Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 8, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Member’s Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Fred Abraham, Randy Tipton, Bill Hoekstra, Abram Kaplan, John Noblick, Jeff Hussey, Bob Needham, and Leta Ross.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

133 East College Street – Granville Township - Application #08-160

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a new handicap ramp, removal

of the southeast corner bay window and new ADA compliant rear entry door.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeff Hussey.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-160:

Jeff Hussey, Chief of Granville Fire Department, stated he is representing Granville Township.  He stated that they would like to convert the structure as depicted in the plans submitted to the Licking County Building Department.  Mr. Hussey stated that the Licking County Building Department approved the building and they added a handicap ramp for ADA compliance, as well as a rear door.  Mr. Hussey explained that the bay window on the southeast corner of the structure was a concern of the Building Department’s because it is right on the property line.  He stated that they asked them to remove the window due to the glass.  Mr. Hussey stated that all of the work would be done in the rear of the property and there would be very minimal impact to the outside of the structure.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposal is for a wood handicap ramp with wood balusters.  She stated that she does not have a copy of what the actual door would look like.  Mr. Hussey stated that they would attempt to match the existing door minus the screen door.  Ms. Reeves asked if the ramp will be painted.  Mr. Hussey stated that they intend to use pressure treated lumber with a clear sealer and no paint.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to make sure that the front door does not feel like an exit door.  Mr. Hussey stated that they are going to reverse the door and there would not be any change in appearance.    

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-160:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the removal of the bay window is a move towards restoration of the structure.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that removal of the bay window moves towards restoration of the structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the handicap ramp will allow all people to enter the home.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated that the home is being restored to how it previously looked especially with removal of the bay window. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing the complete removal of the bay window on the southeast corner of the home and replacement of the window with siding materials to match the remainder of the home, removal of the rear door and replacement with a similar door to meet ADA standards, and installation of a wood handicap ramp with side rails for ADA compliance. 

f)       Use of Details:  The applicant is proposing the complete removal of the bay window on the southeast corner of the home and replacement of the window with siding materials to match the remainder of the home, removal of the rear door and replacement with a similar door to meet ADA standards, and installation of a wood handicap ramp with side rails for ADA compliance.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-160 with the condition that the wood ramp on the exterior of the building has a finish coat.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-160 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

484 South Main Street – Granville Shopping Center - Application #08-162

SBD (Suburban Business District) – TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)

The request was for approval of a replacement for the existing freestanding tenant sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Leta Ross.

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-162:

Leta Ross, Granville Shopping Center, stated that they would like to repaint the existing sign and drop one line of tenants.  She added that they would need to add Knuckleheads as a tenant and this is not noted in submitted information.  Ms. Terry clarified that they will still have four tenants listed on the sign.  Ms. Ross agreed.  Mr. McClow asked if the sign is lit.  Ms. Ross stated that there is ground lighting shining on the sign.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the lighting will be the same.  Ms. Ross stated that the lighting will remain as is.  Ms. Reeves asked if the current sign was approved by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry noted that the total square footage of the building is 30,186/100, 128 sq. ft. and she stated that the replacement sign is the same square footage as the existing sign.  Ms. Terry stated that three variances are needed regarding the maximum square footage for a free-standing sign, the height, and the maximum number of freestanding signs needs to be increased from one to two.  Mr. Mitchell stated all of the previous signs exist and are grandfathered and since there is a change to the sign - these variances are needed.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified that our records indicate that a variance was never granted and this needs to be done.  Ms. Terry stated that once these variances are recorded you can indicate these three variances and they then stay with the property.  She stated that the applicant may have to get review and approval of graphics, but no subsequent variances. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-162:

 

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 he same zoning districts.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Ryan stated that in this case the grocery store plus we have a shopping center and we don’t have a shopping center any place else.  We also have the kiosk for the bank.  Mr. Mitchell stated that another special circumstance is because the building is so far back and a reason to increase the square footage, height, and number of signs.  Mr. Ryan stated that all of these signs also already exist.   

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 the Ordinance.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Ms. Reeves stated that the structure is set far back from the road.  Mr. Ryan stated that there are five businesses located with the property and this is not common to other businesses in the same zoning district.  Mr. Burriss stated that these are all reasons to increase the height, size of the sign, and number of signs.         

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.   Ms. Reeves stated that the signs are pre-existing.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the height, size and number of signs have been in existence for quite a long time.  Mr. Burriss stated that this sign is a huge improvement over its predecessor.

d)      That the granting of 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Burriss stated that their site specific reasons to allow this sign and increase the size, height, and number of signs.

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true. Ms. Reeves stated that the signs pre-exist.  Mr. Ryan stated that the height, size, and number of signs are increasing the safety.  Mr. Burriss stated that this graphically matches the changes the structure.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-162 with the three variances:

1)      To increase the maximum square footage from twelve (12) square feet to sixty-four (64) square feet.

2)      Maximum height from eight (8) feet to ten (10) feet.

3)      Maximum number of free-standing signs from one (1) to two (2). 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-162 is approved with the above stated variances. 

 

 

484 South Main Street – Granville Shopping Center - Application #08-163

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign for Granville Video.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Leta Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-163:

Leta Ross, Granville Shopping Center, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Reeves asked if the lighting on the sign will remain the same.  Ms. Terry stated that the lighting would go with this approval as well.  Mr. Ryan indicated that he likes the proposed lighting.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the sign will be lit all night.  Ms. Ross guessed that it would be. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-163 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-163 is approved as submitted. 

 

843 Burg Street – Jerry McClain Construction - Application #08-164

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A) - AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District) standards apply for this application due to the proposed size.

The property owners are Abram Kaplan and Carol Goland.

The request was for architectural review and approval of a front porch and rear two-story

addition.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, and Robert Needham.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-164:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, stated that they are proposing an addition off the back of the home.  He stated that the garage roof will come off and be reformatted and the addition will go further back in the back yard and it will have a second story.  Mr. Noblick stated that this location allowed him to be able to keep the height down and the addition sets back further in the woods.  Mr. Noblick stated that the existing house will be dressed up with the existing stone and a Craftsman style front porch with a concrete foundation will be added.  Mr. Noblick indicated that the home will have a flying gable style of roof.  He went on to say that the rest of the windows in the home will be updated to be thermal efficient.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant should be complimented for the completeness of the submittal.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed brick will be used any place else.  Mr. Noblick stated no.  Mr. Burriss asked what the bumps on the east side elevation on the bridge roof between the house are.  Mr. Noblick stated that these are solar tubes.  He stated that these are already in place and they are not visible from the road.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there are any other unique environmental features that will be incorporated in the home.  Mr. Noblick stated that the owner is doing a high grade efficiency window and the solar tubes allow passive light to come in to the home using a parabolic lens which picks up the light and reflects it back in.  Mr. Burriss stated that he did not see any indication of a generator or air conditioning unit and wondered if this would be added.  Mr. Noblick stated that homeowner will use the existing air-conditioning unit on the east side of the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the walkway on the front is brick and will it remain the same.  Mr. Noblick stated that the sidewalk will remain brick.       

 

Bob Needham, 815 Burg Street, stated that he lives to the east of the property and they feel the proposed changes are positive.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-164:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are other additions in the community that have enhanced an existing structure.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the addition introduces a style that is more unique than what currently exists on the structure.  Ms. Reeves stated that there are other Craftsman type structures in the District. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the addition will improve the structure that is currently there.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Ryan stated that the late 50’s style home and the changes will enhance the livability of the home. 

e)      Height: The proposed addition is a total of 25 feet tall, which meets this requirement.

f)       Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

                                                   a.       Simonton vinyl windows in addition & replacing the balance of the existing wood windows (the applicant notes that most of the existing windows are white vinyl);

                                                   b.       Wayne Dalton, overhead garage door, wood grained, painted metal;

                                                   c.       New shingle shake wood siding above existing stone line on front faces of house facing Burg Street;

                                                   d.       Hardie-plank siding on the balance of the addition - color to match the house;

                                                   e.       New front porch to have beaded fir wood ceiling, wood fascias, soffits, window, and beam trim on porch and on gables per elevations - all items will be painted;

                                                   f.       New 30-year asphaltic dimensional shingles on entire house;

                                                   g.       Replace existing wooden basement door with new painted steel exterior Bilco stairway access door unit.

g) Use of Details: The applicant is proposing additional detailing on the front of the structure to make it have a craftsman style appearance with the wood shake shingles, stonework, front porch and column

               detailing and flying gables with trim/beam detailing in the peaks of the flying gables.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-164 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-164 is approved as submitted. 

 

133 South Prospect Street – Bill and Mary Hoekstra - Application #08-165

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of removal of a three story arched

wood windows and replacement with arched vinyl windows.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Hoekstra.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-165:

Bill Hoekstra, 133 South Prospect Street, stated that he would like to replace the third floor windows to make the home more accommodating for his children.

Mr. Mitchell stated that in two of the windows Mr. Hoekstra would just be putting in new sashes.  Mr. Hoekstra agreed and he presented a sample of the window.  Mr. Burriss asked if the muntin bars on the new window would match the existing side windows or be very similar.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that they would match as close as possible.  Ms. Terry stated that all three third floor windows on north, east, south will remain the same style and they will be changed from wood to vinyl.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that he is unable to get wood windows, only vinyl.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-165:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the home will be properly maintained.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that nothing changes on the home stylistically.

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing replacement of the three (3) arched wood windows with custom built vinyl windows, and simulated glass to increase energy efficiency.

f)       Use of Details: Again, the applicant is proposing replacement of the three (3) arched wood windows with custom built vinyl windows, and simulated glass to increase energy efficiency.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-165 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-165 is approved as submitted. 

 

464 South Main Street – Abe’s Automotive - Application #08-166

CSD (Community Service District)

The property is owned by Fred Abraham.  The request was for architectural

review and approval of a new tenant panel wall sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Fred Abraham.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-166:

Fred Abraham, 1901 James Road, Abe’s Automotive, stated that he would like to install a tenant sign.  He stated that he chose a sign that would match the style of his building which is a pre-manufactured metal building.  Mr. Abraham clarified that the tenant signs will be individual signs.  Mr. Mitchell stated “fair enough - two signs go down and one goes up.”  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Abraham would consider moving the sign more to the left of the corner.  Mr. Abraham stated he would move it and center it between the last two panels.  He explained that the sign may appear elevated and this is because of cars parked in this general area under where the sign will be located.  Mr. Burriss asked if a tenant were to leave the building what would you see on the sign.  Mr. Abraham stated that this is a good question and he hasn’t given it much thought.  Ms. Terry suggested moving the tenant panels up and leaving the bottom one blank.  She also suggested removing the text and leaving the background color in place.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if all of these businesses are inside the building.  Mr. Abraham stated yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-166 with the following conditions:

1)         To move the proposed sign one (1) to two (2) feet from the corner of the building

2)         If a tenant sign is removed in the future, the panel is to be the background color matching that of the remaining signs.

3)         That ‘Abe’s Body Shop’ on the south elevation of the building will be removed from the building.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-166 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

14 Westgate Drive – Bill Mickey/ReMax - Application #08-167

CSD (Community Service District)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a temporary sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Randy Tipton.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-167:

Randy Tipton, 14 Westgate Drive, stated that they will be moving to another location in April of 2009.  Ms. Terry stated that the current temporary sign expires at the end of December 2008.     

 

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-167 with the condition that the approval is valid until April of 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-167 is approved as submitted.

 

Other Business:

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-160:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-160 with the condition that the applicant will use a clear coat sealant on the exterior of the wood for the ramp.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-160.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-162:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-162.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-162.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-163:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-163.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-163.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Application #08-164:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-164.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-164.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-165:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-165.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-165.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-166:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-166.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-166.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-167:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-167.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-167.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Review and Approval of Planning Commission meeting dates for 2009

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the meeting dates for 2009 as presented by the Village Planner and amended to cancel the second meeting scheduled in December of 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

November 24, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the November 24, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

December 8, 2008

**Note** The December 22, 2008 meeting has been canceled.

Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 24, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Tom and Linda Clark, JoAnn Geiger, John Noblick, Christine Oliver, Charlie Bachmann, Richard Liebson, Ed Vance, Gail Zear, Crawford Lipsey, Eugene Agan, and Don DeSapri.  

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

404 West Broadway – Tom and Linda Clark, Application #08-148

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for approval of a generator.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tom and Linda Clark.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-148:

Tom Clark, 404 West Broadway, stated that the generator unit would be screened with a fence and oak leaf hydrangea.  Mr. McClow asked if the unit is natural gas.  Mr. Clark stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked how far the unit is from the closest neighbor.  Ms. Terry estimated twenty to twenty-five feet away at least.  Mr. McClow questioned the level of noise that comes from the generator.  Mr. Clark stated that the installer has told them that the unit has a lower sound rating than a lawn mower.  Ms. Clark stated that she has been told it will be a little louder than an air-conditioning unit.  Mr. Clark stated that he has had a conversation with his neighbor to the west regarding the installation of the generator and his neighbor had no issues.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-148:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the unit will be hidden.  Mr. Burriss stated that the unit will be fully screened.    

 

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it enhances the livability of the historic structure if the electric were to go out.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it enhances the livability of the historic structure if the electric were to go out.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this generator will protect the home from becoming un-livable during a power outage.    

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing installation of a generator.  Mr. Burriss stated that the unit will be screened by natural material – landscape/wood fence.

f)  Landscape Material – The generator will be screened with oak leaf hydrangea.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-148 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-148 is approved as submitted. 

 

527 Newark-Granville Road – Acuity Brand Technology Services, Application #08-154

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a free-standing sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Crawford Lipsey, and Eugene Agan, 2 Parnassus Village Drive .

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-154:

Crawford Lipsey stated that they are changing the color of the current blue to be dark blue and this will match their corporate logo.  Mr. Lipsey clarified that the sign was previously put up within the last month without a permit.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign does meet the size requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the only change to the sign will be in color.  Ms. Terry stated yes and she explained that the bottom of the sign is sandblasted, while the top is flat panel vinyl.  She went on to say that the same sign was once fully sand-blasted and routed with an McDonald Investments logo and this had previously been approved by the Planning Commission.    

 

Eugene Agan, 2 Parnassus Village Drive, stated that he is amazed to learn that this sign was put up without the knowledge of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Agan stated that the residents see the sign everyday – twice - going and coming.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that Council is aware that there have been a lot of signs that have gone up without prior approval.  She stated that they have worked with the staff to address this and an article was recently put in the newspaper regarding procedure and permit requirements (Sentinel).  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that Council has also suggested putting something on the water bill that lets people know that they need to check and see if their exterior modifications require Planning Commission approval.  Ms. Terry stated that the staff is also working on sending out new information packets to new residents and there is information on the Village website regarding what modifications require Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Mitchell stated that with regards to Mr. Agan’s comments –many signs have been installed without receiving Planning Commission permission in the past - but this has improved recently.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the enforcement just hasn’t been done for years and the new staff is doing a terrific job to remedy this situation.  Mr. Mitchell stated that “we are improving at a rate that doesn’t need any further attention.”  He went on to say that the Village could look at fining people who do not seek the proper approvals prior to installing a sign, if need be.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Village Planner, Alison Terry, is doing a terrific job.  Mr. McClow added that word of mouth is helping people understand that they need to get proper approvals before they begin work.  Mr. Lipsey stated that Ms. Terry did a good job notifying his business about the signage approval.  He stated that he believes information regarding signage changes should have been included in his lease.  Mr. Agan wanted to know if the sign will be internally illuminated.  Mr. Lipsey stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-154:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a vinyl sign with vinyl lettering.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-154 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-154 is approved as submitted. 

 

221 East Broadway – Counting House - Application #08-155

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Chuck Bachmann.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-155:

Chuck Bachman, 6254 Lexington Avenue, Thornville, stated that he had a historical reference that depicts how the sign was decided upon.  He presented a book to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if the sizing requirements were met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Bachman stated that they have some flood lights to light pathway, but the sign will not be lit.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the store will continue to be open after the Christmas season.  Mr. Bachman stated that they hope to remain open if it is economically feasible.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-155:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a two color wood sign that will not be externally illuminated.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-155 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-155 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

221 East Broadway – Counting House - Application #08-156

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Chuck Bachmann.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-156:

Chuck Bachman, 6254 Lexington Avenue, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the biggest concern with this sign is the placement.  Mr. Bachmann stated that they place the sign out on the sidewalk just during the hours that they are open.  He clarified that the sign is being placed closer to Broadway – instead of closer to the business.   Ms. Terry stated that it is an A-frame type sign.  Mr. Bachmann stated that the sign is placed on museum property next to a flower bed that the museum owns.  The Planning Commission reviewed where they felt the sign should be placed on the sidewalk.  They depicted this on what they labeled “Exhibit A.”    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-148:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a black wooden sign with gold lettering.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-156 on the condition that the sandwich board sign be located per Exhibit “A.”    Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-156 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition. 

134 South Mulberry Street – Jerry McClain Company, Application #08-157

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The property is owned by Richard and Leah Liebson.  The request was for architectural

review and approval of a new two car garage, new driveway area, removal of rear entry

enclosure, and a new sidewalk between the rear of the home and the new garage. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-157:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, stated that there are a couple changes per the materials that he previously submitted.  He stated that the sidewalk will be stepping stones for the time being, rather than brick pavers.  Mr. Noblick stated that there is a shed entry that would be removed because it is not architecturally styled with the house.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the garage will meet the maximum lot coverage requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes, it will not exceed the 50% lot coverage requirement.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that it is surprising that the property has that much land.  Mr. McClow asked if the separation between the garage and the house is ten feet.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  The owner of the home, Mr. Liebson, stated that he spoke with the Finkleman’s, Schnaidt’s, and Brennan’s and they had no complaints regarding the proposed changes.  Mr. Mitchell asked what will be used as brackets.  Ms. Terry showed them a picture of what the applicant intends to use.   Mr. Noblick stated that they will have to get a curb cut.  Ms. Terry stated that they will need to apply for a right of way permit.  Mr. Noblick stated that Mr. Hopkins indicated that there will be several inspections regarding the curb cut.  Mr. McClow asked if the right-of-way permit will handle the tapering, grade, visibility, etc. involved with a curb cut.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the trim around the windows will match the rest of the home.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Noblick stated that the house color may change in the spring, but that has not yet been determined.  Mr. McClow asked what material the Wayne Dalton doors will be.  Mr. Noblick stated a wood grain texture, metal insulated, door which is the same material used on Sinsabaugh’s home on Broadway.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the height of the garage is an issue.  Ms. Terry stated that it meets the Code requirements.  Ms. Terry read aloud the materials list.  Mr. Noblick stated that they will be coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of some landscaping design that is considered to be a permanent structure.  Mr. Burriss asked if the railing detailing will match what is on the front of the home.  Mr. Noblick stated that it is so far away from this area that he didn’t feel an exact match was necessary.  Mr. Burriss stated that typically this type of detailing – especially up that high - would be black iron.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a very nice job of picking up the architectural details of the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that one of the most comparable projects previously approved by the Planning Commission would be the garage for Monomoy House.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not sure of the railing on that roof.  Mr. Burriss stated some of the additions on the applicant’s home are a result of the home being a fraternity house long ago – possibly in the 1930’s.  Mr. Burriss questioned the detailing on the widow’s walk.  Mr. Mitchell stated it seems a little big to him.  Mr. Noblick stated that if they can find something properly scaled with a Victorian mode they will look at possible changes.  Mr. Noblick stated that he wanted to point out that the driveway entrance is off of West Elm and not West Maple Street.  Ms. Terry noted the correction.  Mr. Burriss asked what would be done with collected rain water.  Mr. Noblick stated that they are using downspouts with splash blocks.  He stated that the excavator would like to move water to the curb, but right now they are unsure if this is possible and it would be possible to drain onto the lower portion of the property.  Mr. Burriss asked if the main house roof seams have a metal flashing detail at the corners.  Mr. Leibson and Mr. Noblick stated that they were unsure.  Mr. Burriss wondered if it might make sense to articulate the corners on the roof’s peak – as it is on the main house.  Mr. Burriss stated that this seam is visible and the detailing could add to the look of the garage.  Mr. Noblick stated that another firm did the drawings and perhaps this is a drawing detail that could be remedied.  Mr. Noblick stated that he is not sure if this is a prefinished metal and he would have to get up there and take a look.  He stated it may be metal or a shingled cap.  Mr. Noblick asked what if they use a different color of shingle in this area that may also work.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant can ask for an amendment to the original application without being charged again if this becomes necessary.         

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-157:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the architectural details are consistent, complimentary, and enhancing with other architectural details in the area.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the removing the existing entry enclosure is preferred and the changes are consistent with other homes in the area.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the garage is architecturally consistent and complimentary to the main structure.   

e)      Materials: The applicant is requesting the following items in this application:

a)         Removal of rear entry enclosure and replacement with new 9-lite rear entry door facing east - Thermatru, fiberglass swing door with grilles between panes;

b)         New Detached Garage:

1.         Wayne Dalton overhead single divided garage doors that are wood grained, metal with muntins and divided pane glass panels per provided elevations, see submitted cut sheet;

2.         Thermatru, fiberglass swing door with grilles between panes on the western elevation;

3.         200 Series Anderson wood windows prefinished white with grilles between glass panes on west, east and northern elevations;

4.         Asphalt Duration, dimensional asphaltic shingles to match the existing shingles on the house, rubber roof on the flat portion;

5.         Hardie-plank 4 5/8" siding with color and exposure to match the house as closely as possible;

6.         Rooftop railing to be treated or manmade materials consistent with submitted elevation;

7.         Brackets to be 3 3/4" w x 14 1/2"h x 9 11/16" d, detailed corbel of urethane or similar material, see submitted cut sheet;

8.         Coach lighting to be wall torch with clear beveled glass panels, antique brass finish, see submitted cut sheet;

c)         Sidewalk to be stepping stones and driveway to be concrete.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-157 with the following conditions:

1)         That the driveway will be poured concrete and the walkway between the garage and the main structure will be stepping stones; and

2)         The ridge cap on the garage will match in appearance the ridge cap on the main structure of the existing home.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-157 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

143 East Broadway – Readers’ Garden -  Application #08-158

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The property is leased by the Readers’ Garden, JoAnn Geiger.  The request was for

architectural review and approval of a new freestanding sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and JoAnn Geiger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-158:

JoAnn Geiger, Readers’ Garden, stated that the sign is the same as what was always there, but the logo has been changed.  Mr. Ryan asked if it meets the Code.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the sign is vinyl lettering on wood and it has a light shining on it.  Mr. Geiger stated yes and this light was previously there.  Ms. Reeves asked if the shape of the sign is the same.  Ms. Geiger stated yes and it is just a new logo.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Alison Terry had reminded the applicant that approval was needed.  Ms. Geiger stated yes.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-158:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a wood sign with vinyl lettering. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-158 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-158 is approved as submitted.

 

 

143 East Broadway – Reader’s Garden - Application #08-159

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The property is leased by the Readers’ Garden, JoAnn Geiger.   The request was for

architectural review and approval of a window sign. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and JoAnn Geiger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-159:

See above discussion.

Ms. Terry indicated that all of the requirements have been met for the window sign.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-159:

 

a)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing vinyl lettering on a window.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-159 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-159 is approved as submitted.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to continue and hear Application #08-160 at the December 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Other Business:

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-148:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-148 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-148.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-154:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-154 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-154.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-155:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-155 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-155.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-156:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-156 contingent upon the location of a sidewalk sign being placed per Exhibit “A.”

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-156.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-157:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-157 with the following conditions:

1)         That the driveway will be poured concrete and the walkway between the garage and the main structure will be stepping stones; and

2)         The ridge cap on the garage will match in appearance the ridge cap on the main structure of the existing home.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-157.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-158:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-158 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-158.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-159:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-159 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-159.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

November 10, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the November 10, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:20 PM

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

December 8, 2008

**Note** The December 22, 2008 meeting has been canceled.

Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 10, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Peter and Laura Pauze.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

323 North Granger Street, Peter and Laura Pauze, Application #08-145

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a slate roof with

asphalt shingles.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Peter and Laura Pauze.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-145:

Peter and Laura Pauze, stated that they would like to replace the slate shingles on one part of the home to tie it in with the rest of the home.  Mr. Pauze explained that the front part of the roof is the only part that is slate.  He stated that they want to change it because it seems silly to have one small portion slate and the rest asphalt shingles.  Mr. Pauze stated that the roofer is willing to cut them a deal and the proposed changes would unify the look of the house.  Mr. Mitchell asked how old the roof is – the part that is not slate?  Mr. Pauze stated the roof is twelve years old and he stated that they do not know the original brand of shingles used.  Mr. Pauze stated that the roofer recommended a shingle that will match as closely as possible.  Mr. McClow asked why the slate was left when the home was re-roofed twelve years ago.  Mr. Pauze stated that his guess is that they thought it would look quaint.  Mr. Mitchell stated he is the one that normally objects to this type of thing – changing slate to shingle – but since the other part of the roof is already done he doesn’t have a problem with the application.  Ms. Reeves agreed with Mr. Mitchell.  Ms. Terry stated that the majority of the homes in close proximity to Mr. Pauze’s home are asphalt shingles.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-145:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that it makes the roof compatible with itself.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it updates the house.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a new roof is an improvement.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the roof will protect the home and there are homes with asphalt shingles in the same zoning district. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing removing the slate roof on the front primary roof and replacing it with 3-tab onyx black asphaltic shingles to match the shingles on the remainder of the house.  See exhibit “A” submitted with the application for further details.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-145 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-132 is approved as submitted. 

 

Other Business:

 

Note: This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review and the proposed Zoning Code Revisions. 

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1189.09, 1189.10, and 1189.11 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to Temporary, Exempt, and Prohibited Signs. 

            Discussion: Ms. Reeves asked who is proposing the changes depicted in red lettering.  Ms. Terry stated the staff, as well as the Planning and Zoning Committee.  Ms. Terry stated that they are looking to significantly reduce the temporary sign fee.  Ms. Reeves stated that a time period should be specified – with a maximum of one year.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the timeframe states it may be for a maximum of one year already.  Assistant Law Director Crites suggested removing the December date and specifying a timeframe of one year.  Ms. Terry stated that every sign approved so far from this Board has been for one year.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked under what circumstances would someone need a sign for less than one year.  Mr. Ryan stated the ‘For Rent’ sign by Cherry Valley Road office building would be one example.  Ms. Reeves stated that banner signs are an issue and in her case (for Welsh Hills School) it would require approval every thirty days and this is cost prohibitive.  Ms. Terry explained that there has been an issue with some applications.  For instance, Granville Dental proposed putting up a ‘New Business’ sign and as the Code reads now they can’t put it up for thirty days and then there is a ten day appeal period, because it has to go through Planning Commission review and approval.  Mr. Mitchell suggested having Ms. Terry approve temporary sign applications for up to thirty days and anything longer should require Planning Commission approval.  Ms. Terry also stated that many applicants would like to have a temporary sign that is more than six square feet.  The Planning Commission opted to leave the temporary sign size as it currently is in the Code.

 

Ms. Terry stated that they have proposed removing contractor signs from a section of the code, but have outlined them in a later section.  Ms. Reeves asked why the size differentiation with temporary development signs.  Ms. Terry stated that if you have a small parcel – you don’t need a large sign.  The Planning Commission felt these sizes were small and too restrictive.  Mr. McClow asked where the size suggestions originally came from.  Ms. Terry stated that these numbers were previously in the Code and must have been decided upon by a previous Council.  The Planning Commission discussed possible locations of temporary development signs.  They discussed that larger tracks of ground would require larger signage to be around 32 square feet – and smaller tracks of land with 16 square foot signage.  Ms. Terry stated that any sign would have to be set back fifteen feet from the right of way.  Mr. McClow suggested leaving the signs the same size.  Ms. Reeves suggested changing the sizes of the signs.  Mr. McClow asked if there have been any complaints with the current size.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he could go either way.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission would be granting variances if they leave the size of the temporary development signs as is.  Ms. Terry noted that the Planning Commission appeared to be split in their decision on the size of the temporary development signage and suggested that Planning Commission member Jack Burriss could help in the decision-making process. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed signage for non-commercial campaigns or events.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if someone could ask for a thirty day extension for their sign.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the current language deals with one calendar year.  Mr. McClow suggested changing “calendar year” to “up to one year.”  Ms. Terry questioned if this would allow for more than one thirty day permit per year.  Ms. Reeves inquired about the fish fry at St. Edwards Catholic Church.  She stated that as the Code currently reads, their sign can be a 32 foot square foot sign.  Ms. Terry stated that this is consistent with other median signs.  Ms. Reeves stated that she prefers allowing the signage for sixty days.  Ms. Terry stated that when the permit is applied for it could be indicated if it will not be consecutive days or for a period of up to one year.  Mr. Ryan stated he preferred language that would allow an applicant to use the permit for a period of time and then reusing it again later (within the same year of issuance).  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the newly proposed language allows this.  Ms. Crites stated that the staff can interpret the current language to allow it.  Ms. Crites stated that “a” can be added to say it can be used multiple days for up to sixty days. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed temporary signage for Businesses.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign should be to the scale of the building it will be located on.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that a temporary sign should be allowed to be larger than a permanent sign.  Mr. Ryan and Ms. Reeves agreed.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the parameters used to size a permanent sign should be used to determine the size of temporary signs as well.  Ms. Terry reviewed the current language in the Code for wall signs and she stated one sign per building is currently allowed.  Mr. Mitchell suggested changing the permanent sign language to allow one per business, rather than one per building.  Mr. McClow stated that this system regarding signage seems to be based on a first come first serve basis.  Mr. Mitchell stated that individual businesses in a building should have the right to a sign without coming to the Planning Commission for a variance.  Ms. Terry explained that the Code allows for one business to have a wall sign, one to have a projecting sign, and/or one to have a free-standing sign.  She stated that she will have to make the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and further review this section in the Code.

 

The Planning Commission discussed grand opening banners.  Ms. Reeves asked why they are only permitted to be up for a period of fifteen days.  Ms. Terry stated that this is a typical time period for a new opening.  Other members of the Planning Commission agreed that fifteen days is sufficient.  Ms. Terry asked if 32 square feet is too large or large enough.  The Planning Commission stated this was an appropriate size.

 

1189.10 Signs Exempt from Regulation under this Chapter:

            (4) Mr. Ryan stated that he would have a problem with only allowing one government flag.  Mr. Ryan stated that this could be more of a problem for businesses rather than residential.  Ms. Terry stated that we currently do not regulate flags at all in the Code.  Ms. Reeves also did not agree with the language to allow only one governmental flag.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if someone wants more than one flag, they can still ask the Planning Commission for a variance.  Mr. Terry stated she will also address this area of the Code.  Ms. Terry suggested exempting yard flags. 

            (5) Mr. Ryan questioned signs that are located inside a building that you can see from the outside of the building (i.e. neon signs).  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that this would be hard to regulate.  Mr. Ryan questioned if anyone sees the proposed language as a problem.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that having language in the Code pertaining to inside signage being seen from the outside of the building doesn’t mean it can be enforced.  She stated that it may however encourage people to hang a neon or bright sign further away from the window.  The Planning Commission opted to leave this language as is proposed. 

 

Also under exempted signs – the Planning Commission discussed contractor signs.  The Planning Commission questioned if one can have three different contractor signs for work being done to a home.  Mr. Mitchell stated that these types of signs are temporary in nature.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there should be a more specified time limit for these types of signs.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that she reads the proposed language to state that only one contractor sign would be exempt.  She stated that the Planning Commission could choose to remove the word “one” and make signs plural.  And the words “long term” could be replaced with “short term.”  The Planning Commission agreed with these suggestions. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed ‘Prohibited Signs.’  Mr. Ryan questioned if a computer sign in a window would be prohibited.  Ms. Terry and Assistant Law Director Crites clarified that they would be prohibited.  Ms. Crites stated that if it communicates the logo it would be in violation – according to this new language.  She went on to say that if it is currently in existence it would be grand-fathered and allowed.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to further review and discuss the sign code provisions at a later time.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  4-0.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 1177.07, and 1177.08, of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio  pertaining to the Flood Hazard Overlay District. 

            Discussion:  The Planning Commission agreed to individually review the document outside of the public meeting and bring any comments and concerns to be discussed during a public hearing in the future.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-145:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, as indicated below. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-145.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Excuse Absent Planning Commission Member:

Ms. Reeves moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the November 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

October 27, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the October 27, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. McClow moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

November 24, 2008

December 8, 2008

December 22, 2008 – (The Planning Commission agreed to cancel this meeting.)

