Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 10, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan (Chair), Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Jim and Joy Jung, Kevin Reiner, Sherry Gardner, Flo Hoffman, Tina Lavender, Fred Abraham, Mark Alexandrunas, George Fackler.

 

Old Business:

SE Corner of South Main Street and East Broadway, Flo Hoffman,  Application #08-09

Village Square District (VSD), Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The applicant is requesting approval of a historical sign for placement in Opera House Park.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jim Siegel, and Flo Hoffman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-09:

The application was previously approved pending the final location for the historical sign be approved by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained that she tried to locate a good set of plans for the Opera House Park area, but she was unable to find one.  She stated that she contacted Jim Siegel from the Tree and Landscape Committee and he too was unaware of a good set of plans for Opera House Park.  Mr. Siegel was present and able to explain the location of water and electrical lines to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss suggested placing the sign as close to the light post as possible.  He suggested that it be located perpendicular to the street directly behind the bell.  Ms. Terry stated that a shrub may need to be removed to fit the sign in that location.  There were no objections to removing the shrub by any members of the Planning Commission or from Mr. Siegel – Tree and Landscape Commission.  Flo Hoffman stated that the Granville Historical Society would like to see the sign behind the shrubs and they want to ensure that people will be able to walk right up to read the sign without being impeded by the shrubbery. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the location of the sign, for Application #08-09, to be placed directly behind the bell and between the light post, and that it be placed perpendicular to the street.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-09: Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

The location for the sign previously approved for Application No. 08-09 is approved by the Planning Commission.

 

New Business:

464 South Main Street, Fred Abraham,  Application #08-14

Community Service District (CSD), Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The applicant is requesting approval of a building sign, sandwich board sign, and a new tenant panel in the freestanding sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Fred Abraham.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-14:

Fred Abraham stated that he would only like to use the sandwich board for a period of six months.  He explained that the sign would have a white background with red and black lettering.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he recalls there previously being a request for a sandwich board sign because the applicant felt that the permanent freestanding sign was not visible enough.  He questioned why the applicant is not making an attempt to make the freestanding sign more visible so people can see it.  Ms. Terry explained that any changes to the freestanding sign would result in it needing to be re-approved by the Planning Commission.   Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not be in favor of approving a sandwich board sign because the freestanding sign isn’t visible enough.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant isn’t asking for anything different than any other business up town has requested.  Mr. Riffle asked if the applicant is willing to bring the sandwich board sign in each night.  Mr. Abraham stated yes.  Mr. Riffle noted that this had not been adhered to in the past. 

 

Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-14 as follows:

A building sign to be replaced size for size and color for color; master front commerce sign to be replaced size for size and color for color; a sandwich board sign approved under ‘Other Signs’ and submitted with red and black lettering to be set up for a six (6) month period (from the date of issuance of the permit) and to be taken in each night.  

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-14: Mitchell (No), Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application No. 08-14 is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

 

57 Westgate Drive, Tina Lavender,  Application #08-15

CSD (Community Service District), Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The applicant is requesting approval of a temporary real estate sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tina Lavender.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-15:

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is requesting re-approval of a sign that was already in place.  Tina Lavender was available for any questions/comments. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-15 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Seconded by Mr. Riffle.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-15: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application No. 08-15 is Approved as submitted.

 

134 ½ East Broadway, Dr. Mark Alexandrunas,  Application #08-16

Village Business District (VBD) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The applicant is requesting approval of a building wall sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dr. Mark Alexandrunas.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-16:

Dr. Mark Alexandrunas stated that he is located in the office where Dr. Cartnal’s dentistry practice was previously located for 44 years.  He explained that he submitted approximately four examples of a sign and location to the building landlord, Lisa McKivergin, and each of them was rejected.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that Ms. McKivergin approved the sign before the Planning Commission this evening and suggested the placement.  Mr. Mitchell inquired if the Village would need something in writing from Ms. McKivergin authorizing her approval of the sign.  Ms. Terry stated that she phoned Ms. McKivergin several times and left two messages and Ms. McKivergin then left two messages with her stating that she approved of the proposed sign and location.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that he would also like to have approval for a door sign.  Ms. Terry explained that Dr. Alexandrunas would need to re-submit his application if he wished to add this.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that he is in need of having a sign in place as soon as possible so his patients know how to find his practice.  Mr. Burriss stated that all of the members of the Planning Commission have a problem with the proposed placement of the sign, but they do like the proposed sign itself.  Mr. Burriss went on to explain that historically, especially in Granville, first floor businesses have used flat signs, while second floor businesses have used signs perpendicular to the street.  Mr. Riffle agreed that the proposed placement of the sign is in an odd location.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the proposed placement of the sign would cover up some of the trim/molding of the building.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the placement of the sign be worked out with the owner of the building since no one on the Planning Commission would be willing to approve the application as presented this evening.  He stated that they would like to have a sign that is architecturally and historically correct.  Mr. Burriss stated (and other members of the Planning Commission agreed) that the sign might be appropriately located in the middle of the top four windows of the building – perpendicular to the street.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that he originally proposed having the sign located above his door between the two awnings, but this was not approved by the owner of the building.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on the reason for not allowing this and Dr. Alexandrunas was uncertain as to the reason.  Mr. Burriss also suggested that a perpendicular sign could be a bit larger than what was submitted.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that he would agree to table the application to work out a different location for the sign with the landlord.  Ms. Terry explained that tabling the application would result in it not being heard until the next Planning Commission meeting.  

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #08-16.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #08-16: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application No. 08-16 is Tabled.

