GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 25, 2008
Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Gina Reeves, Tim Ryan (Chair), Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).
Members Absent: Tim Riffle.
Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Law Director, D. Michael Crites
Visitors Present: Jeanne Crumrine, Cynthia Cort, Flo Hoffman, Stephen Fowler, Cindy Farley, and Marcia Haines.
Application #07-106 was scheduled to be heard first on the Agenda. The applicant, Jeanne Crumrine, had not yet arrived at the Planning Commission meeting and they moved on to ‘New Business.’
SE Corner of South Main Street and East Broadway, Flo Hoffman, Application #08-09
VSD (Village Square District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The applicant is requesting approval of a historical sign for placement in Opera House Park.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Flo Hoffman, Cynthia Cort, and Marcia Haines.
Discussion regarding Application #08-09:
Flo Hoffman, 713 Friends Lane, stated that she is representing the Granville Historical Society and they would like to place a historical marker at Opera House Park. She stated that the historical marker would depict the layout of the Village as sold to the settlers who came to Granville in December of 1805. Ms. Hoffman stated that they are not certain as to the exact placement of the marker and would welcome any suggestions by the Planning Commission. She stated that they looked at placing it behind the bell or near the side entrance on Main Street. She also stated that they are aware that Opera House Park is widely used by many in the community and they certainly would not want to impede the use of the park by placing the marker in the wrong location.
Cynthia Cort, 1632 Newark-Granville Road, stated that she would like to emphasize that the proposed historical marker would be a real contribution for the community to learn the history of Granville – especially with the upcoming Bicentennial in Licking County.
Ms. Hoffman stated that it should be noted that she and Ms. Cort are on the Board of the Granville Historical Society.
Ms. Terry explained that the staff notes show there needing to be three variances granted for the application. She stated that this is no longer the case since the applicant has submitted new information reducing the number of colors that would be on the sign. She went on to say that a variance would need to be granted to increase the number of signs on the property from one (1) to two (2) because there is already one sign located near the bell. Ms. Terry stated that a variance would also need to be granted for the proposed size of the sign. Ms. Hoffman indicated that they have little control over the size of the sign issued by the Ohio Historical Society. Mr. Burriss questioned the height of the sign with the pole. Ms. Hoffman stated six feet from the ground. Mr. Mitchell noted that the light post near the Main Street entrance already impedes things so maybe the sign would fit there. Mr. Burriss questioned if an appropriate location might be to the west of the bell (on the opposite side from the existing sign). Ms. Hoffman stated that pedestrians would need to be able to look at each side of the sign since it is a two-sided marker. Mr. Burriss suggested having a more detailed drawing plan for them to make their decision. Ms. Hoffman agreed a detailed drawing would be advantageous. Mr. Burriss questioned if the Village already had a drawing plan for this area because of the placement of the light posts and benches a couple years back. He stated that he recalled having something. Ms. Terry stated that she has not been able to locate any information in the files, but she would continue to search for this. Ms. Reeves noted that the proposed size of the sign is in keeping with other Ohio Historical signs. Mr. Burriss inquired on the size of the sign located next to the bell. Ms. Terry stated that she believed it to be approximately 2 foot by 3 foot. Mr. Burriss stated that he would consider the proposed sign to be an “incidental sign” since it is not a sign advertising for anything and he would not have a problem granting a variance for this reason.
Marcia Haines, 530 West Broadway, stated that she is representing St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and they have no problem with the historical marker. She stated that they would like to ensure that consideration is given to keep the lawn area open for activities.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application 08-09 and to approve the sign with a variance to increase the size from twelve square foot (12’) to thirteen point one twenty five square foot (13.125’) and to grant a variance to increase the number of signs from one (1) to two (2) with the condition that future approval of the placement of the sign is approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant is to return with a site plan for final approval by the Planning Commission.
Seconded by Mr. Burriss.
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-09: Mitchell (yes), Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Application No. 08-09 is Approved with the above stated conditions.
Speedway Drive, Jeanne Crumrine, Application #07-106
PCD (Planned Commercial District), SBD (Suburban Business District)
The applicant is requesting approval for a site plan and building design approval.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeanne Crumrine.