 

Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 27, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Todd Naille, Bethany Black, John Brungart, Nate Fouty, Andrew Ross, Greg Ehrlich, Dick Schulze, and Chuck Eitel.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

226B East Broadway – Bethany Black – Noir Investments, Application #08-132

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a door sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bethany Black.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-132:

(Jack Burriss recused himself from discussion and voting on Application 08-132.  He left the Planning Commission table and was seated in the audience at 7:05 PM.)

 

Bethany Black, explained that she would like to place the sign under the glass in the door.

Ms. Terry explained that there is an existing door sign on a door for Ace Express.  She stated that the proposed sign by Ms. Black is .649 square feet, so it meets the square footage requirements.  She explained that the applicant would like to hang the sign below the window on the door.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code states that the maximum number of signs per building is one and this request would exceed that requirement.  Therefore, the request for a variance is before the Planning Commission.  She stated that the proposed sign is classified as a wall sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-132:

 

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 he same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded this statement to be true.  Mr. Ryan stated that it is a building that has more than one use in it and there are several other buildings like this in the Village.  He went on to explain that although they are not a precedent setting board they have granted this type of variance in the past - and this can be a consideration. 

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 the Ordinance.  The Planning Commission concluded this statement to be true. Ms. Reeves stated that the applicant is adding her hours on the door and this occurs with other businesses in the Village.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the business name will also be on the door. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded this statement to be true.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant did not subdivide the building.

d)      That the granting of 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-132 as submitted - adding one additional wall sign.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss (recuse), Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-132 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition. 

 

(Mr. Burriss re-joined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:12 PM.)

 

 

475 West Broadway, Todd and Lori Naille, Application #08-133

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)

The request was for review and approval of a retaining wall.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Todd Naille.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-133:

Todd Naille, 475 West Broadway, stated that he did not previously apply for a permit “out of ignorance, he was simply replacing an existing railroad tie wall with a new concrete paver wall.”  He went on to say that the previous retaining wall did not have any drain tiles.  Mr. Naille explained that he hoped the new wall would alleviate flooding occurring in his neighbor’s basement.  Ms. Terry stated that the retaining wall is located within one hundred feet of the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District) and this is why it is before the Planning Commission.  She stated that the application meets all of the Code requirements.  Ms. Reeves asked if there had been any objections by the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated that a portion of the wall was built on the neighbors property and it is now completely on Mr. Naille’s property.  Mr. Ryan questioned if any portion of the retaining wall is located in the right of way.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Naille stated that James Housteau owns the property behind him and there was a misunderstanding of the access between all the parties involved.  He went on to say that he has been told that he cannot pave his parking area because of various issues – and this stems from generations of different owners.  Mr. Ryan clarified that no one has objected to the retaining wall.  Mr. Naille confirmed that there have been no objections by the neighbors.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the driveway is owned by James Housteau.  Mr. Naille stated that it is a shared driveway between him and Mr. Housteau.  Mr. Ryan stated that the shared driveway is not the issue.  Mr. Burriss indicated that had this application come before the Planning Commission before the retaining wall was installed he would have had no problem approving the application.  Mr. Mitchell stated he would agree with Mr. Burriss.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-133:

The Planning Commission discussed the type, compatibility, height, and location of the proposed retaining wall and found them to meet the Code requirements in Section 1176.04. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-133 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Application #08-133 is approved as submitted. 

 

211 Sunrise Street, Craig and Dianne McDonald, Application #08-136

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review of the removal of a gravel limestone driveway and

concrete sidewalk (from the house to the garage) replacing both with old Burg Street bricks. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-136:

The applicant’s – Craig and Dianne McDonald were not present at the Planning Commission meeting and there was no one in attendance to speak on behalf of the application.  It was noted that the applicant was sent notice of the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Terry stated that she became aware of the exterior modifications when Mr. McDonald came to a public auction to buy bricks previously located on Burg Street.  She stated that the applicant would like to replace the gravel and sidewalk area with the bricks.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant has to put in drainage.  Ms. Terry stated that they would want a base and this is not something that the Planning Commission typically makes a condition of approval.  Mr. Ryan asked if the Planning Commission should review the application without the applicant being present.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is a pretty straight forward application and he would have no problem approving it.  Mr. Burriss asked if the surface of the driveway will meet up with the same level as the street.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission could indicate this stipulation or condition for approval.  Mr. Burriss questioned what the edging detail would be and it was noted that the application did not indicate edging. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-136:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it is an improvement over the grass that is currently growing through the gravel.  Mr. Mitchell added that the new surface will be historical bricks.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant will use historical bricks from Burg Street. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Burriss stated that this enhances the historical character.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is using materials consistently used in past generations.

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing using Burg Street bricks.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-136 be approved as submitted.

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-136 is approved as submitted. 

 

230 East College Street, John and Suzanne Brungart, Application #08-137

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of new vinyl siding, shutters, and

gutters/downspouts. 

                                               

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Brungart.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-137:

John Brungart, 230 East College Street, stated that he apologizes that he did not seek approval prior to beginning the project.  He stated that he was under the belief that his changes did not require approval by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Brungart stated that the existing siding is wood and he would like to cover it with vinyl siding.  He added that the gutters and downspouts would also be replaced with white aluminum.  Mr. Brungart stated that the shutters would be black, which is the same as what is currently in place.  He said that he would be adding some additional shutters to windows that currently do not have any.  Mr. Brungart stated that they currently have six inch (6”) wood lap siding and the new vinyl siding width is three inch (3”).  Ms. Terry reviewed the previous materials and newly proposed materials.  Mr. Brungart stated that there are two different styles of gutters on the home that are rusting.  Mr. Ryan asked if the overhang/soffit is aluminum.  Mr. Brungart stated that the soffit would be white aluminum.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shutters are the same style.  Mr. Brungart stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shutters currently on the home are vinyl.  Mr. Brungart stated yes and the new shutters will also be vinyl.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the age of the home.  Mr. Brungart guessed that home was built somewhere around 1928.  He went on to say that the home has no historical significance when compared to other homes next to him.  Mr. Burriss recalled that this particular home went through major renovations in the early 1950’s or 1960’s.  Mr. McClow asked if vinyl siding has been approved in this particular area in the past.  Ms. Terry stated that vinyl has not been approved since she has been here for any other primary structures.  She went on to say that there are other homes in the district with vinyl or aluminum siding and this most likely occurred before the AROD guidelines were put in place.  Mr. Burriss asked about the five inch gutters and if Mr. Brungart knows the measurement of the gutters that were removed.  Mr. Burriss went on to explain that some of the new aluminum gutters have been too small when used on hip roofs in the past.  Mr. Brungart stated that he thinks the house will look more uniform with all the gutters being the same size and shape.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Brungart is matching the gutters on the car port.  Mr. Brungart stated that he thought the carport had “K style” gutters, and they will attempt to match these. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-136:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have approved these materials on other applications.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not think so unless one is going for the look from the 1960’s.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it downgrades the look of the house and the historical character of the district and he feels it is a good looking house and he doesn’t think that the materials presented are compatible.  Mr. Burriss stated that if Mr. Mitchell were proposing this for his own home he would take issue, but because of the significant remodeling that has changed the look of the home he does not feel the improvements take away from the historical character of the Village.  Ms. Reeves stated that she feels the modifications will be an improvement, especially if there is rotting going on.  She went on to say that it is already a 1950’s style home instead of a home of 1920.  Mr. Burriss added that the home once had long windows in it and now there are many different sizes of windows.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not argue that the vinyl will unify the look of the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the look of the home – this makes the whole district improve.  Mr. Brungart provided a list of homes with either vinyl or aluminum siding on his block.  The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the proposed improvements to the home would improve the district.      

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the maintenance on the home contributes to the continuing vitality.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it will protect what is on the home – the physical surroundings.

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

1)      Alcoa Carved Wood Triple 3" Vinyl Siding - Colonial Yellow; Vinyl J Channel 5/8" with 1" Face - Colonial Yellow; Matte outside corner 4" x 3/4" - Colonial Yellow;

                                                   2)      Alcoa Protech Soffit Triple 4" - White;

                                                   3)      Vinyl Shutters - Black

                                                   4)      Seamless Aluminum Gutters 5"; and

                                                   5)      Aluminum Downspouts 3".

                                                The applicant indicates in their narrative statement the following:

                                                “We currently have a 1 x 6 (wood) lap siding that is deteriorating

                                       horribly.  To repair siding and repaint would be an expense that we cannot afford.  The maintenance of wood siding had become too costly.  Continual repairs are needed and painting needs to be

redone at6 a minimum of every five years.  In today’s economy that is nearly impossible.  The most cost effective and long term solution is to install a vinyl siding.  The siding we have chosen is Carved Wood Series 2 by Alcoa.  It is a triple 3 siding.  This is a special order siding that is made to replicate wood.  It has a 4" lap and is grained to look like cedar.  We will also be installing new 5" seamless aluminum gutters and 3" downspouts.  We currently have both half round and “k” style gutters.  Both are rusting out and are showing signs of age.  We will be wrapping our fascia, windows, and doors with a wood grain aluminum.  Upon completion of the siding and gutters, we will be installing new vinyl shutters to replace the existing vinyl shutters”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

f)  Use of Details: In evaluating building details, the primary concern is for appropriateness to the scale and overall design concept of the building and its environment.  Building details may attempt to recall the spirit of an earlier period detailing contemporary application.  If the applicant chooses to reproduce historic details, such as colonial window treatment, etc., it becomes important that some historical authenticity is maintained.  In older structures, detailing may be highlighted through painting.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-137 be approved as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-137 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

484 South Main Street, Ross’ Granville Market, Application #08-138 & #08-139

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Andrew Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-138:

Andrew Ross, 484 South Main Street, was available to address any concerns/questions by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained the location of the signage.  She stated that there are existing signs for Boxes and Bows, Chase Bank, and Granville Video and these businesses are all tenants of the applicant.  Ms. Terry stated that when adding the additional signage to this building, the current signage has to be taken into account.  Ms. Reeves asked if the applicant obtained variances for all the other signs.  Ms. Terry stated that these signs have been in place for quite some time and she was unable to locate any applications for variances in the files.  She believed they are considered to be grandfathered sign approvals.  Ms. Reeves asked if the requested variance includes a variance for all of the signage that is in existence now.  Ms. Terry stated that the request is for two variances – one above the door and one on the building.  She stated that the Ordinance deals with a zoned lot – not per building.  Ms. Terry stated that they had a similar situation with Abe’s Body Shop who has multiple buildings with multiple signs.  Mr. Ross stated that they always intended on requesting additional signage, but they were waiting to do this for when they did the front of the building.  Ms. Terry explained that there are also other signs used by the applicant that are considered to be customer convenience signs – such as exit and entrance signs - which are incidental signs.  Councilmember O’Keefe said that there are people whom have said that they didn’t know a market was there.  Mr. Burriss complimented Mr. Ross on the new façade.  He went on to say that he applauds the work done with the monument sign as well.  Mr. Burriss stated that one concern he would have would be with the proposed graphics because they don’t seem to match the graphics on the front on the monument sign.  He stated that he would like to keep this more consistent.  Mr. Ross stated that they went with matching fonts on the inside of the building.  He went on to say that his next project will be to change the font on the monument sign to match the font on the building.  Mr. Burriss clarified that Mr. Ross would consider changing the font on the monument sign.  Mr. Ross stated he would consider doing this at a later time.  Mr. Burriss asked if  “Ross’ Granville Market” might appear stronger if on a sign by itself – with a backing/frame - instead of placing individual letters on the building.  Mr. Ross said that he didn’t see a backing he would like to use.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the sign would pop out more – and feel more appropriate to detailing added to the façade already.  He added that it would also be more consistent with signs already in the Village that have a frame and background.  Mr. Burriss stated that the strongest sign solutions in the downtown district have been framed and presented signs, which they (the Planning Commission) have tried to promote with the Granville Mill, Certified, and Abe's Body Shop.  Mr. Ross stated that the painted sign is 3D and has some dimension and he feels it looks better this way.  He also stated that their business is far away from the road compared to other businesses in town and it can be a little harder for people to see what type of business they are.  Mr. Ross stated that he is hopeful that the new signs are visible and he is hoping to use a spot light or overhanging light above the signs.  Mr. Burriss asked how far off of the surface the “Market” letters would be.  Mr. Ross stated maybe three inches.  Mr. Burriss asked about shadow lines and questioned if the siding being horizontal would create problems with the letters coming out three inches.  Mr. Ross asked if he would need to spell out tonight exactly what the signage lighting would be because he needed to further research if there would be shadow lines.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission really appreciates that the applicant came through and very considerately talked about the changes to the building and they appreciate the time and money put into this solution.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would just like to see the signage up to that same caliber.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the lighting is something that is not part of the application.  Mr. Ross later stated that the lighting is something he feels he can address and fix if need be.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code really just deals with internally illuminated signage.  Assistant Law Director Allison Crites stated that the granting of variance can deal with any factors that the Planning Commission sees as relevant.  Mr. Ross stated that he would not be sold on a board sign for the wall and he would light the painted sign with gooseneck lighting or side lighting.  Tim Ryan stated that the lighting is Mr. Ross’ issue and his application does not require lighting approval, but rather a variance for the sign.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the plans before them are a poor illustration of the signs, but it seems to him that they would look pretty nice once installed.  He agreed that the signs will be difficult to light without casting shadows and this is the applicant’s problem. 

 

The Planning Commission was instructed that they could combine the two applications per Assistant Law Director Allison Crites. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-138 and #08-139:

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 he same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that historically, it has been a building with multiple signs and tenants.  Mr. Mitchell agreed.   

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 the Ordinance.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that this allows each tenant to have their own sign.  Mr. Burriss added that this has been allowed with other businesses in the same zoning district.      

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true.  Mr. Burriss stated that an existing building is being improved and the tenants in the building have long standing.       

d)      That the granting of 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.  Each member of the Commission agreed that this statement was true.

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that this statement was true. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-138 and #08-139 be approved as submitted with the following variances:

1)      To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to five (5); and

2)      To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 302 square feet to 306 square feet total.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-138 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition. 

 

 

466 South Main Street, Certified Oil Company, Application #08-140

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of a wall sign & a freestanding sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Chuck Eitel, Greg Ehrlich, and Dick Schulze.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-140:

Chuck Eitel, represented National Sign Company.  Greg Ehrlich and Dick Schulze, represented Certified Oil Company.

 

Greg Ehrlich, Certified Oil Company, stated that they have invested a lot of funds in this particular property.  He stated that they have not done a good job with a consistent image and this has been a problem, so they hired an image consulting firm to bring some brand consistency.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that their intent in this particular location is to accomplish replacing the old logo with a new image.  He added that this should be an improvement in the community.  Mr. Ryan asked if the monument sign would remain the same.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that it would have the same monument sign with the inside being replaced.  Ms. Reeves asked if the proposed sign above the door is internally lit.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that the blue will be faint and only the lettering shown in white will show thru with light and he stated that there is not a lot of volume – but it is very tasteful.  Mr. Eitel added that the sign will be the same square footage as the existing sign.  Ms. Terry stated that as she reviewed the files she could not locate any paperwork granting a variance for the signs on the property now.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission worked on this for almost three years and he recalls some conversations regarding signage.  Mr. Burriss recalled lengthy discussions and the Planning Commission was very happy with the end result.  The Planning Commission asked the applicants if they had anything regarding a variance for the signage.  Mr. Ehrlich stated that if they do have something they do not have it with them.  Ms. Terry stated that she is not saying a variance wasn’t granted, but she just can’t find it in the files.  She went on to say that this isn’t to say that this board can’t grant variances for the sign anyways.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is going from four signs on the monument sign to two signs – which are preferred.  He also stated that on the gable sign they lose a word and get a symbol which he also prefers.  Mr. Burriss stated that he cannot remember how they approved the internally lit sign in the gable.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the internally lit sign can be lit with exterior lighting.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does recall that they were trying to cut down on utility light fixtures on the building, as well as de-cluttering and de-commercializing the building.  Mr. Burriss also recalled there being an issue with canopy lighting.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked which uses less electricity – internal or external lighting.  Mr. Eitel stated that more electricity is used with external lighting.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he likes the presented signs.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels changeable copy is essential to the business and the price of fuel.  He also stated that the proposed graphics package offers a much more uniform look. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-140:

 

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 he same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  The Planning Commission concluded that poor visibility from the road was the special circumstance (internally illuminated); sign needs to be read by passing motorists (size & height); yes, because of the use (changeable copy). 

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 the Ordinance. No (internally illuminated); Yes, smaller in size and height than other signs on adjacent property (size & height); no, but it is necessary for this use (changeable copy).  

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. The conditions & circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant (internal illumination); They do not, there is another adjacent sign that partially blocks this sign (size & height).  No, because of the use & Type of business (changeable copy).

d)      That the granting of 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.  True (internal illumination); Because it sets back from the road & is partially blocked by the canopy (internal illumination); True (size & height); True, specific to use (changeable copy).

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.  It will not adversely affect them, lighting is critical because of the nature of the business in relation to the late hours & increases the safety on the property (internal illumination); It will not (size & height); It will not (changeable copy).

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-140 be approved as submitted and grants variances per Exhibits “A” and “B” and grants the variances for the following:

A)    Suburban Business District – To allow the proposed wall sign to be internally illuminated;

B)     Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) – To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six (6) square feet to seventy (70) square feet total;

C)    To allow a changeable copy sign;

D)    To increase the maximum size for a freestanding sign from eighteen (18) square feet to thirty-two (32) square feet; and

E)     To increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from six (6) square feet to ten (10) square feet.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-140 is approved as submitted with the above stated variances and conditions. 

 

Mr. Ryan noted that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.  He went on to explain that the current wall sign for Certified Oil Company is already internally illuminated.  He asked Councilmember O’Keefe to relay to Council that these particular circumstances were specific to this application.

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-132:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-132 as submitted with one additional wall sign.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-132.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss (recuse), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-133:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and Chapter 1187 Height, Area & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-133 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-133.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-136:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-136.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-137:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-137.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-138 and #08-139:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-138 & #08-139 with the following conditions:

1)      Increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to five (5); and

2)      To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone from 302 square feet to 306 square feet total.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-138.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-140:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and Chapter 1189 Signs, and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-140 with the following conditions:

1)      Suburban Business District to allow the proposed wall sign to be internally illuminated;

2)      Transportation Corridor Overlay District:

  1. a.       To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six square feet to 70 square feet total;
  2. b.      To allow changeable copy sign;
  3. c.       To increase the maximum size for a freestanding sign from 18 square feet to 32 square feet;
  4. d.      To increase the maximum height for a freestanding sign from 6 feet to 10 feet.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-140.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

October 14, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the October 14, 2008 minutes as amended.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. McClow abstained since he did not attend the October 14th meeting.)

 

Adjournment:  9:45 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

November 10, 2008

November 24, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 14, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Lyle McClow.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Sabato and Cynthia Sagaria, Linda Clark, Richard Nevil, Rhonda Aller, John Noblick, Johnny Adkins, Garret Moore, and Mike Cloud.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

223 East Elm Street – Keith and Courtney McWalter, Application #08-94 - AMENDED

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review of the placement and screening of a generator

and two air conditioning units on the east side of the house.  John Noblick represented

the property owners.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.  Garret Moore was later sworn in.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-94:

John Noblick stated that they would like to move the air conditioning units down about eighteen inches to make room for the generator.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant previously applied for a variance from the BZBA, but the application was tabled to research whether or not the generator could be placed that close to the home.  She went on to say that the building department indicated that the placement defaults to the manufacturer’s recommendation.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant later withdrew the application because they were able to meet the setback requirements.  Ms. Terry indicated that the unit should be screened and the applicant has already received approval for a fence along the property line.  Mr. Ryan asked if the two air-conditioning units already exist on the east side of the home.  Mr. Burriss asked what is proposed to be the ground cover under the generator.  Mr. Noblick indicated that there will be a pad supplied by the generator manufacturer.  Mr. Burriss asked what type of greenery will be around the concrete pad.  Mr. Noblick said he has not been involved in this part of the project – landscaping.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would think the landscaping materials used would have to be non-flammable.  Mr. Burriss stated that he recently read an article that a common use is gravel and this can amplify the sound of a generator.  He stated that his comments are not a condition of approval though, rather a suggestion.

 

Garret Moore, 207 South Pearl Street, stated that he is concerned with the proposed location of the generator.  He stated that it will be placed closer to his house and approximately fifteen feet from his bedroom window.  Mr. Moore stated that the generator will make too much noise.  He went on to say that the homeowners do not plan to live there year round – only part time – and they won’t hear the racket as much as he will.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Moore lives to the east of the McDaniel’s home.  Mr. Moore stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified on the map that Mr. Moore’s residence is at least 21’ from the proposed placement of the generator.  Mr. Moore concurred.  Mr. Mitchell asked what kind of fence is proposed by the applicant.  Ms. Terry stated it would be wood.  Mr. Mitchell asked how high it would be.  Mr. Moore stated six foot high.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Mr. Moore had an alternative suggestion for placement of the generator.

Mr. Moore suggested placing the unit on the southwest corner near the garage building.  Ms. Reeves asked if it needed to be located close to the house.  Mr. Noblick indicated that it is cost effective to have the unit near the house.  Mr. Ryan asked if the unit will run with natural gas.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked what type of generator it is.  Mr. Noblick stated ‘Guardian.’  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is an accessory silencer kit.  Mr. Noblick stated he hasn’t asked the manufacturer this question.  Mr. Noblick explained that there is a voltage droppage that would occur if the unit is further away from the house.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the Planning Commission were to deny the application the applicant could still use a portable generator and these tend to be noisier than the type of generator the applicant is suggesting.  Mr. Moore stated that if they only use it three months of the year – he could live with that.  Mr. Mitchell questioned that if the homeowner is not there then the generator unit won’t be used.  Mr. Moore stated that the natural gas run generators will come on once a week automatically for a couple of minutes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it does appear to be a legitimate issue being so close to the bedroom of an existing home and it would be nice to investigate this given we have a neighbor with a concern – and what he sees as a legitimate concern.  Mr. Noblick stated that they could look into placing the unit in alternative locations.  Mr. Burriss stated that other than location of the generator – the noise factor is something not dealt with in the Code.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is anything regarding being neighborly in this regard in the Code.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that they can encourage the applicant to accommodate the request by the neighbor.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is sympathetic to Mr. Moore’s concerns but they have to adhere to the Code.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the proposed location is the only place the unit can be placed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is the most cost effective and most efficient location.  Mr. Moore stated that cost is not a factor with all the improvements that have been done to the home.  Mr. Noblick asked about other homes up and down the street that do not have enough space to place a generator.  He asked if a precedence was being set.  Mr. Ryan and Assistant Law Director Crites stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.  Mr. Noblick later stated that if a noise muffle were available by the manufacturer he would think people would have one.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it doesn’t seem as though the Planning Commission has the capability to deny this application.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant would have to be the one to request that the application be tabled.  Mr. Moore stated that if the Board has no authority to do anything he is wasting his time.  Mr. Burriss stated that they (the Planning Commission) do not write the Code - the only enforce it.  Mr. Moore stated that the Planning Commission allowed for a Port-A-John to be placed next to an outdoor eating area near his home.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Village contacted the homeowner and it was moved within a few days.  Mr. Noblick stated that he is unsure he has the authority to table the application since he is filling in for Kevin Reiner (whom submitted the application.)  Mr. Burriss stated that certainly we can in good interest ask the applicant to look into muffling the generator unit.  Mr. Noblick stated that he would certainly do this and he can also look at cost projections to place the unit further away from the home.  It was clarified that Mr. Noblick agreed he would provide some additional information but this would not be part of the motion to approve the application.  Assistant Law Director Crites added that it can be difficult to enforce the encouragement of the applicant to muffle the noise generated by the unit.  Ms. Crites stated that given the additional testimony, she would like the Planning Commission to please review the criteria again.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-94:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the unit will be next to two existing air-conditioning units already in place.  The unit will also be screened. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the screening provides for visual integrity.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the livability of the structure within the district which contributes to the vitality of the district. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated with the appropriate screening the units – visually – disappear.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing adjusting the location of the generator and two air conditioning units only.

f)        Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing adjusting the location of the generator and two air conditioning units only.

g)      Use of Live Plant Material: The applicant is proposing a boxwood hedge between the air conditioning units/generator and the property line to screen this equipment from the neighbors.

h)      Use of Landscape Design: The applicant is proposing a boxwood hedge between the air conditioning units/generator and the property line to screen this equipment from the neighbors.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-94 AS AMENDED with attachment of Exhibit “A” dated 9/22/08.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell (no), Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #08-94 is approved as amended. 

 

404 West Broadway, Tom and Linda Clark, Application #08-126

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of storm/screen windows for all

windows on the house, except for the garage addition windows.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Linda Clark.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-126:

Linda Clark, 404 West Broadway, presented a sample of the storm windows.  She stated that they wanted to keep all of the old windows in the house and none of them opened.  Ms. Clark stated that they had all of the windows restored and unfortunately old windows are not energy efficient and they feel they need storm and screen windows on the existing house.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he has the same problem on his home.  He went on to say that he is looking into getting some of the historically correct wooden storm windows, but they are expensive.  Ms. Clark stated that just about every window in the house is different – some with different depths.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission can consider if approving the application because the storm windows would be protecting the original windows and original glass.  Mr. Burriss added that the applicant has done a phenomenal job on this property and it is not necessarily their fault that some of the previous remodelings have been done hit or miss.  Mr. Burriss stated that we would want to be assured that the windows on the divided storm window are as consistent as can be with the divider on the existing windows.  Mrs. Clark stated that she has been assured by the installer that this can happen and she would like this in writing prior to installation.  Mr. Burriss asked if the screen can be removed.  Mrs. Clark stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this a not a material that the Planning Commission has been particularly thrilled with in the past, but the owners have done a very good job on the property at restoring what they could.  He also stated that this does allow for an original window to continue in use and he thinks this ought to be considered.  Mrs. Clark said that she cannot find any other option to make them energy efficient.  Mr. Burriss asked if the aluminum finish is a baked on finish and can it be painted?  He stated that he asks this not for condition of approval, but for the applicant to know if they can ever be painted in the future.  Mrs. Clark stated that she did not have this information.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-126:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Mitchell stated that there are a lot of these type of windows in this district.  Mr. Burriss stated that the house is white and the proposed windows are also white.  He stated that these will stand out a little less than some others.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that this allows for the original windows to remain.    

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the original windows will remain.  Mr. Burriss stated that this allows the home to be more easily occupied with being energy efficient. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this will protect and help maintain the original windows which are an architectural gem.

e)      Materials and Textures: The window frames are white aluminum and any hardware needed will be painted to math the house and/or existing windows.

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing screen/storm windows for all windows on the house, except for the garage addition.  The applicant has further indicated in their narrative statement that they are proposing the following:

                                                a.         21 White double hung, combination storm/screens, 2 track windows that will go on all windows that open (with the exception of the new windows in the addition); and

                                                b.         5 Storm window (white) panels will go on the windows that do not open.  These are the floor to ceiling windows on the Plum Street side.  Horizontal bar will line up with top of lower sash (no screens).

The supplier is National Pride Storm Windows & Doors, and Granville Lumber will supply and install the screens/storm windows.  The window frames are white aluminum and any hardware needed will be painted to match the house and/or existing windows.  The division of the screen/storm windows should match the division in the existing windows.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-126 with the condition that the horizontal division in the window match the existing windows.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-126 is approved with the above stated condition. 

 

404 North Granger Street, Richard Nevil, Application #08-127

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review of a second story dormer addition on the north

side of the home.  The property is owned by Rhonda M. Aller.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Richard Nevil.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-127:

Richard Nevil, 324 East Maple Street, stated that they would like to add a two foot expansion to accommodate a bathroom.  He stated that they are proposing a box bay dormer that extends six inches beyond the gutter and it will perpetuate the same detailing used on the house.  Mr. Nevill stated that they intend to switch from T111 to horizontal wood lap siding.  Ms. Terry stated that they submitted for a variance from the Board of Building and Zoning Appeals for a side yard setback & that it was granted.  She added that the applicant would also be adding a downspout.  Mr. Burriss stated that one of the richest details in the house would be the cutout trim on the gable front porch.  He questioned if the applicant considered reproducing this detail and using it on the dormer.  Mr. Nevil indicated that he was not proposing taking it to a new level than it was before.  Mr. Burriss stated that it seems to be an appropriate thought to add that level of detail since the dormer will be visible from the road and neighbors.  Mr. Nevil indicated that he likes the suggestion and would consider doing this.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a lot of work to keep the dormer in style with the existing home and the proposed dormer is so close to the gable – that it seems appropriate.  Mr. Ryan stated that he understands the suggestion, but it would have to be a smaller detail than what is on the gable.  Mr. Burriss stated that the bracket supporting the dormer has rich detail too.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be willing to approve with the condition that the gable bracketing detailing be submitted to Village staff prior to installation.  Mr. Nevil stated that he would provide this information if he can find it.  Mr. Nevil indicated that he could do something at the top of the dormer to add the detailing in.  Mr. Nevil stated that as for the brackets, he hopes to use a Fypon bracket.  Mr. Burriss asked if the underside of the overhang will have detailing.  Mr. Nevil stated that this will be plywood paneled a couple of times to pick up where the brackets are placed.  Mr. Burriss asked what is the current detail of the porch ceilings.  Mr. Nevil stated that it is a beaded board. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-127:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed changes will make it more cohesive and historically whole to the rest of the home.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by restoring the architectural detail – it makes the dormer consistent with the rest of the home.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is enhancing by bringing the entire structure into a consistency of appropriate detailing. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that it enhances by bringing the entire structure into a consistency of appropriate detailing.

e)      Roof Shape: The roof shape will remain the same pitch, it will just be enlarged to accommodate the additional space within the second story dormer area.

f)        Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

1.         The dormer has T1.11 plywood siding on it now.  With the proposed renovation the applicant will be replacing the siding on the dormer addition with wood lap siding to match the rest of the house, along with 5/4 x 4 wood corner trim;

                                                2.         Existing louvered wood shutters will be replaced with similar new wood louvered shutter to fit the new window;

                                                3.         Existing roof shingles are brown fiberglass and the dormer will be re-shingled to match;

                                                4.         Roof trim will match the existing roof trim;

                                                5.         A new downspout will be installed at the front of the house with the dormer addition, 3" x 4" aluminum, pre-finished white;

                                                6.         Below the box bay of the dormer 2 decorative brackets will be installed, as is traditional.  The decorative brackets will be either resin reproduction or salvage wood brackets - Victorian in style.

                                                7.         New window, if needed, will be wood frame painted to match the existing windows.

     g) Use of Details: The applicant is attempting to reproduce details on the proposed addition that are consistent with the Victorian style – decorative brackets below the box bay of the dormer; consistent louvered shutters; wood frame windows; wood lap siding, etc.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-127 be approved on the condition that:

-There will be two not three decorative brackets under the extended dormer;

-There will be gable trim added to the addition to be reviewed by staff; and

-The type and style of the brackets shall be per Exhibit “A” or salvaged brackets.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-127 is approved as submitted with the above listed conditions. 

 

Other Business:

 

Informal Discussion regarding changes to existing Billboard Signage, submitted by Barnes Advertising for their property located on Lot 8 of Westgate Drive.  The property is zoned Community Service District (CSD).  Chad DeMatti and Joe Panzica represented Barnes Advertising.

 

Informal Discussion regarding replacement of windows and exterior modifications to the rear of the structure, for the property owned by Sabato Sagaria located at 117 South Prospect Street.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Old Business:

 

            Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of the proposed Zoning Code revisions.

 

            Additional Review of the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1109.11, 1133.03, 1135.01, 1137.01, 1137.02, 1137.05, 1137.07, 1137.08, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, 1141.06, 1143.04, 1145.03, 1145.04, 1147.03,  1147.04, 1149.01, 1149.02, 1149.03, 1159.02, 1159.03, 1159.04, 1159.05, 1161.01, 1161.02, 1161.03, 1163.01, 1163.02, 1163.03, 1167.02, 1167.03, 1175.02, 1175.04, 1175.05,  1183.01, 1183.03, and 1189.03, and to amend and change the section number of Sections 1137.03, 1137.04, 1137.05, 1137.06, 1137.07 and 1137.08, and To Enact New Sections 1137.03, 1137.10, 1157.14, 1157.15 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, Ohio. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to send the proposed Zoning Code revisions to Council with their recommendations.  Seconed by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call: Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.   Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-94:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-94 with the following conditions:

-To approve Application #08-94, as amended, with attached Exhibit “A” dated 9/22/08.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-94.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #08-126:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of the application, as indicated below:

-To approve Application #08-126 with the condition that the horizontal divisions in the new windows match the existing.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-126.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Application #08-127:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-127, with the following conditions:

-There will be two, not three, decorative brackets under the box bay extended dormer;

-There will be gable trim added to the addition to be reviewed by Village staff;

-And the type and style of the brackets shall be per Exhibit “A” or salvaged brackets.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-127.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

September 22, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 22, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Burriss asked that issues surrounding the use of generators be addressed by Council.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she would relay this to Council.

