Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes December 14, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 14, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Councilmember O’Keefe.

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Don DeSapri, Craig and Dianne McDonald, Larry Miller, Rick Baltisberger, Doug Eklof, and Karen Chakoian.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Ms. Terry noted later during the Planning Commission meeting that Lemonade Fitness/Don Moxley (Application #09-149) requested that his application be tabled because he was unable to attend the December 14, 2009 meeting. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to table Application #09-149 per the applicant’s request.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #09-144

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Don DeSapri

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-144:

Don DeSapri, 250 Potter’s Lane, was available for any questions that the Planning Commission had regarding the request for a freestanding sign for the Robbins Hunter Museum.  Ms. Terry explained that the proposed color of the sign is green and white and that the applicant did indicate that there is existing lighting on the front of the building that will also shine on the freestanding sign.  Mr. Burriss asked if one of the posts on the sign is fluted and the other is not.  Mr. DeSapri stated that both of the posts would be fluted on three sides including the end post.   Mr. Burriss asked if the Open/Close portion of the sign would be a slide.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.    Mr. Burriss stated that he did not feel additional landscaping was needed because the applicant is not adding any additional lighting. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-144:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent with other signs approved for this district.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is for a historical building and is a historical sign. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss indicated that by contributing to a museum in this district, the whole district experiences continued vitality.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the historical nature of the museum protects and enhances physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

e)      Materials:  Plywood covered with aluminum.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-144, adding that there is not any lighting in the application, and that the proposed posts are fluted on three sides, and there is not any landscaping proposed in this application.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

211 Sunrise Street – Craig and Dianne McDonald - Application #09-146

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a 3-tab shingled

roof and replacement with a new dimensional asphaltic shingled roof. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Craig and Dianne McDonald.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-146:

Craig McDonald, 211 Sunrise Street, presented a sample of the roofing material and stated that they would like the color of the roof to be slate.  Mr. Ryan asked if the entire structure will be re-roofed.  Mr. McDonald stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the applicant is doing the valleys and hips.  Mr. McDonald was unsure, but he guessed that they would be constructed with metal since the current roof has metal valleys and hips.

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-146:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed material is consistent. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by preserving the house the applicant is upgrading the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that by preserving a house in this district it contributes to the vitality of the District.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by having a roof that will continue to protect a historic structure, the physical surroundings in which past generations lived are protected.

e)      Materials: Owens Corning dimensional shingles in the color of slate.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-146 with the proposed color of Colonial Slate and the roof valley’s are to be constructed of metal with the entire roof being replaced.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

110 East Broadway – First Presbyterian Church - Application #09-147

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Karen Chakoian. 

 

Jack Burriss requested to be recused from discussion and voting on Application #09-147 and was seated in the audience at 7:30 PM.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-147:

Karen Chakoian, 110 West Broadway, was available to address any questions or concerns for the Planning Commission.  She stated that the purpose of the sign is to advertise Saturday worship and they plan to only put the sign out on Saturdays.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is required because sidewalk signs are not permitted in the Village Square District.  Ms. Terry asked the applicant the proposed location of the sign and Ms. Chakoian indicated that it will be located on the southeast corner of the property next to the monument stump.  Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any other sidewalk signs approved in the Village Square District.  Mr. Ryan noted that there is an existing  sign at Centenary.  Ms. Chakoian stated that she believed Centenary Church does have a sign advertising for Vintage Voices and the Presbyterian Church is modeling something like that.  Ms. Terry stated that Centenary United Methodist Church did submit an application for two sidewalk signs, but they later requested to withdraw the application.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Baptist Church has signs.  Mr. Ryan stated yes and they also have a banner.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn’t see how the Planning Commission cannot approve a sidewalk sign in the Village Square District given that they are already all over town.  He went on to say that the Planning Commission doesn’t particularly like sandwich board signs, but they can’t stop them because they are a permitted sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission has approved two historical signs at Opera Park.  Mr. Johnson questioned if this sign would require a variance if it was a freestanding permanent sign.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Ms. Chakoian explained that they would like to have the ability to advertise their Saturday service at the Saturday Farmer’s Market.  Mr. Johnson asked if a variance is the only way to go about approving the sidewalk sign because the Planning Commission typically only approves variances for the size and color of the proposed signage.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is the only option because sidewalk signs are not permitted in the Village Square District.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Presbyterian Church shouldn’t be penalized because they happen to be the one entity that requested a sign to be placed in the Village Square District.

 

The Planning Commission also reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #09-147:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  The Planning Commission members agreed that this criteria is not applicable because this is a non-profit use.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  The Planning Commission agreed that this criteria is not applicable in this particular case.     

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the use of the sign is the best way to get the word out of the church’s plans for a new service.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the circumstances are caused by the actions of the community.

 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.   

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed to designate a particular location for the placement of the sign.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-147 as proposed so long as the sign is displayed on Saturday’s only and the colors on the sidewalk sign are blue and white, and the location of the sidewalk sign be per Exhibit ‘A’.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (recuse), Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3 (yes), 1 (recusal).

 

Mr. Ryan requested that it be noted that the Planning Commission found that there were more items in the Criteria for approving the variance than criteria that was against the variance and therefore the Planning Commission ultimately approved the variance for First Presbyterian Church.

 

Mr. Burriss re-joined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:40 PM.

 

560 West Broadway – Rick and Jane Baltisberger - Application #09-148

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a lot split/lot combination.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Larry Miller, and Rick Baltisberger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-148:

Rick Baltisberger, 560 West Broadway, stated that he had a discussion with the property owner at 590 West Broadway, Larry Miller, and he had a large open space between their driveway and his property.  He stated that he asked Mr. Miller about purchasing some land so if he ever chooses to renovate his barn he will not need a variance in terms of distance and the extra land gives him some free space in the rear yard.

 

Lawrence Miller, 61 Donald Ross Drive, stated that he owns property at 590 West Broadway and he and his wife, Eloise, are in favor of this lot split/lot combination. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that all of the requirements have been met and it will be required that the applicant combine the existing lot with his current lot so it is not its own separate lot. 