 

219 West Broadway, Kevin Reiner, Application #08-17

Village Residential District (VRD) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The applicant is requesting architectural review and approval of a covered front porch area, removal of a rear attached shed and modifications to the existing rear and eastern facades. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Kevin Reiner, Jim and Joy Jung, and Sherry Gardner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-17:

Kevin Reiner, explained the changes he intends to do.  Mr. Burris asked if the columns will be plain or fluted.  Mr. Reiner stated that they will be plain.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the proposed type of hanging light.  Mr. Reiner stated that he has not yet picked this out, but he guesses it will be a metal hanging light.  Mr. Burriss questioned what type of roofing material would be used.  Mr. Reiner stated that he is using a metal roof and he is leaning towards a charcoal gray color.  Mr. Burriss stated that everything in the application appears fine, but they do have to ensure that the materials that are used are consistent.  He stated that the neighbors on each side of this home have done a wonderful job with their renovations and this includes a home formerly renovated by Mr. Reiner.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not see anything within the application that he does not like.  Ms. Terry stated that she is in the process of finding out if a demolition permit is needed to take down the shed.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she does not believe the demolition permits are required for instances when a new structure will be put in its place.  Mr. Reiner stated that part of the shed has already come down and it was a matter of safety to remove more of the structure.  Sherry Gardner, Elm Street, stated that she is Mr. Reiner’s neighbor in the back and she does not believe that there could be a better person picked to respect the historical value of the home located at 219 West Broadway.  She stated that she would whole-heartedly support whatever plans Mr. Reiner has with the home because he always does a good job in any project he undertakes.  Catherine Joy Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she is Mr. Reiner’s neighbor to the west.  She stated that whatever plans Mr. Reiner has for the home will be a distinct improvement to what is currently in place because there is considerable deterioration that has taken place.  Mrs. Jung stated that she supports Mr. Reiner’s efforts in improving the home.  Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that in most communities the home located at 219 West Broadway would be torn down.  He stated that he has seen work done by Mr. Reiner in the past and it has always had charm and class and he also whole heartedly supports whatever plans he has to improve the home. 

 

Standards and Criteria for Application #08-17:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that their previous discussion confirms that they believe the proposed changes are compatible.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the closest neighbors approved and endorsed the proposed changes and they believe the historical character of the village is enhanced by the improvements. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the changes improve a dilapidated home.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that it is protected by keeping the home from falling down.

 

 

Standards and Criteria (Section 1161.05):

a)      Height: The Planning Commission concluded that the overall height did not change. 

b)      Building Massing:  The Planning Commission concluded that the building massing does not substantially change and the historical and architectural nature is consistent. 

c)      Roof Shape:  The Planning Commission concluded that the historical and architectural nature of the roof shape is consistent.

d)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the materials and textures presented by the applicant are historically acceptable. 

e)      Use of  Details:  The Planning Commission concluded that the use of details seem to be consistent with the existing style of the home.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-17 as submitted. 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-17: Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application No. 08-17 is approved as submitted.

 

Proposed Zoning Code Revisions

A public hearing is set for April 7th – a special scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

 

Planning Commission Work Session

George Fackler approached the Planning Commission to discuss lighting, landscape, shutters, and signage regarding a new building for Fackler Country Gardens.  He presented examples of shutters.  The Planning Commission ultimately recommended a raised panel shutter in a satin black.  Mr. Fackler presented examples of the security lights he would like to install.  He stated that he would be installing a reflector on the east side light so it does not bother his neighbor.  He proposed placing the lights under the windows for maintenance reasons.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the wall pack lighting be centered under the windows.  Mr. Fackler presented an example of Holophane lights.  He would like to use four of these lights on each side of two doorways.  Mr. Fackler was told that his sign approval would have to be done with a separate application.  Mr. Fackler inquired on placing his vendor signs on his building, but not illuminating them.  The Planning Commission ultimately suggested looking at a sign that could have his logo, as well as removable slots listing his vendors.  Mr. Fackler was told that he could have a total of 120 square feet for his sign (10x20) and only one sign per building is permitted.  He stated that he wished to have two signs and he was made aware that he would need to make a request for a variance. 

 

Mr. Mitchell excused himself from the Planning Commission meeting half way through the Work Session with Mr. Fackler

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-09, Flo Hoffman: 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-09. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-14, Fred Abraham: 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-14. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-15, Tina Lavender: 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-15. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-17, Kevin Reiner: 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-17. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Other Matters:

Ms. Reeves noted that she will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 28th

 

Minutes of February 25, 2008 – Ms. Reeves moved to approve the minutes as amended by Ms. Terry.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  The motion passed 4-0.  The minutes of February 25, 2008 are approved as amended.

 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

March 24, 2008

April 7, 2008

April 14, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 25, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Gina Reeves, Tim Ryan (Chair), Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Tim Riffle.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Law Director, D. Michael Crites

Visitors Present: Jeanne Crumrine, Cynthia Cort, Flo Hoffman, Stephen Fowler, Cindy Farley, and Marcia Haines.

 

Old Business:

Application #07-106 was scheduled to be heard first on the Agenda.  The applicant, Jeanne Crumrine, had not yet arrived at the Planning Commission meeting and they moved on to ‘New Business.’

 

New Business:

SE Corner of South Main Street and East Broadway, Flo Hoffman, Application #08-09

VSD (Village Square District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The applicant is requesting approval of a historical sign for placement in Opera House Park.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Flo Hoffman, Cynthia Cort, and Marcia Haines.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-09:

Flo Hoffman, 713 Friends Lane, stated that she is representing the Granville Historical Society and they would like to place a historical marker at Opera House Park.  She stated that the historical marker would depict the layout of the Village as sold to the settlers who came to Granville in December of 1805.  Ms. Hoffman stated that they are not certain as to the exact placement of the marker and would welcome any suggestions by the Planning Commission.  She stated that they looked at placing it behind the bell or near the side entrance on Main Street.  She also stated that they are aware that Opera House Park is widely used by many in the community and they certainly would not want to impede the use of the park by placing the marker in the wrong location.

 

Cynthia Cort, 1632 Newark-Granville Road, stated that she would like to emphasize that the proposed historical marker would be a real contribution for the community to learn the history of Granville – especially with the upcoming Bicentennial in Licking County.

 

Ms. Hoffman stated that it should be noted that she and Ms. Cort are on the Board of the Granville Historical Society.