 

Adjournment:  9:22 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

 

Next meetings:

October 27, 2008

November 10, 2008

 

Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 22, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Todd Naille, Robert Parsley, Dennis Cauchon, and Jim Hartzler.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

414 East College Street – Robert and Ruth Ann Parsley, Application #08-122

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of the following items:

                                    1)         New covered front porch;

                                    2)         New front walkways; and

                                    3)         Replacement of stone work at the front of house.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Robert Parsley.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-122:

Mr. Parsley stated that the new steps will be on the south side and the porch area that is depicted on the submitted paperwork will be the stoop.  He stated that the original block under the existing porch is made of tile and it will be replaced with new brick.  Mr. Parsley stated that anything with the old sandstone on it on the front of the house will come off and he provided a sample of the proposed brick he would like to use as a replacement.  Mr. Burriss asked for a more detailed architectural drawing of the proposed posts and he stated that he would like to know if they are going to be square or round and he asked for the details on the base and capital.  Mr. Parsley distributed further information depicting what the proposed materials would be.  He stated that the columns will be round (8”) with wooden balusters or they will be made from a composite wood.  Mr. Burriss asked if the posts would be smooth or fluted.  Mr. Parsley stated smooth.  Mr. Burriss asked about the details for the base of the posts.  Mr. Parsley stated that he would like to use metal if he can, but he is not completely sure.  Mr. Burriss stated that the details on the columns and railings are critical when restoring an old home.  Mr. Ryan asked what dictates if a railing is even required.  Mr. Burriss stated that it looks as though one will be required because the railings look to be about thirty inches.  Ms. Terry stated that the building department would make the final determination.  Mr. Parsley stated that it will be close on whether or not a railing is required by the building department.  He stated that he was unsure if the required height is 30” for railings as indicated by Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Parsley indicated that he would choose to have a metal railing, but he believes the Planning Commission might prefer to see a wooden railing.   Mr. Burriss asked if the existing concrete walk would be removed.  Mr. Parsley stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be willing to approve the application if the Village staff had final approval on the columns and railings.  Mr. Burriss stated that the right capitals and base of the columns can be considered an architectural jewel and he encouraged that they go with the style of the house.  He stated that the base and cap, and the size and taper of the columns are important architectural details.  Mr. Burriss also stated that he would prefer to see the smooth columns used.  Mr. McClow asked how much weight will be beared by the columns. Mr. Parsley stated not much at all.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed that they would be willing to approve the application so long as the Village staff had final approval.  Mr. Burriss explained that the Planning Commission needs to be consistent in what they approve.  He suggested that the applicant bring in a cut sheet of the final column, cap, and base he intends to use.  Mr. Ryan asked if the Planning Commission is in agreement with the proposed 8” columns or do they suggest 10” or 12” columns.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the Village staff approve the final size of the columns as well.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant is doing the work himself.  Mr. Parsley stated no that he would be hiring a contractor.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission will be approving the concept, while Ms. Terry will hold the final approval.  Mr. Ryan asked if the Village staff would be making the final decision on railings, balusters, and size of the columns.  Mr. Burriss agreed that this would be appropriate.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant indicated square balusters on the application.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be new gutters and downspouts.  Mr. Parsley stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the roof would match the existing roof.  Mr. Parsley indicated that the existing roof is from 2002 and they will make every effort to match it.  Mr. Parsley presented a sample of the bluestone proposed to be used for the walkway.  Mr. McClow asked if this will have a sand base.  Mr. Parsley stated yes and Bill Schneider will do the work and he has made recommendations on how to do the walkway.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if it is typical for applicants to come in without the exact plans from their contractor.  Furthermore, she questioned if the Planning Commission usually has more concrete plans.  Mr. Burriss stated no - not necessarily something on this size and scale and that this application is actually more detailed than a lot of the previous applications they’ve received.  Ms. Terry, when asked, indicated that the application was submitted with sufficiet information.  Ms. Reeves asked for the exact location of the pavers.  Mr. Parsley showed her on the drawings.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the pavers are going to be a gray color.  Mr. Parsley stated that the stone will be gray in color and he listed two sizes of stone on the materials list because one is thinner than the other in depth. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-122:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the restoration of a porch is always consistent.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is achieved by improving the historical character. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the character is being enhanced.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing placing a roof over the front stoop, that will be built to just under the windows on the second level, to meet this requirement.

f)        Building Massing: The applicant is proposing a roof structure over the existing front porch which will help the scale and massing on the front of the home. 

g)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing sandstone around the base of the foundation and replace it with brick.  The shingles on the new porch roof structure will be Owens Corning (Onyx Black Oak Ridge 2 or Duration) roof asphalt shingles to match the shingles on the existing house.  The walkways will be replaced with some concrete, but primarily with bluestone pavers.  There will be four (4) new support posts added that will be at least 8” in diameter.  The applicant has chosen to use round columns with the exact size to be determined by Village Staff.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-122 be approved on the condition that:

1)      The columns, railings, and balusters be approved by Village staff prior to installation for size, style, and material; and

2)      That the sidewalk pavers be bluestone; and

3)      The Owens Corning shingles match the existing roof;

4)      And the proposed brick will be the same as the submitted sample. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan (No).  Motion carried 4-1.

(Mr. Ryan indicated that he is voting “No” because he does not feel there is enough information provided by the applicant and too much of the final approval relies on staff.)

 

Application #08-122 is approved as submitted with the above listed conditions. 

 

203 North Plum Street – Jim Hartzler & Meg Ginther, Application #08-123

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was for architectural review and approval of the following items:

             1)        Removal of non-historic kitchen window to be converted to clapboard siding;

2)         Replacement of existing door on the north entry with a twelve-light wooden entry door; and

3)         Replacement of tarpaper roof sheathing over north entry with a steel roof.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jim Hartzler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-123:

Mr. Hartzler stated that his home was built in 1867 and he believes there may have been an addition around 1908 and renovations during the 1940’s or 1950’s.  Mr. Hartzler explained that there are three components to the total project.  He stated that the first component entails replacing a window on the side of the north home with the exact same placard siding that he believes was originally on the home.  He stated that the second component involves installing a metal roof on a north entry porch.  He stated that this roof currently has tar paper and he is not able to use slate, asphalt shingles, or rolled roofing material – due to the shape of the roof.  He stated that a metal roof is his only option.  He stated that he could use copper, but this would be costly.  Mr. Hartzler stated that instead he has chosen to use either a dark brown (that would simulate the look of a copper roof) or green.  He stated that he would like to use a twenty gauge steel.  Mr. McClow asked the color of the roof on the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated that the current roof needs to be replaced at some point and he believes it is from 1982 – light gray.  Ms. Reeves asked if the shape of the roof will remain the same.  Mr. Hartzler stated yes.  Mr. Hartzler stated that the third component that needs attended to is the replacement of a door.  He listed five reasons why the door ought to be replaced. Mr. Hartzler stated that the door is not visible from any public view and the door is not functional.  He stated that it would take a considerable amount of money to make the door functional from the current layout on the inside of the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated that he does not believe this particular door was originally on the house when it was built and it is not energy efficient.  He went on to say that there has been a metal storm door attached to help with heating/cooling efficiency and he later clarified that he would permanently remove the storm door if a new door is put in place.  Mr. Hartzler stated that the door he would like to put in replacement of the deteriorating door is similar in size and style to doors replaced on the home in the 1908 addition/remodel.  He stated that the proposed door would match a true divided light wooden door on the south side of the home.  Mr. Hartzler also stated that he would like to keep the old door and possibly use it in future remodeling efforts.  Mr. Burriss asked if the existing kitchen first floor window is in line with the second floor windows on the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would not be in favor of obliterating the original fenestration pattern of the windows.  He asked Mr. Hartzler if he considered doing a blind window and he stated that this is a commonly used practice to maintain symmetry and balance.  He stated for instance that the Planning Commission required David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, to make four windows blind windows – rather than removing them from the home.  He went on to say that the window could appear to have shutters that are closed.  Mr. Hartzler stated that any fake window will be readily perceptible and finding shutters that would work would be difficult.  Mr. McClow stated that they would most likely have to be custom-made.  Mr. Burriss asked how other members of the Planning Commission felt regarding the window.  Mr. Ryan stated that he can see what Mr. Burriss is saying and he cannot answer if it is feasible or not.  He stated that this area is visible by the neighbors and more importantly it is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if Mr. Hartzler does not wish to keep the window he does not feel they are losing any architectural component by replacing it with siding.  He stated that this would make it “no uglier than it currently is.”  Mr. Mitchell also stated that he would not want to require something that is costly and something that Mr. Hartzler doesn’t want to do.  Ms. Reeves agreed, and stated that she would like to see that the proposed door match the existing door on the other side of the home.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the proposed door ought to match the door on the south side of the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated that he has purchased a true divided light wooden door from Cellar Lumber Company and it may not be two insulated panes of glass, but is capable of keeping heat in.  Mr. Hartzler was unsure as to how many divides the door he purchased has.

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-122:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the existing window is not characteristic of the original structure.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that this is true provided that the new door matches other doors on the home.  She added that getting rid of the existing storm door is also beneficial. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that it is upgrading the non-working door that is on the property and it replaces a deteriorating roof system.    

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the old house will be protected.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded the following:

  1. a.      Removal of non-historic kitchen window to be converted to clapboard siding;
  2. b.      Replacement of existing door on the north entry with a twelve light wooden entry door; and
  3. c.       Replacement of tarpaper roof sheathing over north entry with a steel roof.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion that Application #08-123 be approved on the condition that:

1)                                          The north side door match the existing door on the south side of the home and the door be a wood true divided light door; and

2)                                          The color of the steel roof is to be dark green to match the shutters or dark brown or taupe to match simulated copper.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-123 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

Old Business:

 

            Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of the proposed Zoning Code revisions.

 

            Additional Review of the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1109.11, 1133.03, 1135.01, 1137.01, 1137.02, 1137.05, 1137.07, 1137.08, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, 1141.06, 1143.04, 1145.03, 1145.04, 1147.03,  1147.04, 1149.01, 1149.02, 1149.03, 1159.02, 1159.03, 1159.04, 1159.05, 1161.01, 1161.02, 1161.03, 1163.01, 1163.02, 1163.03, 1167.02, 1167.03, 1175.02, 1175.04, 1175.05,  1183.01, 1183.03, and 1189.03, and to amend and change the section number of Sections 1137.03, 1137.04, 1137.05, 1137.06, 1137.07 and 1137.08, and To Enact New Sections 1137.03, 1137.10, 1157.14, 1157.15 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, Ohio.   

 

Discussion:  Ms. Terry explained that the changes made so far are highlighted in the document.  She asked the Planning Commission to review the final version of the changes they have proposed to present to Council. 

 

Mr. Burriss stated that he would like language added to the definition of driveway “used for vehicular traffic.” – page 4

 

Ms. Terry noted an error on page 30 – Section 1157.14…the word “thirty” should be changed to “forty” – to make 40%.

 

Dennis Cauchon asked if he could comment on the purpose listed for the Architectural Review Overlay District since this is a public hearing.  The Planning Commission stated yes. 

 

The purpose of the AROD is listed on page 37 of the zoning code revisions and states the following:

            “The purpose of the Architectural Review Overlay District is to maintain a high character of community development, to protect and preserve property, to promote stability of property vales and to protect real estate from impairment or destruction of value for the general community welfare by regulating the exterior architectural characteristics of structures and preservation and protection of buildings of architectural and historical significance throughout the Architectural Review Overlay District.  It is the further purpose of this Chapter to recognize and preserve the unique historical and architectural character of this community, reflecting the distinct phases of the Village’s history.”

 

Mr. Cauchon stated that he feels that the sentence pertaining to “character of community development” is too extraneous and it has no meaning that he can figure out.  He also emphasized that the Planning Commission shouldn’t consider when people come in promoting that the way they do something will improve their property values because this is irrelevant when the focus should be on the historical character.  Ms. Terry clarified that the language - “promote property values” – could be removed if the Planning Commission wishes to do so.  She stated that promoting property values will be an economic decision as well as an historic preservation issue.  Ms. Reeves commented that this is getting off on a tangent and she has no problem with the referral to the value of homes.  Mr. McClow agreed.  Mr. Ryan stated that they hear all the time from people at Planning Commission meetings that certain things will devalue property.  He went on to say that he gets Mr. Cauchon’s point and we (the Planning Commission) are not going to be slaves to approve something because someone feels it will pump up property values.  Mr. Burriss questioned if they ought to do away with language pertaining to promoting property values.  Mr. Mitchell stated that what strikes him is that they are trying to preserve historical structures and promote good architecture and the language should be stated as simple as this.   Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission asked for a better definition in this area pertaining to the purpose of the AROD because it leads into the set Criteria we as a Commission have to review for each application.  He went on to say that he feels better having some more language here.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if this language as it is currently written would have allowed for the first application to go through for Cleveland Hall.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not think it would have allowed it.  Mr. Cauchon stated that he would agree.  Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Mitchell’s assessment.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes that the first application for Cleveland Hall could be approved with the new language because he sees it as being subjective language.  The Planning Commission left the language as is.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-122:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-122 with the following conditions:

1)                  The columns, railings, and balusters be approved by Village staff prior to the installation for size, style and material; and

2)                  The sidewalk pavers are to be bluestone; and

3)                  The shingles are to match the existing roof; and

4)                  The brick will be the same as the submitted sample

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-122.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application #08-123:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-123, with the following conditions:

1)                  The new door matches the existing door on the south side of the home and the door be a wood true divided light door;

2)                  The color of the steel roof to be dark green to match the shutters or dark brown.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-123.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

September 8, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the September 8, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM. 

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

 

Next meetings:

October 14, 2008 (Mr. Mitchell will not be able to attend)

October 27, 2008

 

Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 8, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Lyle McClow

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Susan Schmidt, and Mr. and Mrs. Sam Sangaria

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

232 East Elm Street – David Schmidt, Application #08-114

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by David Schmidt and the request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                  Removal of screens from porch enclosure; and

2)                  Removal of handicap ramp, leaving concrete step underneath.   

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Susan Schmidt.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-114:

Ms. Terry indicated that the exterior concrete step will remain once the handicap ramp is removed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is a familiar application/request.  He stated that he had a similar request in an application at the previous Planning Commission meeting.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-114:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the structure will be taken back to the way it was originally.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the removal of the ramp is more in keeping with the original period of the house.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss added that the historical character of the home will be made more correct.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, and that restoring the home to its original condition protects and enhances.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant indicated that they would like to remove the following items:

  1. a.      Removal of screens from enclosure;
  2. b.      Removal of handicap ramp – leaving concrete step underneath

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant indicated that they would like to remove the following items:

  1. a.      Removal of screens from enclosure;
  2. b.      Removal of handicap ramp – leaving concrete step underneath

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-114 be approved as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-114 is approved as submitted. 

 

Old Business:

Review of the Zoning Code Revisions:

The Planning Commission resumed discussion of the Zoning Code Revisions at Section 1159.03.  Mr. Mitchell asked what will become of the suggested changes.  Ms. Terry stated that after the Planning Commission makes their changes/recommendations she will go through and thoroughly address all of the questions raised by the Granville Planning Commission.  The text will then go to Allison Crites’ office for review. 

 

Jack Burris asked if there has been any clarification regarding permeable material for driveways.  He also asked if there is a definition for ‘driveway.’  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry added that Brandy Mass (with the Crites Law Office) had previously determined that impervious gravel could be counted as a driveway – and therefore lot coverage.  Assistant Law Director Crites indicated that she could also review the memo provided by Brandy Mass. 

 

Mr. Burris stated that the Site Plan Requirements listed on page 34 should indicate that a - to scale plot plan is required. 

 

Mr. Mitchell and later Mr. Ryan stated that they like the language added to page 35 regarding the Architectural Review Overlay District. 

            “The purpose of the Architectural Review Overlay District is to preserve and encourage good architectural styles within the Village, reflecting the distinct phases of the Village’s history.”

 

Gina Reeves stated that she would suggest further review of the Criteria listed on page 36.  Mr. Burriss stated that Criteria (d) in particular needs to be addressed.  Alison Crites suggested that the best way to address the criteria is to spell out how the Planning Commission decision specifically meets these criteria.  Ms. Terry stated that she would pull the criteria and language used by German Village and Victorian Village for comparison with other criteria.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes our current language is borrowed from Hudson, Ohio.  Ms. Reeves stressed that she would like to send the information back to Council, recommending that the language for the Criteria be changed – and this ultimately makes the work of the Planning Commission purposeful.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels the Criteria should be less black and white.  Ms. Crites stated that she sees the Criteria as less ambiguous.  Mr. Ryan agreed. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed the last sentence on page 35:

            “The purpose of the Architectural Review Overlay District is to preserve and encourage good architectural styles within the Village, reflecting the distinct phases of the Village’s history.”

 

Mr. Burriss questioned if the words “distinct phases” should be changed to “distinctive” & add in the word “complimentary.”  Ms. Reeves stated that she would like to see a different word used in place of “phases.”  Ms. Terry and Ms. Crites indicated that they would further research this language.  Mr. Ryan suggested reviewing the language for the Criteria and then come back and review the language listing the purpose of the Architectural Review Overlay District. 

 

Ms. Terry noted that on page 41, “Planning Director” should be changed to “Village Planner” so the document is consistent throughout. 

 

On page 43, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell questioned the language regarding ‘drive-through.’  A recommendation to allow particular drive-through restaurants in particular areas of the Village was previously presented to Council.  Ms. Terry stated that Council has indicated that they would prefer to leave this language as is and allow no drive-through restaurants anywhere in the Village.  She added that this is due to the feedback from the Comprehensive Plan and Surveys.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not be against a drive-through restaurant on Cherry Valley Road.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that another reason Council does not want to allow drive-through restaurants is due to traffic congestion. 

Mr. Ryan asked if Ms. Terry feels the language regarding parking is sufficient.  Ms. Terry stated that the language is somewhat antiquated and she does need to address some areas, but perhaps not in this go around.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the language surrounding Parking – one per sleeping room – Fraternities ought to be eliminated.  Mr. Ryan questioned parking requirements for drive-in restaurants.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-114:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application #08-114.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-41.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Mr. McClow from the August 11th Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

May 27, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the may 27, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

August 25, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the August 25, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

Roll Call Vote: Reeves (abstain), Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Adjournment:  8:10 PM. 

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

September 22, 2008

October 14, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 25, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Lyle McClow, Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Stephen Hawk, Melissa Hartfield (filling in for Jackie O’Keefe), Bethany Black, Gretchen Hollingsworth, Lance Clarke, Carrie Mumma, and Denanna McKinley.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

209 North Granger Street, Gretchen Hollingsworth, Application #08-103

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Gretchen Hollingsworth and request is for approval of window replacements. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gretchen Hollingsworth.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-103:

Gretchen Hollingsworth, 209 North Granger Street, stated that she would like to replace double-hung windows in the front of the home and three windows on the side of the home that are nailed shut (northern and eastern elevation).  She stated that the trim will remain and there will be no difference in the size of the replacement windows.  Mr. Ryan clarified that there will be a total of six windows replaced.  Mr. McClow asked if the replacements will be double hung and Ms. Hollingsworth stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-103:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes.  Mr. Mitchell added that the look will not change since the replacement is with double hung windows that are currently in place.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant indicated that they want to install AC12 Series, Double Hung Vinyl Replacement Windows.  The windows are currently wood windows, painted white. 

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant indicated that they want to install AC12 Series, Double Hung Vinyl Replacement Windows.  The windows are currently wood windows, painted white. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-103 as submitted with the stipulation that the windows on the east and north elevation are the only windows replaced subject to this application.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-103 is approved with the above stated condition. 

 

(Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion of Application #08-104 at 7:10 PM because he is the applicant.)

 

303 South Main Street, Tom Mitchell, Application #08-104

VRD (Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Tom Mitchell and the request is for approval of the following:

            1)         Removal of southern deck and handicap ramp;

            2)         Removal of south patio door and replacement with window (to match the

                        location, materials and finish of the elevation on the north side);

            3)         Install 2 air conditioning condensers on the north side, screened with

                        evergreen plant materials;

            4)         Remove imitation shutters;

            5)         Remove screen enclosure on southwestern porch and restore to original.

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the

Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tom Mitchell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-104:

Mr. McClow asked the location of the air-conditioning units.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they are on the West Maple Street side of the home.  He added that they are not currently screened and he intends to add screening.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is the only practical location for the air-conditioning units.  Mr. McClow asked if it could be placed in the rear of the home.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it would be difficult.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to remove the wood handicap ramp and deck and not put anything in its place.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the southern elevation where the double doors are being  removed – will have the same façade as the north side of the home.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that they will be similar.  Mr. Burriss asked if the trim would be replaced.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes, but there is some trim within the screened area that he does not want to have to duplicate at this time.  He stated that there is currently no trim in place on the southern elevation porch, while there is trim on the northern elevation porch.  He went on to say that the brackets would remain in place, but not the trim between the columns – which is not even visible.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would duplicate most of the trim visible on the north elevation porch.  Mayor Hartfield asked if this trim is behind the screening.  Mr. Mitchell stated that most of the ornate trim she is referring to is behind the screening and it would be very difficult to reproduce.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to remove the existing shutters. Mr. Mitchell asked if a white picket fence is allowed to use as screening for the air-conditioning units.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission would need to approve the style of the proposed fence.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is his intention to use evergreen landscaping for screening the air-conditioning units. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-104:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Mitchell is attempting to restore the home to what was originally in place.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant would like to:

  1. a.      Remove the southern deck and handicap ramp;
  2. b.      Remove the southern patio door and replace it with a window (to match the location, materials and finish of the elevation on the north side);
  3. c.       Install two (2) air-conditioning condensers on the north side, screened with evergreen plant materials
  4. d.      Remove imitation shutters;
  5. e.      Remove screen enclosure on southwestern porch and restore to original.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission stated the following:

a)                  The applicant would like to remove the southern deck and handicap ramp; (The ramp and deck would be considered “modern” addition, therefore removal of these items should restore he historical appearance of the southern side of the building);

b)                  Remove the southern patio door and replace it with a window (to match the location, materials, and finish of the elevation on the north side);

c)                  Install two (2) air-conditioning units on the north side and screen with evergreen plant materials;

d)                  Remove imitation shutters;

e)                  Remove screen enclosure on the southwestern porch and restore to original.

g)  Use of Live Plant Material: The applicant has indicated that they will plant evergreen material (boxwoods) surrounding the proposed air-conditioning units to screen them from view.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-104 with the following conditions:

1)                  That once the applicant removes the two southern patio doors they shall be required to replace the doors with a window to match in scale and detail the corresponding northern exposure, as shown in Exhibit “B”;

2)                  That once the applicant removes the enclosure from the existing porch the detailing that is replaced on the porch should be identical to the existing porch structure.

 

Mr. McClow seconded. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-104 is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

(Mr. Mitchell returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:25 PM.)

 

 

236 West Elm, Stephen Hawk, Application #08-105

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Stephen Hawk the request is for approval of garage door replacements. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephen Hawk

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-105:

Stephen Hawk, 236 West Elm Street, stated that the original doors in place are wood and they were never properly prepped to hold paint.  He stated that the new doors would be painted. 

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-105:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is adding a further level of detail to the carriage house. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing replacement of existing wood garage doors with a Wane Dalton 9700 Series, Westfield, Steel garage door with overlay.  The garage doors are carriage style doors with 16 panel arched windows at the top of each of the doors.  The garage doors will be painted the same color as the existing garage doors. 

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing replacement of existing wood garage doors with a Wane Dalton 9700 Series, Westfield, Steel garage door with overlay.  The garage doors are carriage style doors with 16 panel arched windows at the top of each of the doors.  The garage doors will be painted the same color as the existing garage doors and will have hardware on the front elevation, reminiscent of an old carriage style building.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-105 with the following condition:  The replacement garage doors will be painted to match the color on the existing garage doors.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-105 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

123 West Broadway, Carrie Mumma, Application #08-107

VID (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Carrie Mumma the request is for approval of a four foot (4') dog ear wood picket fence to be located in the side and rear yard.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Carrie Mumma.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-107:

Ms. Mumma, 123 West Broadway, asked if she is able to paint the house any color she wishes.  Mr. Ryan explained that the Planning Commission is only reviewing the application currently before them.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has no control over what colors are used for painting – except in the Suburban Business District – such as Speedway and Arby’s.  Ms. Mumma stated that she asks the question about colors allowed on a house because her home is bright blue and she can’t understand how this is considered to be historically appropriate for a bungalow style home.  Ms. Mumma stated that her intentions are to paint the fence white.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the   location of the fence and its proximity to the church.  Ms. Mumma stated that it will be approximately three (3’) feet in from the property line and it that it will be closer towards her home.  Ms. Mumma stated that her neighbors, the Sinsabaughs, said they liked the fence and color.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant if the fence will be painted on both sides.  Ms. Mumma stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant is aware that the finished side should face the neighbors.  Ms. Mumma stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-107:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

e)      Materials and Texture: The Planning Commission stated that the applicant is proposing a four foot (4’) wood picket fence.

f)        Use of Detail: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is requesting a four foot (4’) picket fence in the rear and side yard of the property to match the neighbors fence to the west.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-102 with the following conditions:

1)                  That the finished side shall face the neighbors to the east, north, west & south; and

2)                  That the fence shall be painted white to match the neighbor’s existing fence.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-107 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

 

115 East Broadway, Granville Historical Society, Application #08-108

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Granville Historical Society and the request if for approval of either:

1) Stucco panel filling opening, painted green to match the old door color; or

2) Steel or fiberglass two panel door in wood frame, painted green to match the

old door color.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Lance Clarke.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-108:

Lance Clarke, Denison Drive, stated that he is back before the Planning Commission to see if putting a non-functional door painted green with no hinges is permissible.  He stated that they would attempt to match the color of the door in the rear and the new door would be a two panel door no glass in it.  Mr. McClow asked about the proposal on the application to place stucco on top of the block.  Mr. Clarke stated that they are willing to do either option.  Mr. McClow indicated that he would not be in favor of the stucco because he doesn’t feel it would work.  Ms. Terry asked if the door located in the area before was a two panel door.  Mr. Clarke stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if a two panel door was necessary.  Mr. McClow stated that if it matches existing doors on the building – it would look better.  Mr. Burriss stated that he has thought for several weeks what the Planning Commission might have proposed as a solution had the Ohio Historical Society come to the Planning commission to begin with.  He stated that if they do install a door he questions if they would be creating a maintenance issue.  Mr. Clarke stated that the original door that was in place was rusted and it has been blocked physically from the inside for 10-15 years.  Mr. Clarke stated that the previous door was also a security issue. 

Mr. Burriss asked if there has been any consideration to replacing the sidewalk area. 

He stated that if it was to be replaced and installed further away from the building - then a landscaping area could be created in there.  He went on to say that this could be something positive in this area.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has also indicated that the window well is an issue and the current condenser is not properly screened.  Mr. Burriss stated that the other side wall also doesn’t match the existing stone.  Mr. Clarke agreed that it doesn’t match the stone…but it has been there for a while.  Mr. Burriss questioned who owns the sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated that it is on private property.

Mr. Burriss stated that a landscaping area would be a component of a longer range better solution.  He went on to say that he knows in his own mind that a door isn’t the best solution, plus he doesn’t want to create a maintenance problem.  Mr. Burriss stated that the area is also not set for a frame.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that with a one inch and ½ door a frame would work.  Mr. McClow and Mr. Mitchell did not like the idea of using stucco and felt that the replacement door was the best alternative.  Mr. Clarke stated that he could install a 2 1/8th” inch door jam.  He stated that he could paint the door any color the Planning Commission chooses.  Mr. Burriss asked if the Planning Commission is moving in the direction of a door – could they look at a better door than what was originally proposed.  The Planning Commission reviewed a list of doors.  They agreed that they do not want to see glass in the faux door.  The Planning Commission members highly preferred the look of a six panel door.   

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-108:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a traditional style door will be used in place on concrete block.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new door would be restoring the historical fenestration pattern of the building, rather than a blank wall.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the physical environment is enhanced.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the structure is protected.  

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to place a steel or fiberglass six (6) panel door in a wood frame, within the doorway area, painted to match existing painted doors on the building.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-108 with the following condition:  A frame and six panel door per Exhibit “A” painted to match other exterior painted doors.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-108 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

(Mr. Burriss recused himself from discussions/voting for Application #08-109 and #08-110 at 8:00 PM)

 

226B East Broadway, Noir Investments/Bethany Black, Application #08-109

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was submitted by Bethany Black and the property is owned by Deanna McKinley.  The request is for a change of use within Category “E”: Retail Outlets, from a Furniture Store to a Clothing Store.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Deanna McKinley, and Bethany Black. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-109:

Mr. Mitchell stated that there has been discussion of leasing some of the parking out.  Deanna McKinley stated that a total of eight parking spaces are shown with parking available in the rear of the building.  She stated that these spaces are needed for other renters in the building.  Mr. Terry stated that six parking spaces are required for this change of use application. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #08-109 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Application #08-109 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

226B East Broadway, Noir Investments/Bethany Black, Application #08-110

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The request was submitted by Bethany Black and the property is owned by Deanna McKinley.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a free-standing sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – applicants were previously sworn in.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-110:

Mr. Ryan stated that the sign would be for a black and white sign with no lighting and that the posts are wood and the sign is also wood.  Mr. Ryan asked the location of the sign.  Ms. Terry state that it would be behind the sidewalk in the grassy area – center of the building.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #08-110 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Application #08-110 is approved as submitted.         

 

(Mr. Burriss re-joined the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:15 PM)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #08-81:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  It is a new structure set on an existing foundation that has been detailed to complement the existing Cleveland Hall structure. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and by the upgrading of the existing structure to install new windows - it incorporates some of the historical structure in the old structure with the new structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  The University is part of the community and the Arts building contributes to the vitality of the District.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, and Mr. Burriss added that the existing building is being restored.

 

Review and approval of exterior modifications to existing Cleveland Hall as follows:

1)                  Replacement of true divided light wood windows with aluminum windows;

2)                  Replacement of wood and aluminum doors with aluminum doors;

3)                  Installation of ten (10) skylights on top of the pitched roof of the main building, adjacent to the skylights;

4)                  Installation of four (4) roof hatches on top of pitched roof of the main building, adjacent to the skylights;

5)                  Replacement of existing brick and metal porch rails on the first and second floor levels of the southern elevation with new metal railing; and

Three (3) additions to existing Cleveland Hall as follows
1)         Two-story addition attached to the western core building on the north side;

2)         Two-story addition attached to the eastern stone portion of the building; and

3)         Two-story addition on top of the eastern stone portion of the building.

The request is also for addition sight lighting, dumpster enclosure, and plaza space on the eastern side of the east addition.

 

The Planning Commission findings were as follows:

Jack Thornborough appeared at the hearing on the matter and requested the opportunity to be heard in person.  Mr. Thornborough did not prove any direct, present injury or prejudice to any personal property right that would occur if the application is approved or denied, nor did Mr. Thornborough establish standing under any other provision of 1141.05(c).  The Planning Commission did not consider or relay upon any evidence or testimony presented by him to the Planning Commission.  Furthermore, the Planning Commission found the request of the applicant, as indicated in the submitted information in Application #08-81, to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and herby gives their approval of the application with the stated conditions from the August 11, 2008 Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-103.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0, 1 abstention.

 

New Business:

Application #08-103:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, with any conditions as listed below.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application #08-103 as submitted with the stipulation that the east and north windows are the only windows subject to approval with this application. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-103.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-104:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application with the following conditions:

6)                  Once the applicant removes the two southern patio doors they shall be required to replace the doors with a window to match in scale and detail the corresponding northern exposure, as shown in Exhibit “B”;

7)                  That once the applicant removes the enclosure from the existing porch the detailing that is replaced on the porch should be identical to the existing porch. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-104.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell (abstain), Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-105:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, with the following conditions:  That the replacement garage doors will be painted to match the color on the existing garage doors.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-105.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-107:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application, with any conditions as listed below:

1)                  That the finished side shall face the neighbors to the east, north, west and south;

2)                  That the fence shall be painted white to match the neighbors existing fence.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-107.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-108:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application with the following condition: The Planning Commission is approving a frame and door per Exhibit “A,” painted to match other exterior painted doors. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-108.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-109:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of the application as submitted.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-109.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-110:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of the application as submitted.

