Granville Community Calendar

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

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.