 

Ms. Terry explained that the staff notes show there needing to be three variances granted for the application.  She stated that this is no longer the case since the applicant has submitted new information reducing the number of colors that would be on the sign.  She went on to say that a variance would need to be granted to increase the number of signs on the property from one (1) to two (2) because there is already one sign located near the bell.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance would also need to be granted for the proposed size of the sign.  Ms. Hoffman indicated that they have little control over the size of the sign issued by the Ohio Historical Society.  Mr. Burriss questioned the height of the sign with the pole.  Ms. Hoffman stated six feet from the ground.  Mr. Mitchell noted that the light post near the Main Street entrance already impedes things so maybe the sign would fit there.  Mr. Burriss questioned if an appropriate location might be to the west of the bell (on the opposite side from the existing sign).  Ms. Hoffman stated that pedestrians would need to be able to look at each side of the sign since it is a two-sided marker.  Mr. Burriss suggested having a more detailed drawing plan for them to make their decision.  Ms. Hoffman agreed a detailed drawing would be advantageous.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the Village already had a drawing plan for this area because of the placement of the light posts and benches a couple years back.  He stated that he recalled having something.  Ms. Terry stated that she has not been able to locate any information in the files, but she would continue to search for this.  Ms. Reeves noted that the proposed size of the sign is in keeping with other Ohio Historical signs.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the size of the sign located next to the bell.  Ms. Terry stated that she believed it to be approximately 2 foot by 3 foot.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would consider the proposed sign to be an “incidental sign” since it is not a sign advertising for anything and he would not have a problem granting a variance for this reason.

 

Marcia Haines, 530 West Broadway, stated that she is representing St. Luke’s Episcopal Church and they have no problem with the historical marker.  She stated that they would like to ensure that consideration is given to keep the lawn area open for activities. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application 08-09 and to approve the sign with a variance to increase the size from twelve square foot (12’) to thirteen point one twenty five square foot (13.125’) and to grant a variance to increase the number of signs from one (1) to two (2) with the condition that future approval of the placement of the sign is approved by the Planning Commission.  The applicant is to return with a site plan for final approval by the Planning Commission. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-09: Mitchell (yes), Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application No. 08-09 is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

Old Business:

Speedway Drive, Jeanne Crumrine,  Application #07-106

PCD (Planned Commercial District), SBD (Suburban Business District)

The applicant is requesting approval for a site plan and building design approval.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeanne Crumrine.

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-106:

 

Jeanne Crumrine presented samples of the proposed frosted glass for the windows, as well as samples of the stone, brick, shingles, and gutters.  She stated that Ms. Terry suggested the “musket brown” color for the gutters/soffits.  The Planning Commission also reviewed the proposed lighting (minus the foot candles) and agreed that the applicant is providing sufficient lighting.  Ms. Terry stated that a Photometric Plan will need to be submitted by the applicant, and the application could be voted on this evening with this condition included.  Mr. Burriss reviewed the proposed outdoor lamps and concluded that the “Imperials Bronze” submitted in an exhibit by the applicant appears to blend nicely.  Mr. Burriss also noted that the applicant has proposed four hose bibs, which is certainly adequate.  He also noted that the dumpster enclosure will match the building.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the overall height of the enclosure.  Ms. Crumrine stated that it will be eight feet (8’) tall and the dumpster is approximately six feet (6’) tall.  She later stated that if she uses Big O Refuse they will be able to back in to collect the trash, and if she uses Waste Management they will need to pull forward.  Ms. Crumrine stated that the doors on the building will be a painted steel to match the brick on the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a nice job with the pedestrian walkways.  He noted that there appears to be a different use in materials on the sidewalk crossing over the pavement and the Planning Commission would need to know what materials they plan to use in this area.  Ms. Terry and Mr. Burriss suggested either stamped concrete or pavers.  The Planning Commission also noted that the proposed south east sidewalk should meet up with the Arby’s sidewalk and go to the property line.  Mr. Mitchell inquired on the parking spaces.  Ms. Terry explained that the final number of parking spaces will be determined per occupant and she does not foresee any problems regarding parking.  Mr. Burriss noted that the applicant did add one additional space as recommended by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code states drive aisles need to be twenty-three feet (23’) wide and the applicant has presented drive aisles of nineteen feet (19’) wide.  She stated that the Engineer will look into this and likely make suggestions on how to adjust.  Mr. Mitchell noted that the parking spots appear to be longer than required and perhaps they could pick up some extra space there.  Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed parking spots are 10x23, while the Code requires them to be 10x20.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired if the applicant is aware of a bike path extension west of her property.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a proposed extension to an area south of the property.  Ms. Crumrine stated that she anticipates the hours of operation to be no earlier than 6 AM and no later than 12 PM.  Mr. Mitchell asked when the applicant would like to begin construction.  Ms. Crumrine stated that she is in the process of getting bids and she would like to begin as soon as possible.  Mr. Mitchell summed up the information that the applicant still needs to provide:

* Photometric Plan

* Increasing the size of the drive aisles

* Materials to be used on the sidewalk crossing over the pavement. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #07-106 with the condition that the Photometric Plan be submitted and reviewed by the Village Staff; that the south east corner of the sidewalk is extended to the property line; that the application shall be consistent with Items 1 & 2 of the Staff Recommendation Report. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-106: Reeves (abstain), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 07-106  is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

 

(Conditions 1 & 2 of the Staff Recommendation report):

1)                  That the applicant shall be required to install a five foot (5’) concrete sidewalk along the frontage of Speedway Drive, to connect to the existing Arby’s sidewalk to the east, consistent with Exhibit “B”, page C-100, dated February 8, 2008.