Mr.  Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-110.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves from the August 25th Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

August 11, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the August 11, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

July 28, 2008

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the July 25, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burris.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

September 8, 2008 (Mr. McClow indicated that he is unable to attend this meeting.)

September 22, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 11, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tom Mitchell, Lyle McClow, Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Art Chonko, Kevin Reiner, Chip Blanchard, Louis Middleman, John Noblick, Skip Weiler, Laura Andujar, Leta Ross, Jack Thornborough, Brian Miller, and Seth Patton.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

240 West Broadway, Art Chonko – Denison University, Application #08-41

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Art Chonko on behalf of Denison University.  The request is for approval of exterior site lighting. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-41:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated that they reduced some of the lighting that had originally been proposed in this revised application.  Mr. McClow asked how many of the lights are on a timer.  Mr. Chonko stated that the rail lighting would be on throughout the evening and the rest of the lighting would be on timers and could be turned off.  Ms. Terry stated that the staff report depicts the types of lights and what was previously in place and what was taken away from the original application.  She stated that they are recommending that some of the lights placed on timers be turned off at midnight.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant felt the submitted proposal was enough light.  Mr. Chonko stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-41:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Yes.  Mr. Ryan stated some of the lighting is for information purposes as well as for safety purposes.  Mr. Ryan indicated that some of the current lighting in place is being replaced with lighting more historical in character.  Mr. Mitchell agreed.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposal is in keeping with the historical character of the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the lighting does not appear to be intrusive. 

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed lighting will be metal fixtures. 

f)        Use of Landscape Design:  The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed lights will be used for accenting landscaping and the proposal is appropriate.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-41, as indicated on the revised drawings dated 7/28/08, only with the following condition:  That all of the light fixtures labeled “SA”, “SF” or “SJ” shall be required to be on a timer, set to be turned off at midnight, or at the end of the event, whichever is later. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-41 is Approved with the above stated condition. 

 

210 West College Street (Cleveland Hall), Art Chonko – Denison University, Application #08-81

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Art Chonko on behalf of Denison University.  The request is for approval of exterior modifications to existing Cleveland Hall as follows:

1)         Replacement of true divided lite wood windows with aluminum windows;

2)         Replacement of wood and aluminum doors with aluminum doors;

3)         Installation of ten (10) skylights on top of the pitched roof of the main building;

4)         Installation of four (4) roof hatches on top of pitched roof of the main building,

            adjacent to the skylights;

5)         Replacement of existing brick and metal porch rails on the first and second floor

      levels of the southern elevation with new metal railing; and

            Three (3) additions to existing Cleveland Hall as follows:

1)         Two-story addition attached to the western core building on the north side;

2)         Two-story addition attached to the eastern stone portion of the building; and

3)         Two-story addition on top of the eastern stone portion of the building.

            The request is also for additional sight lighting, dumpster enclosure, and plaza space on the eastern side of the east addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Art Chonko, and later Seth Patton.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-81:

Please refer to the transcript dated “Planning Commission – August 11, 2008” for the discussion and review of Application #08-81. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-81 with the following conditions:

1)         That approval of the application shall be contingent upon Application #07-003   being withdrawn as to the portions thereof that specifically deal with exterior           modifications and the architectural design of the three new additions proposed to      be made to Cleveland Hall and that were subject to review by the Village under             Chapter 1161 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village.  In addition, no Zoning        and Architectural Permit shall be issued by the Village until such time as      Application #07-003 is withdrawn.  This approval shall expire within one (1) year                      from the date of final approval by the Planning Commission if no Zoning and        Architectural Permit has been issued; and

2)         Also, to be noted is that this application meets the criteria of Chapter 1161.02 as           discussed at the previous meeting.

 

Mr. McClow seconded. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-81 is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

240 West Broadway, Denison University, Application #08-101

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Art Chonko on behalf of Denison University.  The request is for approval of a temporary banner sign on Burke Hall. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-101:

Art Chonko, Denison University, indicated that the sign would be placed on the south side of the building.  Ms. Terry stated that because this is a temporary sign the three code color limit does not apply.  Mr. Chonko stated that the period of time the banner would be up would be September 15th – December 1st.  Ms. Terry stated that “Other Signs” do not have a square footage limit.  Mr. Chonko stated that they would like people to be able to read the sign from the street.  Mr. Ryan asked if temporary banners have been approved in the past for schools and churches. Ms. Terry stated that there has been approval for a larger banner for Welsh Hills School, but it was not as large is this banner.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the size of the banner does seem appropriate considering the size of the building and the distance from the road.  Mr. Chonko stated that a banner consultant worked with Denison and recommended the size of the sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant can live with a smaller sign.  Mr. Chonko stated that the proposed size is similar to what you may see on a museum in other areas. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-101:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the sign is stylistically compatible with the building it will hang on.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is a unique structure and it is compatible on a larger scale.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign will announce what is going on in the building.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-101 with the following condition:  That the banner sign shall be valid only until December 1, 2008.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1. 

(Mr. Ryan stated that he voted “No” because he feels the banner is too large.) 

 

Application #08-101 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

Fine Arts Quad, Denison University, Application #08-102

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Art Chonko on behalf of Denison University.  The request is for approval of eleven (11) freestanding identification signs and two (2) wall signs.  The Fine Arts Quad includes: Burke Hall, Cleveland Hall, Ace Morgan, Doane Dance, and Burton Hall.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-102:

Art Chonko indicated that some of the wording could change a little bit, but it will not impact the size or location of the sign.  He stated that Denison University would incur any costs associated with removing any signs that are in the right-of-way.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Service Director would be available to make sure there are no site distance issues related to the placement of the sign.  Ms. Reeves asked if the new signs would have the same lettering style and the same type of posts.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Ms. Terry clarified that the proposal is to remove some of the existing signs and replace some of the signs. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant will need to obtain a right-of-way permit.  She went on to say that a variance would need to be given by the Planning Commission in the approval of this application to allow more than one sign on certain lots.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-102:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission consensus was yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Ryan indicated that people will be able to move about the property easier with directional signs.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

e)      Materials and Texture: The Planning Commission stated that all of the materials will be metal fixtures painted black.

f)        Use of Detail: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing an additional eleven (11) freestanding identification signs and two (2) wall signs, all to be constructed of metal and painted black.

g)      Signage: To approve Application #08-102, the approval is conditioned upon:  1)  To allow two freestanding signs noted as #1 and #5, Quad Directional Signs, in the submitted application to be located on a single zone lot; 2)  To allow two freestanding signs noted as #6 and #9, Doane Dance Signs, in the submitted application to be located on a single zone lot; 3) To allow two freestanding signs noted as # 7 and #8, Burton Hall Signs, in the submitted application to be located on a single zone lot; and 4) That signs #5, #6, #7, #10 and #13 are subject to an application for a right-of-way permit."    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to the Variance for Application #08-102:

 

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 districts.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Fine Arts Quad is unique and requires additional signage. 

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 the Ordinance.  The Planning Commission concluded that the situation is peculiar and their answer was Yes. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission concluded that the circumstances do not result from an action by the applicant. 

d)      That the granting of 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.  The Planning Commission stated Yes.  Mr. Ryan added that the Village Institutional District is peculiar in itself and there are no other properties in this same zoning district. 

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.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes and stated that no one else has this same zoning – Village Institutional District.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-102, with the approval being conditioned upon the following:

1)         To allow two freestanding signs noted as #1 & #5, Quad Directional Signs, in the          submitted application, to be located on a single zone lot;
2)         To allow two freestanding signs noted as #6 & #9, Doane Dance Signs, in the   submitted application to be located on a single zone lot;

3)         To allow two freestanding signs noted as #7 & #8, Burton Hall Signs, in the       submitted application, to be located on a single zone lot; and

4)         Signs #5, #6, #7, #10, &  #13 are subject to application for a right-of-way permit.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-102 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

New Business:

223 East Elm Street, Keith and Courtney McWalter, Application #08-94

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Kevin Reiner on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter.  The applicant is requesting approval of an exterior modification to the house including shutters, six foot privacy fence and pergola, flagstone walkway and a generator.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-94:

Kevin Reiner, West Broadway, stated that they would like to install louvered Timberlane historical shutters made from wood.  Mr. Ryan asked about the color.  Mr. Reiner was unsure as to the final color.  He went on to explain that they are also proposing a six foot privacy fence with lattice at the top.   Mr. Reiner indicated that the fence would be cedar and finished on both sides.  Mr. Reiner stated that they are also proposing a steel pergola and they hope that this will be covered with green wisteria.  Mr. Ryan asked if the pergola is included in the lot coverage.  Ms. Terry stated that it is not considered an impervious surface and it is not part of the lot coverage.  She also stated that the lot coverage is 37.92% with the proposal, meeting the Code’s maximum 50% requirement.  Mr. Reiner stated that they would like to install flagstone for walkways and the garden area.  He indicated that they would like to remove existing brick in the front and replace it with the flagstone.  Mr. Reiner stated that they will also be applying for a variance for a setback to accommodate the proposed generator. 

 

Brian Blanchard, 221 South Pearl Street, stated that he would like to complement the applicant on the job done so far.  He stated that he has no problem with the fence or proposal overall.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-94:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the

Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded Yes and it is compatible with a previous plan approved for the on-going renovation.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the Materials and Textures are complimentary to the style and design of the existing structure. 

  1. a.      Shutters – Timberlane, Louver shutters, wood
  2. b.      Pergola – Steel
  3. c.       Fence and Gate – Cedar
  4. d.      Landscape Border – Sandstone
  5. e.       Air Conditioner
  6. f.        Generator

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing the following:

  1. a.       Installation of a generator
  2. b.      Two air-conditioning units
  3. c.       A six foot (6’) privacy fence and gate
  4. d.      Steel pergola
  5. e.       Flagstone walkways and sandstone border
  6. f.        Shutters

g)      Use of Live Plant Material: The applicant is prosing to use box woods to screen the air-conditioning units.  The applicant is also proposing a generator that would be screened by a six foot side yard privacy fence – however a variance would need to be given for the placement of the generator. 

h)      Use of Landscape Design:  The applicant is proposing landscaping in the form of plant material, pea gravel walkways, flagstone walkways, a sandstone border along the perimeter of many of the planting areas, a pergola in the rear yard, a six foot (6’) privacy fence along the eastern setback and between the rear yard and parking/garage area. 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-94 with the following conditions:

1)                  The fence is to be finished and painted on both sides; and

2)                  That the applicant shall obtain a side yard setback variance from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for the proposed generator location, or will need to bring it into compliance with the ten foot (10’) side yard setback requirement;

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-94 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

110 West Broadway, First Presbyterian Church, Application #08-95

VSD (Village Square District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District).  The application was submitted by Jerry McClain Construction on behalf of First Presbyterian Church for architectural review and approval of replacement of north double doors with new double doors and glass transom. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-95:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, Newark, stated that they would like to remove the north doors.  He stated that the new doors will match several other doors on the existing building.  Mr. Noblick indicated that any trim work already around the door would remain.  Mr. Ryan asked if the proposed doors would be wood.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Ms. Reeves asked how this is a change to what is currently there.  Ms. Terry stated that the new doors will match what is on the other side of the building and there is currently not a transom on the existing north doors. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-95:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.      

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing that the doors be made out of wood – two panel.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to Approve Application #08-95 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.   

 

Application #08-95 is approved as submitted. 

 

203 South Cherry Street, Louis Middleman, Application #08-96

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Louis Middleman and the applicant is requesting approval of exterior modifications to the rear accessory structure, specifically  replacement with Hardie-Plank siding and MiraTEC trim. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Louis Middleman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-96:

Louis Middleman, 203 South Cherry Street, stated that he has been told by the contractor that the wood siding will not take paint and it is not rotted throughout.  He explained that the contractor will not need to remove the current siding, but rather will cover it.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant needs to apply for approval since the structure will look identical to what is currently in place.  Ms. Terry stated that the new material is a composite and not wood – which is what is currently in place.  Mr. Ryan asked if the existing detailing will remain.  Mr. Middleman stated yes and the garage doors, gutters, down spouts, and lighting will all remain the same.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant had considered replacing the siding with wood.  Mr. Middleman stated that he was told that hardi-plank would take the paint better and last longer. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-96:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture: Hardi-plank.  Ms. Reeves added that this material will closely match what is currently in place.

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing Hardi-Plank to install on top of the existing siding.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-96 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-96 is approved as submitted. 

 

484 South Main Street, Ross Granville Market, Application #07-083

*AMENDMENT*

SBD (Suburban Business District)

The application was submitted by RCS Design, Ltd. on behalf of Ross’ Granville Market and the applicant is requesting an amendment for modifications to the front addition previously approved.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Laura Andujar, and Leta Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-083:

Laura Andujar, RCS Design Ltd., explained the proposed modifications and provided samples of the proposed materials.  Ms. Andujar stated that the low pitch on the roof will not allow for the shingles and that is why they are proposing standing seam metal.  She stated that the color of the standing seam metal would be ‘Slate Gray.’  Ms. Andujar noticed a mistake in the location and number of columns on the paperwork that was submitted.  She explained the exact location of the columns to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Andujar stated that the reason for adding a column is because they came across an existing drain line and modifications are necessary. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the amendment to Application #07-083 on the condition that the applicant shall be required to receive a variance from the BZBA for the difference in the roof pitch.  Seconded Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

The amendment to Application #07-083 is approved with the above stated condition. 

 

2780 Newark-Granville Road, JVB Group, Application #08-98

PUD (Planned Unit Development)

The application was submitted by the Robert Weiler Company on behalf of JVB Group and the applicant is requesting approval of a temporary real estate sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Skip Weiler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-98:

Skip Weiler, Robert Weiler Company, 41 South High Street, Columbus, stated that they are eager to sell the property and would like to place a real estate for sale sign up as soon as possible. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-98 on the condition that the sign shall be placed outside of the right-of-way, parallel to State Route 16.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-98 is approved with the above stated condition. 

 

221 South Pearl Street, Brian D. Blanchard, Application #08-99

VRD (Village Residential District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Brian D. Blanchard and the request is for architectural review and approval of an air-conditioning unit. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Brian (Chip) D. Blanchard.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-99:

Chip Blanchard, 221 South Pearl Street, stated that he had hoped to place the air-conditioning unit elsewhere, but this was his only option without requesting a variance – which he did not want to do.  Mr. Ryan asked if the unit would be screened.  Mr. Blanchard stated that he has planted some box woods.  He stated that he would be willing to install balusters on the stairs if needed.  Mr. Ryan noted landscaping also on the north property line along the alley. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-99:

 

g)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

h)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

i)        Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

j)        Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

k)      Materials and Textures: The applicant has indicated that they would like to install an air-conditioning unit in the rear western yard.  They have indicated that they would screen the unit with box woods.

l)        Landscaping:  The applicant has indicated that he has installed some box woods and there is existing landscaping in place.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-99 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves (no), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1. 

(Ms. Reeves stated that she voted “no” because she didn’t felt he air conditioning unit was adequately screened).

 

Application #08-99 is approved as submitted. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #08-41:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-41.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-81:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-81.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-101:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-101.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #08-102:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-102.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #08-94:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-94.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-95:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-95.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-96:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-96.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #07-083 - AMENDENT:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-083.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-98:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-98.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-99:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr.  Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-99.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the August 11th Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

July 14, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the July 14, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 3-0, with one abstention (Mr. Mitchell).

 

Adjournment:  9: 15 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

August 25, 2008 (Councilmember O’Keefe will not be able to attend.)

September 8, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 28, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director Allison Crites, and Acting Law Director Jim Gorry.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Dennis Cauchon, Ben Rader, Monique Keegan, Jeremy Johnson, Thomas Fuller, Brian Miller, Doug Hoffman, Thomas Hankins, Heidi Bolyard, Art Chonko, Jack Beyer, Charles Taylor, Tim Klinger, Cathy Klinger, Douglas Hoffman,  Jean Ullman, Pete Ullman, Tricia Huber, Seth Patton, Jeff K., Chris Bendinelli, Lance Clark, Ann Lang, Kevin Reiner, Terry Reed, Kevin Kittle, Al Packer, Tom Hankins, Bill Downey, Kelly Swope, Mollie Prasher and Don Contini.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

Zoning of 514 acres annexed to the Village in 2007:

Alison Terry explained that the property consisting of 514 acres was annexed to the Village last year.  She stated that the property is currently zoned as ‘Agricultural’ and was part of Granville and Union Townships.  Ms. Terry explained that the closest zoning classification they have and are recommending is ‘Open Space District.’ 

 

Thomas Hankins, 2140 James Road, stated he was there in regards to protecting his hunting and trapping rights.  He stated that they would like to continue to do the things they have already been doing in that area and they want hunting rights protected.  Mr. Hankins stated that he has no problem with the recommended zoning and they don’t want developers able to change their lifestyle.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on an existing Ordinance already allowing hunting rights.  Manager Holycross stated that he would assume that what is currently allowed would continue.  He stated that this is not advised by zoning, but rather through general revisions.  Manager Holycross stated that it was not Council’s intent to disallow hunting in this area.

 

Charles Taylor, 88 James Road, stated that he is neighbors with Tom Hankins and although he does not hunt he would not like the current arrangements to change.  Mr. Taylor stated that he is fine with the proposed zoning and the comments made by Manager Holycross regarding hunting/trapping did make him feel better.

 

Members of the Planning Commission agreed that the proposed Ordinance looked straight forward to them. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Village Council that the 514 acre annexation be classified as ‘Open Space District’ under the Village zoning regulations.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

(Anyone speaking regarding the zoning for the 514 acre annexation did not need to be sworn in due to it being a legislative hearing.)

 

219 Summit Street, Tim and Cathy Klinger, Application #08-80

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Tim and Cathy Klinger.  The applicant is requesting approval for architectural review and approval of an eastern side yard picket fence and air-conditioning unit to be located along the southern side of the home.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Tim Klinger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-80:

Mr. Klinger stated that he would like to place the air-conditioning unit in the rear of the home.  He stated that he also would like to install a picket fence.  Mr. Klinger provided an eight foot section as a visual.  He stated that he would like for it to have two four foot gates and the gate would be 42” inches high.  When asked about the finish of the fence by the Planning Commission, Mr. Klinger stated that he likes the weathered gray look, but he would also entertain eventually staining the fence to match the color of the house.  Mr. Klinger stated that he would use antique strap hinges and a 4x4 posts and this will match what is on the existing garage.  Ryan asked if the AC unit would have landscaping around it.  Mr. Klinger stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell said that in the past we have been requiring a finish on fencing and they are aware that letting the wood weather first is a good idea.  Mr. Klinger stated that staining the wood, rather than leaving it weathered, is not a deal-breaker for him.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have required finishing on fences in this particular area and they should remain consistent. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-80:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the fence resembles other fences in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing pressure treated, wood picket, and 42” high fencing which meet this requirement.  The applicant needs to indicate what color the picket fence will be painted once it is installed.  The air-conditioning unit is not a natural material requirement; therefore the applicant will need to look at screening it with landscaping or fencing.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing the installation of a wood picket fence and a rear air-conditioning unit.  The proposed picket fence is appropriate to the scale and design of the existing home, but paint color should be carefully considered as the home is rustic, natural dark brown color.

g)      Use of Plan Material:  The applicant should choose evergreen screening for the air-conditioning unit or fencing.

h)      Use of Landscape Design:  The applicant needs to consider the addition of landscaping around the air-conditioning unit to screen it from neighboring properties.  This can be done with landscaping or fencing. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-80 with the condition that the finish on the fence matches the color on the house within one year and that the air-conditioning unit be screened with evergreen landscaping, and that the finished side of the fence face the neighbors.   Second by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-80 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

210 West College Street, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-81

(VID) Village Institutional District, (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District

The application is submitted by Art Chonko on behalf of Denison University for approval of modifications to Cleveland Hall. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko, Jack Beyer, Jack Thornborough, and Ben Rader.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-81:

(Please refer to the court reporter transcript dated July 28, 2008 – Cleveland Hall for all testimony)

 

Councilmember O’Keefe recused herself from discussion regarding Application #08-81 because her husband is an employee of Denison University. 

 

Art Chonko and Jack Beyer were sworn in and described the proposed modifications to Cleveland Hall. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, was sworn in to give testimony.  He stated that he owns historic property on Mulberry Drive and the proposed renovations could have a negative impact on this historic property.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he was able to offer testimony in previous discussions regarding Cleveland Hall. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, was sworn in to offer testimony.  Mr. Rader indicated that he received a letter of notification regarding modifications to Cleveland Hall from the Village of Granville due the proximity of his home to the structure. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that she received answers to come of her questions today and the staff would prefer to have the application tabled to further review this information.  There was some discussion as to what would become of the previous application for renovations to Cleveland Hall.  Acting Law Director Jim Gorry stated that if Application #08-81 is approved it should be indicated that the previous application no longer stands. 

 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #08-81.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-81 is Tabled. 

 

(Mr. Ryan moved Application #08-89 next on the agenda at 8:50 PM)

 

128 East Broadway, Thomas Fuller, Application #08-89

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Thomas Fuller and the applicant is requesting approval of an exterior modification to the stucco over the existing brick wall within the alley area on the western side of the building.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Thomas Fuller, and Terry Reed

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-89:

Thomas Fuller stated that he does not have much to say about this application and it is apparent that the wall needs attended to.  Mr. Fuller stated that it is apparent to him that stucco seems to be the logical solution to the problem and he feels this would look better than just painting the area. 

 

Terry Reed, 131 Hancock Street, Newark, stated that he had a sample of what the stucco would look like.  He explained that the mortar in between the brick is deteriorating, as well as the brick itself. Mr. Reed stated that he would install a metal lath off of the brick and then coat it with the stucco.  Mr. Burriss stated we are concerned with the materials and visual presentation and this is why we ask for details.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is stucco on the rear of the building.  Mr. Reed stated that there is some stucco that is in the rear and it has been on there a long time.  Mr. Reed stated that the brick is very soft.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked about installing a brick veneer or brick façade.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he loves the look of brick and he is not a big fan of stucco, but he is aware of other buildings that have had to maintain the brick with stucco. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, stated that he owns property at 120 East Broadway.  He stated that the proposed area for stucco is in the alley and not facing Broadway.

 

Mr. Ryan questioned how the stucco would meet the brick façade on the front of the building.  Mr. Reed stated that he believes it would match up with paint.  He went on to say that he has seen good exterior paint last for close to forty years.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be more comfortable if they had details of the corner and the proposed color that the material would be painted and they would be in favor of having the stucco match the front of the building.  Mr. Fuller stated he had no objection to painting the stucco and he stated that he is also concerned about the appearance of Granville and he wants to keep it looking good.  Mr. McClow stated that the stucco is bound to crack.  Mr. Reed stated that the metal lath will help with the cracking.  Mr. Burriss asked how the window sills and detailing of the windows will be preserved.  Mr. Terry stated that he doesn’t believe the detailing on the windows will change because he doesn’t plan to stucco over anything.  He estimated that the lathe and stucco will be 3/8 to ½ inch. 

Mr. Burriss stated he would like to see the detail of how the corner will look. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-89:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the

Village District.  Yes, because it has been done with several other buildings in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes, because it would help to maintain a historic building in the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing stucco.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing stucco to cover the existing brick wall.

 

Ms. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-89 with the following conditions:

1)         That the stucco on the west side be painted to match the upper story on the front the building (a red);

2)                  That the sills and lintels and windows be painted white to match the front of the windows on the front of the building;

3)                  That the beading corner detail be submitted and reviewed by Village Staff.

 

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-89 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

115 East Broadway, Granville Historical Society, Application #08-85

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by the Granville Historical Society and the request is for removal of a doorway facing Broadway.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and

Lance Clark.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-85:

Lance Clark, 162 Denison Drive, stated that he is on the Board of Managers for the Granville Historical Society.  He explained that a door was removed because they feared that there would be water problems.  He went on to say that the door has not been functionally used since the 1970’s.  Mr. McClow clarified if there were any egress issues inside the building.  Mr. Terry stated no because this area is covered up with historical records.  Mr. Terry stated that he intends to paint the block a sandstone color and they would later like to feather in to the existing sandstone veneer, but they have to do some further checking on this.  He stated that they still need to find some funding – possibly in next year’s budget and he hopes to have a veneer over this area by this time next year.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. McClow questioned if a fake door would look better than trying to match up the area with a veneer.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission preference is to have had approval before the door was removed.  Mr. Terry questioned if he could paint the block to match the sandstone and come back at a later time for approval of a stone veneer.  Mr. Burriss noted that there is another area on the adjacent wall that also doesn’t match the existing sandstone and he would like to see this addressed.  The Planning Commission stated that they can’t let people do these types of changes and then come in and ask forgiveness.  They stated that had approval been sought to begin with – they would have never authorized removal of the door.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission is charged with looking at the application as though the applicant is requesting to take the door out and how to fill the area in.  Mr. Mitchell suggested placing a door there that is not functional.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant could also amend his application to place a fake door in this area.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. McClow stated that had the application been submitted prior to doing the work – they likely would have voted no to placing the concrete block.  Mr. Burriss agreed, but he is also in favor of working towards an appropriate solution since the work has already been done.  Ms. Terry stated that a concrete wall was not approved in the AROD so it cannot remain as it is.  Mr. Ryan stated that if they do a veneer at a later time it would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-85:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded it could be compatible if it matches the existing sandstone.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that a door was removed that was causing structural damage by letting water in.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant has installed concrete block which is not an approved material. 

f)        Use of Details:  The Planning Commission questioned if this would come at a later time?  With a proposed veneer?

 

Ms. McClow made a motion to deny Application #08-85.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), McClow (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.  

 

Application #08-85 is denied. 

 

(Mr. Ryan explained that painting the block wall and returning in the future to do a veneer is not acceptable.  If you plan to do a veneer or a fake door the Planning Commission is asking that the exact plan be presented.  Mr. Terry stated that they do not have the money to do anything else but paint at this time.  Mr. Ryan stated that the application should have come before the doorway was removed.) 

 

133 East College Street, Granville Township, Application #08-86

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Fire Chief Jeff Hussey and the request if for review and approval of a change of use to Category “C,” Business and Professional Offices, for the entire primary structure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Fire Chief Jeff Hussey, and Ben Rader.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-86:

Fire Chief Jeff Hussey explained that they are out of space and the purchase of this property will free up space in fire station and bunk house.  He stated that they are limited on overnight sleeping facilities and they often do not have space for volunteers to stay overnight.  Mr. Hussey went on to explain that there are a total of seven full time employees, Denison student volunteers, and part-time help.  Mr. Hussey stated that they have had to turn people away at night and with the acquisition of the property they will also gain some off street parking.  Mr. Hussey stated that the property is currently used as ‘Mixed Use Residential’, and they are requesting a change to Category “C” – Business Professional Offices for the entire primary structure.  Ms. Terry stated that the application will go through the Building Code Department and the non-conforming use is not still valid because it hasn’t been used in this capacity for over five years.  Ms. Terry stated that essentially the application does meet all of the requirements – lot coverage, parking spaces, and setback requirements. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, stated that in regards to installing a gate he has asked for a security lock to be installed to reduce pedestrian traffic in this area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-86:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because there are no changes being proposed for the exterior of the structure and the space was previously used as office space.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because it enhances the operation of the fire department and improves their functionality.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and the fire department improves the entire community.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission noted that gravel will be added.

f)       Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing expanding the existing parking area in the rear of the property to accommodate one (1) additional car.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-86 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-86 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

133 East College Street, Granville Township, Application #08-87

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Fire Chief Jeff Hussey and the applicant is requesting approval of a wall sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Fire Chief Jeff Hussey.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-87:

Fire Chief Jeff Hussey stated that he would like to replace the existing sign with the same size and very similar in design.  Ms. Terry stated that all of the criteria would be met and the size and color would be consistent with what is currently in place.  Mr. Hussey stated that he does not yet know the type of lettering or wording.  Mr. Burriss stated that typically the Planning Commission likes to see an exact design/mockup prior to approving.  Mr. Hussey stated he could get a rendering of the proposed sign back to the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #08-87.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-87 is Tabled. 

 

 

224 East College Street, Kevin Kittle, Application #08-88

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Kevin Kittle and the applicant is requesting approval of exterior modifications to the accessory structure.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Kevin Kittle.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-88:

Kevin Kittle stated that they want the accessory structure to look like a carriage house.  He proposed raised panel garage doors that resemble bead board.  Mr. Kittle stated that the gutters and downspouts would be replaced with aluminum

Mr. Burriss asked if they propose to change and add/take away any window on the front façade of the structure.  Mr. Kittle stated no and he stated that the windows will be same width, but a little bit longer.  Mr. Burriss applauded the applicant for using board and batten siding.  Mr. Kittle explained that he would install board and baton on the first floor and it will meet the siding on the other sides of the structure. 

Mr. Burriss asked if there are any trim details added.  Mr. Kittle stated just corner trim. 

He added that he could trim out the windows, but you don’t see them from anywhere. 

 

Mr. Kittle stated that he hasn’t been on roof, and at this stage he doesn’t think it needs replaced.  Mr. Ryan asked about the canopy over the door.  Mr. Kittle stated that he may remove it and possible put up a cloth awning.  It was noted that this would need to come in a separate application.  It was also noted that any change in lighting will need to be addressed in a separate application.  Mr. Klinger proposed a light above the door. 

The proposed colors to the accessory structure and – grey and white trim to match the house. Mr. Burriss asked if the basement window will remain.  Mr. Klinger stated he will likely cover it with siding.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the deck will remain.  Mr. Kittle stated yes but with new decking.  Mr. Burriss commented that this is certainly an improvement to what is currently in place and he applauds the board and batten - being appropriate for the period of the original house.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-88:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and the proposed modifications are more in line with other historical structures in the district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission stated that the applicant is proposing using vinyl windows to replace the existing wood windows, steel doors to replace the existing wood doors, hardi-plank to replace the existing aluminum siding and steel garage doors to replace the existing wood garage doors. 

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission noted that the applicant is proposing replacing the windows in the front, southern elevation with windows that would be sized to match the windows in the front primary structure.  They are also proposing to add hardi-plank to the entire front, southern elevation, which would replace existing aluminum siding and concrete block.  The last modification they are proposing to the front, southern elevation is to remove the existing wood garage doors and replace them with steel carriage style doors.  The applicant is proposing the replacement of wood windows on the western, northern and eastern elevations with vinyl double hung, grid, windows would also be consistent with the style of the primary structure and would complement the existing accessory structure.  The applicant is proposing the replacement of the aluminum siding with hardi-plank siding on the western, northern, and eastern elevation and board and batten on the front elevation.

 

 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-88 with the following conditions:

1)         That the board and batten siding used on the front elevation continue around the entire building on the first story and the second story material will be hardi-plank;

2)         The garage door style be as indicated on Exhibit “A” – Sonoma.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-88 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

 

 

2613 Newark-Granville Road, Jeremy and Cara Johnson, Application #08-90

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Jeremy and Cara Johnson and the applicant is requesting approval of a rear second floor addition, new railing on the front and side porch, removal and replacement of the side porch adjacent to the second floor addition, modification of existing deck and fence to accommodate the second floor addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Jeremy Johnson.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-90:

Jeremy Johnson, 2613 Newark-Granville Road, stated that they are proposing an addition over a single story rear porch and re-roofing the entire structure with shingles.

