GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
November 10, 2008
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.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
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
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.
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:
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.
November 24, 2008
December 8, 2008
December 22, 2008 – (The Planning Commission agreed to cancel this meeting.)