2)                  That Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” shall be incorporated as a part of the formal application as follows:

  1. a.      Exhibit “A” – Materials List (dated February 8, 2008)
  2. b.      Exhibit “B” – Building & Site Plans (dated February 8, 2008)
    1.                                                               i.      Page T-100: Front Elevation
    2.                                                             ii.      Page C-100: Site Plan
    3.                                                           iii.      Page A-101: Building Floor Plan, Dumpster Elevation & Dumpster Plan
    4.                                                           iv.      Page A-201: Building Elevations & Column Details

     c.   Exhibit “C” – Binder with color samples for the Materials List (dated February 8, 2008)

     d.  Exhibit “D” – Landscape Plan & Planting Schedule (dated January 22, 2008), Correspondence from the Tree & Landscape Commission (dated January 31, 2008).

 

 

New Business:

128 Cherry Street, Stephen Fowler,  Application #08-10

VSD (Village Square District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The applicant is requesting architectural review and approval of a rear addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephen Fowler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-10:

Ms. Terry stated that there was a mix-up with BZBA notices and Mr. Fowler was not able to present his variance request at the February 21st hearing.  She stated that he will be on the agenda at the next BZBA meeting and approval this evening would only apply if a variance is given by the BZBA.  Stephen Fowler, 128 Cherry Street, explained that he would like to do the addition because he really likes the house but needs additional bedroom space for his three children, as well as a master bath.  He explained that he would like to remove a one story addition that has never been formally heated or air-conditioned and replace it with a new addition which is a 1.45% increase in footprint.  He presented information dated “February 25, 2008” with comments regarding the proposed addition.  Mr. Burriss inquired if the gables on the front and side of the home are shingled.  He stated that he has some concern over the height of the roof not matching the height of the proposed addition.  Mr. Burriss stated that perhaps a piece of trim could carry over onto the addition to make it flow better.  Mr. Fowler stated that the gables are wood.  Mr. Burriss noted that the proposed addition would not be very visible.  Mr. Mitchell stated that you wouldn’t be able to see it at all.  Mr. Burriss complemented the applicant on the work done on his submittal.  He stated that they would like to see more applications as complete as this one. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-10 on the condition that a variance is granted by the BZBA. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-106: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application No. 08-10 is Approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

14 Westgate Drive, Cindy Farley,  Application #08-11

CSD (Community Service District)

The applicant is requesting approval of three temporary signs, to include two (2) wall signs and one (1) window sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Cindy Farley.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-11:

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant, Cindy Farley, is proposing three (3) signs:  22 sq. ft, 24 sq. ft., and a 2.6 sq. ft. which equals 48.6 sq. ft.  She stated that the total square footage allowed is 58.64 sq. ft. and the applicant is meeting this requirement.  She went on to say that the applicant is proposing to use these signs temporarily, but the Code does not allow for all three.  Cindy Farley stated that she would be happy with whatever number of signs the Planning Commission will allow and she hopes to be back before them to have approval for a permanent sign within four to five weeks.  She stated that Midwest Graphics is in the process of designing a sign.  Mr. Mitchell noted that if the proposed signs were permanent signs a variance would not need to be granted.  Mr. Terry stated this is true and there is an area in the Code which refers to “Other Signs” and perhaps the granting of a variance could come under this.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed 3x8 foot banner is two-sided because this might be able to be used in the yard.  Ms. Farley stated that it is a one-sided banner.  She stated that she would be willing to have it printed on each side, but she has concern that it would not show up well with the white background.

 

Ms. Reeves noted that she would be abstaining from voting because she has a pending situation regarding a sign for approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-11 as a temporary “Other Sign.”  The approval is for Exhibit “A” for the 3x8 foot banner and for the window sign listed as #3 also on Exhibit “A”, and the approval is for a three (3) month time frame from the date of the final issuance of the sign permit. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-11: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Reeves (abstain), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-11 is Approved with the above stated conditions.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #07-106, Jeanne Crumrine, Speedway Drive: 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #07-106. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. (Ms. Reeves abstained)

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-09, Flo Hoffman, Opera House Park: 

a)      That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  The Planning Commission concluded that there are special circumstances to the site (Opera House Park) that make this site unique.

b)      That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would derive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance.  The Planning Commission concluded that this has little to no weight on this unique property.

c)      That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant did not design the size of the sign to be placed at Opera House Park.

d)      That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district.  The Planning Commission concluded that this is a unique celebration of the Village history.

e)      That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance.  The Planning Commission concluded that this would be dependent upon the placement of the sign. 

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-09. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-10, Stephen Fowler, 128 Cherry Street: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the height is consistent and subordinate to the primary structure.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the front elevation is not affected because the location of the addition is in the rear and that addition does not in any way alter the primary view of the house.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the roof form is consistent and subordinate to the main structure.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the style and use of materials is consistent with reproducing the elements of the original structure.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-10. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-11, Cindy Farley, 14 Westgate Drive: 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-11. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. (Ms. Reeves abstained)

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Other Matters:

Mr. Ryan moved to excuse Mr. Riffle from the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Ms. Reeves submitted information pertaining to the definition for a ‘fast food restaurant’ to Ms. Terry.  Ms. Terry stated that she is continuing to research this definition and she hopes to have information to the Planning Commission at their next meeting.

 

Minutes of February 11, 2008 – Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  The motion passed 4-0.  The minutes of February 11, 2008 are approved as presented.

 

Adjournment: 9:30 PM. 

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

March 10, 2008

March 24, 2008

 

Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 11, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Tim Riffle, Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Village Manager, Don Holycross; Assistant Law Director Allison Crites.

Visitors Present: Sabato Sagaria, Sandra Knott, Roger Kessler, John Klauder, Ben Barton, Barb Franks, and Dan Rogers.

 

Oath of Office for Gina Reeves

Gina Reeves was appointed to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Crites read the Oath of Office and swore in Ms. Reeves.

