  Restricting development seems to defeat the purpose of the annexation. 

Mr. Riffle indicated that this code is consistent with the current Suburban Business District (SBD).  Developing a code that attempts to tailor the zoning to individual lots is difficult as it does not provide consistency.  The code needs to be consistent so it can be applied fairly and managed efficiently. 

Mr. Ryan questioned why the SBD codes were not being directly applied to this area.  Planner Terry indicated that this district was intended to be a plan district which allows for more flexibility in development.  This district was designed to provide open space with reduced density.  She suggested that a different could be more accessible and still provide dedicated open space.  Mr. Riffle indicated that the current code outlines what needs to be done in order to increase units per acre.  Planner Terry did question the definition of open space and how that area would function. 

Mr. Ryan indicated that this text was the first time the Commission had the opportunity to review this text and had not been included in the process.  There still seemed to be a number of questions regarding what was included in this document.  Mr. Ryan indicated that this document does not encourage development. Planner Terry indicated that the presentation tonight depicted the updated comments from the property owners that had been complied so far.  She suggested that the Commission set-up a separate hearing to more thoroughly address their questions.  The Commission could forward suggestions or questions to her by email. 

Planner Terry indicated that some of the larger issues with this area are environmental issues with the two lakes, the flood plain and the typography of some of the properties.  Development should help preserve these features.  Mr. Ryan asked if these issues would be addressed more satisfactory with a PUD type plan. Planner Terry indicated that our existing PUD text is not written like standard PUD codes.  Our PUD plan could allow for too much flexibility in density and design.  Mr. Blanchard indicated that areas north of River Road, this zoning text could apply while areas on the south side of River Road are not compatible regarding density. 

Mr. Riffle asked what the goal of this ordinance was.  He felt the ordinance was trying to create a false identity.  This district’s proposed zoning is more restrictive than the AROD and VBD.  Is this area intended to be a reproduction of the downtown area?  He understood that it was indicated to be a compliant to downtown Granville.  He indicated that when attempts to build historically accurate communities, the result is to degrade the existing historic areas.  Mr. Blanchard responded that the intent of the regulations were to serve as guidelines to help control development. 

Mr. Ryan asked the origin of this document.  Planner Terry indicated that it was based on the original SBD text.  Mr. Klauder indicated that three years ago the River Road property owners came to Council and presented their ideas for annexation and development of this area.  At that time, Council agreed that these properties were a unique area and would need zoning that was different from any zoning district currently in use.  Council seemed to discard the suggestions made by the property owners and selected the SBD district as their starting point.  However, the SBD template does not seem address the issues in this area. 

Mr. Riffle indicated that the SBD has too many issues currently regarding roof pitch, materials, colors, etc.  Mr. Blanchard indicated that the district needs to maintain some type of control.  

Mr. Klauder asked what the procedure will now be for this process.  He felt the process feels like it is starting over.  Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission would hold a hearing and make a formal recommendation to Council.  Council would schedule public hearings, make any revisions, and vote on the ordinance. 

Mr. Burriss suggested that the Planning Commission be provided with the original recommendations from the property owners and all other presentations of this zoning district.  The Commission should have time to review this information and then schedule a public work session develop the Commission’s recommendations.  Planner Terry should also provide her drawings of what the proposed area would like with two different types of development.  

Mr. Ryan moved that the Granville Planning Commission meet on December 3, 2007 at 7:00pm to discuss the proposed Village Gateway District ordinance.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote for the Special Commission meeting: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals

New Business

136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-082


Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Finding of Facts for application #07-082 as it is consistent with the relevant sections of the AROD and the Granville Codified Ordinances and approve the sign application.  Second Mr. Blanchard.  Motion approved 4-0. 

Next meetings:

  • November 26, 2007
  • Special Meeting – December 3, 2007 – A Public Hearing for the Proposed Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance
  • December 10, 2007

 Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the meeting.  Second by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion approved 4-0.  Meeting Adjourned.  

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.