Mr. Burriss asked for clarification regarding the location of the utilities.  Mr. Miller indicated that these lines are located no where near the location of the lot split. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-148 with the condition that the 0.227 acre lot for the property owned by Lawrence and Eloise Miller, shall be required to be combined with the 0.971 acre lot owned by Richard and Jane Baltisberger, to create a lot that is a total of 1.196 acres for 560 West Broadway.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

907 Newark-Granville Road – Doug and Gail Eklof - Application #09-150

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a wood cedar three split rail fence with wire

Mesh located in the rear and along the east side of the property.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Doug Eklof.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-150:

Doug Eklof, 907 Newark-Granville Road, was present to address any concerns or questions by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked the reason for the wire on the fence.  Mr. Eklof stated that they hope it will keep out deer and debris and it is their intention to connect to the fence that is next door.  Mr. Eklof indicated that the wire is like a chicken wire and it is also on the fence next door.  He also noted that there has been a change in the material of the fence from cedar to hemlock.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the whole length of the fence will get wire.  Mr. Eklof stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the applicant if he wants to place the fence on the west side of the property.  Mr. Eklof stated that the neighbor’s fence is on the west side.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the wire will be on the inside of the fence.  Mr. Eklof stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the fence will have any finish other than the natural color.  Mr. Eklof stated that it will be the  natural wood hemlock.  Mr. Eklof indicated that the wire will be a stainless steel color.

Ms. Terry stated that all of the requirements have been met. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-150 as submitted with the condition that the wire mesh be installed on the inside of the fence.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-144: Robbins Hunter Museum

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, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-144 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-144.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-146: Craig and Dianne McDonald

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-146 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-146.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-147: First Presbyterian Church

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, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-147.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss (recuse), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3 (yes), 1 (recusal.)

 

Application #09-148: Rick and Jane Baltisberger

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-148 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-148.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-150: Douglas and Gail Eklof

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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-150 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-150.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Other Matters:

Mr. Ryan stated that he wanted to thank Council for supporting the Planning Commission decision at their last meeting regarding the appeal for 123 North Prospect Street.  He asked Councilmember O’Keefe to let Council know that they appreciate their efforts and they also understand why Councilmember O’Keefe chose to vote no on the decision. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the November 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Mitchell abstained)

 

Approval of 2010 meeting dates:

Mr. Burriss moved to remove the meeting date of ‘Tuesday, October 12, 2010’ from the Planning Commission meeting date schedule for 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Adjournment: 

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 PM.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Next meetings:

January 11, 2010

January 25, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes November 23, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 23, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Shawn Bogan

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

123 South Prospect Street– Jeanetta Pyle - Application #09-143 REVISED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a slate roof replaced with

dimensional asphaltic shingles in a slate color.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Shawn Bogan.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-143:

Shawn Bogan, roofer, stated that he was representing the homeowner, Jeanetta Pyle, because she was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Bogan indicated that he would be the roofer.  He provided a sample of the exact shingle to be used.  Mr. Burriss questioned how the ridge detail would be handled.  Mr. Bogan indicated that the ridge detail and finials would be the same as the existing details and color.  Mr. Johnson asked if the eaves would be vented.  Mr. Bogan indicated that the vents would be installed in the soffits.  Vents will also be vented in the ridges.  The vents would be two-inch round and painted to match the trim.  Mr. Burriss asked if the ridge lines would be higher.  Mr. Bogan indicated that the ridges would be perhaps one half inch higher. There will be no changes to the gutters or down spouting.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-143:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Other slate roofs have been permitted to be replaced in this district. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  As the applicant would be maintaining the same ridge and finial details and using materials that would maintain the look of slate, the applicant would be maintaining the historical character of the district.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  By contributing to the vitality of a structure in the district, it maintains the entire district. The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The improvements are a reproduction of the original material and detail, which protects and enhances the physical surroundings. The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve amended Application #09-143 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-143 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-143: Jeanetta Pyle

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, hereby gives their recommendation of approval for Application #09-143.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-143.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval of Absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Tom Mitchell from the November 23, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the November 9, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

December 14, 2009

January 11, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 09, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember OKeefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Joy Wujek.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

224 East Broadway – Joy Wujek/Petali Teas - Application #09-142

Village Business District-B (VBD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sandwich board sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Joy Wujek.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-142:

Joy Wujek, 5230 Moots Run Road, Alexandria, indicated that she would like to install a sandwich board sign on the sidewalk in front of her business Petali Teas. Mr. Ryan questioned if the sign would be four colors with white, green, blue and black.  Ms. Wujek stated yes.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Code requirements for this application have been met.  Ms. Terry noted that the black border is not proposed to be around the entire sign, consistent with what the Planning Commission has required of other applicants.  Ms. Wujek stated that they would be willing to make this change and incorporate the black border around the entire sign.  Mr. Ryan noted the proposed location of the sidewalk sign and the Planning Commission agreed with the location.  Ms. Wujek stated that the sidewalk sign will be made by the same sign company that did the wall sign for Petali Teas and everything will be consistent. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-142:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is consistent with other sandwich board signs in the district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the proposed sandwich board sign emulates sandwich board signs in New England and presents a “homey” environment.   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign will allow the  public to be made aware of business news at their establishment.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-142 with the condition that Staff Recommendations 1 and 2 be adhered to and the black border shown on the plan shall be extended to the full perimeter of the sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-142: Petali Teas

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-142.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the October 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the October 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

November 23, 2009

December 14, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes October 26, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 26, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Robin Lantz, Christi Adamkosky, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason & Christi Adamkosky - Application #09-96 (AMENDED)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to amend the application for an

additional column to support the Porte Cochere. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Christi Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-96:

Christi Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that the contractor is requesting that one additional column be installed.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the support is structurally necessary and he stated that he was not certain the column affects the aesthetics.  Ms. Adamkosky indicated that the extra column would provide additional support.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could justify the installation of the column due to the space of the columns in the front of the structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-96:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant’s request for an additional column is consistent with other structures in the district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant should be commended on their efforts to upgrade the historical character of the structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-96 as amended.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

46 Waterford Drive – Mark Clapsadle - Application #09-139

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a first floor and lower level

addition.  The application is before the Planning Commission because the proposed

addition is more than a twenty (20%) percent increase to the existing structure.