Mr. Johnson proposed vinyl siding with 30 year shingles and vinyl double hung tilt in windows.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has indicated that the porch roof is leaking

Mr. Ryan confirmed that there are several kinds of shingles and slate currently on the home.  Mr. Johnson stated this was true.  He went on to say that the roof addition will tie in with the existing roof line.  Mr. Johnson stated that the existing siding is aluminum and he would like to replace it with vinyl.  He stated that neighbors to the west, east, and north all have vinyl siding.  The Planning Commission inquired on the foundation of the proposed porch.  Mr. Johnson stated that they will excavate and put a block foundation in for the porch.  He stated that the existing block foundation if a mixture of sandstone and molded cinder block.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant for the completeness of the application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-90:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because the changes help maintain the property.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing adding a 2nd story to the rear one-story addition.  The new proposed ridge line will match the height of the existing ridge line for both the east-west and north-south 2nd story roof lines.

f)        Building Massing:  The surrounding existing homes are newer homes in this area of Newark-Granville Road, so the style and height is not consistent with the more modern homes.  The style and height is, however, consistent with the style of this home.  The 2nd story addition on the rear, stepping down to the existing one-story addition is more appropriate in massing than the layout of the existing home.  The applicant is also proposing “bumping out” the eastern wall of the existing addition by an additional “1’7 ¾” to make it even with the eastern wall of the original home.  

g)      Roof Shape: The Planning Commission noted that the applicant is proposing a pitched roof on the 2nd story addition that will be 4.5:12.  The applicant is also proposing modifying the 1st story addition’s roof line to make it a 2.5:12 slope on the eastern elevation only, extending from the existing ridge line and fireplace east to the edge of the home.  The existing one-story addition has a partial sloped roof and a shed roof that is causing water damage within the interior of the home.  The existing 2nd story pitched roofs on the two other ridge lines are 9:12.

h)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant has indicated that they would like to use the following materials for the addition:

  1. a.       Exterior Siding & Trim: Mastic Premium Vinyl Siding by ALCOA, Quest 3 Series; Color- Village Green (Siding) and Cameo (Trim) - Proposed for existing elevations and new 2nd story;
  2. b.      Shingles: Owens Corning Asphalt, Oakridge; Color – Driftwood or Estate Gray, Proposed for existing slate roof on 2nd story roof lines, porches and new addition;
  3. c.       Double-hung & Casement Windows:  Simonton or equal (vinyl windows)
  4. d.      Rail spindles on southern and western porch: New square, wood, rail spindles;
  5. e.       Removal of existing slate roof on 2nd story roof lines, and replacement with Owens Corning Asphalt, Oakridge shingles;
  6. f.        Replacement of existing foundation block: with plain CMU or split face block;
  7. g.       Aluminum gutters and downspouts: new throughout, white, 4” & 5” gutters.

 

i)   Use of Details:

1)         Window fenestration on the western, northern and eastern elevation; and

2)         Modification to the pitch of the roof on the one-story addition

           

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-90 as submitted with the final shingle color (Estate Gray or Driftwood) to be submitted to Village staff.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-80 is Approved as submitted. 

 

 

410-412 West Broadway, Douglas Hoffman, Application #08-91

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Douglas Hoffman and the applicant is requesting approval of a rear addition and porch.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Heidi Bolyard.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-91:

Heidi Bolyard stated that she is the architect for the proposed changes to 410-412 West Broadway.  She stated that they are looking at taking out an existing car port and replacing it with an existing two car garage with stairs to go up to the second floor.

She also stated that this would add some living space to the second floor.  Ms. Bolyard stated that they would like to remove the single double hung window and replace it with a patio French door.  She stated that there would also be an additional deck. 

Lastly, Ms. Bolyard stated that they are proposing to paint the existing home - Shutters and door/blue (evening hush) and the primary house color – yellow.  Mr. Burriss asked if something could be done with the chimney.  He realized that this was not part of the application.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the addition has a higher level of detail than the existing structure.  Ms. Bolyard stated that they are looking at doing canned lights (it was noted that this was not included in the application).  Mr. Burriss stated that as a neighbor he would like to see consistency and he would prefer to see the shutters that are on the front of the home be added to the four windows on the side of the home.  He stated that he applauds the applicant’s use of shutters over garage doors.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would encourage the use of shutters on this structure because there isn’t much else in terms of detail on the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see shutters at the east elevation of the structure and he noted that the property to the east has spent time and money to develop patio are and tried to bring all facades of that property up to a consistent level of attractiveness - and we should request the same thing.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  The Planning Commission asked Ms. Bolyard if she would be ok with adding shutters to the four windows.  Ms. Bolyard stated yes.  Burriss inquired on the proposed railing in the rear and he commented that he wouldn’t want it to look like a deck railing.  Ms. Bolyard agreed. 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-91:

 

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes it adds character to the home. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes it is enhancing the existing property. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because it is maintenance and upgrading to the property.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing a 2-story addition to the rear of the structure with a roof line that is just slightly lower than the existing roof.

f)        Building Massing: The applicant is proposing adding a 2-story addition to the rear of the structure.  The proposed addition will increase the length of the north-south building footprint from 28 feet to 60 feet, a difference of 32 feet.  The existing home is 42 feet wide; the addition will be 32 feet for the connector and 25 feet wife for the 2-story garage addition.  The proposed addition is consistent in scale with the neighboring homes, as indicated in the aerial titled “S-1, Site Plan.”

g)      Roof Shape: The applicant has indicated that the existing roof pitch is 4:12 and the three proposed roof pitches will also be 4:12.

h)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission stated that the applicant is proposing the following materials:

  1.                                                               i.      Siding (Addition Only): Hardi-plank 4” lap siding, painted yellow
  2.                                                             ii.      Trim (Addition Only): Hardi-plank, 1x6 painted white and yellow – per plan elevations;
  3.                                                           iii.      Shutters: Molded, Aluminum, Painted Dark Blue
  4.                                                           iv.      Steel Garage Doors: Cloplay, Value series, Plain Window
  5.                                                             v.      Man Doors: Reliabilt Steel Doors with full lite and half light; Windows per cut sheet and elevation plan
  6.                                                           vi.      Cedar Decking: Cedar posts and Cedar railings – all painted white
  7.                                                         vii.      Shingles: Asphalt dimensional shingles – Owens Corning – Oakridge to match existing roof
  8.                                                       viii.      Windows: Double-hung, vinyl clad exterior
  9.                                                           ix.      Exposed Concrete Block foundation
  10.                                                             x.      Gutters and Downspouts: Aluminum, white, to match existing gutters and downspouts

i)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission noted that the applicant is proposing the following:

  1.                                                               i.      Window Fenestration: appropriately scaled on each elevation to blend with the existing elevations in height and width;
  2.                                                             ii.      Garage Doors: appropriately scaled and centered below the upper 2nd story windows.  Separation of the garage doors into individual garage doors versus a double garage door particularly helps the balance and symmetry of the eastern elevation;
  3.                                                           iii.      Siding: Hard-plank siding and trim boards are appropriate in scale, and finish to a wood finish is more historically accurate than the aluminum siding on the main house;
  4.                                                           iv.      Windows: The double-hung windows are consistent with the style of the home
  5.                                                             v.      Shutters: The Planning Commission preferred to see shutters not only on the front of the home, but also at the east elevation and above the garage doors

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-91 with the following conditions:

1)         That the applicant adds shutters to the four windows on the east side of the structure. 

 

Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-91 is Approved with the above stated condition. 

 

 

446 East Broadway, Keith and Monique Keegan, Application #08-92

(VBD) Village Business District – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Keith and Monique Keegan and the applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to remove a portion of the parking area and to install additional landscaping.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Monique Keegan.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-92:

Monique Keegan stated that they are proposing removing approximately 50% of the concrete and doing some landscape design that will tremendously enhance what is currently there.  Ms. Keegan stated that they are keeping the garage doors and big windows.  She stated that they may consider making the property Retail space in the future and she questions if she should apply now for the correct number of parking spaces required for Retail spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that the number of spaces that would be required is twelve (12) and Ms. Keegan would also need to apply for a Change of Use.   

Ms. Keegan stated that there would be no problem fitting twelve parking spaces in.  Ms. Terry also stated that a request for signage on the property will come in a future application.  Ms. Keegan clarified that they would be taking out asphalt and resurfacing. 

Mr. Burriss questioned if a dimensional drawing should be required because they have required that applicants provide this in the past.  Mr. Mitchell noted that a drawing was submitted by the applicant, although it is not to scale.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is just trying to ensure that applications are consistent.  Mr. Ryan stated that he does not feel a site plan is required because the application only requests for the removal of asphalt and landscaping.  Mr. Burriss asked if delivery trucks are able to get off the street and pull into the facility.  Ms. Keegan stated that she has checked into this and it will not be a problem.  Assistant Law Director Crites suggested that if the applicant does want to have twelve parking spaces on the property that she amends her application to say so.  Ms. Keegan agreed to have the application amended to accommodate twelve parking spaces. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-92 as amended by the applicant to place 12 parking spaces on the asphalt.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-92 is Approved as amended. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-80:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-80.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-85:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-85.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-86:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-86.  Second by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-88:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-88.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-89:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-89.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-90:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-90.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-91:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-91.  Second by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-92:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-92.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves from the July 28th Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment: 11:35 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

August 11, 2008           (Councilmember O’Keefe and Mr. Burriss noted that they will not be able to attend the August 11th meeting)

August 25, 2008           (Councilmember O’Keefe noted that she will not be able to attend the August 25th meeting.)

 

Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 14, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Lyle McClow, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell and Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Dennis Cauchon, Leslie Newkirk, Doug Helman, Daryl Payne, Brenda Boyle, Bill Troy, Judy McConnell, Todd Mork, Steven Mighton, Jeff McInturf, Jeanne Crumrine, Bill Mickey, John Noblick, Kevin Reiner, Lisa McKivergin, Brittany Hayes, Barbara Franks, and Courtney Campbell.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

116 North Pearl Street, Leslie Newkirk, Application #08-69

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Leslie Newkirk.  The applicant is requesting approval for a projecting sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Leslie Newkirk.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-69:

Leslie Newkirk, Clouse Lane, stated that she would like to place a more prominent and vigilant sign up with earthy colors.  She added that the sign fits within the Code parameters.  Ms. Reeves asked if the sign would be located in the same location.  Ms. Newkirk stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed materials are wood and metals and the application does meet the color requirements. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-69:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the materials would be wood and metal.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the Use of Details are consistent.

g)      Signage: The Planning Commission concluded that all of the requirements were met by the applicant.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion that Application #08-69 be approved as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-69 is Approved as submitted. 

 

14 Westgate Drive, Bill Mickey, Application #08-71

(CSD) Community Service District

The application was submitted by Bill Mickey for approval of a temporary sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Mickey.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-71:

Mr. Mickey stated that the previous owner let the permit for the temporary ‘Other Sign’ expire and he would like the permit to be extended through December 2008.  Mr. Mickey stated that the current owner of the building may have a buyer and he does not yet want to invest in a permanent sign until he knows whether or not he will remain in the building.  Ms. Terry explained that the banner had previously been approved by the Planning Commission under ‘Other Signs.’  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission did previously approve a banner, but there were later balloons and a truck with another sign parked outside of the establishment.  He asked if this would happen again.  Mr. Mickey stated that he is asking for approval of the banner only. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-71 as submitted for a temporary period  through December 2008.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-71 is approved as submitted through December 2008. 

 

221 West Broadway, Jim and Joy Jung, Application #08-72

VID (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Jim and Joy Jung and the applicant is requesting approval of copper gutters and downspouts.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-72:

John Noblick, stated he is representing the Jerry McClain Company, 51 North Third Street, Newark, Ohio.  Mr. Noblick stated that the copper gutters and downspouts have already been installed.  He stated that when the renovations were done to the home four years ago they thought this approval included the gutters and downspouts.  Mr. Noblick stated that the owners, Jim and Joy Jung, did not believe the gutters and downspouts were necessary – so they chose not to install them at that time.  Mr. Noblick stated that with the recent rains it is apparent that they do need the gutters and downspouts. 

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, stated that he lives next door to the property.  He stated that he believes the Jung’s have done a fantastic job with the property and preserving the historical character of the home.  He added that he was pleased to see the copper gutters and downspouts installed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-72:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the

Village District.  Yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing copper gutters and down spouts which are complimentary to the style and design of the existing structure.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing copper gutters and down spouts.  The gutters are half round in shape and are appropriate to the scale and overall design concept of the building.

g)       

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-72 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-72 is approved as submitted. 

 

224 East Broadway, Brittany Hayes, Application #08-74

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Britney Hayes for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications, as follows:

1)                  Replacement of all existing wood windows with vinyl windows;

2)                  Replacement of all existing wood doors with steel doors;

3)                  Add two new steel doors on the eastern side elevation; and

4)                  Remove existing doors and windows on the front elevation and replace with two sets of French doors on both the lower and upper levels.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Brittany Hayes.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-74:

Brittany Hayes stated that their plan is to the restore the structure to what is currently in place.  Councilmember O’Keefe commented on the location of the French doors.  Ms. Hayes stated that they believed they would look best if they were centered.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the side stairwell would be replaced.  Ms. Hayes stated that if this is necessary they will replace it.  Ms. Terry noted that the application does not include a ‘Change of Use.’  Members of the Planning Commission showed concerns over the use of vinyl.  Ms. Hayes stated that both properties on each side of 224 East Broadway have vinyl.  She also stated that at this point it is undetermined what will happen with the exterior air-conditioning unit.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has no problem with the application, but he does question the replacement of wood with vinyl and steel.  He also noted that this Board is not a precedent setting commission.  Mr. Ryan asked the applicant if they considered wood.  Mr. McClow added if they considered vinyl clad.  Ms. Hayes commented that the maintenance and upkeep of vinyl is preferred.  Ms. Terry suggested going through the criteria to see if the presented materials and textures are allowed in the AROD district.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the existing windows are rotting.  Ms. Hayes stated that they are in very poor condition and they hope to replace them with simulated divided light windows.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired if the wood trim would remain.  Ms. Hayes stated yes.  Mr. Ryan added that they prefer to see wood when possible.  Mr. McClow stated that he understands that wood may not always be practical – especially with doors.  The applicant, Ms. Hayes, indicated that the new windows and doors would all be white.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-74:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it is improving what is currently in place.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the building is close to being torn down and these improvements will greatly enhance the structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and they added that they approve of keeping the porch and railings along with adding the French doors.

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

a)                  Replacement of all windows (currently wood, double hung) with vinyl windows, double hung.  All new windows will also have grilles between the window panes.

b)                  Replacement of all doors (currently wood) on the west, north, and east sides with new Thermatru doors (exceptions noted on the plans).  The doors will be white with half glass at the top and grids. 

c)                  Removal of two (2) windows on eastern elevation and replacement with two (2) new Thermatru doors, to match other replacement doors as outlined in b. above – see submitted elevation for further information.

d)                  Front Southern Elevation:

1)                  Upper Level:  Removal of two double hung windows and a door.  Replacement with two (2) pairs of Thermatru double French doors with grids, centered on either side of the middle column.  See submitted elevation for further information. 

2)                  Lower Level:  Removal of one wide window and two (2) doors.  Replacement with two (2) pairs of Thrematru French doors with grids, centered on either side of the middle column.  See submitted elevation for further information. 

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing removal of windows and doors on both the upper and lower level of the front elevation of the structure. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to Approve Application #08-74 as stated in the application and as follows: 

            1)         The replacement of wood windows with vinyl windows;           

            2)         The replacement of wood doors with steel doors; and

            3)         The removal of doors and windows on the front elevation and replacement                    with four (4) sets of double French doors.

 

Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.   

 

Application #08-72 is approved as submitted. 

 

124 South Main Street, Lisa McKivergin, Application #08-75

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Lisa McKivergin and the applicant is requesting approval of a of replacement panels for a freestanding sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Lisa McKivergin.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-75:

Mr. Ryan asked if the size of the sign will remain the same and will it be internally illuminated.  Ms. McKivergin stated that the size will be the same and it will not be illuminated.  She stated that it will be a plexiglas sign with vinyl lettering.  Ms. Reeves asked if the sign will be double-sided.  Ms. McKivergin stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that the application does meet all the Code requirements and it is three colors – red, white, and blue.  Ms. McKivergin stated that she will use the existing frame for the sign and it is taupe to match the color of the building. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-75:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the sign is compatible with other signs in the district. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. McClow concluded yes, however Ms. Reeves stated that she is unsure.  Ms. McKivergin noted that she is required to use the ReMax logo for her sign. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  Ms. Reeves noted that the materials and texture will be the same as what was previously in place and it will be a different design.

f)       Use of Details: The applicant is proposing a Plexiglas sign with red, white, and blue lettering.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-75 provided it is not internally illuminated.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-75 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

200 Speedway Drive, Jeanne Crumrine, Application #08-76

PCD (Planned Commercial District)

The application was submitted by Jeanne Crumrine and the applicant is requesting approval of a temporary sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Jeanne Crumrine.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-76:

Jeanne Crumrine stated that she would like to place the sign on wood posts facing Route 16 to advertise space for lease.  Ms. Reeves asked if the sign would be single sided and Ms. Crumrine stated yes.  Ms. Terry noted that if the application is approved a permit would be issued for one year and the application would be approved under ‘Other Signs.’

 

Mr. McClow made a motion to approve a 3 x 4 (12 sq. ft.) temporary sign in white and black for Application #08-76.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-76 is approved as submitted. 

 

1820 Newark-Granville Road, Spring Hills Baptist Church, Application #08-77

PUD (Planned Unit Development)

The application was submitted by Jeff McInturf on behalf of Spring Hills Baptist Church and the applicant is requesting approval of a parking lot expansion in the front of the building, adding 93 additional parking spaces. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, Daryl Payne, Dennis Cauchon, Steve Mighton, Brenda Boyle, Bill Troy, Judy McConnell, Todd Mork, and Doug Helman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-77:

Jeff McInturf, Spring Hills Church, stated that the growing congregation is in need of additional parking.  He stated that they would like to add 93 spaces.  Mr. McInturf stated that they have added mature landscaping to shield the housing development and they intend to extend an earthen mound.  He added that a new parking configuration and extension would be more conducive to school bus traffic.  Mr. McClow asked for the exact location of the parking lot.  Mr. McInturf reviewed the proposed plans with the Planning Commission.  He stated that they are using an architect who specialized in urban design and parking.  Councilmember O’Keefe clarified that the plans actually say 23 spaces will be reworked, while 70 would be added.  Mr. McInturf agreed.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked how close the parking lot would be to the development.  Ms. Terry stated that the setback requirement is fifteen (15) feet and the proposal is for approximately thirty-four (34) feet.

 

Assistant Law Director Allison Crites explained that the application does not meet the off-street parking requirement because it is in front of a structure.  She stated that the Planning Commission must determine if the application would entail a change in the original development plan submitted (and later approved) by the applicant.  If there is a significant change, Assistant Law Director Crites explained that the Planning Commission is charged with making a recommendation to Village Council regarding the application.  She stated that Village Council would make the final determination of the application – if the Planning Commission finds that there is indeed change to the development plan.  Mr. Ryan stated that someone approved the Planned Development Plan with parking in the front of the structure.  He questioned how this came to be.  Ms. Crites stated that the original plan showed a different configuration with parking in the front of the building.  It was noted that the original master plan did show a sanctuary in the proposed location of the parking lot and this was not included in the final approval by Village Council.  Assistant Law Director Crites noted Chapter 1183 of the Code which states that parking should not be in front of a building structure in several districts beyond the Planned Development District. 

 

The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that Application #08-77 would be a significant change to the Planned Unit Development plan and agreed to make a recommendation to Village Council with Village Council making the final determination on approval/denial of the application.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Doug Helman, 105 Wicklow Drive, stated that his property would have full view of the proposed parking lot.  He stated that there is no landscape mounding in front of his property as there is with other properties along Wicklow Drive.  He stated that the church has planted some crab apple trees which provide some barrier, but not much.  Mr. Helman stated that a huge concern to him is water drainage.  He questioned how water would funnel off of the parking lot.  Mr. Helman stated that head lights from cars will also shine into his home and he would appreciate any buffering to alleviate this issue.  Mr. Helman also stated that he has only observed parking in the current grassy area a handful of times and this calls into question the need for additional parking.

 

Todd Mork, 129 Wicklow Drive, stated that he has no problems with Spring Hills Church and his daughter attends a preschool there.  He stated that the area near his home is very wet and he is concerned with drainage.  He went on to say that previous work done at the church some time ago causes him to worry that the water drainage problem will not get better.  Mr. Mork stated that lighting is also a concern and an impact will be negative lighting at night. 

 

Daryl Payne, 100 Bantry Drive, stated that he is a trustee for the Village Green area.  He stated that there has been a problem in the past with standing water.  He added that there was supposed to be a holding pond for excess water that is now a gravel area in the rear of the property.  Mr. Payne stated that he can see having lights on during an event, but they ought to be off/limited when the facility is not in use.

 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 Broadway, stated that the only giant asphalt covered area within the Village is at Granville Market/Abe’s.  He stated that you do not see giant asphalt parking lots because the Code does not allow them and they are not a distinct architectural feature in Granville.  Mr. Cauchon stated that he has researched the minutes from when the church was originally building and there were two members of the Planning Commission who opposed to allowing the parking lot in the front.  The final vote was four to zero with one abstention.  He added that the minutes state that there had to be green space in front of the parking lot in order to get approval for the original parking lot in the front of the building.  Mr. Cauchon stated that his calculations show that the church planned to refigure part of their parking lot to gain parking spaces and place more asphalt for approximately 70 spaces.  He suggested that the church should refigure their additional parking lot and the Planning Commission ought to not grant more asphalt.  Mr. Cauchon stated that the Code does not allow for asphalt and this is because the Comprehensive Plan doesn’t allow for it for a reason.  Mr. Cauchon stated that it was a mistake to approve the parking lot in the front of a structure years ago and there is no reason to expand it. 

 

Steve Mighton, 125 Cassidy Court, stated that he lives to the north of the church.  He stated that he would support Mr. Cauchon’s idea on refiguring the parking lot to add additional parking.  He asked if there could be a compromise to do less parking.  Mr. Mighton stated that light has also been a problem – with headlights.  He stated that there will be a visual impact because he can look over now and see green lawn and if the application is approved he will see asphalt. 

 

Brenda Boyle, 1133 Wicklow Drive, stated that when it downpours the catch basin and ditch are fill.  She stated that water is a big issue.  Ms. Boyle added that there is no shielding from lighting for her property.  She stated that she not only experiences light pollution, but also noise pollution.  Ms. Boyle stated that there are often vehicles left running in the parking lot and they also had to endure the pollution from a bus running for eight hours.  Ms. Boyle stated that if the church is brought 35 feet away from the development – there will be negative impacts for the residents and she opposes any expansion of asphalt.

 

Bill Troy, 109 Wicklow Drive, stated that he has spent $2400 in additional landscaping to shield the negative impacts he experiences.  He stated that the parking lot expansion will mean more lights shining into his home and others.  Mr. Troy stated that buses will also be closer to his property.  He added that he didn’t expect to have a parking lot in his back yard when he moved to the home.  He stated that he knew there was a church and he had no problem with the expansion a few years back. 

 

Judy McConnell, 1812 Newark-Granville Road, stated that there is certainly noise pollution with screeching tires at all hours of the night. 

 

Brenda Boyle, 1133Wicklow Drive, stated that her home was one of the first homes in the development.  Ms. Boyle stated that her comments are anecdotal – and she has no evidence – but her sense is that the parking lot has not been full on most days.  Mr. McClow asked Ms. Boyle if she has dampness in her basement.  Ms. Boyle stated no.

 

Jeff McInturf, stated that the church wants to be good neighbors to everyone and they in no way want to have a negative impact on someone’s life or lifestyle.  He added that the church has worked with the Village Engineer to help alleviate the water problem and the church has been assured that they have done nothing to cause the water problems that exist in the development.  Mr. McInturf stated that water flows to the lowest point and he believes that the water problems were created at the point the development was created.  He stated that the gravel area in the rear of the property is mandated by the Ohio EPA and they did have parking on the gravel area until there were complaints and they stopped parking there.  Mr. McInturf stated that the church is not opposed to working with the neighbors and everyone to ensure that any problems are worked out.  He stated that they would like to work in a cooperative effort and they do not exasperate any problems.  As for the water drainage, Mr. McInturf stated that the church has spent money to try to alleviate issues and they would be willing to look at a ditch to sheet water off more quickly if this could be a shared cost. 

 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to recommend denial of Application #08-77 to Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-77 goes to Village Council with a recommendation by the Planning Commission to deny the application.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-69:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-69.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-71:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-71.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-72:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-72.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-74:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-74.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-75:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-75.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-76:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-77.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-77:

The Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria for Application #08-77 resulted in forwarding a letter of recommendation to Village Council to deny the application. 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-69.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. McClow made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss and Tom Mitchell from the July 14th Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

June 23, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the June 23, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:10 PM. 

Mr. McClow moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

July 28, 2008               (Ms. Reeves noted that she will not be able to attend the July 28th  meeting.)

August 11, 2008           

Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 23, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Robert Karaffa, Richard Downs, Dr. Fred Karaffa, Larry Hottle, Vie Hottle, Jim and Andrea DeSapris, David Schnaidt, Don and Jill DeSapri, Dena McKinley, Brian Miller, and Carla Beckerly. 

 

Citizen’s Comments:

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, stated that his comments are regarding Section 1161.02 of the Code – Criteria.  He stated that he has owned two homes in the AROD district and has lived in the community for 37 years.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he has had various projects presented to the Planning Commission over the years including a recent application to remove deteriorated slate and install dimensional shingles.  He stated that he was later made aware he needed approval to install the shingles even though there was a precedent set with other homes in the Village having this type of shingle.  He stated that he was previously denied a variance for two additional feet to install a garage allowing him to park two vehicles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he ended up building a garage that could accommodate one car.  He stated that he also adhered to Planning Commission recommendations to install a window in a closet so the outside appearance of the home would be suitable.  Mr. Schnaidt added that he has implemented changes to various projects to fit the criteria in Section 1161.02 of the Code.  Mr. Schnaidt read aloud the following criteria that the Planning Commission reviews when making a decision on applications for a variance or modifications to a property:

a)                                          Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.

b)                                          Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District

c)                                          Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. 

d)                                          Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived

Mr. Schnaidt stated that he understands that there are limitations to living in the AROD district – and some things may not be allowed in the AROD that are allowed in the Township or elsewhere - yet he and his family still choose to live in this district.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that however harmless or eco-friendly a project seems – as a governing body – you will undoubtedly set a precedence for future applicants which will cause a slippery slope affect and lead in to a multitude of unforeseen future architectural issues.  He stated that living in the AROD district far outweighs any limitations and he would encourage the Planning Commission member’s to take the criteria very seriously and to heart when rendering any decisions tonight or in the future. 

 

 

Old Business:

 

311 North Pearl Street, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Application #08-54

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Robert and Tracee Karaffa for architectural review and approval of solar panels to be located on the southern roof exposure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Robert Karaffa, and Richard Downs (called by Mr. Karaffa to testify.)

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-54:

(Mr. Burriss noted that although he was not in attendance at the June 9th Planning Commission meeting, he did listen to the tape and read the meeting minutes regarding Application #08-54).

 

Richard Downs, 11701 Loudon Street, stated that with respect to objective argument and the criteria that Mr. Schnaidt mentioned, he would like to add that solar panels do enhance, preserve, and protect the historical nature of the Village.  He went on to say that solar panels do not create any pollution and current electricity in the Village is received from coal burning power plants.  He stated that there was recent testimony from a gentleman representing the Baptist Church in town and they are researching solar panels as an economic alternative because of the high cost to heat the church.  Mr. Downs stated that he recently overheard a Village employee, Molly Prasher, speak to someone regarding acid rain affecting the local cemetery.  He stated that it is a known fact that there is a relationship between acid rain and coal burning power plants.  Mr. Downs stated that he would argue objectively that by allowing solar panels the environment is protected and therefore the homes in this town are too.  Mr. Downs stated that he would also like to speak to the historical attitude of this country.  He stated that we have historically prized above anything our independence and our ability to innovate in all times of different types of stress.  He stated that he would argue that this effort by the Karaffa’s represents the very best of the American historical spirit and ought to be encouraged in this community.  

 

Mr. Ryan stated that no one on the Planning Commission has used the word “blight.”  He stated that he does not believe that adding solar panels to a property means Granville is “going down a slippery slope.”  He stated that the Planning Commission is not against solar power or green energy.  Mr. Ryan stated that they must go through the set criteria to see if solar panels are approved.  He also stated that a draft of previous comments regarding the criteria has been distributed. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to close the discussion regarding Application #08-54.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-54:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “a.”   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “b.” 

c)       Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “c.” 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “d.” 

e)       Roof Shape:  The Planning Commission made no further comments.

f)        Materials and Texture: The Planning Commission made no further comments.

g)      Use of Details: The Planning Commission made no further comments.

 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-54 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend Application #08-54 with the following condition: 

1)         That any plant material that dies of natural causes or is removed would be replaced with a similar species with a similar growth size for all trees along North Pearl Street.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned if a precedent would be set for future applications.  Mr. Mitchell did not believe that the condition of approval would apply to any future applications.  Ms. Terry stated that the solar panels are less intrusive due to the side exposure and part of the review of the criteria has been because they are not as visible – verses on a sloped roof facing North Pearl Street.  The Planning Commission agreed that a precedent would not be set and they would handle each individual request/application accordingly.

 

Roll Call Vote to Amend Application 08-54:  Burriss, Reeves, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan. 

Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-54 is amended.  

 

Roll Call Vote on Application #08-54 as amended: Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 4-1. 

 

Application #08-54 is approved as amended with the above stated condition. 

 

New Business:

(Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion regarding Application #08-62 at 7:25 PM and was seated in the audience.)

303 South Main Street, Tom Mitchell, Application #08-62

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Tom Mitchell for approval of modifications to the existing enclosed porch. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Tom Mitchell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-62:

Tom Mitchell, 303 South Main Street, stated that he would like to restore the porch to look as it did originally.  Mr. McClow asked if there would be any steps.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.  Ms. Terry stated that she noticed that the home was being stripped of paint last Fall and she knocked on the door – not knowing it was Mr. Mitchell’s home.  She stated that Mr. Mitchell showed her the duplicated wood trim he was having made by the Amish.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he and Ms. Terry had conversation regarding whether or not Planning Commission approval was warranted being that he considers the work to be a repair, rather than a modification since he is restoring the home to what was originally there.  He stated that Ms. Terry advised him to having Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Burriss complemented the applicant on the quality of the restoration thus far. 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-62:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the modifications will match the other side of the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored to the originally intended proportions on the front façade.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored to represent the way it was originally built.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the style is the way it was originally intended to be.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored to the way past generations had lived. 

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant indicates that they want to remove the existing enclosure and restore it to its original condition, consistent with the porch on the other side of the house.  The Planning Commission should require that the applicant replace the enclosure with the same columns, trim and cornice details as the photograph labeled Exhibit “A.” 

f)        Use of Details: The applicant indicates that they want to remove the existing enclosure and restore it to its original condition, consistent with the porch on the other side of the house.  The Planning Commission should require that the applicant replace the enclosure with the same columns, trim and cornice details as the photograph labeled Exhibit “A.” 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-62 be approved as submitted.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-62 is Approved as submitted. 

 

(Mr. Mitchell returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:40 PM)

 

 

328 East Elm Street, James and Andrea DeSapri, Application #08-63

(VRD) Village Residential District, (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District

The application is submitted by James and Andrea DeSapri and the request is for a approval of a five-foot rear and side yard privacy fence.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James DeSapri.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-63:

Jim DeSapri, 328 East Elm Street, stated that they would like to install a rear and side yard fence that he researched to be historically appropriate.  Mr. McClow asked if the fence would be in the same location as the previous chain link fence.  Mr. DeSapri stated that it would be in the same linear run.  Mr. McClow asked if there have been any issues with the neighbors.  Mr. DeSapri stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the fence would be five foot high – shadow box – “dog ear” style.  Mr. DeSapri confirmed that this is true.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-63:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed fence is a continuation and replacement of the existing fence.  Mr. Burriss added that the proposed fence of natural material is an improvement from the existing chain link fence already in place.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the newly proposed material is a natural material as opposed to the chain link fence already in place.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell added that by renewing and upgrading the fence it adds to the vitality of the historic district.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a wood “dog ear” shadowbox style fence which is a natural material.

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing construction of a five (5’) foot wood privacy fence – natural finish.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-63 as submitted.   Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-63 is Approved as submitted. 