 

Election of Commission Chair:

Ms. Terry asked if there were any nominations for the Chair of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mitchell nominated Mr. Ryan to serve as Chair.  The nomination of Mr. Ryan was seconded by Mr. Burriss.  There were no other nominations.  Tim Ryan was appointed as Chair to the Planning Commission.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Election of Commission Vice-Chair:

Ms. Terry asked if there were any nominations for the Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan nominated Mr. Mitchell to serve as Vice-Chair.  The nomination of Mr. Mitchell was seconded by Mr. Burriss.  There were no other nominations.  Tom Mitchell was appointed as Vice-Chair to the Planning Commission.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Review & Approval of the Planning Commission Hearings & Submittal Dates for 2008:

Ms. Terry distributed the proposed dates for 2008.  There were no objections by members of the Planning Commission regarding the schedule.  Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the Hearing and Submittal dates for 2008.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  

 

Roll Call Vote to approve the 2008 schedule: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Review & Approval of the Rules & Regulations of the Planning Commission:

Ms. Terry distributed copies of the Rules & Regulations.  Mr. Mitchell questioned two sections in the document (Section E 3 on page four (4) and Section XV I on page seven (7)).  He stated that the two sections seem to refute what the other says.

 

Section E 3 states the following:

“E 3) a person authorized to appear and be heard may cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute his or her position, arguments and contentions.”

 

Section XV I states:

“All questions should be directed to the Commission.”    

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned if the language in these two sections permit people sitting in the audience to ask questions of an applicant.  Assistant Law Director Allison Crites states that the Planning Commission hearings are quasi-judicial proceedings and each side is given the ability to ask questions and an applicant can be cross-examined by any interested party.  It was stated that an interested party can be a neighbor or anyone who feels he/she could be impacted by the approval/denial of the application.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there have been instances when interested parties argue back and forth during the hearing.  Mr. Riffle suggested that this might be handled by the Planning Commission Chair’s ability to limit the time of comments.  Ms. Terry stated that she would need to look into this because typically all questions should be addressed to the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the Rules & Regulations as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  

 

Roll Call Vote to approve the 2008 schedule: Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes), Burriss (yes),  Reeves. (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Minutes of January 28, 2008 – Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Riffle. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve January 28, 2008 Minutes as Amended: Burriss (yes), Reeves (abstain), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

 The minutes of January 28, 2008 are approved as amended.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, questioned if there would be a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning changes.  Manager Holycross stated that this will happen at a future meeting. 

 

Old Business:

 

Review of proposed Village Gateway District Text

Ms. Terry explained that she enclosed Ordinance 16-07 in the Commission’s packets, as well as a Draft Summary with their listed recommendations.  Ms. Terry stated that the green highlighted text in the Ordinance is proposed to be stricken, while the yellow highlighted text is suggested additional language.  The Planning Commission stated that overall they are pleased with the proposed list of changes, but there was concern over the language regarding fast food entities.  Mr. Terry explained that she is finding it difficult to quantify what percentage of sales occur through a fast food window.  She stated that she has been unable to acquire any industry standards.  Mr. Mitchell suggested the need for a definition of a fast food restaurant.  Mr. Terry read aloud a definition she had for a regional formula restaurant and she stated that she has not been able to find a definition pertaining to fast food restaurants.

 

Roger Kessler, who was seated in the audience, stated that he believes there should be  separate zoning text for the River Road PUD (Planned Unit Development).  He questioned why the text has to pertain Village-wide and why the River Road zoning can’t be separated out.  Mr. Ryan stated that there are no other discrepancies in the Ordinance and the section pertaining to fast food entities is the only area needing to be addressed.  He explained that Ordinance 16-07 will pertain to River Road, as well as the rest of the Village.  Mr. Kessler stated that a fast food restaurant like McDonalds would never consider building on River Road because they would not have the adequate space needed.  Mr. Riffle stated that many people believed a pharmacy chain would never pay the cost to be within the Village and this was not the case. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned how the Planning Commission arrived at allowing or disallowing fast food restaurants.  Mr. Riffle stated that there are some better quality restaurant entities that they were trying not to disallow.  Some examples mentioned included Hoggies, City Barbeque, and Chipotle.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission was asked to review zoning changes made by Council and they felt that this particular area was too restrictive.  Mr. Ryan stated that they could be excluding some better quality restaurants that might be considered fast food restaurants.  Mr. Klauder questioned if the Planning Commission ever considered limiting a restaurant to one drive through window.  Mr. Burriss stated that Arby’s only has one window, but they have a drive up speaker and they do not want to promote these either.  Mr. Klauder thanked the Commission for looking into the possibility of expanding the types of restaurant establishments allowed on River Road.  He stated that he sees their efforts as the only chance to have some type of nicer fast food entities in the area.

 

The Planning Commission discussed coming up with a definition for fast food entities, but still sending the rest of the information on to Council with a complete definition to come within six weeks.  Mr. Terry stated that she would continue to review language regarding regional formula restaurants.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked for any definitions/information to be forwarded to Council as well. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on the language change for a one and a half story building.  She asked why this was changed to a one story building.  Mr. Riffle explained that in the past it has been difficult for the Planning Commission to determine what a one and a half story building is and it is their hopes to simplify this.  Mr. Ryan added that they feel any concerns regarding the look of a structure can be addressed with the roof pitch and the disallowance of a flat roof. 

 

Mr. Riffle questioned the language in the Ordinance regarding traffic volume.  Ms. Terry stated that she questioned Law Director Crites regarding this and he stated that traffic cannot be a sole factor, but it can certainly be a factor and his sentiments were to leave the section as is.  

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to forward Ordinance 16-07 and the Village Gateway District Draft Summary of the Planning Commission Recommendations revised on February 8, 2008 to Village Council with the condition that the page three (3) definition pertaining to fast food entities be forthcoming within six weeks.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell

 

Roll Call Vote on Mr. Burriss’s motion with conditions: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment: 8:30 PM. 

Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote to Adjourn: Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Next meetings:

February 25, 2008

March 10, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 28, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Tim Riffle (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Manager, Don Holycross, Law Director, D. Michael Crites

Visitors Present: Sabato Sagaria, Molly Prasher, Dennis Cauchon, Barb Franks, Dan Rogers, and John Noblick.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Minutes of January 14, 2008 – Mr. Ryan moved to approve the minutes as amended with typographical errors.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  The motion passed 3-0.  The minutes of January 14, 2008 are approved as amended.