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-139:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, stated that he is the architect for the project and is representing the homeowner, Virginia Abbott.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the house is very lineal as it is now and it is a one-story gray horizontal home.  He went on to say the he wants to make the addition look compatible with the original home and everything will match identically.  Ms. Terry stated that the lot coverage, height, and setback requirements have been met.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant will be adding a fireplace and will it be stone.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to complement the architect on the thoroughness of his application.  Mr. Ryan questioned why the Planning Commission is addressing this application given its location is not in the AROD.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code requires that any addition that is more than a 20% addition to the original structure requires Planning Commission approval, if located in the Suburban Residential District. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-139:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed addition is consistent with other renovations approved in district and the proposed addition is consistent with the existing architecture as well.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed addition is consistent with the original structure it protects and enhances.

e)      Materials:

                              Roof: asphaltic dimensional shingles, gray, to match the existing;

                              Siding: 6” cedar, light gray, and manufactured stone, limestone –                                       buff gray, to match the existing;

                              Windows: aluminum clad casement, Andersen Terratone, to match                                           the existing;

                              Gutters: ogee gutters, light gray, to match the existing;

                              Fascia: 6”, light gray, to match the existing; and

                              Screened Porch: screens and 6x6 posts, painted.

h) Height:          The proposed building height at the front grade elevation is 13 feet, meeting the maximum 30 foot height requirement.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the home is a ranch style home.

i) Massing:       Mr. Burriss noted that the horizontality is kept throughout the addition and is consistent.

      j)   Roof Shape: The applicant is proposing a 6:12 roof pitch, with                                                          dimensional asphaltic shingles, consistent with the existing                                                  roof pitch and materials on the main structure. 

      k) Use of Details:

Roof: asphaltic dimensional shingles, gray, to match the existing;

                              Siding: 6” cedar, light gray, and manufactured stone, limestone –                                       buff gray, to match the existing;

                              Windows: aluminum clad casement, Andersen Terratone, to match                                           the existing;

                              Gutters: ogee gutters, light gray, to match the existing;

                              Fascia: 6”, light gray, to match the existing; and

                              Screened Porch: screens and 6x6 posts, painted.

 

The applicant is proposing a first floor and lower level addition as follows:

1)                    Front Yard Setback: 239’6” setback, to meet minimum 35 foot setback requirement;

2)                    Side Yard Setback: 285 foot setback, to meet minimum 14 foot setback requirement;

3)             Rear Yard Setback: 285 foot setback, to meet minimum 14 foot setback requirement;

4)             Maximum Building Lot Coverage: The existing lot is 232,083 square feet.  The existing and proposed house footprint is 6,639 square feet or 3% total lot coverage, to meet the maximum 15% coverage requirement; and

5)             Maximum Height: 13 feet total building height (at the front elevation), to meet the maximum 30 foot height requirement.             

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-139 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Thrift Shop – Application #09-140

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Robin Lantz.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-140:

Robin Lantz, Granville Thrift Shop, stated that they would like to reuse the sign that was previously located on the front of their building.  Ms. Terry stated that this is the same sign they used to have next to the front door and the applicant wants to move it to the side door where they often have deliveries.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is needed because the maximum number of signage per building is one.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is just one business at this location.  Ms. Lantz stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned the location of the sign and will it be next to the door.  Ms. Lantz stated that Fred Abraham, the landlord, would be hanging the sign on the building and he has only indicated that it will not be on the door.  Mr. Burriss noted that the location ought to be specified in the approval of the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-140:

 

 

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 the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss noted that the public supplies the merchandise for this business and they utilize the side door.   

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is a service type business to the community.      

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.    Mr. Johnson noted that it is a 100% increase in what is allowed and he would consider the variance to be substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated that he agrees with Mr. Johnson, but it is in keeping with signage on that property as it exists.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t believe it is a substantial difference to the neighborhood.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the request for a variance is not substantial for this property.  Mr. Mitchell stated the variance is not substantial.  

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. Mr. Burriss stated that the request is consistent with other signage in the neighborhood.    

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with          knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission      unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated the spirit of the zoning Ordinance is not compromised by the approval of this variance.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Commission agreed that there should be clarification as to where the sign will be located.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-140 with a variance to increase the maximum number of signs from one to two and for the proposed sign to be mounted no higher than the top of the doorway and to the right of the existing doorway.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-140 is approved as with the above stated conditions.

 

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason & Christi Adamkosky - Application #09-141

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear patio, seating wall

surrounding the patio, and concrete steps.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Christi Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-141:

Christi Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that they want to get rid of the existing mound of dirt in the rear yard and they will use this with the construction of the patio.  She stated that there will be a seating wall around the patio and they plan to use the same type of stone to match the foundation of the house.  Ms. Terry noted that the setbacks and lot coverage requirements have been met.  Mr. Johnson asked the approximate height of the seating wall.  Ms. Adamkosky stated that from the rear elevation it will be about four foot (4’) tall and there is a slope to the back yard.  Ms. Adamkosky went on to say that they eventually hope to tier the back yard with landscaping.  Mr. Johnson indicated that a building permit would be needed if footers were used.  Ms. Adamkosky agreed.  Ms. Terry stated that if modifications to the seating wall are made it may require Planning Commission review.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the applicant uses interlocking block with a stone finish they would not need footers or Building Code Department approval.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any consideration for entrance to the sides of the patio.  Ms. Adamkosky stated that the Porte cochere side could potentially have an outside fireplace in that area and this would be incorporated into the patio area.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-141:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other projects that have been approved in the Village.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvements add to the livability of a structure within the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvements add to the vitality of the district.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is part of a restoration of an existing historical home and it enhances and protects examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a rear patio, seating wall surrounding the patio, and concrete steps.  The patio will be constructed of the following materials:

1)      Patio Surface: Concrete

2)      Exterior patio & seating wall surface: sandstone to match the existing foundation; and

3)      Steps: Concrete

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-141 with the condition that the stone facing on the patio walls match as closely as possible the foundation of the home. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-96 (AMENDED): Jason & Christi Adamkosky

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 recommendation of approval for the amended application.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for amended Application #09-96.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #09-139: Mark Clapsadle

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their recommendation of approval of Application #09-139.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-139.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-140: Granville Thrift Shop

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, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-140 with a variance.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-140.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-141: Jason & Christi Adamkosky

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 #09-141 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-141.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

November 9, 2009

November 23, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 13, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors Present: James Browder, Jim Brooks, Ann Hinkle, Sam Sagaria, Steve Keeler, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, and Sharon Sellito.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder - Application #09-133

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an air conditioning unit.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Browder.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-121:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that he intends to shield the unit with evergreen landscaping material.  Ms. Terry explained that the air conditioning unit would be located on the north side of the house and she stated that Mr. Browder received a variance from the BZBA for the placement of the unit. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-121:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that air conditioning units have previously been approved as long as they were screened with evergreen plant material.

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 air conditioning unit makes the home more livable.   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the air conditioning unit makes the home more livable.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the screening around the unit enhances the physical surroundings.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-121 with the condition that the applicant screen the air conditioning unit with evergreen plant material equal to or greater than the height of the air conditioning unit.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-121 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition.

 

(Mr. Burriss made a motion to move Application #09-135 to the third item heard on the agenda because James Brooks was not present to provide explanation of the submittal.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.)