Discussion regarding Application #07-106:
Jeanne Crumrine presented samples of the proposed frosted glass for the windows, as well as samples of the stone, brick, shingles, and gutters. She stated that Ms. Terry suggested the “musket brown” color for the gutters/soffits. The Planning Commission also reviewed the proposed lighting (minus the foot candles) and agreed that the applicant is providing sufficient lighting. Ms. Terry stated that a Photometric Plan will need to be submitted by the applicant, and the application could be voted on this evening with this condition included. Mr. Burriss reviewed the proposed outdoor lamps and concluded that the “Imperials Bronze” submitted in an exhibit by the applicant appears to blend nicely. Mr. Burriss also noted that the applicant has proposed four hose bibs, which is certainly adequate. He also noted that the dumpster enclosure will match the building. Mr. Burriss inquired on the overall height of the enclosure. Ms. Crumrine stated that it will be eight feet (8’) tall and the dumpster is approximately six feet (6’) tall. She later stated that if she uses Big O Refuse they will be able to back in to collect the trash, and if she uses Waste Management they will need to pull forward. Ms. Crumrine stated that the doors on the building will be a painted steel to match the brick on the building. Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a nice job with the pedestrian walkways. He noted that there appears to be a different use in materials on the sidewalk crossing over the pavement and the Planning Commission would need to know what materials they plan to use in this area. Ms. Terry and Mr. Burriss suggested either stamped concrete or pavers. The Planning Commission also noted that the proposed south east sidewalk should meet up with the Arby’s sidewalk and go to the property line. Mr. Mitchell inquired on the parking spaces. Ms. Terry explained that the final number of parking spaces will be determined per occupant and she does not foresee any problems regarding parking. Mr. Burriss noted that the applicant did add one additional space as recommended by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting. Ms. Terry stated that the Code states drive aisles need to be twenty-three feet (23’) wide and the applicant has presented drive aisles of nineteen feet (19’) wide. She stated that the Engineer will look into this and likely make suggestions on how to adjust. Mr. Mitchell noted that the parking spots appear to be longer than required and perhaps they could pick up some extra space there. Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed parking spots are 10x23, while the Code requires them to be 10x20. Councilmember O’Keefe inquired if the applicant is aware of a bike path extension west of her property. Ms. Terry stated that there is a proposed extension to an area south of the property. Ms. Crumrine stated that she anticipates the hours of operation to be no earlier than 6 AM and no later than 12 PM. Mr. Mitchell asked when the applicant would like to begin construction. Ms. Crumrine stated that she is in the process of getting bids and she would like to begin as soon as possible. Mr. Mitchell summed up the information that the applicant still needs to provide:
* Photometric Plan
* Increasing the size of the drive aisles
* Materials to be used on the sidewalk crossing over the pavement.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #07-106 with the condition that the Photometric Plan be submitted and reviewed by the Village Staff; that the south east corner of the sidewalk is extended to the property line; that the application shall be consistent with Items 1 & 2 of the Staff Recommendation Report.
Seconded by Mr. Burriss
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-106: Reeves (abstain), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 07-106 is Approved with the above stated conditions.
(Conditions 1 & 2 of the Staff Recommendation report):
1) That the applicant shall be required to install a five foot (5’) concrete sidewalk along the frontage of Speedway Drive, to connect to the existing Arby’s sidewalk to the east, consistent with Exhibit “B”, page C-100, dated February 8, 2008.
2) That Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” shall be incorporated as a part of the formal application as follows:
- a. Exhibit “A” – Materials List (dated February 8, 2008)
- b. Exhibit “B” – Building & Site Plans (dated February 8, 2008)
- i. Page T-100: Front Elevation
- ii. Page C-100: Site Plan
- iii. Page A-101: Building Floor Plan, Dumpster Elevation & Dumpster Plan
- iv. Page A-201: Building Elevations & Column Details
c. Exhibit “C” – Binder with color samples for the Materials List (dated February 8, 2008)
d. Exhibit “D” – Landscape Plan & Planting Schedule (dated January 22, 2008), Correspondence from the Tree & Landscape Commission (dated January 31, 2008).
128 Cherry Street, Stephen Fowler, Application #08-10
VSD (Village Square District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The applicant is requesting architectural review and approval of a rear addition.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephen Fowler.