 

Old Business:

123 South Prospect Street, Dan Rogers,  Application #07-042 &#07-043

AROD, VBD

The applicant is bringing in more detailed information relative to the exterior modifications and re-roofing of the rear accessory structure for review and approval, as requested by the Planning Commission at the June 25, 2007 and July 9, 2007 public hearings. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in Village Manager, Don Holycross, and Barbara Franks and Dan Rogers. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-042:

Mr. Ryan inquired on the changes made to this application from the original application.  Ms. Franks stated that they have added the replacement of doors and windows.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant has provided a good site plan and he told Ms. Franks that they did a good job.  Ms. Franks stated that they hired someone to draw up the plans.  Mr. Ryan asked if the second door at the south elevation is being added.  Ms. Franks stated that anything shown on the plan is original and they are proceeding as though the project is a complete restoration of what is already in place.  Mr. Ryan asked if the proposed siding is what they previously reviewed and Ms. Franks stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked for explanation of why the applicant has two applications and why one is for re-roofing the structure, which he believed was previously approved.  Mr. Holycross stated that that Application #07-042 pertains to the exterior of the structure, not including the roof, and Application #07-043 is for the re-roofing of the structure. 

 

Mr.  Mitchell stated that he has no further comments or concerns regarding the application.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Riffle asked if the trim board around the windows and doors would be the same three inch (3”) trim board previously proposed.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on the placement of the air-conditioning unit.  Ms. Franks stated that they have proposed to attach the air-conditioning unit to the structure, rather than on the ground, to allow for easier maintenance.  Mr. Mitchell commented that this is a good idea.  Ms. Franks also stated that they plan to landscape the area around the air-conditioning unit.  Mr. Ryan stated that the approval of the application would not include signage or a landscaping plan.  Ms. Franks stated that this would be brought to the Planning Commission at a later time.

 

The Planning Commission discussed the Standards and Criteria associated with Application #07-042.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the style of the structure is consistent with existing architecture in the Village.  Mr. Ryan stated that the overall height, building massing, or roof shape will not change, so these standards are not applicable.  Mr. Mitchell commented that the applicant is proposing fire treated plywood to be used under the primary material.  He stated that Ms. Terry is suggesting that the use of these materials are made conditions in the final approval.  Mr. Riffle, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Ryan all agreed that the true divided light windows are appropriate to the style of the building, as well as the proposed doors.  Mr. Riffle stated that the three inch (3”) trim is to match the exterior of the building, and that the Planning Commission finds the gutters and downspouts to be consistent with the style of the building.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is proposing to restore the historical authenticity of  the building, which meets the criteria. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #07-042 with the following Conditions:

a)      Siding: 12” Rough sawn oak wood siding for the entire structure with fire treated plywood underneath – in compliance with the Building Department.

b)      Window:  True divided light windows, fixed on the lower level and operable casement windows in the upstairs, with a wood interior and vinyl exterior. 

c)      Doors:  Metal doors that measure 3 ft. by 7 ft. with true divided light windows in all doors, and that the location of all windows and doors shall be consistent with drawing A-201, titled Exhibit “A.” 

d)      Garage Doors: Non-operable doors constructed of wood panels with true divided light panels with a fixed pane of glass.

e)      Trim: 3” Trim Board made of rough sawn oak wood to match the exterior siding, including 3” trim around the windows and doors.

f)        Soffit: Vented vinyl soffit.

g)      Gutters/Downspouts: 4” Aluminum. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Ryan.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-042 with Conditions: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 07-042 is approved with listed Conditions. 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-043:

Mr. Mitchell asked the applicant if they could provide a sample of the proposed roofing.  Ms. Franks stated that she would need to bring this at a later time.  She questioned if the roof had previously been approved.  Mr. Ryan stated that the roofing for the structure was previously approved and it was for a metal roof.  He went on to say that the color was not approved.  Mr. Riffle agreed.  Law Director Crites stated that it does not seem necessary to approve the roof and the applicant can request to withdraw the application.  Ms. Franks requested to have Application #07-043 withdrawn.    

 

Application No. 07-043 is Withdrawn by the Applicant, Barbara Franks.

 

New Business:

195 Welsh Hills Road, Michael and Marla Lafferty, Application #08-01

The request is for approval of a detached garage.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in Village Manager, Don Holycross, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion:  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the proposed structure would be in a flood plain.  Mr. Holycross stated that he was not aware that it is a flood plain and Ms. Terry made no reference to any problems with the application.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments by any neighbors.  Mr. Holycross stated no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there appears to be no architectural standards to adhere to because the property is located outside of the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Mr. Holycross stated that the Planning Commission is confirming that the application meets the Code. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application #08-01 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan.

 

Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-01 as submitted: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-01 is approved as submitted.

 

785 Newark Road, St. Edwards the Confessor Church, Application #08-03

The request is for approval of a temporary sign, with variances, as follows:

1)      That the maximum permitted size be increased from four (4) square feet to seven (7) square feet. 

2)      That the number of colors allowed be increased from three (3) to five (5). 

3)      That so long as the proposed sign remains the same the applicant shall not be required to resubmit the temporary sign for review and approval of the Planning Commission on a yearly basis. 

 

The property at 785 Newark Road is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

 

There was no one present representing St. Edwards Catholic Church.  Exhibit A was submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Holycross stated that when the application was previously approved, it was intended that the applicant let Staff know when the temporary sign would be posted each year.  He stated this needs to be formally adopted with this clarification.  Mr. Holycross stated that if the square footage of the signs were one foot smaller – no approval would be needed by the Planning Commission.

