Granville Community Calendar

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           

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.