 

434 East Broadway – Ann Hinkle – Application #09-137

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of existing wood

windows with vinyl windows. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Ann Hinkle, and Steve Keeler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-137:

Steve Keeler, 434 East Broadway, stated they are wanting to replace the outdated and inefficient windows on the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if these are the same type of windows that will not disturb the trim.  Mr. Keeler stated yes and that the windows will be caulked in.  Mr. Keeler believed that the sash will not be different than what is existing now and he went with these type of windows because they are low profile.  Mr. Burriss asked if the dividing pattern would be six over six.  Mr. Keeler stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if all of the windows would be replaced.  Mr. Keeler stated that they intend to replace the first floor windows and two basement windows in the back.  Mr. Burriss stated that the east side elevation currently has slider windows and Mr. Keeler indicated that these will become awning windows with a two grid pattern and center mullion strip and the rest of the width will be divided into six panes evenly.  Mr. Burriss noted that the existing door is in eight panes and even though they are not on the same side as the dormer, he would hate to see too many window patterns used.  Ann Hinkle, stated that the dormer window will be replaced with the same awning window to make this match.  Mr. Burriss asked if there will be a grid on the outside of the window.  Mr. Keeler stated that the grid will be located between the panes and internal to the glass.  Mr. Burriss asked if this is consistent with other new windows already installed.  Mr. Keeler stated yes. 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-137:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed windows are more historically accurate for the structure than the current windows. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the architectural features are being restored to the original. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed windows will make the home in this district more historically accurate. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed windows will restore the home to be more accurate of how past generations lived. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-137 as submitted adding the two additional windows in the rear elevation of the home. 

 

Mr. Johnson seconded.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-137 is approved as submitted.

 

 238 East Broadway – James Brooks – Application #09-135

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

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-135:

James Brooks, 238 West Broadway, stated that he would like to make a revision to his submitted plans for the sign and change it to have a black background with white lettering.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Brooks already has a sandwich board sign, a freestanding sign, and a projecting sign on the property and the Planning Commission did ask if this would be all of the signage Mr. Brooks would be requesting.  Mr. Brooks stated that he understands what Mr. Ryan is saying, but there is not adequate signage on the property for Goumas Candyland and the one freestanding sign is the only sign that is lit.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Brooks is proposing to light the wall sign.  Mr. Brooks stated no.  Mr. Brooks submitted two drawings that Ms. Terry marked as Exhibit’s “A” and “B.”  Exhibit “A” has the proposed sign superimposed on the house and Exhibit “B” is a rendering of the sign itself.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if one will be able to identify the house number with the proposed placement of the wall sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that the house number would move to the corner of the home.  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Brooks is required to have the house number located on the structure.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Brooks is within the Code limitations regarding size and number of signs permitted.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the applicant is allowed four signs per business.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is a sign on the front and the side of the building.  Mr. Brooks stated that there is a projecting sign, freestanding sign, and a sandwich board sign.  Mr. Ryan noted that there is also an “Open” sign on the door.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he took this sign down.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color of the proposed sign is not consistent with the existing signage for the building and he understands that it is a different business and different graphics.  Mr. Brooks stated he didn’t feel a matching sign with a red background would look appealing on the home and he wanted to stay consistent with the existing colors on the home itself - black.   Mr. Burriss agreed red wouldn’t look good on the home.  Mr. Burriss questioned if having a Goumas sign panel added below the existing real estate freestanding sign would be the most appropriate way to go.  He stated that the restoration of the home was fantastic and a key architectural detail is the doorway of the home and he is trying to keep the work that has been done showing at its best advantage.  Mr. Brooks stated that he understands what Mr. Burriss is saying and he has pondered the idea of adding an additional sign all summer and debated on what to do.  Mr. Brooks stated that he does feel that the candy store is in need of more effective signage.  The Planning Commission questioned how effective the existing projecting wall sign is on the side of the home.  Mr. Brooks stated that he doesn’t think it is effective and he had it relabeled and he doesn’t feel it is legible from the road.  Mr. Burriss suggested that a projecting sign by the door might also be more appropriate.  Mr. Brooks stated that the occupant (Goumas Candyland) is adamant that they want people driving by to be able to read the sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of businesses on that block have perpendicular signs.  Mr. Brooks stated all but the other Goumas and Petali Teas, which have wall signs.  Mr. Burriss stated that they also have a freestanding sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that he thinks an appropriate hanging sign like the sign on the side of the building would detract less from the building and at the same time allow the doorway to remain as is.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he may be the only Commission member who feels that the proposed sign, from a business standpoint, allows the building to appear as though the entire structure is occupied by Goumas Candyland.  Mr. Brooks stated that the business’s best chance of survival is not possible without the appropriate signage.  Mr. Brooks clarified that the proposed sign will be cut on the ends and appropriately fit in the space above the doorway and it is not to be a square sign.  Mr. Ryan asked the thickness of the sign. Mr. Brooks presented an example of the material for the sign and the proposed thickness.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he agrees with Mr. Burriss somewhat, but he doesn’t think that he needs to make it more apparent that a real estate business is also in the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that another option would be combining the two businesses located in the building with the one freestanding sign already in place.  He suggested resizing the proposed wall sign to hang below the freestanding sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that he would be comfortable with adding a panel hanging sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that this would be less confusing as far as knowing what businesses exist in the building.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he didn’t know adding to the freestanding sign was an option.  Mr. Burriss stated that with other multi tenant properties in the Village this type of signage is what they have encouraged because it keeps all of the signage for the building in one location.  Mr. Brooks stated that another advantage is that the existing freestanding sign has lighting.  Mr. Ryan questioned what colors could be used for the hanging sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that he would propose a sign with a red background and white lettering.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would need a variance for the size, and sign variances are heard by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be in favor of granting this variance.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he agrees with this suggestion by Mr. Burriss.  The Planning Commission suggested tabling the application so Mr. Brooks could make the revisions and present something visual at the next meeting.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #09-135.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-135 is approved as Tabled.