Discussion regarding Application #08-10:
Ms. Terry stated that there was a mix-up with BZBA notices and Mr. Fowler was not able to present his variance request at the February 21st hearing. She stated that he will be on the agenda at the next BZBA meeting and approval this evening would only apply if a variance is given by the BZBA. Stephen Fowler, 128 Cherry Street, explained that he would like to do the addition because he really likes the house but needs additional bedroom space for his three children, as well as a master bath. He explained that he would like to remove a one story addition that has never been formally heated or air-conditioned and replace it with a new addition which is a 1.45% increase in footprint. He presented information dated “February 25, 2008” with comments regarding the proposed addition. Mr. Burriss inquired if the gables on the front and side of the home are shingled. He stated that he has some concern over the height of the roof not matching the height of the proposed addition. Mr. Burriss stated that perhaps a piece of trim could carry over onto the addition to make it flow better. Mr. Fowler stated that the gables are wood. Mr. Burriss noted that the proposed addition would not be very visible. Mr. Mitchell stated that you wouldn’t be able to see it at all. Mr. Burriss complemented the applicant on the work done on his submittal. He stated that they would like to see more applications as complete as this one.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-10 on the condition that a variance is granted by the BZBA.
Seconded by Mr. Burriss
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-106: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Application No. 08-10 is Approved with the above stated condition.
14 Westgate Drive, Cindy Farley, Application #08-11
CSD (Community Service District)
The applicant is requesting approval of three temporary signs, to include two (2) wall signs and one (1) window sign.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Cindy Farley.
Discussion regarding Application #08-11:
Ms. Terry explained that the applicant, Cindy Farley, is proposing three (3) signs: 22 sq. ft, 24 sq. ft., and a 2.6 sq. ft. which equals 48.6 sq. ft. She stated that the total square footage allowed is 58.64 sq. ft. and the applicant is meeting this requirement. She went on to say that the applicant is proposing to use these signs temporarily, but the Code does not allow for all three. Cindy Farley stated that she would be happy with whatever number of signs the Planning Commission will allow and she hopes to be back before them to have approval for a permanent sign within four to five weeks. She stated that Midwest Graphics is in the process of designing a sign. Mr. Mitchell noted that if the proposed signs were permanent signs a variance would not need to be granted. Mr. Terry stated this is true and there is an area in the Code which refers to “Other Signs” and perhaps the granting of a variance could come under this. Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed 3x8 foot banner is two-sided because this might be able to be used in the yard. Ms. Farley stated that it is a one-sided banner. She stated that she would be willing to have it printed on each side, but she has concern that it would not show up well with the white background.
Ms. Reeves noted that she would be abstaining from voting because she has a pending situation regarding a sign for approval.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-11 as a temporary “Other Sign.” The approval is for Exhibit “A” for the 3x8 foot banner and for the window sign listed as #3 also on Exhibit “A”, and the approval is for a three (3) month time frame from the date of the final issuance of the sign permit.
Seconded by Mr. Burriss.
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-11: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Reeves (abstain), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-11 is Approved with the above stated conditions.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #07-106, Jeanne Crumrine, Speedway Drive:
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #07-106. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 3-0. (Ms. Reeves abstained)
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-09, Flo Hoffman, Opera House Park:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The Planning Commission concluded that there are special circumstances to the site (Opera House Park) that make this site unique.
b) That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would derive 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 this has little to no weight on this unique property.
c) That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant did not design the size of the sign to be placed at Opera House Park.
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 this is a unique celebration of the Village history.
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 this would be dependent upon the placement of the sign.
Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-09. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 4-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-10, Stephen Fowler, 128 Cherry Street:
a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded that the height is consistent and subordinate to the primary structure.
b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded that the front elevation is not affected because the location of the addition is in the rear and that addition does not in any way alter the primary view of the house.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded that the roof form is consistent and subordinate to the main structure.
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded that the style and use of materials is consistent with reproducing the elements of the original structure.
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-10. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 4-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-11, Cindy Farley, 14 Westgate Drive:
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-11. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 3-0. (Ms. Reeves abstained)
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
Mr. Ryan moved to excuse Mr. Riffle from the Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.
Ms. Reeves submitted information pertaining to the definition for a ‘fast food restaurant’ to Ms. Terry. Ms. Terry stated that she is continuing to research this definition and she hopes to have information to the Planning Commission at their next meeting.
Minutes of February 11, 2008 – Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The motion passed 4-0. The minutes of February 11, 2008 are approved as presented.
Adjournment: 9:30 PM.
Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 4-0.
March 10, 2008
March 24, 2008