 

 

314 East Broadway, Anthony Beckerley for the Granville Inn, Application #08-64

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Anthony Beckerley and the request is for architectural review and approval of the following modifications: 1) awning replacements above the front patio enclosure, adjacent alcoves, and the offices along the western side of the building; 2) wood garage door replacements facing East Broadway.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Carla Beckerley.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-64:

Carla Beckerley, 210 North Granger Street, stated she is representing Granville Hospitality, LLC.  She stated that a painting in the Granville Inn depicts the original awnings being similar to what they are proposing and it is more historic than what is currently in place.  She stated that they did not have much choice in fabric because they had to use a fire retardant material.  Ms. Beckerley stated that the changes are due to damage in a March storm.  Mr. Burriss asked if the Roman key detail would be on each awning.  Ms. Beckerley stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the material they have chosen is mildew resistant.  Ms. Beckerley stated that the material is the best offered by Sunbrella.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has used their materials in the past and they are mildew resistant.  The Planning Commission discussed whether or not there would be windows in the proposed garage doors.  Ms. Beckerley stated that the circled multiple window option on the application is a mistake and it is their intent to replace the doors as they currently are.  Ms. Terry stated that they do not require approval if they are an exact replacement. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-64:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed modifications are historically correct for the structure.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed modifications are historically correct for the structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss added that the proposed modifications compliment the recent paint job done by the applicant.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Roof Shape:  The applicant is proposing replacement of the outdoor patio awning, alcove awnings and side office awnings.  None of these awnings affect the actual roof shape.  The height of the outdoor patio awnings was limited by the upper story windows, but does provide a pitched appearance, consistent with the building roof form.

f)       Materials and Texture: The applicant has indicated that they want to replace the existing awnings with a Sunbrella material, which is a material that is consistently used for awning construction.  The applicant further indicated that after their original awning was destroyed by the March snowstorm they were required to replace the awning with a new fire coded fabric because the building is used as a hotel.  The proposed garage doors are wood panels with windows – exact replacement of existing garage doors.

g)      Use of Details: The applicant has indicated that they would like to replace the existing awnings with a new design and solid pattern (existing awnings are striped).  The solid colored awnings are more consistent with the style of the building and coordinate with the existing Granville Inn sign.  The applicant is also proposing replacement of the existing garage doors with new wood garage doors – to replicate the doors currently in place.  This is also consistent with the architecture of the building.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-64 with the following conditions: 

1)                  That the applicant shall be required to replace the garage doors to represent the garage doors currently in place;

2)                  That the Roman key pattern to incorporated in the awnings.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Burriss, Mitchell Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-64 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

(Mr. Ryan excused himself from the remainder of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 PM )

 

Additional Review of the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions:

The Planning Commission resumed review of the Zoning Code Revisions on page 29 Section 1157.14 Accessory Uses and Structures.  The Planning Commission believed that the square footage foot print ought to be changed from 750 square foot to 864 foot.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would then accommodate a three car garage – 24 x 36.  Ms. Reeves agreed.  The Planning Commission also suggested that 30% should be changed to 40%.  In Section (f):

“The maximum number of accessory buildings or structures on a single lot or parcel shall not exceed two, of which only one may contain more than 144 square feet of gross floor area.”

 

The Planning Commission suggested striking the words “or structures.” 

 

The Planning Commission also suggested adding the PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning as part of Section 1157.14 Accessory Structures. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe suggested that the 50% lot coverage allotment for pools ought to also be the same for the SRD (Suburban Residential District) and PUD (Planning Unit Development.)

 

The Planning Commission ended their review at 9:00 PM on page 30 Section 1157.15 ‘Prohibited Uses In A Yard.’

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-62:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-62.  Second by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell (recuse).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-63:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-63.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-64:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-64.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Other Matters:

Ms. Terry noted that the July 14th Planning Commission meeting has many applications on the agenda.  She stated that there will likely not be enough time to further review the zoning code changes and she anticipates further review at the July 28th Planning Commission meeting.

 

Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has always required that fencing be finished with either paint or stain.  Ms. Reeves stated that there is nothing in the Code requiring this.  Ms. Terry agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has made this a condition of approval in the past and he stated that if there is nothing in the Code requiring that fencing be finished this ought to be changed.  Assistant Law Director Alison Crites stated that she could review the language in the Code regarding finishing fences. 

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from a portion of the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

 

May 27, 2008

No action taken.

 

June 9, 2008

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the June 9, 2008 meeting minutes as presented.  Second by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss (abstain), Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

June 16, 2008 – Special Planning Commission Meeting

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the June 16, 2008 meeting minutes as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell (abstain).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:00 PM. 

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

July 14, 2008

July 28, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 2008 Special Meeting

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING

June 16, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell

Staff Present: Village Planner Alison Terry, Village Manager Don Holycross, and Clerk of Council Mollie Prasher

Visitors Present: Mr. and Mrs. Sagaria

 

Chair Ryan stated that the Commission would discuss the suggested revisions to the zoning code first and permit public comment at the end of the meeting.

 

New Business:

 

  1. Public Hearing on Proposed General Zoning Code Revisions, to

       Amend Sections 1109.11, 1133.03, 1135.01, 1137.01, 1137.02, 1137.05, 1137.07,

       1137.08, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, 1141.06, 1143.04, 1145.03,

       1145.04, 1147.03, 1147.04, 1149.01, 1149.02, 1149.03, 1159.02, 1159.03,

       1159.04, 1159.05, 1161.01, 1161.02, 1161.03, 1163.01, 1163.02, 1163.03,

       1167.02, 1167.03, 1175.02, 1175.04, 1175.05, 1183.01, 1183.03, and 1189.03,

       and to Amend and Change the Section Number of Sections 1137.03, 1137.04,

       1137.05, 1137.06, 1137.07 and 1137.08, and To Enact New Sections 1137.03,

       1137.10, 1157.14, 1157.15 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of

       Granville, Ohio.

 

The Planning Commission began their review with section 1137.07.

 

1137.07

 

The Commission indicated that they had issues with the fee structure in this section.  They also indicated that there could be issues with the Village handling cash deposits.  Tim Ryan indicated that he understood the need to protect public lands, especially when projects involved road construction and larger developments, but felt the $25,000 project amount with a $5,000 cash deposit seemed excessive.  The Commission suggested that a bond or letter of credit could be sufficient.  They also indicated that the dollar amount of the project ($25,000) could be increased so as not to cause a hardship for residents.  The Commission requested that staff provide more research regarding what other communities’ policies were or other possible remedies. 

 

1137.08

 

The Commission recommended adding the word “written” in Section 1137.08 (b)(3) to read as follows “Disobey or disregard any lawful written order of the Zoning Inspector.”

 

1137.09

 

Mr. McClow asked the process to violate residents.  Planner Terry indicated that the violator would be advised of the violation and given an opportunity to rectify the problem.  If the violator refused to rectify the violation or ignored the violation, the case would be referred to Mayor’s Court.

 

1137.10

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

1139.05

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

1139.06 and 1141.06

 

Mr. Ryan expressed concern regarding the language allowing the Village Manager to appeal Planning Commission or Board of Zoning and Building Appeals decisions.  After discussion as to specific situations where the appeal of a decision might be warranted, the Commission recommended changing the language.  They recommend that “Village Manager” be removed and Village Council be permitted to seek an appeal.  The language should read “The Village Council may appeal any such decision with the vote of a simple majority (four members) of Council.”

 

1141.04

 

Planner Terry advised the Commission that staff would like to seek further legal advice regarding the change of language from “structural modifications” to “structural alterations” in Section 1141.04 (b).

 

1141.05

 

Mr. Ryan suggested clarifying the language regarding the conclusion of a hearing as to what constitutes the conclusion.  Manager Holycross suggested adding language to Section 1141.05 (f) in the first sentence following conclusion of hearing “by the Commission, unless waived by the applicant or the application shall be presumed to be denied.”

 

1143.04

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

1145.03

 

Mr. Burriss found the language in Section 1145.03 (b) confusing.   After discussion, the Commission recommended removing “and is compatible with the existing land use.”

 

1145.04

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

1147.03

 

Planner Terry indicated that the majority of the added language in this section was due to the inclusion of the Duncan standards, the current standard and criteria for the approval of variances.  This standard has been developed from previous legal cases.

 

1147.04

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

1149.01

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

1149.02

 

The Commission recommended removing the word “expanded” as it was redundant.

 

1149.03

 

Recommended changes approved.

 

The Planning Commission ended their discussion of the proposed zoning code regulations at page twenty-nine (29), Section 1149.03 and stated that they would continue their discussion beginning with page twenty-nine (29), Section 1157.14 at their next regularly scheduled meeting if time permitted.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Adjournment: 8:59pm

 

Next meetings:

June 23, 2008

July 14, 2008

 

Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 9, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Lyle McClow, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Becky Wagner, Melissa Hilton, Melissa Engel, Sharon Joseph, Laura Evans, James Hartzler, Sharon Joseph, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Richard Downs, Susan Asano, Jane Karaffa, Linda Lynch, Dan Dobbelaer, and Dr. Fred Karaffa.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

Application #08-44 on the June 9, 2008 agenda - submitted by Ed and Donna Jenkins was withdrawn by the applicant.

 

Application #08-47 on the June 9, 2008 agenda – submitted by Centenary United Methodist Church requested tabling the application until July 14, 2008. 

 

311 North Pearl Street, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Application #08-54

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Robert and Tracee Karaffa for architectural review and approval of solar panels to be located on the southern roof exposure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Richard Downs, Linda Lynch and later Laura Evans, Dan Dobbelaer, and Fred Karaffa were invited by the applicant to give testimony.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-54:

Tracee Karaffa, 311 North Pearl Street, submitted letters from adjoining property owners in support of the solar panels installed on her home.  The letters were submitted by Faith A. Wilson at 230 Summit Street and Robert Dold at 305 North Pearl Street.  Mrs. Karaffa stated that each property owner adjoining her property has submitted letters stating that they do not object to the installation of the solar panels.  Linda Lynch, 1340 Welsh Hills Road, stated that she drives by 311 North Pearl Street everyday and you really have to be looking to even notice the solar panels.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the Planning Commission is not assessing whether or not the panels can be seen from the roadway and they must make a decision on the panels after the fact that they have already been installed.  Ms. Lynch stated that a second point she would like to make is regarding the historical character of the home and the installation of solar panels.  Ms. Lynch stated that she has noticed homes with gas meters, air-conditioning units, generators -  and these are not historical in nature.  Ms. Lynch stated that progress is history making and solar panels are the future.  She added that she believes a gas meter on someone else’s home is the same thing as having solar panels.  Laura Evans, 226 South Main Street, stated that she has solar panels on her home and they have saved her many dollars over time.  She stated that she is a local historian and she believes that the application by the Karaffa’s comes at a good time to have a discussion regarding solar panels.  Ms. Evans stated that the only problem she sees with the Karaffa’s application is the fact that they didn’t come to the Planning Commission first before installing them.  Dan Dobbelaer, 1558 Horns Hill Road, Newark, stated that the First Baptist Church in Granville is currently conducting a feasibility study to determine alternative ways to heat the 16,000 square foot church and he is in favor of solar panels.  He stated that solar panels show that we have a progressive community.  Ms. Reeves asked if the home on South Main Street that has solar panels is the home mentioned at the previous Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mrs. Karaffa added that the Elementary School in Granville also has solar panels on ½ of the building – not located in the AROD District.  Mr. McClow asked the savings incurred with solar panels.  Mrs. Karaffa stated that their solar panels have not been on long but they make four times the energy that they consume and she estimates 1/3 savings.  She added that the payback is not financially feasible at the time – when you compare the upfront costs.  Richard Downs, 40174 Loudon Street, discussed several types of solar energy including passive solar architecture – which he has on his home.  He stated that Ms. Evans home on Main Street has solar panels that offer 1/3 savings and he has 60% savings with the solar technology on his home. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-54:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. McClow stated that it all depends on how you define the word “new” regarding Criteria “a.”  Mr. Mitchell stated that he had a discussion with Ms. Terry to see if the Planning Commission has any latitude on interpreting the criteria and it is his belief that they have complete latitude.  He went on to say that he sees solar panels as a utility – just as gas meters or air-conditioning units.  Mr. McClow stated air-conditioning units are required to be screened.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they often are not screened though.  Ms. Terry explained that the Code does not state the criteria SHALL be considered, but rather the final decision should include review of these criteria.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he can justify solar panels because they are not permanently disfiguring the historical nature of the home.  He stated that is a matter of thinking…solar panels are stylistically compatible and this works for him.  Mr. McClow stated that solar panels are attached to the home 365 days per year.  He stated that he does not believe they are stylistically compatible because the integrity of the historical nature of the home is compromised.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is for solar panels but he is not sure that they meet the criteria set forth in the Code as it is today.  Mr. McClow stated that the Ordinances ought to be changed.  Ms. Terry stated that it takes time to do this because you have to have Council write the new language and hold public hearings.  Ms. Reeves stated she is torn on this particular criteria.  She stated that she agrees with Mr. Mitchell that the solar panels are not destroying or impairing the historic nature of the home.  Ms. Reeves stated that there is also another example of solar panels already in the AROD.  Mr. Ryan stated that he does not believe solar panels are compatible with other structures in the AROD District, but he can also see weighing this particular criteria less than some of the others.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that history is alive – and work in progress.  He stated that they will see more applications like this and he feels the Karaffa’s ought to be congratulated for spending money that they know wouldn’t be coming back to them soon.  He went on to say that they are making the community better and he wouldn’t mind seeing solar panels on every home in Granville.  Mr. McClow stated that he does not believe solar panels fit this criteria.  He stated that he is for progress, but in this particular case the solar panels do affect the character of the home.  Linda Lynch stated that she has lived in Granville all of her life and she asked if the Planning Commission member’s want to see Granville remain in a bubble - never moving forward.  Dr. Fred Karaffa, 339 Goose Lane, asked if this application is denied – does this mean we will never see solar panels in Granville?  Ms. Terry explained that the denial of this application does not mean solar panels will not ever be allowed.  She stated that Council can change the Code by Ordinance and this application can also be appealed to Council and approved, remanded, revoked or denied.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission is charged with determining whether or not the Ordinances – as currently written – allow for solar panels.  Dr. Fred Karaffa also asked if there is a legal definition for the word “enhance.”  Assistant Law Director Alison Crites stated that she does not believe the word “enhance” has been litigated in Granville and she reminded anyone giving testimony that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding.  Mr. Ryan stated that his opinion regarding Criteria b is that they have to be very careful on what they allow in the AROD District.  He stated that solar panels may very well upgrade the heating and electrical components, but he does not know how they contribute to the historical character.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it would be best if the Ordinances were modified and given a liberal interpretation of Criteria b – he sees solar panels as warranted. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes based on solar panels being a  renewable energy source.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the improvements help protect and enhance the structure.  Mr. Mitchell stated that solar panels will protect and enhance the home and they also improve the environment.  Ms. Reeves stated that she stands by her previous comments and the solar panels so not detriment the trees.  Mr. McClow stated yes to Criteria d.  Mr. Ryan stated that if solar panels were not put on would the house decay – no.  However, he stated that it appears the consensus to Criteria d is yes.  

e)      Roof Shape:  The solar panels are mounted directly to the roof and follow the same pitch as the existing standing seam metal roof.

f)        Materials and Texture: The solar panels are a new source of energy and environmentally sensitive and the color of the solar panels are consistent with other materials used on the home.

g)      Use of Details: The applicant installed solar panels on the southern roof exposure of their standing seam metal roof and they are consistent with the roof because they are not larger than the existing roof nor do you see any overhang. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #08-54 with the following condition: 

1)         That any plant material that dies of natural causes or is removed would be replaced with a similar species with a similar growth size for all trees along North Pearl Street.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow (no), Reeves (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no). 

Motion carried 2-2.  No action taken.  

 

No action was taken regarding Application #08-54.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that she would research what further action can be taken regarding Application #08-54.

 

 

New Business:

 

115 North Prospect Street, Sharon Joseph, Application #08-56

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Sharon Joseph for a change of use from Category “E”: Retail Outlets to Category “C”: Business and Professional Offices, specifically for an insurance office. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Sharon Joseph.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-56:

Ms. Terry explained the requirements for the Change of Use for Business and Professional Offices.  She stated that the parking requirement would be less than the requirement for Retail Outlets.  Ms. Terry stated that for all intensive purposes – the application is permitted.  Sharon Joseph was available to address any questions or concerns by the Planning Commission. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion that Application #08-56 be approved as submitted.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-56 is Approved as submitted. 

 

 

115 North Prospect Street, Melissa Hilton, Application #08-57

(VRD) Village Residential District, (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District

The application is submitted by Melissa Hilton, and the property owner is Sharon Joseph.  The request is for a projecting wall sign.   

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Melissa Hilton.

Discussion regarding Application #08-57:

The Planning Commission discussed the requirements for Signage. 

“As regulated by the sign regulations, signage will be most significant in communicating the character of the building.  Signage should be discreet and minimal.  Signs oriented to the pedestrian should be small in scale; those oriented toward automobile traffic may be larger.  Color should be subdued, and where appropriate, the architectural character of the sign should be consistent with that of the building.  Signs flush on the building face are in many cases preferable to projecting signs.” 

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would like to install a rectangular HDU foam sign to be placed on an existing wrought iron projecting arm.  The applicant, Melissa Hilton, 776 Westwood Drive, Newark, stated that the actual green on the sign will be a little more subdued than what is depicted in the printed example. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-57 as submitted.   Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-49 is approved as submitted. 

 

317 East Elm Street, Melissa Engel, Application #08-58

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Melissa Engel and the request is for approval of a rear yard six foot privacy fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Melissa Engel.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-58:

Melissa Engel, 317 Elm Street, stated that she attempted to have discussions with both neighbor’s on each side of her regarding her plans, but one neighbor is out of town.  She stated that the Hartfield’s showed no objections to the privacy fence.  Ms. Engel stated that she would like to stain the fence dark chocolate brown on each side.  The Planning Commission noted that the finished side of the fence is to face the neighbors. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-58:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and stated that other privacy fences have been approved in the same zoning district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that there are other homes with fences offering privacy in backyards.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The applicant is proposing a wood “dog ear” style fence which is a natural material.

f)       Use of Details: The applicant is proposing construction of a six (6’) foot wood privacy fence to be “dog ear” style with chocolate brown stain.  The Planning Commission concluded that the overall design is appropriate.

 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-58 with the following conditions: 

            1)         That the applicant shall be required to place the finished side of the fence facing each of the neighbors to the west, east, south, and north. 

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-58 is Approved with the above stated condition. 

 

203 North Plum Street, James Hartzler, Application #08-59

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by James Hartzler and the request is for approval involving replacement concrete sidewalk with a brick pavers sidewalk in the front yard.  The sidewalk is a private sidewalk.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Hartzler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-59:

James Hartzler, 203 North Plum Street, reviewed his plans for the sidewalk.  He stated that he collects brick pavements and he hopes to use some brick pavers from Burg Street.  Mr. Hartzler stated that Mike Flood of Albyn’s Landscape will be doing the work.

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-59:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Enhancement of Pedestrian Environment: The Planning Commission stated that the removing of the broken concrete and replacement with antique street pavers will strongly enhance the environment in front of the historic home.  The applicant also plans to use some pavers from Burg Street. 

f)        Use of Landscape Design: The removal of broken concrete and replacement with antique street pavers will improve the landscape design in front of the historic home and provide a strong connection between the street and home. 

g)      Materials and Textures: The applicant has indicated that they want to remove the existing concrete sidewalk and replace it with antique street paving bricks laid in a modified running bond pattern.  The applicant further indicates that most of the proposed pavers are identical in size and appearance to those which formed the surface of Burg Street until 2006.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #08-59 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-59 is Approved as submitted.

 

222 South Main Street, Doug and Becky Wagner, Application #08-60

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Doug and Becky Wagner and the request is for approval for a freestanding sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Becky Wagner – and later Laura Evans.

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-60:

Ms. Terry stated that the proposed sign is six square feet and twelve square feet is permitted by Code.  Becky Wagner stated that the sign would be cream with black lettering and the post is very close to the post at the veterinary office next door.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be any up-lighting.  Ms. Wagner stated no.  Laura Evans, 221 South Main Street, stated that she is an adjacent property owner.  She stated that she has no objections to the sign but she does question if patrons will mistakenly enter her driveway – rather than the driveway for the retail shop.  Ms. Evans asked if she could put up a private driveway sign if this becomes a problem.  Ms. Terry suggested that Ms. Evans contact her if she notices patrons utilizing her driveway and they can work together on this matter.  Mrs. Wagner stated that she would be willing to work out any problems regarding cars entering the wrong driveway.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-60:

 

The Planning Commission discussed the requirements for Signage. 

“As regulated by the sign regulations, signage will be most significant in communicating the character of the building.  Signage should be discreet and minimal.  Signs oriented to the pedestrian should be small in scale; those oriented toward automobile traffic may be larger.  Color should be subdued, and where appropriate, the architectural character of the sign should be consistent with that of the building.  Signs flush on the building face are in many cases preferable to projecting signs.” 

The Planning Commission indicated that the applicant would like to install an oval shaped wood sign to be placed on a Premium Cast “S” Post System made of aluminum.  The proposed sign will be very similar in style to the sign on the neighboring property for Granville Veterinary Clinic. 

Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission indicates that they would like to install an oval shaped wood sign to be placed on a Premium Cast “S” post system made of aluminum.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-60 as submitted.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-60 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-56:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-56.  Second by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-57:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-57.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-58:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-58.  Second by Mr. McClow.

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-59:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-59.  Second by Mr. McClow.

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-60:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-60.  Second by Mr. McClow.

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the June 9th Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

May 27, 2008

No action taken.

 

Adjournment: 8:55 PM. 

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

June 16, 2008 (Special Hearing on Proposed Zoning Code Changes)

June 23, 2008

July 14, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 27, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell and Lyle McClow

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director, Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Dr. Mark Alexandrunas, Tim and Cathy Klinger, Kevin Ciferno, Chuck Whitman, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Julio Valenzuala, Ed Jenkins, Richard Downs, Roger Dunifon, Susan Asano, Jane Karaffa, and Dr. Fred Karaffa.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

134 ½ East Broadway, Dr. Mark Alexandrunas, Application #08-16

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Dr. Alexandrunas and the property is owned by Elizabeth McKivergin.  The applicant is requesting approval for a projecting wall sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Dr. Mark Alexandrunas.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-16:

Dr. Alexandrunas stated that he would like to place a sign over Victoria’s Parlor for his dentistry office.  Mr. Ryan asked if Lisa McKivergin is ok with the design and proposed placement of the sign.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that Exhibit A is an example of what the Planning Commission previously asked for because it doesn’t place the sign on the fascia board.  Ms. Terry stated that the overall square footage has been reduced from what was originally proposed from 58.53 sq. foot to 57.5 sq. ft. – although this still requires a variance.  Mr. Burriss asked if the window signs will be removed if the projecting sign is approved.  Dr. Alexandrunas answered yes.  Dr. Alexandrunas also provided a sample of the colors he intends to use – black background with metallic gold lettering. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-16:

 

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 districts.  True.  Mr. Burriss added that the Planning Commission has encouraged second floor businesses in the downtown area and these businesses require a 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 the Ordinance.  True.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is a second floor business and Ms. Reeves added that there are existing signs for other second floor businesses in the downtown area. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  True.

d)      That the granting of 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.  True – it will not. 

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.  True.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed brackets on the sign are architecturally consistent with the type of signs the Planning Commission has encouraged for this architectural district. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion that Application #08-16 be approved with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum sign area allowed from 57.5 square feet to 58.53 square feet, according to table 1189B, Village District, General Provisions (4);

2)                  To allow the projecting sign to be located on the building consistent with Exhibit “A;”

3)                  That the reviewed and approved projecting sign shall be as indicated on Exhibit “B;”

4)                  That the approved projected sign shall use colors as indicated on “Exhibit C.” 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-16 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

New Business:

 

219 Summit Street, Tim and Cathy Klingler,, Application #08-49

(VRD) Village Residential District, (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District

The application was submitted by Tim and Cathy Klingler for approval of a two-car detached garage. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tim Klingler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-49:

Mr. Klingler presented the proposed materials he would like to use for the garage.  He stated that it is his intention for the structure to have an authentic colonial feel.  He stated that he would like to stain the ship-lap siding to match the existing home and he presented an example of strap hinges and handles he would like to use.  Mr. Klingler explained that the garage door would appear as though it opens side to side, but it will actually be an overhead garage door.  He stated that the roof will be a 25 year tin roof – in dark green – which will match the existing home.  Mr. Klingler stated that the gutters will be six inch (6”) aluminum – in royal brown.  He stated that they intend to install vinyl clad windows that look as though they are true divided light windows.  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Klingler will be applying for a variance from the BZBA on June 12th.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on water run-off.  Mr. Klingler stated that this has not been a problem and existing water goes in his back yard.  Mr. Burriss complemented the applicant on the clarity and thoroughness with his application and the materials list that he provided. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-49:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes, it is consistent with other historical outbuildings.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes – that it fits well with other physical surroundings.

e)      Height: The Planning Commission concluded that the height fits well with the existing home and existing roof pitch.

f)        Building Massing: The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed garage is split into two sections to help reduce the massing and to help create a better relationship with the existing home.

g)      Roof Shape:  Size/Pitch and materials are consistent with the existing home.

h)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the materials were consistent with the existing home. 

i)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the Use of Details are consistent with the existing home. 

j)        Use of Landscape Design: The Planning Commission concluded that this is consistent with the architectural style. 

 

Mr. Burris made a motion to approve Application #08-49 with the following conditions:

1)                  That a reduction in the side yard setback be approved by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals;

2)                  That the proposed double hung vinyl clad windows be brown in color to complement the existing structure.

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burrris, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

Application #08-49 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

138 East Broadway, Kevin Ciferno of the Soup Loft, Application #08-53

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Kevin Ciferno and the applicant is requesting approval of a sandwich board sign and a neon open sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Kevin Ciferno, and Chuck Whitman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-53:

Ms. Reeves asked if it is correct that the open sign is already hung and in use.  Mr. Ciferno stated yes.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign had previously been approved for a business located next door.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Ciferno would be placing the sandwich board outside only during hours of operation.  Mr. Ciferno stated yes.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the sandwich board sign would allow customers to know if the Soup Loft is open or closed.  Ms. Reeves asked if there were any other buildings with similar situations as this one – with multiple signs for multiple businesses.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a building on North Prospect with multiple signs.  Ms. Terry explained that the square footage of the building determines how many signs are allowed and the storefront of this particular building is small.  Mr. Burriss told the applicant, Mr. Ciferno, that the Planning Commission has been working towards more consistency regarding sandwich board signs.  He stated that they recently discouraged an applicant from having changeable script.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the sandwich board ought to have permanent graphics depicting the name of the business as well as a border around the perimeter of the sign.  He stated that the graphics and color design have had Planning Commission approval for sandwich board signs for Whit’s, B. Hammonds, etc.  Mr. Ciferno stated that he didn’t realize that the Planning Commission was working towards uniformity.  He stated that he feels the written out signs are less corporate, personal, and unique.  Mr. Ciferno agreed that it wouldn’t be hard to put some permanent graphics or logo on the sign. Mr. Ryan stated that he is bothered by the fact that there are so many signs on such a small building.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-53:

 

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 districts.  True.  Ms. Reeves stated that she doesn’t have an answer to this criteria.  Councilmember O’Keefe remarked that there is nothing on the second floor to indicate that a business is there.  Mr. Ryan stated that there is a special circumstance because there is a retail business on the second floor of a building with a narrow store front. 

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 the Ordinance.  True.  Ms. Reeves stated that other sandwich board signs have been approved for other businesses.  Mr. Burriss added that the Planning Commission has moved towards more professional looking signs. 

c)      That the special conditions and circumstances do not results from the actions of the applicant.  No.

d)      That the granting of 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.  True – it will not.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is charged with looking at each individual case and the applicant is not being given any undue privilege.

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.  It will not.

 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-53 with the following conditions: 

1)                  Variance to increase the maximum sign area allowed from 36.25 square feet to 48.75 square feet, according to Table 1189B, Village District, General Provisions, (4);

2)                  Variance to increase the maximum number of individual signs per store front from four (4) to six (6)

3)                  Variance to increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs per building from one (1) to two (2);

4)                  That the sandwich board sign shall only be permitted to be placed within the Sidewalk Café Area, as indicated in Exhibit “A,”

5)                  That the sandwich board sign shall be required to be removed and secured indoors during non-business hour’s.

6)                  The sandwich board sign shall have a permanent graphics package to be placed on both sides indicating the name of the business.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-53 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

311 North Pearl Street, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Application #08-54

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Robert and Tracee Karaffa for architectural review and approval of solar panels to be located on the southern roof exposure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Richard Downs - and later Jack Thornborough and Ed Jenkins.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-54:

Mr. Ryan wanted to confirm that the solar panels had already been placed on the home.  Mr. Karaffa stated yes and they clip on.  He stated that because they are not permanently attached to the home he did not believe that approval was required by the Planning Commission.  He stated that he did get approval from the Licking County Building Department.  Mr. Karaffa stated that he did get Planning Commission approval to put a new roof on the home several years ago.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that this is another example of people not knowing that approval is required.  Ms. Terry agreed and she stated that she is working on an article to have published in the newspaper making people aware of this.  Richard Downs, 40174 Loudon Street, stated that he is speaking as a citizen.  He stated that he does have familiarity with these types of solar systems and he fully supports the Karaffa’s endeavors.  He urged the Planning Commission to consider allowing these types of solar energy measures.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission received two letters in support of the solar panels from neighbors – The Contini’s and the Moller’s.  Mr. Ryan asked Assistant Law Director Crites what would happen if anyone answered no for one of the criteria they had to cover when considering the application.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that this is not entirely clear or spelled out in the Code.  She stated that in the past if a “no” answer resulted after discussion of the Standards and Criteria this has resulted in denial of the application.  She added that the Commission can put different weights on each individual criteria.  Mr. Ed Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, stated that an air-conditioning unit is not part of a home’s historical character and he asked if solar panels could be considered the same – especially if you can’t see them due to foliage.  Mr. Robert Karaffa added that they did leave an apple tree and peach tree in place even though they lost 30% of the solar gain by leaving the trees in place and the panels are not highly visible.  Ms. Reeves inquired if solar panels have ever been rejected on an application.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that they would have to review the records to find out.  Richard Downs stated that there are other homes with solar panels throughout Granville, including some on West Maple Street.  Ms. Terry stated that she became aware of the solar panels by way of documentation from the Licking County Building Department.  Tracee Karaffa inquired on how outdoor generators are allowed in the AROD district.  Ms. Terry stated that they should be approved by the Village through AROD approval, as the Code reads now.  Mr. Burriss stated that with air-conditioning units they generally require screening of some type – typically landscaping.  Mr. Burriss stated that this (solar panels) clearly needs to be addressed but it just hasn’t as of now.  Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, asked if he could be invited by the applicant to speak since he doesn’t have standing in this particular matter.  Mr. Karaffa had no objection.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he is terribly tormented by this situation because he has been vocally insistent that the AROD district ought to be kept pristine.  He suggested that the Planning Commission ought to approve the application with a plea to Village Council to allow solar panels.  He stated that they are relatively innocuous and solar panels are the wave of the future.  Mr. Thornborough stated that there is no way that the solar panels can be approved by the way the current law reads and since no one has stood in objection to the installation he feels they should be approved.  Mr. Ryan stated that they cannot do that given their current guidelines.   Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she does not believe the solar panels take away from the historical character of the home.  Richard Downs stated that the Code calls to enhance the historical district and the solar panels allow the home to continue to exist in the future.  He went on to say that the integrity and historical character are not affected.  Mr. Downs stated that there are scores of historical buildings – nationally – that utilize solar energy and this ought to be further researched.  Ms. Terry asked Mr. Karaffa if the solar panels can be easily removed.  Mr. Karaffa stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked how one can upgrade the heating and wiring – etc. according to these standards and criteria.  Ms. Terry stated that these do not require Planning Commission approval because they are inside the home.  Ms. Reeves stated that her biggest concern is approval after the fact, after the panels have already been installed.  She stated that she is new to the board and she would agree with Mr. Burriss’s greater knowledge regarding this matter.  The Planning Commission discussed whether or not additional trees could block the view of the solar panels.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would go along with this idea, but she didn’t necessarily see a need to impose additional foliage.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant should be required to replace any existing trees, were they to deteriorate or die, on North Pearl Street with a similar species of tree.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-54:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Ryan stated that this was not weighed strongly, but the Planning Commission concluded that it is compatible with one other structure – the Evan’s House.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is unsure solar panels are stylistically compatible given the current Village Ordinances.  Ms. Reeves stated she was unsure of an answer.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that they have approved skylights in the past.    

b)   Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that by allowing and promoting a more efficient use of the natural resources it would extend the historic character of the Village District for the future.  Mr. Burriss added that the panels could be installed and not detract from the historical nature.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that history changes and upgrading your home to save the planet could be considered preserving the historical character.  Mr. Ryan stated that he can not see how the solar panels upgrade the historical character in the Village District.  He stated that he is not saying that he does not agree with what has been done, but he feels they need to follow the Ordinances that are currently in place.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is true that some solar panel installations can cut into a home and not be as harmonious as this particular application.  Mr. Burriss stated that the solar panels allow for more efficient use of natural resources and they are consistent with changes made to the home from initial coal burning furnaces to a heating system.  Mr. Ryan asked how the Planning Commission would feel if an application came through to place solar panels on Monomoy House.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes it could be done and not detract from the historical nature of the home. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes based on solar panels being a  renewable energy source.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the improvements help protect and enhance the structure.  Ms. Reeves stated that they do no detriment to the trees.  – Mr. Burriss stated that if they keep a historical home in tact they are preserving and protecting.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t know how the Planning Commission can overcome this obstacle with the current code provisions.

e)      Roof Shape:  The solar panels are mounted directly to the roof and follow the same pitch as the existing standing seam metal roof.

f)       Materials and Texture: The solar panels are not a natural material, but they are a new source of energy and environmentally sensitive.  Mr. Burriss added that the color of the solar panels is consistent with other materials used on the home.

g)      Use of Details: The applicant installed solar panels on the southern roof exposure of their standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Burriss stated that the solar panels are consistent with the roof because they are not larger than the existing roof nor do you see any overhang. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Approve Application #08-54 with the following conditions: 

1)         That any existing landscaping be replaced with a similar species with the same potential growth size for all trees along North Pearl Street.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (no). 