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked about the sign at Welsh Hills School and if a variance was granted.  Mr. Holycross stated that they are having discussions with the school regarding their temporary sign.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is a limit to the number of temporary signs allowed up at one time – including real estate signs.  Mr. Holycross reviewed the exempt section in the Code pertaining to temporary signs and he found nothing regarding the number of signs allowed.  Mr. Ryan stated that he could understand Councilmember O’Keefe’s concerns regarding multiple signs.  Councilmember O’Keefe suggested having this looked into while they are reviewing changes to the Code. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to Approve Application #08-03 with the following Conditions: 

 

Approval of a temporary sign, with variances, as follows:

a)      That the maximum permitted size be increased from four (4) square feet to seven (7) square feet for the non-conforming sign. 

b)      That the number of colors allowed be increased from three (3) to five (5). 

c)       A schedule stipulating the length of time in which the non-conforming temporary sign will be displayed shall be presented yearly for review and approval by the Village Planner and this should be in accordance to Exhibit “A.”

 

Seconded by Mr. Ryan.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-083: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No .08-03 is Approved.

 

785 Newark Road, St. Edwards the Confessor Church, Application #08-04

The request is for approval of a temporary sign, with variances, as follows:

1)      That the maximum permitted size be increased from four (4) square feet to seven (7) square feet. 

2)      That the number of colors allowed be increased from three (3) to six (6). 

3)      That so long as the proposed sign remains the same the applicant shall not be required to resubmit the temporary sign for review and approval of the Planning Commission on a yearly basis. 

 

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to Approve Application #08-04 with the following Conditions: 

 

Approval of a temporary sign, with variances, as follows:

a)      That the maximum permitted size be increased from four (4) square feet to seven (7) square feet for the non-conforming sign. 

b)      That the number of colors allowed be increased from three (3) to six (6). 

c)      A schedule stipulating the length of time in which the non-conforming temporary sign will be displayed shall be presented yearly for review and approval by the Village Planner and this should be in accordance to Exhibit “A.”

 

Seconded by Mr. Ryan.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-084: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-04 is Approved.

 

785 Newark Road, St. Edwards the Confessor Church, Application #08-05

The request is for approval of a temporary sign, with variances, as follows:

1)      That the maximum permitted size be increased from four (4) square feet to seven (7) square feet. 

2)      That the number of colors allowed be increased from three (3) to six (6). 

3)      That so long as the proposed sign remains the same the applicant shall not be required to resubmit the temporary sign for review and approval of the Planning Commission on a yearly basis. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to Approve Application #08-05 with the same language from the last motion (which included): 

 

Approval of a temporary sign, with variances, as follows:

a)      That the maximum permitted size be increased from four (4) square feet to seven (7) square feet for the non-conforming sign. 

b)      That the number of colors allowed be increased from three (3) to six (6). 

c)      A schedule stipulating the length of time in which the non-conforming temporary sign will be displayed shall be presented yearly for review and approval by the Village Planner and this should be in accordance to Exhibit “A.”

 

 

Seconded by Mr. Ryan.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-05: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 08-05 is Approved.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

1)         Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #07-042, Dan Rogers, 123 South     Prospect Street

(a)    Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed modifications are consistent with the style of the existing building and with other structures in the immediate area.

(b)    Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed modifications contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.

(c)    Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed modifications contribute to the continuing vitality. 

(d)    Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed modifications protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #07-042.   Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

2)         Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-01, Michael and Marla Lafferty,            195 Welsh Hills Road

 

            The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with the Granville   Codified Ordinances, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-01.     Seconded by Mr. Ryan

 

3)         Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-03, St. Edwards the Confessor,             785 Newark Road

 

            The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with the Granville   Codified Ordinances, Chapter 1189, Signs.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-03.     Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

4)         Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-04, St. Edwards the Confessor,             785 Newark Road:

 

            The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with the Granville   Codified Ordinances, Chapter 1189, Signs.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-04.     Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

5)         Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-05, St. Edwards the Confessor,             785 Newark Road

 

            The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with the Granville   Codified Ordinances, Chapter 1189, Signs.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-05.     Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Other Matters:

Mr. Ryan moved to excuse Mr. Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment: 7:48 PM. 

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

February 11, 2008

February 25, 2008

Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 14, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Tim Riffle.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director Crites

Visitors Present: Laura Andujar, Jeanne Crumrine, and Carla Beckerley.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Minutes of December 10, 2007 – Mr. Ryan moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  The motion passed 3-0.  The minutes of December 10, 2007 are approved as submitted.

 

New Business:

210 North Granger Street, John Anthony and Carla Beckerley,  Application #07-105 AROD, SRD-B

The request is for approval of door replacements and re-roofing.   

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Carla Beckerley

 

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant has requested to replace the front, back, and side doors, as well as re-roofing the structure.  She presented pictures of the proposed doors.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if a transom light window would stay.  Ms. Beckerley stated that it is not energy efficient and they plan to remove it and replace it with clap board.  Ms. Beckerley also presented an example of the Owens-Corning shingles they intend to use.  Mr. Burriss commented that the proposed doors appear more fitting and he has no problem approving them.  He also stated that the removal of the transom window will make this side of the home fit in more with the rest of the structure.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the entire structure would be re-roofed.  Ms. Beckerley stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed changes appeared reasonable. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #07-105 as presented.  Second by Mr. Ryan. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-105 as presented: Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No. 07-105 is approved as presented. 

 

 

 

 

Speedway Drive, Jeanne Crumrine, Application #07-106

PCD, SBD

The request is for approval of a site plan and building design.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeanne Crumrine, and Laura Andujar.