 

123 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers – Application #07-042 (REVISED)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications and a

Landscape plan, required by the original approval given by the Planning Commission on

January 28, 2008.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Barbara Franks.  Dan Rogers was later sworn in by Mr. Ryan. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-042:

Barbara Franks, 123 South Prospect, stated that they are no longer going to install a wall air conditioning unit, so this can be removed from the original application.  She later stated that a landscape plan shouldn’t be required because she is not in need of screening the air conditioning unit.  Mr. Burriss later asked Ms. Franks if she wished to leave the air conditioning unit in the application in case she changed her mind regarding installing it.  Ms. Franks stated that if she leaves it in the submittal it has to be done within two years and she does not believe she will ever have a need to install the air conditioning unit.  Mr. Ryan indicated that a brick patio was to be installed per Ms. Franks proposed site plan.  Ms. Franks stated that the original plans show a patio on the west and south sides of the building and when they get the money will put the rest of the patio in (currently it just exists along the western side of the building).  She later noted that the brick patio is heated and part of the heating system of the entire structure.  Mr. Ryan questioned if a portion of the patio – the brick walkway – encroaches on Park National Bank’s property.  Ms. Franks presented a letter from Park National Bank which indicated that the Bank does not have a problem with the sidewalk that was installed.  The letter from Park National Bank was labeled as Exhibit “A.”  Ms. Terry read aloud the letter from Park National Bank stating that the bank does not have an issue with the brick sidewalk.  Ms. Terry indicated that the brick sidewalk is an impervious surface and would require a variance from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for setbacks and potentially lot coverage requirements.  Ms. Franks indicated that she is willing to seek a variance as long as it doesn’t cost $500.  Mr. Ryan stated that he can not speak to this because the Planning Commission only handles variances for signs.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the applicant would have to address getting an easement from Park National Bank if the brick walkway indeed does encroach on their property.  Law Director Crites later clarified that for this matter before the Planning Commission, the letter from Park National Bank labeled as Exhibit “A” is sufficient information for the Planning Commission to move forward.  He stated that an easement would be a civil matter between Ms. Franks and Park National Bank.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant has installed “eyebrows” over the doorway and this was a change from the original submitted plan.  Ms. Franks indicated that they later discovered after the improvements were done that these eyebrows or awnings were essential to keeping weather elements out and she thinks they look appropriate to the structure.  Mr. Burriss asked if the installed steel doors without windows are different from the original application presented by Ms. Franks.  Ms. Franks stated that these doors are a change from the original approval and that she cannot financially afford to change the doors and add windows to the doors at this time.  Ms. Franks stated that these steel doors cost $800 each and once she opens and can sell things perhaps she can change this and add windows to the doors.  Councilmember O’Keefe for clarification concerning which doors have awnings above them.  Ms. Terry stated that the awnings are already installed above the doors on the south side of the structure.  Mr. Burriss noted that there is recessed lighting installed in the awnings and this needs to be clarified in the approval and conditions because it was not part of the submitted plan.  Mr. Johnson asked where the vented vinyl soffit is located.  Ms. Franks stated that she believes it is underneath the west elevation and she thinks it is wood instead of vinyl (which is a change from the original approval). 

 

Dan Rogers clarified that the soffit is not vinyl and it is wood.  Mr. Burriss stated that this will need to be altered in the approval and conditions.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the sidewalks can be used as open area or do they count against lot coverage.  Ms. Terry stated yes they count against lot coverage because they are considered to be an impervious surface.   Mr. Ryan asked if the total lot coverage is affected by the brick patio.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Ms. Franks asked if anyone on the Planning Commission is going to comment on how wonderful the building looks compared to the dilapidated building that once was there.  Mr. Ryan stated that he believes this was mentioned in the past when Ms. Franks originally submitted her plans for improving the structure.  The Planning Commission later ended their comments by stating that the improvements to the structure are very nice.  Ms. Franks inquired as to why a ten (10’) foot setback requirement (variance) was not required for the installation of the wall air conditioning unit she originally proposed and a ten (10’) foot setback is needed for the brick patio.  Ms. Terry explained that in Height, Area, and Yard Modifications of the Zoning Code there is an allowance for encroachment of projecting features and that because the air conditioning unit was going to be attached to the structure as a wall hung unit it met the code requirements.  Mr. Burriss suggested adding language to the approval and conditions pertaining to the awnings over the doors.  Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Terry if she has inspected the previously noted conditions and checked them against the application.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the list of conditions will have to be modified to address all of the revisions. Mr. Ryan stated that the projecting lights on the west exterior door need to be added to the approval and it should be noted that they match the existing lights.  Mr. Burriss stated that the final approval should note that the windows have wood exterior trim, rather than vinyl as originally approved. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a list of items that were changed from the original approval and listed them on Exhibit “B.”

 