Motion carried 2-1.  No action taken.   

Mr. Ryan stated that he would like to clarify why he voted no.  He stated that he is not in disagreement with solar panels and he is voting based on the criteria of the Ordinances currently before him.  He suggested that Village Council create an Ordinance to deal with matters such as these.  He informed the applicant that the matter could be re-addressed at a future Planning Commission meeting when all members are present.  Mr. Karaffa inquired on how the application could get approved with the current language being as it is – even if the matter is heard by the entire Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Karaffa’s would need one additional vote for the matter to be approved.    

 

No action was taken regarding Application #08-54.

 

133 South Pearl Street, Julio Valenzuala, Application #08-55

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Julio Valenzuala and the applicant is requesting approval of a rear and side yard six foot privacy fence.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuala.

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-55:

Mr. Valenzuala stated that he would like to install a six foot (6’) “dog ear” style privacy wood fence.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be any gates.  Mr. Valenzuala stated no.  Mr. Burriss asked how the fence will be finished.  Mr. Valenzuala stated that he will stain the fence to match the trim on the home. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-55:

 

f)       Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

g)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that there are other homes with fences in the backyard.

h)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

i)        Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and back yards were certainly used by past generations. 

j)        Materials and Texture:  The applicant is proposing a wood “dog ear” style fence which is a natural material;

k)     Use of Details: The applicant is proposing construction of a six foot (6’) wood privacy fence. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-55 with the following conditions:

1)                  That the stain match the trim color on the existing home;

2)                  That the applicant shall be required to place the finished side facing each of the neighbors to the west and north. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-55 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

Work Session:

The Planning Commission reviewed what information they still needed from Mr. Ed Jenkins concerning Application #08-44.  Mr. Jenkins indicated that he would gather the needed information and come before the Planning Commission for approval at a later time.

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #08-16:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-16.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #08-49:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-49.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-53:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-53.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-55:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-55.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Lyle McClow and Tom Mitchell from the May 27th Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

May 12, 2008

Mr. Burriss clarified that the condition for Application #08-41 - Denison University should state that the staff will revisit the lighting issue every three months for ONE YEAR. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes of May 12, 2008 as amended.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:25 PM. 

Mr. Burris moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

June 9, 2008 and June 23, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 12, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Jim and Joy Jung, David Schnaidt, Sam Schnaidt, Art Chonko, Connie Westbrook, John Noblick, and Mr. and Mrs. Peter Puze.

 

New Business:

240 West Broadway, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-41

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Art Chonko and the applicant is requesting approval of exterior site lighting.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Art Chonko, and Jack Thornborough. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-41:

Art Chonko stated that they are interested in lighting Burke Hall – particularly the entrances.  He stated that their intent is to use more lighting when they are having particular events at Burke Hall and less lighting when the facility is not in use.  Mr. Chonko provided a plan listing the various types of lighting they propose to use.  It included:

Green highlights – up lighting

Pink highlights – capped ballard lighting

Purple highlights – wall lighting and push lighting on the sidewalk

Blue highlights – to be used to shine at entrances and possibly banners (to be approved at a later time)

Mr. Chonko stated that they would like to replace two of the pole lights with standard campus lights.  Mr. Chonko stated that he is also adding additional lighting not on the plan previously submitted.  He stated that he would like to have some additional ground lighting and three wall washer lights – one at each entrance to Burke Hall.  Mr. Chonko stated that in addition he would like to have several more down lights placed at the corridor of the building.  Ms. Terry questioned if the SA lighting and SB lighting would be the same wattage.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked for clarification on the placement of the additional lighting not listed on the plan.  Mr. Chonko stated that he would like to use two 100 watt lights at each entrance for banners that they would like to put up during particular events at Burke Hall.  He stated that he is aware that he would need Planning Commission approval for these banners and will seek approval at a later time.  Mr. McClow questioned if all the lights would be on continuously.  Mr. Chonko stated that he anticipates that some of them would be on a timer and some of the brighter lights would be used only during particular events.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked Mr. Chonko if he can quantify how much more light is being requested compared to what they are currently using.  Mr. Chonko stated that the building is currently very dark and it would be difficult to quantify how much lighting they are proposing to make the building more alive and vibrant.  Ms. Terry asked the wattage of the proposed ballard lights.  Mr. Chonko stated seventy (70) watts.  Mr. Ryan clarified if the 100 watt lights would be used only when a banner is up or all the time.  Mr. Chonko stated that these lights would be left on to illuminate the entrances to the building.  He stated that it is currently very difficult for individuals to locate the entrance to the building.  Mr. Ryan asked if these lights would project out.  Mr. Chonko stated that the lights would shine directly on the building and would not project into the neighborhood. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, should to testify.  Assistant Law Director Crites questioned Mr. Thornborough’s standing as a party directly impacted by the application as he did not live within proximity to Burke Hall.  Mr. Thornborough stated that the Village Code does not state that there has to be a direct impact.  He stated that he had a personal interest in this matter as the potential changes could impact the character of the Village.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he had been granted standing in several other discussions pertaining to Denison University and he could not understand why his testimony could not be heard regarding this application.  Mr. Thornborough went on to say that he also owns property located at 233 South Mulberry Street.  Assistant Law Director Crites questioned what Mr. Thornborough’s present injury or prejudice would be in regard to this application.  He explained that he just restored a home in the Village and he felt the proposed changes to application #08-41 negatively impacted the character of that home.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that his Mulberry Street property would allow Mr. Thornborough standing to testify.  Mr. Thornborough stated that the Village Code was written to allow general comments by citizens.  He argued that Mr. Chonko’s plans were different from the plan submitted to the Village.  He continued by stating that Mr. Chonko said he will put some “lights here…or maybe there.”  He asked the Planning Commission if they were going to approve an application with “maybes.”  Mr. Thornborough stated that he did not approve of 100 watt bulbs showing off an ugly white building, especially in the historic district.  Mr. Thornborough ended by saying that if Mr. Chonko wished to display banners, those banners should be presented at the same time as the lighting approval.  Mr. Chonko stated that the current plan before the Planning Commission indicated the correct placement of all lighting fixtures.  Mr. Chonko also stated that Denison would request the lighting changes regardless of any approval needed for future banners.  Ms. Reeves asked when Burke Hall was built.  Mr. Chonko stated 1969.  Mr. Chonko stated that Burke Hall was an asset to the community with all the events scheduled there.  He acknowledged that the building’s architecture was controversial. Councilmember O’Keefe asked how poor the current lighting was.  Mr. Chonko stated that the currently there were issues with exterior entrance lighting.  Mr. Ryan stated that the lack of lighting of the handrails and sidewalks could be considered a safety issue.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that in terms of the lighting plan, she assumed Denison University wanted to be a good neighbor.  Mr. Chonko stated that this building was used by the community.  He stated that a determination was not yet made regarding which lights would be put on timers. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if someone living in the neighborhood felt the lighting caused pollution, how would Denison handle this issue?  Mr. Chonko stated that Denison would be willing to discuss any particular problems with the lighting.  He added that they did not intend to keep the lights on 24/7. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-41:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan added that the proposed pole lights are an improvement. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that adding the lighting will enhance the building.  Mr. McClow stated that he does not care for the look of the building, but he feels the lighting could make it look better. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-41 be approved with the following conditions: As per document labeled “Exhibit A”

-         A timing schedule for the lighting must be submitted and approved by Village Staff

-         The lighting schedule plan will be reviewed by Village Staff in 3 month intervals after the initial installation

-         The SF/Entrance flood lights are to be separately switched

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-41 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

100 Smith Lane/Curtis Hall, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-42

VID (Village Institutional District)

The application is submitted by Art Chonko for approval of an exterior elevator addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-42:

Mr. Chonko explained the location of the exterior elevator.  He stated that the exterior would be brick.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-42 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Reeves

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Burrris, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-42 is approved as submitted. 

 

334 East Broadway, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-43

VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Art Chonko and the applicant is requesting approval of a handicap ramp replacement.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-43:

Mr. Chonko stated that the current handicap ramp doesn’t actually get you into the building, but rather only onto the porch.  He stated that there is a step before the door and this needs to be addressed.  Mr. Chonko stated that they plan on using the same materials – painted wood.  Ms. Terry stated that the orientation of the ramp would be changed from the side to the front of the building.  Mr. Burriss asked if the flooring on the ramp will match the existing porch flooring.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Mr. Burriss noted that the posts on the ramp look significantly smaller the existing porch posts.  Mr. Chonko stated that the proposal calls for 4x4 treated lumber unless otherwise noted.  He did not recall the ramp posts being different from the porch posts.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the posts are different – they appear to match the existing porch posts.  Mr. Burriss concluded that the posts were fine after further review of the plans.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Chonko if there had been any discussion to replace the pipe railing on the existing steps.  He stated that this would make the building look much nicer if it were replaced.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that this would be nicer to see but it is not part of the application.  Mr. Chonko stated that they have not yet bid out this project and they could look at replacing this depending on costs.  Mr. Burriss stated that the matter would have to come before the Planning Commission for review if the railing is changed. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-43 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-43 is approved as submitted. 

 

327 North Pearl Street, Ed and Donna Jenkins, Application #08-44

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Ed and Donna Jenkins for approval of modifications to an existing enclosed porch.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-44:

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant was given notice of the hearing but they are not present to discuss the application.  Ms. Terry and member’s of the Planning Commission stated that they have several questions regarding the application and there is a lack of information that they would need before rendering a decision.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #08-44.  Second by Mr. Burriss 

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-44 is Tabled.

 

317 North Granger Street, Dee and Jason Gay, Application #08-46

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by John Noblick for the Jerry McClain Construction Company and the applicant is requesting approval of a three-car detached garage.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, John Noblick, and Peter Puze.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-46:

John Noblick stated that he is representing the builder – Jerry McClain Construction.  He also stated that he believed the former owner of the home was granted a variance for a four car garage in the same location he is proposing a three car garage.  Mr. Noblick stated that a large amount of the garage will be built over an already existing slab of asphalt.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the trees would remain.  Mr. Noblick stated that the trees Mr. Mitchell is referring to are on the property line and he believes the applicant/owner of the home is working with a next door neighbor to take down the trees because they are in bad shape and not balanced.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the neighbor was present.  Mr. Noblick stated no, but they are in agreement about taking out the trees.  Ms. Terry stated that it is true that a variance was granted for the property (317 North Granger Street) in 1990 and variances go with the sale of the property and never expire.  Mr. Noblick stated that they are proposing a wooden structure with a dark green metal roof.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be any exterior lighting.  Mr. Noblick believed there would be one light by the side door and one overhead flood light.  Mr. Burriss stated that since the proposed garage would be so close to the property line – proper drainage of run off water from the garage would be encouraged.  Mr. Burriss asked how the neighbor to the north felt about the flood light.  Peter Puze, 323 North Granger Street, stated that he is the neighbor to the north and they had two concerns – one being the exterior lighting and if it would shine into their yard.  Mr. Puze stated that they would also hope that the roof will not be a bright color reflecting light onto their property.  Mr. Noblick stated that the homeowner has not yet picked out a final color for the roof, but he believed they were looking at going with either ultra dark green or hunter green. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-46:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the architecture is consistent with the design and materials of other garaged approved in the same area.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the style is consistent with other buildings at the turn of the century – and they found this structure to be a Victorian style. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-46 with the following conditions:

-         A draining and handling on-site water plan be submitted and approved to Village Staff

-         A lighting plan be submitted and approved by Village Staff

-         A color package that is consistent with the color of the existing house be submitted and approved by Village Staff.

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-46 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

102 East Broadway, Centenary United Methodist Church, Application #08-47

VSD (Village Square District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Sherry Russell for Centenary United Methodist Church and the applicant is requesting approval of two sandwich board signs.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Connie Westbrook.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-47:

Connie Westbrook, 128 South Prospect Street, stated that she is representing Centenary United Methodist Church located at 102 East Broadway.  She stated that the church has started a casual Tuesday evening worship service that they would like to open up to the congregation and general public.  She stated that they would like to have two sandwich boards listing information about the Tuesday evening service and possibly used for other special events throughout the year.  Ms. Terry asked where they would like to place the signs.  Ms. Westbrook stated they would place one sandwich board sign on the yard of the church so that the sidewalk is not blocked and another sign would be at Linden Place.  Ms. Westbrook stated that they were envisioning a natural wood with an acrylic finish and she said that they plan on bringing the signs in at night.  Mr. Ryan asked if they are proposing a sign with changeable script.  Ms. Westbrook stated yes.  Ms. Terry explained that the staff recommendation is for one sign with no more than three colors and with a one inch border.  She also said that they would recommend that the sign not be placed on the sidewalk.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Westbrook if the church would be able to get by with just one sign because this would then be consistent with other sandwich board signs approved for area businesses.  Ms. Westbrook stated that if this is the wishes of the Planning Commission they can get by with one sign.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the sandwich board signs ought to mimic the look of the free-standing sign at the front of the church.  He stated that they discourage handwriting on signs and they would encourage that the colors of the sandwich board sign match the church and be of similar material used for the free-standing sign.  Ms. Westbrook stated that they intended to have the word “Centenary” raised on the sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission would need to have the size, font, materials, and colors proposed for the sign before they could vote on it.  He also stated that he would like the church to consider a more formal changeable copy sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a consensus by the Planning Commission to see one sign and they would not require approval for each event that they use it for.  Ms. Westbrook agreed it would be best to table the application to gather the needed information.        

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #08-47.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-43 is Tabled.

 

139 West Elm Street, David and Rebecca Schnaidt, Application #08-48

VRD (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by David and Rebecca Schnaidt and the applicant is requesting approval of re-roofing, specifically removal of the slate roof and replacement with premium dimensional asphalt shingles. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and David Schnaidt.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-48:

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, stated that he would like to begin his comments by extending an apology to the Board.  He stated that they have already begun the de-roofing and re-roofing process and he didn’t think twice about requesting for approval by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Schnaidt explained that a large portion of the slate has been removed and they are installing Owens Corning Estate Gray fifty year dimensional shingles.  He stated that they are at a point of no return due to the weather and if he did not continue work – considerable damage could have been done to his home.  Mr. Schnaidt provided a sample of the shingles being installed on the home.  He stated that the slate had been on the home for 100+ years and it began to fail – with light and a family of squirrels coming in through the roof.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that as much as he would have liked to have kept slate on the home – it was cost prohibitive.  He also stated that a home across the street from him – owned by Bill Wernet – is from a similar time period as his home and he too replaced slate with shingles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that architecturally the dimensional shingle will give more of a look than any other product he could have used.  Mr. McClow inquired on how much of the home has been re-roofed.  Mr. Schnaidt answered that ½ of the home is done.  Mr. McClow asked if a new sub roof was needed.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the slate on the roof was damaged.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Mr. McClow asked what the cost difference is from installed slate compared to dimensional shingles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he believed slate would have cost approximately $250 per square foot and the shingles are about $85 a square foot.  Mr. McClow asked about imitation slate.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that imitation slate is made from asphalt.  Mr. Ryan asked the location of what is already done.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it would be the back south and east part of the roof that is complete.  Mr. Ryan asked if the porch will be done.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes and he stated that he will also have to replace the columns because they are not adequately supporting the roof.  Mr. McClow asked if the soffit and fascia will also be replaced.  Mr. Schnaidt answered yes - where it is needed.  Mr. Ryan asked about the ridges and hips.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that they will also have asphalt shingles.  Mr. Burriss asked if the top flat portion of the roof will be done.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes and it will be similar to other homes that have a flat roof top.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Roofer’s Wholesale has slate replica’s and he would have preferred to see something like this used on the home – rather than asphalt shingles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that it came down to an affordability issue and the slate replica is also $250 a square foot.  He went on to say that there are other similar homes in his neighborhood that have replaced slate for shingles.  Mr. Ryan stated that he would agree with Mr. Schnaidt and there are at least two homes on Elm Street that have had slate replaced with shingles and his request is consistent with other homes that are similar.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he first wanted to congratulate Mr. Schnaidt for the outstanding job he has done with renovating his home.  He stated that it really looks nice.  He went on to say that he (Mr. Schnaidt) has an opportunity and a responsibility to keep with the historical character in the look of the slate – and this would be best also from an economic standpoint.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this home is a great asset to the Village and there are not many left that are this pristine.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he understands and appreciates what Mr. Mitchell is saying but he would disagree that shingles distract from the look of the home in any way.  He added that he is not asking for any more than anyone else has been granted.  Mr. Ryan noted that the Board did receive a letter from Bob and Sherry Gardner, Elm Street, that recommended that the home at 139 West Elm have slate or the look of slate.  Ms. Reeves stated that the applicant is asking for forgiveness rather than permission since he has already completed much of the work on the home.  She stated that this point needs to be made and she has objection to this fact.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that based upon his track record with three previous renovation projects to the home – he has never tried to “get away with anything.” He stated that he has lived in this community for thirty-seven years and he did not believe he needed approval by the Planning Commission since he was not doing a new structure, but he will certainly know better the next time.  Mr. Ryan stated that there was a person on city council that recently did the same type of thing and had to later get approval for a job already done.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the Village needs to do a better job at informing the public that they do need to get approval when re-roofing their home.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-48:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the request for shingles is very similar to what has been done to other homes in the area that have been re-roofed. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that a new roof will keep the home from falling down.  Mr. Mitchell disagreed and concluded no – which the shingle roof will not contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the materials used will be consistent – so all the roof is the same. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the scale of the tab is very similar to what was there.

 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-48 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), McClow (yes), Mitchell (no), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1. 

 

Application #08-48 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-41:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-41.  Second by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #08-42:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-42.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-43:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-43.  Second by Mr. Burriss

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-46:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-46.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-48:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-48.  Second by Ms. Reeves

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

Joy Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she did not recall seeing any spot light for Denison University /Burke Hall when she first came in to review the application (#08-41).  Mrs. Jung stated that she appreciated Mr. Burriss putting a condition on the approval to revisit the matter at various times throughout the year.  She also thanked Councilmember O’Keefe for her question to Mr. Chonko regarding the percentage of light increase they can expect.  She stated that he did not answer this question, but she appreciated it being asked.  Mrs. Jung stated that she finds it intriguing that the address for Burke Hall is on West Broadway and haven’t they used a College Street address in the past?  Mr. Burriss explained that Burke Hall had previously been located closer to Broadway.  Mrs. Jung stated that she hates to be a watchdog for this University but she is concerned over the spot lights and if there is a problem she will come back to the Planning Commission or to Ms. Terry.  She went on to say that part of the charm of living on this block is to look over and see the wonderful green space over there.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village is in the process of purchasing a light meter that will be capable of measuring when there is light pollution.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a review process in place with the conditions stated in the approval of Application #08-41.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Township has a Dark Sky Ordinance that ought to be looked at for the Village as well.  Councilmember O’Keefe noted Mr. Mitchell’s suggestion to pass along to Council.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is only able to enforce what rules are already in place. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, stated that when he first reviewed the plan for Application #08-41 he felt it seemed modest and he did not plan on saying anything regarding approval/disapproval of the application.  He stated that he was disappointed to see that the application had been changed at the last minute and he stated that he would plead with the Planning Commission to not allow applications to be changed after they have been advertised.  Mr. Thornborough stated that this practice prevents the public from being capable of commenting on an application.  He also asked the Planning Commission to consider moving Citizen’s Comments to the front of the agenda, rather than at the end.  He stated that he had some difficulty in being able to testify today regarding Application #08-41 and if he would have been forced to make comments at Citizen’s Comments – what good would that have done after they had voted.  Mr. Thornborough stated that there are many talented and smart people living in the Village and it would behoove the Planning Commission to let their comments and suggestions are heard and considered when rendering a decision. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

April 28, 2008

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes of April 28, 2008 as presented.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

May 27, 2008

June 9, 2008

�bi'0(�#upportLists]>5)                  “Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A “

 

 

Ms. Reeves seconded the motion to amend. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend Mr. Riffle’s motion pertaining to Application #08-24:  Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion to amend carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Fackler stated that before the Planning Commission proceeds he would like to note that he feels terrible about this decision and if you do the math the sign will not fit.  He stated that he needs more square footage to increase the size of his logo. 

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to amend his previous motion a second time to increase the 113 sq. foot maximum to 120 sq. ft. for both wall signs. 

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend the second time:  Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion to amend a second time carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Fackler thanked the Planning Commission and stated that although he is not in agreement he does appreciate all of the effort put forward for this project.  He stated that his building opening is scheduled for April 17th.  Ms. Terry stated that there will be a ten day appeal process and then the permits will be issued. 

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-24 as amended: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-24 is approved as amended with the following conditions:

 

1)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 70 square feet to 120 square feet for both wall signs;

2)      To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to two (2);

3)      To increase the maximum number of colors in any sign from three (3) to four (4) for the northern wall sign, and from three (3) to seven (7) for the western wall sign, as proposed in Exhibit “A”; and

4)      A stipulation to change the presented twelve foot (12’) vertical sign to be stacked and to be more horizontal in nature with panels, for the sign to be placed at a lower level, 48 sq. ft. total per Exhibit “B.”

5)      Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A.

 

Finding of Fact Approval:

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-24, George Fackler: 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-24. Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Minutes of March 10, 2008 – Ms. Reeves moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  The motion passed 3-0.  The minutes of March 10, 2008 were approved as presented.

 

Motion to excuse Planning Commission member’s absence:

Mr. Riffle made a motion to excuse Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  The motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

 

 

 

Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 28, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tim Riffle, Tom Mitchell, and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Brice Corter, Susan Rosenberg, Stephen Fowler, Gerald Martin, Bob Ramsey, Hudson (contractor for the Rosenberg’s).

 

New Business:

130 East Broadway, Elizabeth Carr, Green Velvet, Application #08-30

VBD (Village Business District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Elizabeth Carr for approval of a sidewalk seating area. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Brice Corter.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-30:

Brice Corter represented Green Velvet.  Mr. Corter stated that they would like to place two antique metal bistro tables outside of the store and they have no plans to serve food.  Mr. Riffle questioned the map and the location of the tables.  Ms. Terry stated that the map in the packet is the one approved by Council.  Mr. Riffle asked how the fifteen (15) feet can be tracked.  Ms. Terry stated that there are sidewalk grids marked on the map that she can use to measure from.  Mr. Riffle stated that the existing Ordinances for sidewalk café’s do not conform to the graphic approved by Council.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the pedestrian walkway is on the north side.  Ms. Terry stated yes and it is approximately 2 ½ to 3 feet wide.  Mr. Ryan questioned why this matter is before Planning Commission if Council approves sidewalk café’s and seating areas.  Ms. Terry stated that Planning Commission is asked to forward their recommendation to Council regarding the “idea.”  She stated that Council will ultimately approve the location.  Mr. Corter explained that he would like to be able to sell the tables to customers who are interested in them.  He also indicated that he would not be placing merchandise that is for sale on the tables.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the tables at Whit’s or Victoria’s change in style - don’t they have to come back to the Village for approval?  Ms. Terry said yes.  She went on to explain that if Mr. Corter were to sell a table and replace it with a different type – he would need approval by the Village.  She stated that when Elizabeth Carr filled out the application, she did not indicate that the tables would be merchandise for sale.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the tables and chairs would be open to the public.  Mr. Corter stated yes and he envisions them being used for spouses of customers who do not want to go into the store or for people enjoying ice cream.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has a set of rules that they must follow when approving or denying any application.  Mr. Ryan stated that by merchandising the bistro tables – this puts Green Velvet in a different category than the approvals for other tables on the sidewalk.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it would be better if the approval did not allow for the sale of merchandise on the sidewalk.  He reviewed the application and the request to sell merchandise was not indicated.  Mr. Corter agreed to use the bistro tables for public use and not merchandise for sale.  Ms. Terry stated that he would be able to use the bistro tables as merchandise in the store if they were located within the store.  Mr. Corter indicated that he would prefer to have them used on the sidewalk.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve that Application #08-30  go to Village Council for the sidewalk seating area, specifically two round bistro tables not to exceed 30” in diameter and four chairs total, with the conditions of approval outlined as the following ‘A-K.’

 

A)                The sidewalk seating area is to be segregated from the rest of the sidewalk by means of planters and/or rope stanchions, or similar moveable fixtures;

B)                 As shown on Exhibit “D” attached hereto, the area so segregated is not to exceed twenty (20) feet wide, fifteen (15) feet deep, measured from either side border of the store premises and its building face, respectively;

C)                An east/west access corridor through the seating area shall be provided;

D)                No exterior lights are to be installed;

E)                 No cooking or sales of food or beverages shall be permitted in the sidewalk seating area;

F)                 Green Velvet and its owner shall at all times be responsible for the cleanliness of the sidewalk seating areas;

G)                Prior to installation of the sidewalk seating area, Green Velvet and/or its owner shall provide the Village of Granville with a certificate of insurance in an amount equal or greater than one-million ($1,000,000)/two-million ($2,000,000) dollars, naming the Village of Granville as an additional insured and certificate holder;

H)                No alcoholic beverages are to be served or imbibed on the public sidewalk;

I)                   Outside furnishings are not permitted to advertise commercial messages without sign review and approval by the Planning Commission;

J)                   No patrons will be permitted in the sidewalk sitting area after 10 PM, except during the Bluesfest and Fourth of July festivities;

K)                In the event of breach of any of these conditions, the Village Manager, at his sole discretion, may terminate this permit.

 

Second by Mr. Riffle. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Riffle, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-30 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

128 East Broadway, Gerald Martin, Village Brewing Company, Application #08-36

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Gerald Martin for approval of a window door sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gerald Martin.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-36:

Ms. Terry explained the proposed location of the sign.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the request conforms with the Ordinances.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-36 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Riffle. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Riffle, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-36 is approved as submitted.

 

 

128 Cherry Street, Stephen Fowler, Application #08-37

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Stephen Fowler for approval of remodeling for the rear detached garage. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephen Fowler

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-37:

Mr. Fowler stated that he would like to remove an exterior wall and replace it with the same materials.  He stated that he would try to reuse the existing door that is there and he would like to increase the size of the existing garage door by one foot.  (Eight foot to nine foot).  Mr. Riffle inquired on what type of trim Mr. Fowler intends to use.  Mr. Fowler stated that he hopes to match the existing trim on the primary structure (home).  Mr. Riffle stated that he would like to see the trim match the home and he suggested that 3 ½ - 4 inch trim is standard. 

 

Review of Standards and Criteria for Application #08-37:

(a)    Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

(b)    Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

(c)    Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

(d)    Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-37 as submitted. Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Riffle, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-37 is approved as submitted.

 

 

 

395 North Pearl Street, Eric and Susan Rosenberg, Application #08-35

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Eric and Susan Rosenberg for approval of a two-story addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Susan Rosenberg

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-35:

Susan Rosenberg stated that they would like to expand the size of the existing home because her husband primarily works out of the home.  Ms. Terry stated that they are looking to do the addition on the south side of the home.  Mr. Mitchell inquired on where one can see the back of the home.  Ms. Terry stated that you really cannot see it and it can not be seen from Denison University.  The contractor, Hudson, was present to explain the plans.  Ms. Rosenberg stated that they recently installed new windows and the new addition will match the newly installed windows and trim.  Mr. Riffle asked if the roof slope and soffitts will have the same detailing.  The contractor indicated that the roof pitch will be the same and the detailing for the soffitts will also match.  Ms. Terry stated that if approval is granted this evening, it will have to be on the condition that a variance is granted by the BZBA for setbacks.  Mr. Riffle inquired on the height of the new addition.  The contractor indicated approximately twenty (20’) feet.  Mr. Riffle noted that this about five (5’) feet higher than the other peak at the other side of the roof.  There was some discussion regarding a four (4’) setback for the new addition and how it would tie into the existing roof.  Ms. Terry explained that the two roofs will not match up and they will be staggered at different levels.  She noted that you will not see this offset when looking directly at the home.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Riffle is a professional architect and if he feels comfortable with the application - he is ok with it.  Mr. Riffle indicated that he is ok with the application as long as the new windows match the existing windows and trim.  There was some discussion as to the style of the home not being listed in the Code.  It was stated that the style of the home is a “Ranch” and there are other Ranch style homes within the Village. 

 

Review of Standards and Criteria for Application #08-35:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-35 with the following conditions:

(1)   Approval is contingent upon the BZBA approving a variance for setbacks

(2)   All trim, windows, and roofing materials must match the existing structure that is there. 

Second by Mr. Mitchell

 

Roll Call Vote: Riffle, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Application #08-35 is approved. 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-35:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-35.  Second by Mr. Riffle. 

Roll Call: Mitchell, Riffle, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-37:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-37.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call: Mitchell, Riffle, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-30:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-30.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call: Riffle, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-36:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-36.  Second by Mr. Riffle. 

Roll Call Vote: Riffle, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Citizen’s Comments: None.

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Member’s: Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe.  Second by Mr. Riffle. 

Roll Call:  Mitchell, Riffle, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

April 14, 2008

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the minutes of April 14, 2008 as presented.  Second by Mr. Mitchell  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment: 7:55 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

May 12, 2008

May 27, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 14, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Assistant Law Director Crites.

Visitors Present: Jim and Donna Brooks, and Mr. and Mrs. Frolking.

 

Old Business:

2610 Newark-Granville Road, Gina Reeves for Welsh Hills School, Application #08-21

ID (Institutional District) – TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Gina Reeves and the applicant is requesting approval of seven (7) free-standing temporary signs.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gina Reeves.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-21:

(Ms. Reeves recused herself from discussion of Application #08-21 because she was the applicant.  She removed herself from the table and was seated in the audience.)

 

Gina Reeves stated that she is applying for all seven banners for the sign at once to avoid further $50 permit fees which would be a financial burden to the school.  She stated that the school is located in the Institutional District on a road that is 35 MPH.  Ms. Reeves stated that the current size of the banners also fits the community signs that are allowed to be placed within the median on West Broadway.  Mr. Riffle asked if this request is similar to that from St. Edward’s Catholic Church.  Ms. Terry stated that it is a little different since the proposed banners are less visible than the signs at St. Edward’s.  She stated that there would tend to be more pedestrian traffic near St. Edward’s, versus vehicular traffic near Welsh Hills School.  Ms. Terry also stated that St. Edward’s would be in the Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) while Welsh Hills School is in the Institutional District (ID).  Ms. Terry explained that the reason this application came to be is a result of her driving by and noticing the signs.  She stated that she checked the file and noted that there was not any paperwork pertaining to approval of these signs.  Ms. Terry stated that she and Manager Holycross discussed the matter and decided to ask the school to submit the application to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Riffle stated that he agreed there would be less foot traffic near the Welsh Hills School.  Mr. Ryan asked if only one banner will be up at a time.  Ms. Reeves stated yes.  Ms. Reeves indicated that she would be willing to submit a schedule depicting when the banners will be up.  Mr. Ryan stated that Ms. Reeves would need to come before the Planning Commission again if either of the seven (7) signs were to change size and/or color.  Ms. Reeves stated that one banner will have periodic changes for the date and theme.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission could restrict the seven (7) signs to be what has been presented.  Mr. Ryan stated that it would be advisable for the Planning Commission to do this because they would be pre-approving the signs.  Ms. Reeves agreed that if the color or size were to change she would resubmit to the Planning Commission.  She stated that the changes to the one banner that has a date change and theme change would remain the same color, text, and size. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-21 be approved with the following conditions:1) Any new sign that is proposed be of the same color and size as presented by the applicant; 2) This approval covers the seven (7) signs submitted by the applicant; and

3)  The applicant shall further be required to submit a schedule of when the signs shall be erected on the property, on an annual basis, to the Village Planner.