 

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant’s most recent plan exceeds the 25 foot height requirement.  She stated that they do meet the 8/12 roof pitch.  She went on to say that she would need to see the placement of the water lines and she stated that the storm sewer system is not maintained by the Village, but by Speedway.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if they still have to meet EPA guidelines.  Ms. Terry stated that they would need consent from the EPA.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant has not stated what other businesses will be placed in the building and she is only aware of a Quiznos restaurant.  She stated that she did her parking assessment based on the worst case scenario (meaning three restaurants being housed in the structure.)  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would need 26 parking spaces, and they have 25.  She stated that the proposed parking angle does not meet any other angles currently in the Code, and the Code also does not specify a specific angle must be used.  Mr. Ryan stated that they need one more space with the worst case scenario, and it is possible something other than a restaurant will go in the other two vacant office spaces – meaning they could be required to have less than 26 spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that sidewalks are required in the SBD zoning.  She stated that there is a proposed sidewalk that would tie into Arby’s.  She also stated that a pedestrian crossing to the patio area was requested by the Planning Commission and the applicant has done this.  She suggested having this be a condition of the final approval.  Ms. Terry explained that the submitted paperwork depicts a screened service area and she would need to know the proposed materials to be used, as well as the height.  Ms. Terry went on to say that the applicant did receive a variance from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for a flat roof with an 8/12 perimeter.  She stated that the applicant intends to hide the mechanicals behind the 8/12 pitches.  She asked Ms. Andujar the height of the roof structure where the mechanicals will be hidden.  Ms. Andujar stated that they estimate four and a half (4 ½ ) foot.  Ms Terry stated that colors and exterior lighting have not yet been submitted for approval.  She stated that the signage will come before the Planning Commission on a separate application at a later time.  Ms. Terry read aloud comments from the Tree and Landscape Committee (Jim Siegel).  The letter suggested changing some of the vegetation so it does not attract the deer.  The Tree and Landscape Committee indicated that the proposed landscape plan met their criteria. 

 

Laura Andujar presented samples of the proposed colors.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant and architect for bringing the structure to where it is today.  He stated that they began with a block building and they now have a dignified and distinct English style building.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the placement of the downspouts.  Ms. Andujar stated that they will be on the sides of the building.  Mr. Burriss suggested placing hose bibs within the landscaping and dumpster areas.  He went on to say that the Planning Commission will need to see a detailed drawing of the dumpster area.  He suggested having proper drainage near the dumpster and it was later stated that this is not a Code requirement.  Mr. Burriss told the applicant that the Village has received complaints regarding the outside lighting of other businesses on Speedway Drive.  He suggested having wall fixture lighting and he indicated that the location and example of lighting needs come before the Planning Commission.  Ms. Crumrine stated that she was envisioning up lighting.  Ms. Andujar stated that the parking plan presented in the proposal measures 10x20 for each parking space.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked how many dumpsters are required if there are three restaurants placed in the building.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village has no requirement on the number of dumpsters.  Mr. Ryan asked if the build to line is in question.  Ms. Terry stated that there is not a requirement on this.  The Planning Commission discussed the three examples presented, and each committee member favored the third drawing on the bottom of the plans.  Mr. Ryan stated that it definitely gives the appearance of a 1 ½ story building.  Mr. Burriss stated that it meets the requirement nicely.  Ms. Andujar presented a sample of the proposed brick (Oaks Brookshire) along with a tan mortar color.  She also presented two samples of stone and the Planning Commission preferred the lighter stone color.  Ms. Terry questioned what type of material would be used for the gutters.  Ms. Andujar stated that it would be aluminum and Ms. Crumrine stated that she was thinking dark brown or bronze for the windows and gutters.  Ms. Crumrine stated that there will also be a green awning with a burgundy and tan stripe.  She went on to say that she would like to have the patio area finished with pebbled rock/exposed aggregate.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would prefer to see the mullions match the window frames.  Ms. Crumrine presented a sample of glass she would like to use on the rear of the building which would face Route 16.  The sample was a dark glass that you would not be able to see into.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the transom lighting should also be the dark glass and he stated he would like to see the division of the transoms through the glass.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Ryan stated that they would like to ensure that the building doesn’t look like a warehouse or empty building with fake windows when driving by.  Ms. Andujar stated that the Southgate Corporation has used tinted windows and this does not give the appearance of an empty building.  Mr. Ryan stated he is aware of the look she is referring to.  Ms. Terry stated that she could take pictures to use as examples if the applicant can provide an address.  Mr. Burriss suggested using a level of tinting that allows some light through and looks inviting from the road.  Mr. Burriss stated that he realizes that the signage will be approved at a later time, but he did want to indicate that he is in favor of the size and locations proposed.  Ms. Terry indicated that a variance will need to be requested by the applicant because the Code currently calls for one freestanding sign and one building sign per structure.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Burriss indicated that they would not have a problem granting a variance for this.  Mr. Burriss stated that the placement of trash cans would need to be depicted on the plan where the patio is located.  He stated that the Planning Commission would also like to see an example of the proposed fencing.  Mr. Burriss told the applicant that they will also need to provide examples of the doors/handles.  He stated that he would prefer to see kick plates.  Ms. Crumrine stated that they are contemplating adding more windows to the side of the building and she asked how the Planning Commission would feel about this.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would welcome additional windows.  He thanked the applicant for the beautiful building they have presented and for their cooperation with the Planning Commission.

 

The applicant, Jeanne Crumrine, agreed to waive the thirty day requirement for approval because she wished to have the application tabled. 

 

Mr. Ryan moved to Table Application #07-106 until the January 28, 2007 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-106: Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application No.07-106 is Tabled.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Ms. Terry read aloud the Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #07-105. 

(a)    Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the modifications are consistent and more in keeping with the style of the Victorian home.

(b)    Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the home is stylistically consistent. 

(c)    Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that it contributes to the historic integrity of the Village.   

(d)    Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #07-105. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Other Matters:

Mr. Ryan moved to excuse Mr. Riffle from the Planning Commission meeting because he was away in Boston.  Second by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Ms. Terry suggested setting a special meeting to review the Village Gateway Plan.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not be available, but agreed to provide written comments to Ms. Terry.  Ms. Terry suggested having the meeting on Wednesday, January 23rd, and she stated that she would contact Mr. Riffle to see if he could attend. 

 

Adjournment: 8:37 PM. 

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

January 23, 2008 (tentative)

January 28, 2008

February 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.