Mr. Ryan asked why the Planning Commission is establishing the use of this structure when they have already determined that it has been used for storage of items for the front retail structure located at the front of the property.  Ms. Franks stated that the structure has always had its own use, always stood on its own, and it has always had its own address.  She stated that they have been over this for years now.  She stated that this has only been an issue since Ms. Terry has been the Planner and “the previous fellow had no problem with this.”  Councilmember O’Keefe asked why the Planning Commission is discussing the use and aren’t they just reviewing the exterior modifications.  Ms. Franks agreed.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code states that the approval for the structure requires that a use classification be assigned if one has not previously been established and that this is required for all VBD properties.  Ms. Franks stated that the Planning Commission has indicated to her that the structure is zoned retail and they said no to a restaurant.  Mr. Ryan clarified that Ms. Franks withdrew her previous change of use application and the Planning Commission did not vote on a change of use for a restaurant. Mr. Johnson stated that what he recalls is the Planning Commission having a discussion as to what they felt the use was before the application was tabled.  He went on to say that as he recalled there was new language added to the Code and no formal decision was rendered.  Ms. Franks stated that the barn has been used for commercial use since 1838 and it is one of the oldest commercial retail buildings in Granville.  Ms. Franks stated that the reason she bought the property is because there were five separate rental opportunities available.  Ms. Franks stated that she doesn’t think it is legal to change the zoning and take away someone’s property rights and she suggested that the Village have Law Director Crites check into this.  Ms. Franks stated that she didn’t realize the Planning Commission would be discussing the use of the property this evening.  Mr. Ryan stated that establishing a use for the property is part of their approval.  Ms. Franks asked if the language pertaining to establishing a use for the property is new to the code, and if it was passed after this project was started.  Ms. Terry stated that this is existing code language.  Ms. Franks asked when it went into effect.  Ms. Terry stated that she has this information in her office and she can get it to Ms. Franks.  Ms. Terry read aloud Section 1159.05  “c” and “d” page 67 of the Zoning Code which pertained to the Planning Commission establishing a use classification for the property.  Mr. Ryan concluded that he is “looking at accessory use to your retail in the primary building.”  Ms. Franks indicated that she was approached by Tim Tyler about selling bikes from the barn structure and she is asking if Mr. Ryan’s conclusions mean this cannot be done.  Mr. Ryan asked if Ms. Franks is asking for a change of use.  Ms. Franks stated no because it is a retail space.  Mr. Ryan stated “for an accessory building.”  Ms. Franks stated that she doesn’t think she needs approval for retail and she can sell whatever retail items she wants to sell out of the barn.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if she can get a clarification on what a retail use is in an accessory building.  Ms. Terry stated that accessory means that the structure is dependent on the principle structure for its existence and it is a portion of the principle structure’s use, and not an independent use.  She stated that for instance, a garage is an accessory use to a house.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he was confused as to why the Planning Commission is discussing the use of the structure at this time because if someone adds a window, they don’t usually talk about use of the structure.  Ms. Terry stated that this is typically because the use has already been established or a change of use was requested by the applicant at the same time.  Ms. Franks asked how the use of Barb Hammond’s building will be established now that Mr. Ream has purchased it.  Ms. Terry stated that she will have to review the file and the first thing she will look to see is if a previous change of use was ever applied for and what signage was applied for and what type of businesses may have been there previously.  Ms. Franks asked how Ms. Terry has come to the determination that the barn was a furniture store.  Ms. Franks stated that she has a problem if the Planning Commission is trying to tell her that she can’t rent out the rear structure.  She stated that she is going to move parts of her business out there and she wants to have the ability to rent it out to someone else.  Mr. Mitchell stated that she will need to acquire a change of use just like anyone else and the current use is an accessory use to the front building as far as the Planning Commission is concerned.  Ms. Franks argued that it is a separate business and it is retail so why should it require a change of use.  Mr. Johnson stated that the fundamental issue here is parking and there is not enough parking back there for it to operate as an independent use.  Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Terry when the language regarding accessory use & accessory structures was altered.  Ms. Terry stated in January 2009.  Mr. Ryan stated that everyone here has come to the understanding that the use is an extension of the existing business in the front primary structure.  Mr. Ryan noted that the Planning Commission does not have an application before them for a change of use and they are being asked to establish the existing use.  Ms. Franks stated that the Planning Commission is putting a financial hardship on her and her barn was not an accessory structure when she started this and it was never an accessory structure because it was there before the house.  She stated that technically the house is the accessory structure to the barn.  Ms. Franks stated that she wants the Planning Commission to determine that the structure is a retail structure and lose the word “accessory.”  Ms. Terry stated that the language for accessory use changed in the definitions section.  Ms. Franks stated that it didn’t change until after she submitted her application.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a new definition for accessory use in the definitions section of the Code.  Ms. Franks stated that she is correct in her assumption to sell retail and to sell exactly what she is selling.  Mr. Rogers stated that “this is an important point of value for us.”  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would have to get a change of use for a retail designation.  Mr. Johnson questioned what would stop the applicant from putting a restaurant in the barn.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant would have to request a change of use to a different category and Ms. Franks is arguing that a change of use is not required because she is staying within her current category – retail.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission is charged with making the final determination as to what the structure should be classified.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #07-042:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the restoration including the sympathetic use of original materials is in conjunction with other things approved in the district. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss added that by returning this building in the historic district to its original it is now well maintained and the proposed materials contribute to the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the architecturally and  historic enhancements are appropriate and add to the district

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the structure is being restored to its original state.

e)      Building Massing: The applicant submitted photographs for the exterior modification change showing eyebrows (awnings) above the southern doors.  Mr. Burriss stated that these need to be considered as a shed roof overhangs or awnings.  Mr. Burriss stated that the use of materials match the roofing material and the slope and siding are all consistent.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson agreed. 

f)        Roof Shape: The applicant is proposing eyebrows (awnings) above the doorways on the southern side that must be reviewed and approved.  The eyebrows (awnings) will have standing seam metal roofs with a drip cap along the top edge and oak sides and trim.  The pitch of the roof on the eyebrows (awnings) did not change from what was originally in place.  

g)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a brick sidewalk for their landscape plan and has added eyebrows (awnings) above the doorways on the southern side.  A variance will need to be granted by the BZBA.

h)      Use of Details: The applicant is proposing a brick sidewalk for their landscape plan and has added eyebrows above the doorways on the southern side.  Mr. Burriss stated that the use of brick is more historically correct and the Planning Commission favors this over the use of concrete. 

i)        Landscape Design: The applicant is not proposing any landscaping at this time.  This is a change from the original submittal.  Mr. Burriss indicated that if landscaping is ever proposed in the future, a separate application will need to be submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell read aloud the modifications to the exterior modification list dated January 28, 2008.  The modifications made at this Planning Commission meeting were for the following:

 

                        a.         Reduction in rear yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero (0') feet;

                        b.         Reduction in northern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero         (0') feet; and

                        c.         Increase in maximum lot coverage from seventy (70%) percent to          the actual total lot coverage percentage (this information has yet to   be submitted by the applicant);

 

 

 

“Exhibit B”:

 

a)         The installation of fire treated plywood under the rough sawn oak wood siding as required by the Building Code Department;

b)         The submission of a landscape plan, at a later date (Landscape Plan withdrawn from application);

c)         12-inch rough sawn oak wood siding on the exterior;

d)         True divided lite windows with fixed windows on the lower level and operable casement windows in the upstairs with all windows having a wood interior and vinyl exterior (windows were revised to be all wood windows);

e)         Metal doors that measure 3 feet by 7 feet with true divided lite windows in all doors (pedestrian doors were revised to non-lite);

f)          Non-operable garage doors constructed of wood panels with true divided lite panels with a fixed pane glass;

g)         3-inch trim board made of rough sawn oak wood to match the exiting siding;

h)         Vented vinyl soffit (soffits were revised to wood soffits with round vents);

i)          4-inch aluminum gutters as indicated by the applicant;

 

j)          Air Conditioning unit has been withdrawn from the application;

k)         Add two (2) awnings with metal roofing that matches the roof structure in color and slope over the two south side doors, including recessed canned lighting;

l)          Add brick walkway along west property line contingent upon approval of a variance from the BZBA for rear and side yard setback, and possibly lot coverage if needed;

m)        Add two (2) matching light fixtures at either side of the west door; and

n)         East elevation windows modified to four (4) lite single awning windows.