Seconded by Mr. Riffle.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Riffle, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-21 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

(Ms. Reeves re-joined the GPC meeting at 7:14 PM)

 

New Business:

238 East Broadway, Jim and Donna Brooks, Application #08-28

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Jim and Donna Brooks for approval of a free-standing sign on Broadway and a projecting sign on North Pearl Street. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jim and Donna Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-28:

Ms. Brooks stated that she reviewed the guidelines set forth in the Code and she believes their sign is in compliance.  She also explained the location of the free-standing sign and projecting sign.  Ms. Terry questioned if the freestanding sign would be perpendicular to the roadway and Ms. Brooks stated yes.  Ms. Brooks stated that they have proposed two colors for the sign – HER Red and White.  She stated that the red coincides with the HER corporate colors.  Ms. Terry noted that the application requests a sign with three colors and the applicant is now asking for only two colors.  She went on to say that the application meets Code regulations.  Mr. Ryan asked about the material being used for the sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that it is a high density wood composite similar to the signs used at the Erinwood office complex.  He stated that they chose this type of sign because it can hold up to weather conditions much better.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed material can be sandblasted or routed – just like wood.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the application meets all the criteria.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the sign will have any up lighting.  Mr. Brooks stated that he may decide to do this in the future.  Mr. Burriss suggested having up lighting approved with the application now.  He went on to say that the Village has encouraged downtown businesses not to keep their lights on at all hours.  He asked Mr. Brooks what the proposed hours would be for illumination of the freestanding sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that he was not sure, but he would like to ensure that it is on when other downtown businesses are operating.  He stated that Brew’s is open until 2 AM.  Mr. Brooks stated that he would be ok with a lighting restriction, but he would question the need for one.  Ms. Reeves stated that she personally feels that lighting the sign after 11:00 PM is not necessary and it should be permissible to light it until then.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that she did not see anything in the Code pertaining to restrictions on the times up lighting a sign is permitted or not permitted. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application 08-28 as submitted and the approval of the future addition of sign lights is included in this approval.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (no), Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1. 

 

Application #08-28 is approved. 

 

(Mr. Mitchell suggested reviewing language in the Village Code pertaining to hours of lighting, if restrictions are desired.)

 

 

115 East Broadway, Evelyn Frolking, Application #08-27

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Evelyn Frolking for an outside flower stand within the front courtyard of the Granville Historical Society Museum. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Evelyn Frolking.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-27:

Ms. Frolking stated that this will be her fourth season of treating the Granville community to fresh flowers.  She stated that she believes her efforts bring joy and ambiance to the Village.  Ms. Frolking stated that she has decided to relocate her business to the other side of the street because the side of the street that she has previously sold flowers on is very restaurant oriented.  Ms. Frolking went on to say that moving locations would be her part in trying to bring retail to the other side of the street.  Mr. Ryan noted letters from the Historical Society approving of Ms. Frolking’s relocation.  Ms. Terry read aloud a letter from Lance Clarke (Granville Historical Society) whole-heartedly endorsing Ms. Frolking selling flowers outside of the Granville Historical Society and he stated that her efforts could encourage more visitors to use their museum.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on when Ms. Frolking would begin selling flowers.  Ms. Frolking stated that she would like to start on April 26 – weather permitting.  Ms. Terry noted that the staff did review potential parking issues since this is a request for a Change of Use.  She stated that they determined that parking would not be an issue because the business is temporary, seasonal and there are no permanent structures proposed.  She stated that it is likely to attract more pedestrian traffic than vehicular traffic. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-27 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Reeves, Burriss, Riffle, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-27 is approved as submitted.

 

Other Business:

Village Gateway District Text, final review and recommendation regarding the restaurant provisions section.

 

Discussion: 

Mr. Burriss stated he believed that the 35% sales needed to be required to be reported and it needed to be noted who they should report to. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that she would change item (c) to read:

“c. Drive-through sales: Only 35% or less of the total on-site sales volume is derived from drive-through sales.  (For an approved restaurant, audited sales figures showing the percentage of sales derived from the drive-through window would be required to be submitted annually to Village Staff.)” 

 

Mr. Riffle moved to forward the amended restaurant provisions section to Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 4-1. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #08-21:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burris moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-21.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

Application #08-28:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-28.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-27:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-27.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Citizen’s Comments: None.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

 

March 24, 2008

Mr. Mitchell abstained from voting on the minutes of March 24, 2008 because he was not present at the meeting.  Mr. Riffle moved to approve the minutes of March 24, 2008 as amended.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

April 7, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the minutes of April 7, 2008 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment: 7:50 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

April 28, 2008

May 12, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

SPECIAL MEETING

April 7, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Village Manager, Don Holycross, and Assistant Law Director, Crites.

Visitors Present: Mr. and Mrs. Sagaria, Ben Barton, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Sharon Sellito.

 

Old Business:

 

Review of the Village Gateway District Text – Restaurant Provisions

Ms. Terry explained that it was not her intent to strike the word “alcoholic” in Section (8) of the drive-ins/drive-ups/drive-through definitions and this is an error she will correct. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on how Ms. Terry arrived at drive-thru sales totaling 35% in Section (8)(c).  Ms. Terry explained that they will need a specific number from whoever submits for this purpose.  She stated that the Village would have the authority to request a yearly audit to ensure that drive-thru sales are maintained under 35%.  She stated that an audit can be made part of a conditional use and if there is a violation the permit could be revoked. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the presented definition is terrific and he appreciated the backup documents listing even more information.  He went on to say that he would only question how they can apply all of the criteria listed in Section (8) – a, b, c, and d. 

a)                  Restaurant service model: Food shall be served or picked up at the counter

b)                  Food shall be made to order

c)                  Drive-thru sales:  35% or less of the overall business can be comprised of Drive-through sales.

d)                  Upscale Décor: Padded or upholstered chairs, carpeting and background music shall be common element designs.

Examples of fast casual restaurants may include:  Atlantic Bread Company, Boston Market, Chipotle, City Barbeque, Cosi, Fazoli’s, Fuddruckers, Panera Bread, Penn Station, and Potbelly Sandwich Works. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the majority of the examples listed cannot meet the above stated criteria.  He suggested that the language could be rearranged to state “such as” or “criteria that shall be considered” rather than “shall be.”  Mr. Burriss agreed that “upscale décor” could be subjective.  Ms. Reeves suggested stating “upscale décor and design elements.” 

Manager Holycross stated that the staff can work on adjusting the language, but they need to know if the Planning Commission is in agreement regarding the 35% drive-thru sales.  Mr. Burriss stated that the 35% drive-thru sales needs to have some clarification as to how and when it is determined.  He stated that this should be specified in the Code.  Ms. Reeves suggested leaving the language examples of fast casual restaurants out of the Code.  Mr. Riffle and Mr. Ryan believed that there needed to be some examples listed.  Ms. Terry stated that Ms. Crites has advised that they need to be careful not to regulate the interior of the establishments.  Mr. Ryan noted that the Planning Commission seems to be in agreement over criteria a, b, and c and further discussion and/or changes need to be made with criteria (d).  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the original purpose of this is to minimize the traffic impact and the 35% stipulation regarding drive-thru sales should nail this.  Mr. Burriss cautioned that an accountant could find a way to manipulate the 35% drive-thru sales and perhaps they need stronger language.  He stated that perhaps there also needs to be strong language regarding accountability.  Manager Holycross stated that the staff can certainly address these concerns.  Ms. Terry stated that one option might be to remove criteria (d) regarding upscale décor.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels this would be good since “upscale décor” can be hard to qualify.  The Planning Commission agreed that items a, b, and c should remain and the language should be strong enough to make them all “required.”  Mr. Ryan asked that the final changes be made to the proposed language and be brought before the Planning Commission at their next meeting so that they could make a recommendation to Village Council on this last item.  

 

New Business:

Public Hearing on Proposed General Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1109.11, 1133.03, 1135.01, 1137.01, 1137.02, 1137.05, 1137.07, 1137.08, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, 1141.06, 1143.04, 1145.03, 1145.04, 1147.03, 1147.04, 1149.01, 1149.02, 1149.03, 1159.02, 1159.03, 1159.04, 1159.05, 1161.01, 1161.02, 1161.03, 1163.01, 1163.02, 1163.03, 1167.02, 1167.03, 1175.02, 1175.04, 1175.05,  1183.01, 1183.03, and 1189.03, and to amend and change the section number of Sections 1137.03, 1137.04, 1137.05, 1137.06, 1137.07 and 1137.08, and To Enact New Sections 1137.03, 1137.10, 1157.14, 1157.15 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, Ohio.

 

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she had many concerns over the proposed Ordinance and she was quite upset to see the pages and pages of new rules.  Mr. Ryan asked if they could go over one page of the document at a time and address her concerns.  Ms. Franks agreed.  Mr. Ryan swore in Ms. Franks.

 

Ms. Franks stated that she had a problem with the definition and changes regarding an accessory building.  Ms. Terry explained what is considered as an “accessory building.”  Ms. Franks stated that her building in the rear of her property has a separate address and was located on the property before the home.  She went on to say that there is a case before the Ohio Supreme court right now regarding the sale of alcohol in an accessory building and it is being argued that it is illegal to hurt the value of property by limiting what a property owner can or cannot do.  Ms. Franks stated that she was informed of this case by the Alcohol Commission.  Mr. Riffle stated that if you use this logic of restricting property rights it would be ok for a neighbor to run a pig farm out of their garage.  Ms. Franks stated that this is not a good example because livestock requires five acres.  Assistant Law Director Crites stated that she would look into this Supreme Court case and get information back to the Planning Commission.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked that it also be forwarded to Council.  The Planning Commission also discussed whether or not Ms. Franks rear building would be considered as an “accessory structure.”  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if it would be an “accessory structure” since it has its own address.  Mr. Mitchell stated that much of this would depend on whether or not there is a “Change of Use” granted.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Commission has treated Ms. Frank’s property as two principle buildings.  Manager Holycross stated that there could be a situation where the two buildings are not subordinate to one another.  Ms. Franks noted that she is not only speaking out regarding her own property, but also other businesses in the community.  She stated that Mr. Mershon’s rear building is not considered to be an “accessory structure.”  She also stated that if the Village wants to encourage businesses within the Village these types of regulations are not encouraging.   

 

Mr. Ryan questioned why there was new language regarding a “Certificate of Occupancy.”  Ms. Terry stated that this is a changeover.  There was also a question by the Commission regarding the proposed definition of a “driveway”.  Ms. Terry stated that she would research other codes and the access management plan to get a better definition of “driveways.”  Mr. Burriss stated that she may want to research how many times the word “driveway” is referred to in the Code and if a definition is even needed.

 

In Section (38) Ms. Franks questioned if the word “portable” meant a mobile home.  Mr. Ryan states that this means a home not on a permanent foundation. 

 

Ms. Franks questioned the language in Section (79).  Ms. Terry stated that the words “means the” were added to be consistent with other language throughout the document.  Ms. Franks stated that the original wording in this section made more sense. 

 

Ms. Franks questioned the language added in Section (96).  Mr. Riffle explained that this defines what a “recreational vehicle” is. 

 

Ms. Franks stated that she believes the word “permanent” should remain in Section (107).  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is redundant language.  Ms. Franks stated that being redundant here makes more sense.  Mr. Mitchell stated that including the language – “, including anything erected for the purpose of storage” – makes this area in the Code much clearer.  The Planning Commission did not request any changes to Section (107). 

 

Ms. Franks stated that the language added to Section 1109.11 Public Hearings is “great.”  Ms. Terry explained that this language was added because the Planning Commission and BZBA are currently not consistent with regards to mailing out notifications.  She stated that this will ensure that first class mailings and certificate of mailings are consistent with each board. 

 

Ms. Franks suggested keeping the word “clearly” in Section 1133.03 (b) – which was previously stricken from the Code.  Mr. Riffle did not see a need to change this language. 

 

In Section (e) on page thirteen (13), Ms. Franks stated that the continuation of a hearing has no time element and she would like to see this addressed.  Mr. Riffle stated that the rule to decide on the matter at either of the next two subsequent meetings is not enough.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he agrees that a decision should not be open-ended and allowed to drag out forever and a citizen should not have to file a law suit in order to have a decision rendered.  Moreover he stated that it could discourage developers.  Mr. Ryan stated that typically an applicant requests a continuation or tabling of an application with the BZBA and Planning Commission.  Assistant Law Director Crites agreed to further research this matter and get back to the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Riffle stated that Section (4)(D) “Any other person who claims a direct present injury or prejudice to any personal or property right or interest if the application is approved or denied” can be interpreted as “too open ended”  He stated this was the case in a recent situation with an individual claiming to be negatively impacted when their address was not close to the applicant being disputed.  Mr. Riffle stated that as the Code reads currently – a person just has to claim they are negatively impacted, but they don’t necessarily have to prove it.  Mr. Mitchell stated that in the case referenced by Mr. Riffle the Law Director advised the Planning Commission to hear the testimony and error on the side of inclusion and they can decide at a later time if the testimony should be allowed.  Ms. Reeves argued that the witness should show substantiation to what they are saying.  Mr. Mitchell suggested having the person wishing to testify submit a written claim that demonstrates present injury or prejudice.  Ms. Franks stated that any developer will not be in favor of Section (4)(D).  Ms. Terry stated that she will look at the language in Section (4)(D) and add language requiring a written claim. 

Mr. Riffle stated that he is not in favor of the new language in Section (j) on page fourteen (14).  He stated that if the member’s of the Planning Commission are appointed by Council they should let them do the job they appointed them to do.  Mr. Ryan and Ms. Reeves agreed and questioned why they should review items that could potentially be remanded by Council.  Ms. Terry explained that typically appeals of decisions of either the Planning Commission or Board of Zoning and Building Appeals in other communities/municipalities go directly to the Court of Common Pleas, but in our municipality they go to Council.  Mr. Riffle asked why a development plan for a PCD goes to Council.  Ms. Terry stated that a PCD is required to be reviewed and approved by Council, is formally adopted by Ordinance and has a thirty (30) day appeal process. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed language not being consistent with the provisions for the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District) and Ms. Terry agreed to look at this.  Ms. Terry explained that the new language in Section 11371.02 is “general cleanup.”

 

Ms. Franks questioned how long it will be until the Village Planner needs help to do all of the jobs listed in the Code.  Manager Holycross stated that this language simply clarifies existing duties being done today and this is not creating any new job positions. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed a revision in the Code which allows the Village Manager to appeal to Council (the same as a resident) on any ruling by the Planning Commission or BZBA.  

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Terry could address whether or not Section 1137.03 pertaining to Zoning Permits is new language which makes changes or simply relocating language from other parts of the Code.  Ms. Terry agreed to look at this and get back to the Planning Commission.

 

The Planning Commission discussed Section (b) on page eighteen (18) regarding “Refundable Deposit on Construction of Improvements Costing Greater than $25,000 – and a bond or cash deposit.” Mr. Riffle stated that agrees that the Village should be protected and all contractors should be able to show financial responsibility.  He stated that there are many municipalities that require a contractor to be licensed to work there.  Ms. Terry stated that some municipalities embrace having licensed contractors, while others don’t.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Village should require liability insurance and he does not think it is necessary for contractors to post a $5000 cash deposit or bond.  Moreover, Mr. Mitchell stated that he believes this is a bad idea.  Ms. Franks stated that the cash deposit amount ($5,000) seems high.  Manager Holycross speculated that the Village will receive some negative feedback regarding the $5000 to protect the Village.  He stated that the contractor would have an option of a bond or the $5000 cash deposit that he guessed would go into a non-bearing interest account.  Manager Holycross stated that a bond can be more difficult to collect on than having cash on hand.  Mr. Mitchell questioned how much damage has been done in the Village by contractors and could Terry Hopkins answer this.  Ms. Terry mentioned a recent contractor error in the Bryn Du development.  Mr. Riffle was in agreement that a contractor should have to post a bond which protects any damage done to the Village and shows the contractor’s financial responsibility.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village does have the option to hold a permit, stop work order, or file an injunction if damage is done to Village property.  The Planning Commission later clarified that this part of the Ordinance only pertains to new building renovations.  Manager Holycross stated that the monies would be due at the time of the application and not when the application is approved.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would need to be further addressed.  Manager Holycross and Ms. Terry stated that they would further research options to this section that would still protect the Village.          

 

The Planning Commission ended their discussion of the Proposed Zoning Code Regulations at page eighteen (18) and stated that they would continue their discussion beginning with page nineteen (19) at their next regularly scheduled meeting if time permitted.

 

Adjournment: 9:06 PM. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

 

Next meetings:

April 14, 2008

April 28, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 24, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Tom Mitchell

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director Crites.

Visitors Present: Mr. and Mrs. Archie Marks, Jeff McInturf, Mike Crommes, George Fackler, Keith Myers, Fred Porcheddu, Richard Downs, Ms. Lechner. 

 

New Business:

 

1137 Cherry Valley Road, Archie Marks, Application #08-13

CSD (Community Service District)

The application is submitted by Archie Marks and the property is owned by Dr. Devin Savage.  The applicant is requesting approval of a free-standing sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mr. Marks and Ms. Cargo.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-13:

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there are trees being taken down in this area.  Ms. Terry stated that this is taking place on Route 16.  Mr. Riffle stated that he would prefer to see a border on the outside edge – which is similar to other signs in the same area.  He suggested a two and a half inch border.  The Planning Commission preferred to see a more subtle color than the bright yellow background presented by the applicant.  The applicant, Mr. Marks, stated that he could make the sign white with red lettering.  Ms. Reeves suggested having caps at the top of the posts to match the other signs in the area.  She also suggested having the posts themselves be white.  Mr. Marks agreed to make these changes. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-13 with the following conditions:

 

1)                  That the background shall be white;

2)                  That the lettering and 2 ½” border around the edge of the sign be red in color;

3)                  That the freestanding posts shall have decorative post caps on each end;

4)                  That the final design of the sign needs to meet with Staff’s approval.

 

Seconded by Mr. Riffle.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-13 with conditions: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-13 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

2000 Newark-Granville Road, Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Application #08-19

SBD (Suburban Business District), TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)

The application was submitted by Signcom for the Offices at Cherrywood.  The applicant is requesting approval of a freestanding monument sign at the corner of Newark-Granville Road and Galway Drive. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, and Mike Crommes. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-19:

Mr. McInturf explained the proposed placement of the signs.  Ms. Terry explained that the brick on the proposed signs will match the brick on the building and she stated that the applicant has presented a very attractive sign that will require low maintenance and properly identify the building.  She stated that she sees the need to have two signs due to it being a corner lot and that this would require a variance.  Ms. Reeves asked how far back the second sign would be.  Ms. Terry stated it would be fifteen feet from the right-of-way and not the roadway.  Mr. Riffle asked if the sign would have lights shining on it at night.  Mr. Commes stated that they intend to use ground lighting.  Mr. McInturf stated that they are looking at micro flood lights that do not trespass light.  Mr. Riffle stated that he would not want any light to shine on Newark-Granville Road. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Standards and Criteria for Application #08-19:

 

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 districts.  The Planning Commission concluded that the front entrance to the building and the parking area for the building faces away from Newark-Granville Road and Galway Drive making it difficult to locate.  The building is also located on a corner lot.

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.  The Planning Commission concluded that there are other corners lots within the same zoning district (SBD) that do not have the same problem.

c)                  That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded this to be true.

d)                  That the granting of 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.  The Planning Commission concluded no.

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.  The Planning Commission concluded that it will not affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community.

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-19 with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District, General Sign Provisions, from six (6) square feet to eighteen (18) square feet, as allowed under the freestanding sign provisions of the Transportation Corridor Overlay District; and

2)                  That the lighting cut sheets shall be submitted for review and approval by the Village Planner.  

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-19 with conditions: Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-19 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

2000 Newark-Granville Road, Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Application #08-20

SBD (Suburban Business District). The application was submitted by Signcom for the Offices at Cherrywood.  The applicant is requesting approval of a freestanding monument sign at the entrance of Galway Drive. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, and Mike Crommes. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-20:

(see discussion of Application #08-19)

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Standards and Criteria for Application #08-20:

 

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 districts.  The Planning Commission concluded this to be correct.

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.  The Planning Commission concluded that a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicants of rights enjoyed by other properties.

c)      That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded this to be true.

d)      That the granting of 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.  The Planning Commission concluded that it will not.

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.  The Planning Commission concluded that it will not affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community.

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-20 with the following conditions: 

1)                  To increase the maximum number of freestanding signs on this zone lot from one (1) to two (2);

2)                  That the lighting cut sheets shall be submitted for review and approval by the Village Planner.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-20 with conditions: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-20 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

Mr. Riffle indicated that Application #08-21 could not be reviewed by the Commission as indicated on the Agenda, because there were not enough Commission members present to discuss it.  (Since Ms. Reeves would have to recuse herself and there were only two other Commission members present at the meeting there was not a quorum for the discussion). Ms. Reeves indicated that she would be okay with continuing the Welsh Hills School temporary signage application to the next meeting.

 

136 Shephardson Court, Cherry, Fred Porcheddu, Application #08-22

SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District).  The applicant is requesting approval of a rear addition, deck, screened porch, and modifications to the exterior of the existing structure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Fred Porcheddu, Richard Downs, and Ms. Lechner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-22:

Mr. Downs explained that the home is incredibly small.  He submitted drawings of the proposed modifications.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is submitting an application to the BZBA for a variance.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments by neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated that a neighbor did come in to review the plans.  One neighbor, Ms. Lechner (132 Shepherdson Court), attended the Planning Commission meeting and was sworn in.  She stated that her property would be most affected by the proposed renovations and she has no problem with the plans Mr. Porcheddu has presented.  Mr. Riffle questioned the architectural style of the home and guessed it might be considered ‘Modern.’  Mr. Downs stated that it is a ‘Classic Salt Box.’  Since neither style is listed in the Code the Planning Commission determined that it would be considered ‘Homestead.’  Mr. Ryan asked if the builder would be matching the existing materials on the home.  Mr. Downs stated yes. 

 

Standards and Criteria for Application #08-22:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the home is stylistically compatible with itself.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that it contributes to the continuing vitality.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-22 with the following condition:

To approve Application #08-22 as submitted with the condition that the rear yard setback variance be approved by the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals.

 

Seconded by Mr. Riffle.

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-22: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-22 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

229 East College Street, Keith Myers, Application #08-23

VRD (Village Residential District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The applicant is requesting approval of a rear accessory structure, specifically a 12 foot by 16 foot garden shed. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Keith Myers.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-23:

Ms. Terry explained that she did the lot coverage calculation based on one lot, although Mr. Myers owns two adjacent lots.  Mr. Myers stated that he plans to use the building for gardening and for personal art projects.  Ms. Terry asked if there would be any gutters or downspouts on the building since there were none indicated in the application.  Mr. Myers stated that he was not planning to use gutters and downspouts due to the drainage issues in the area.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments by neighbors.  Mr. Myers stated that he has spoken with his neighbors and Ms. Terry noted that she had received no objections or comments related to the application. 

 

 

Standards and Criteria for Application #08-23:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the building is stylistically compatible with the existing home, detached garage and other structures within the area.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the accessory structure will contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the area.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the accessory structure will contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the accessory structure protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings.

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-23 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-23 as submitted: Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-23 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-13, Archie Marks: 

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-13. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-19, Mike Crommes: 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-19. Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-20, Mike Crommes: 

Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-20. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-22, Richard Downs: 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-22. Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-23, Keith Myers: 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-23. Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

2326 Newark-Granville Road, George Fackler, Application #08-24

SBD (Suburban Business District).  The applicant is requesting approval of two (2) building wall signs.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and George Fackler. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-24:

Mr. Fackler was not present when discussion of Application #08-24 began.  Ms. Terry stated that she would prefer to see the proposed tenant sign have individual borders around each tenant panel.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would prefer to see no border at all.  Mr. Riffle stated that the history of the Planning Commission encourages the use of borders.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is comfortable with all three alternatives suggested for the sign on the front of the building, but he questions the sign for the side of the building.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if a sign located on the property already lists the tenants.  Mr. Ryan explained that there is a free-standing sign on a separate parcel which lists tenants, and the applicant has requested this second sign so customers will know which building houses the power equipment.  Mr. Riffle and Ms. Reeves agreed that they do not care for the tenant sign because it does not offer any more direction and it does not properly fit in the space on the building.  Ms. Reeves stated that she prefers the third alternative for the sign on the front of the building minus the red line that crosses and separates the logo with the name.  (Mr. Fackler later agreed that he would not like the red line to remain.)  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Planning Commission would be denying Mr. Fackler the right to allow his business to function properly if they didn’t approve the tenant sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has to interpret whether or not the presented signs meet the Code intent, and that the second sign would require several variances.  Mr. Ryan asked if Fred Abraham’s business is in the same zoning district.  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Abraham is in a different zoning district and the sign he previously presented did not require a variance.  Mr. Riffle stated that his problem with the tenant sign is the height.  He stated that he would have a hard time approving a sign that is twice his height (the proposed sign measures 4 feet wide by 12 feet tall).  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Riffle stated that they would not be able to vote on a sign that is that big.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission could move forward even though Mr. Fackler was not there.  Ms. Terry stated that he was notified about the meeting and that he is not required to be present. The Planning Commission has the right to move forward with an application or to continue the application if the applicant is not present.  At that point (8:10 PM) Mr. Fackler entered the Planning Commission meeting and was sworn in by Mr. Ryan.  Mr. Ryan explained to Mr. Fackler that the Planning Commission is in agreement with the third alternative presented for the front of the building, but there is not support for the twelve foot high sign.  He stated that not only is the size an issue, but also the number of colors.  Mr. Fackler asked what it is that he hasn’t been willing to do to accommodate the wishes of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked what the Planning Commission hasn’t done.  Mr. Fackler replied a lot.  He went on to say that he is within the Code requirements and he has presented a sign to the Planning Commission that they previously recommended.  Mr. Riffle stated that they did not recommend a twelve foot high sign; they discussed potential design of a tenant panel sign instead of individual signs for each tenant.  Ms. Reeves stated that there is a free-standing sign already on the property which lists vendors.  She questioned what the point of the tenant sign is since it is not directional.  Mr. Fackler stated that he would like for his customers to see what equipment types he has to offer.  He stated that this sign will not be seen from the street unless someone is rubber-necking or straining to see the sign.  He also stated that the style of the sign he presented was suggested by Ms. Terry and this board.  Mr. Ryan stated that they are not arguing that point – meaning the style of the tenant sign – but they do question the size and number of colors.  Mr. Fackler stated that he has done what this body asked and he cannot believe they are having this conversation.  Mr. Riffle asked if Mr. Fackler has checked how this sign will look on his building.  Mr. Fackler stated he has and it will fit.  Mr. Riffle stated that due to the four foot stone at the bottom – you will have to look up sixteen feet to see the top of the sign.  Mr. Riffle stated that in his profession, they do not recommend filling space the way Mr. Fackler is suggesting.  He stated that the building is horizontal in nature and the proposed sign does not appropriately fit the horizontal space on the building.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Fackler if he would have a problem situating the sign to be 6x8 with the long dimension horizontal, rather than 4x12.  Mr. Fackler stated that he would request more than eight foot in height.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the manufacturers would be providing the tenant sign inserts.  Mr. Fackler stated that he would have to have these tenant panels fabricated, rather than using what the vendor could provide, because this is what the Planning Commission previously recommended and preferred.  Mr. Riffle stated that the way the twelve foot high sign is presented – the normal person is six foot tall and wouldn’t want to look up sixteen foot to read it – it would be uncomfortable for the average person.  Mr. Fackler stated that he disagrees and sees the sign as an appropriate height for vehicles pulling onto the property.  Mr. Riffle stated that if the sign is not approved at eye level – it is a waste of money.  Mr. Fackler said to let him waste his money.  Mr. Riffle stated that he would be able to get past the number of colors, but not the presented height of the sign.  Mr. Fackler stated that his point is that he delivered to the Planning Commission what they asked for.  Mr. Ryan stated that the point of the sign is to identify to the customers who the tenants are and not to get customers to come in off the street.  Mr. Fackler stated that the sign would be for when the customer pulls onto the property.  Mr. Ryan stated that if this is the case – he does not get the argument for a twelve foot sign.  Mr. Fackler stated he disagrees.  Mr. Riffle suggested making the sign fit the character of the building and stacking the tenants – listed side by side.  Mr. Fackler stated that he is “dead in the water” and he did not come here tonight to lose.  Ms. Terry questioned if the first sign presented is going to be located as depicted on the original building drawings.  Mr. Fackler stated that it will be very close to what is depicted on the drawing.  Mr. Fackler went on to say that he has asked for something from this Commission and he would like to know if they would allow him to install something and if it “looks like hell we can talk.”  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission came back and allowed an amendment to the original green roof color to allow for a red roof.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has had a comment from a resident who is not in favor of the red roof.  Ms. Reeves questioned how much square footage would be used for the first sign on the front of the building.  Ms. Terry stated 65 sq. ft. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the Standards and Criteria as follows:  

Standards and Criteria for Application #08-24:

 

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 districts.  The Planning Commission concluded that there are multiple buildings within the complex on two different parcels and that there are no special circumstances. 

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.  The Planning Commission agreed that they have approved other signs for people in the same area.  Mr. Terry stated that other businesses in the SBD include:  Ross’s Market, Cherrywood Offices, Certified Gas, Wendy’s, and the Offices at Erinwood.    

c)      That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant has built a second building that enhances the neighborhood and his business.  They agreed that they would not weight Standard “c” as heavily as “a” and “b.”    

d)      That the granting of 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.  The Planning Commission concluded that it will not.    

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.  The Planning Commission concluded that it will not.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Recommendation and agreed on Items 1, 2, and 3.  Mr. Ryan stated that variances are generally granted due to a practical difficulty.  He stated that since the Planning Commission is in agreement on the variances, the issue now comes down to the way the sign is oriented.  Mr. Riffle stated that he would be ok with the number of colors requested because it is for brand logos.  Ms. Reeves stated that the height and straight look of the sign does not appeal to her.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that aesthetically the sign can be very subjective – whether it is vertical or horizontal.  She stated that one person’s perception might be that the sign is too high.  Ms. Reeves stated that a twelve foot high sign bothers her.  Mr. Riffle stated that a building horizontal in nature should not put emphasis on verticality. 

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-24 with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 70 square feet to 113 square feet for both wall signs;

2)                  To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to two (2);

3)                  To increase the maximum number of colors in any sign from three (3) to four (4) for the northern wall sign, and from three (3) to seven (7) for the western wall sign, as proposed in Exhibit “A”; and

4)                  A stipulation to change the presented twelve foot (12’) vertical sign to be stacked and to be more horizontal in nature with panels, for the sign to be placed at a lower level, 48 sq. ft. total per Exhibit “B.”

 

There was no second to the motion.  Motion fails.

 

Mr. Riffle moved to amend the previous motion and include the following:

5)                  “Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A “

 

Ms. Reeves seconded the motion to amend. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend Mr. Riffle’s motion pertaining to Application #08-24:  Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion to amend carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Fackler stated that before the Planning Commission proceeds he would like to note that he feels terrible about this decision and if you do the math the sign will not fit.  He stated that he needs more square footage to increase the size of his logo. 

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to amend his previous motion a second time to increase the 113 sq. foot maximum to 120 sq. ft. for both wall signs. 

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend the second time:  Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion to amend a second time carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Fackler thanked the Planning Commission and stated that although he is not in agreement he does appreciate all of the effort put forward for this project.  He stated that his building opening is scheduled for April 17th.  Ms. Terry stated that there will be a ten day appeal process and then the permits will be issued. 

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-24 as amended: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-24 is approved as amended with the following conditions:

 

1)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 70 square feet to 120 square feet for both wall signs;

2)      To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to two (2);

3)      To increase the maximum number of colors in any sign from three (3) to four (4) for the northern wall sign, and from three (3) to seven (7) for the western wall sign, as proposed in Exhibit “A”; and

4)      A stipulation to change the presented twelve foot (12’) vertical sign to be stacked and to be more horizontal in nature with panels, for the sign to be placed at a lower level, 48 sq. ft. total per Exhibit “B.”

5)      Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A.

 

Finding of Fact Approval:

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-24, George Fackler: 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-24. Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Minutes of March 10, 2008 – Ms. Reeves moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle.  The motion passed 3-0.  The minutes of March 10, 2008 were approved as presented.

 

Motion to excuse Planning Commission member’s absence:

Mr. Riffle made a motion to excuse Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  The motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

 

Next meetings:

April 7, 2008

April 14, 2008

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.