Granville Community Calendar

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

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.