 

Mr. Mitchell made the following motion:

To approve amended Application #07-042 REVISED for exterior modifications according to Exhibit “B” & Exhibit “A” from Park National Bank; and that the existing established use for the structure shall be classified as VBD-I, Accessory Uses, buildings or structures to the previous A-H; therefore any proposed use other than the continuation of an accessory use shall require a change of use from the Village; That the applicant shall be required to receive approval from the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals for the following variances, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit by the Village of Granville and prior to any use of the structure:

 

                        a.         Reduction in rear yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero (0') feet;

                        b.         Reduction in northern side yard setback from ten (10') feet to zero         (0') feet; and

                        c.         Increase in maximum lot coverage from seventy (70%) percent to          the actual total lot coverage percentage (this information has yet to   be submitted by the applicant);

 

“Exhibit B”:

 

a)         The installation of fire treated plywood under the rough sawn oak wood siding as required by the Building Code Department;

b)         The submission of a landscape plan, at a later date (Landscape Plan withdrawn from application);

c)         12-inch rough sawn oak wood siding on the exterior;

d)         True divided lite windows with fixed windows on the lower level and operable casement windows in the upstairs with all windows having a wood interior and vinyl exterior (windows were revised to be all wood windows);

e)         Metal doors that measure 3 feet by 7 feet with true divided lite windows in all doors (pedestrian doors were revised to non-lite);

f)          Non-operable garage doors constructed of wood panels with true divided lite panels with a fixed pane glass;

g)         3-inch trim board made of rough sawn oak wood to match the exiting siding;

h)         Vented vinyl soffit (soffits were revised to wood soffits with round vents);

i)          4-inch aluminum gutters as indicated by the applicant;

 

j)          Air Conditioning unit has been withdrawn from the application;

k)         Add two (2) awnings with metal roofing that matches the roof structure in color and slope over the two south side doors, including recessed canned lighting;

l)          Add brick walkway along west property line contingent upon approval of a variance from the BZBA for rear and side yard setback, and possibly lot coverage if needed;

m)        Add two (2) matching light fixtures at either side of the west door; and

n)         East elevation windows modified to four (4) lite single awning windows.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson (no), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #07-042 is approved with the above listed conditions.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-133: James Browder

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 recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-133.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-137: Ann Hinkle

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 #09-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-137.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #07-042 AMENDED: Dan Rogers

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 #07-042 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #07-042 (Amended).  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (no), Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

 

 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the September 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

(Mr. Burriss abstained from voting because he was not present at the meeting.) 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

October 26, 2009

November 9, 2009

 

Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 28, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Young Tae Lee, Stephanie Kuntz, David Schnaidt, Mike Vecchione, Sharon Sellito, Carrie Barnes-Mullett, Jeff Mullett, Mel Bomprezzi, Natalie Marsh, and Sam Sagaria.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

140 East Broadway – Young Tae Lee - Application #09-121

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

The request is for architectural review and a recommendation to Village Council for

public sidewalk portraiture creation and sales.

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Young Tae Lee.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-121:

Young Tae Lee was present to address any questions or concerns.  Ms. Terry asked if this is the only portrait board Mr. Lee is proposing to use.  Mr. Lee stated yes and he would only be setting up on Saturday’s from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM – weather permitting.  Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Young of Kussmaul Gallery sent a letter in support of Mr. Lee’s endeavor.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to Council.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the portraits are always done on site.  Mr. Lee stated that sometimes custom portraits are done with a photograph and delivered to the customer.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a precedent for this type of business in the Village.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has previously recommended approval of the flower sales (Artiflora) business.  Ms. Terry clarified that businesses such as the kettle corn sales are issued by permit from the Village Manager because they are for a temporary time period.  She stated that Mr. Lee is seeking approval for the portraiture year round.  Mr. Mitchell questioned the approval because it is a freestanding business taking place on a public sidewalk.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Planning Commission can recommend to Village Council approval of the application, approval with conditions, or recommend disapproval of the use.  Mr. Ryan asked if there will be other pictures for sale to purchase or just portraits.  Mr. Lee stated that he can sell custom portraits or figure portraits he has already created.  Mr. Ryan asked if money will change hands on the sidewalk.

Mr. Lee indicated that this will be the customer’s choice and he later clarified that customers will not pay inside Kussmaul Gallery.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that Mr. Lee’s proposal is a neat thing, but it essentially is a stand alone business.  He also stated that the Planning Commission is not considered to be a precedent setting board.  He stated that they later could have requests for all sorts of businesses on the public sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated that Council could place other restrictions on the approval.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the application could be recommended for approval for a temporary period to see how it would function.  He stated that he understands the type of materials proposed for the business and that the concept is unprecedented.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is not like the approval for the flower business or having café tables.  He also stated that if Kussmaul said that they want to have someone out there selling on their behalf, he wouldn’t have a problem with it.  Mr. Ryan questioned how the street vendors during the antique fair and Street Scenes are able to sell items.  Ms. Terry stated that this is by permits issued by the Village Manager and this is for a specific event and specified time period.  Mr. Ryan asked why this type of request is coming before Planning Commission and the other similar type of requests are issued by permit.  Ms. Terry stated that this is because the applicant is proposing to use the public sidewalk – similar to the requests for cafés and the Artiflora business that required Planning Commission recommendation.  Mr. Ryan asked if this application is in conjunction with Kussmaul Gallery.  Mr. Mitchell asked the applicant if he can be affiliated with Kussmaul.  Mr. Johnson stated that it is apparent that the gallery wants to have a relationship with Mr. Lee because they wrote a letter on his behalf.  Mr. Ryan questioned if Mr. Lee sold some items in Kussmaul and then also had a freestanding portraiture setup – does that make a difference to anybody on the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would be a step in the right direction and he would suggest Kussmaul Gallery be a co-applicant.  Mr. Ryan asked if member’s of the Planning Commission would feel better about recommending approval if an item of Mr. Lee’s would be paid for inside of Kussmaul.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson stated that this is not necessary in order for them to recommend approval.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Kussmaul doesn’t own the public sidewalk.  He recalled that somebody was going to sell furniture (perhaps Green Velvet) on the public sidewalk and the Planning Commission did have some concerns about this.  Mr. Johnson stated that he would say its simple to recommend approval if it is an extension of the business (Kussmaul), but what happens if somebody wants to have a freestanding business on the sidewalk and they don’t have permission of the business in front of the sidewalk.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to express support for this idea, but he is struggling with allowing a business on the public sidewalk. 

Ms. Terry asked Mr. Lee how he decided to locate in front of Kussmaul Gallery.  Mr. Lee stated that he approached Mr. Young and he agreed to allow him to do the portraits.  Mr. Ryan asked if he had talked to Mr. Young about selling in his shop.  Mr. Lee indicated that sales are not possible in his shop because he specializes in custom orders.  Mr. Johnson indicated that he doesn’t really have a problem with recommending approval of this application because he sees this as an extension of Kussmaul Gallery and they also sent a letter stating they support Mr. Lee.  Mr. Ryan questioned if they should recommend approval for a thirty day period and see how this would work.  Mr. Lee indicated that he would prefer seeking approval for a full year from the hours of 10:00 AM until sunset.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-121:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that they are not talking about the structure, but rather the applicant’s setup.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels this would be a nice addition to the Village.  Mr. Johnson agreed. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would supplement the other business in the area and upgrade the character of the Village by adding a cultural service to the Village.  Mr. Johnson agreed.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the business doesn’t protect, but it does enhance the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #09-121 to Village Council and the Planning Commission recommends that Council should consider making the approval contingent upon the applicant’s affiliation with Kussmaul Gallery and the business hours shall be from 10:00 AM until sunset.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-121 is recommended for approval to Village Council with the above stated condition.

 

 125 West Elm Street– Christian Kuntz – Application #09-124

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

The request is for review and approval of the replacement of entry and patio doors.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephanie Kuntz.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-124:

Stephanie Kuntz, 125 West Elm Street, stated that the new door will be a metal door with architectural glass.  She also indicated that the front door would be painted blue.  Mr. Ryan asked the proposed color of the French doors.  Ms. Kuntz stated white.  Ms. Terry indicated that the door will have side lights. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-124:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the door is stylistically compatible with itself.

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 door is more energy efficient. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the contemporary structure will be upgraded in a contemporary manner.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-124 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-124 is approved as submitted.

 

201 North Pearl Street – Jeff Mullett – Application #09-125

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of an air

conditioning unit.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeff and Carrie Barnes-Mullett.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-125:

Jeff Mullett, 201 North Pearl Street, stated that the air conditioning unit will be placed behind the existing shrubbery.  Mr. Mullett showed Mr. Mitchell the existing placement of the unit and the proposed new location.  Mr. Mullett stated that the ideal location would be on the north side, but they have a concrete driveway on the north side that won’t allow them to place the unit in this location.  Mr. Mullett stated that their first choice for the location of the air-conditioning unit is depicted in Option 1. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-125:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed improvements are stylistically compatible with other structures in this Village district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the unit is more energy efficient. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the improvement will keep the older structure updated. 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-125 stipulating that Option 1 is the approved location, and that the applicant retain or replace the existing landscaping to a height that is equal to the height of the air-conditioning unit.  

 

Johnson seconded.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-125 is approved as submitted with the above stated conditions.

 

139 West Elm Street – David and Rebecca Schnaidt – Application #09-126

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new retaining wall, flagstone

patio, bridge, waterfall, and pergola.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and David Schnaidt.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-126:

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, distributed a site plan that was marked as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Schnaidt indicated that there are some minor changes from the first site plan that he submitted to Ms. Terry and that he wanted to make it clear that the far right side retaining wall was mistakenly shown in front of the stairs, which is not the case.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the proposed material will be stacked stone, some of which they already have, and some that will be added.  He stated that the boulders will be the same colors and an all natural material.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the stairs will be redone to make them safer because they have some loose stones there now.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that all of the proposed material is natural stone.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Ms. Terry noted that the distance of the patio & pergola from the eastern property line will require a variance from the BZBA.  Mr. Ryan questioned what exactly the variance is for.  Ms. Terry stated that the patio and pergola cannot be within ten (10’) feet of the side property line without a variance.  Mr. Ryan questioned if all of the lot coverage requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry asked Mr. Schnaidt if the proposed columns are to be wood or fiberglass.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the columns would be identical to the columns on the house porch which are fiberglass.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that they will also be doing some landscaping at the top of the waterfall for a buffer.  Mr. Johnson asked if the columns on the front of the home are two-piece.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he believed that they are one-piece columns. Mr. Johnson asked if the columns on the front of the house are structural.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-126:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal is consistent with other garden features in the district.  Mr. Mitchell added that it is compatible by improving an historical home with appropriate landscaping that is stylistically appropriate to the house.

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 property will be upgraded. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the property will be enhanced with appropriately styled landscaping.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-126 per ‘Exhibit A’ submitted by the applicant with the condition that the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA for the sideyard setback and that the applicant’s use of stone be of all natural materials.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-126 is approved as submitted with the above stated conditions.

 

399 West Maple Street – Barb LeCompte – Application #09-127

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached garage.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mike Vecchione.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-127:

Mike Vecchione, Bryn Du Woods, stated that he is the contractor for Ms. LeCompte.  Mr. Veccione indicated that he did the modifications to the home at 399 West Maple Street and now the homeowner, Ms. LeCompte, would like to build an 18x20 foot garage.  Mr. Veccione stated that the proposed siding is lap wood siding.  Mr. Mitchell asked the proposed roof pitch.  Mr. Vecchione stated that the pitch of the garage roof would be the same as the roof pitch on the house.  Mr. Johnson asked about the ridge height in Mr. Vecchione’s submitted plans.  Mr. Veccione stated that this is incorrect and was generated by the computer.  Mr. Johnson asked if there are gutters on the garage.  Mr. Veccione stated yes and they will be aluminum painted to match the house.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is an existing shared driveway on Palmer Lane.  Mr. Vecchione stated that most of the driveway is relatively new, and there are portions of it that will be shared with 405 ½ West Maple Street.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is proposing any landscaping.  Mr. Vecchione stated no.  Mr. Vecchione stated that there will be one light over the door and one coach light above the garage door and these will match the existing light on the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if the mandoor would be made of wood or steel.  Mr. Vecchione stated that he would like to leave this option open, but the door will match the doors on the existing house and it would be hard to tell what the door is made of from any distance.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lot coverage and setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Vecchione stated that he played around with the parking, and it does meet the five foot setback requirement.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-127:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed garage is stylistically compatible with the home.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the character is upgraded.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that by adding the garage it contributes to the vitality of the district. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan added that the garage adds to the viability of the property and the house.

e)      Height: The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the height seems appropriate given the distance from the primary structure.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #09-127 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-127 is approved as submitted.

 

 

405 ½ West Maple Street – Phillip Templeton – Application #09-128

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached garage.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mike Vecchione.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-128:

Mike Vecchione, Bryn Du Woods, indicated that he is representing the homeowner for this portion of the project.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the applicant is using the same site plan as was used for the property at 399 West Maple Street, and this applicant is on the other side and not in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  Ms. Terry stated that there is no criteria for the Planning Commission to review for this application and it is before them because it is a new structure and they are reviewing the lot coverage requirements and height of the structure.  Mr. Johnson noted that the staff report notes that the proper paperwork concerning the lot combination has not yet been submitted.  Ms. Terry stated that she received this today and this needed to be done in order for the property have an accessory structure built on it. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-128 contingent upon the following condition: 

            1)         Submission of an exempted lot combination, consistent with the Village Code requirements to be administratively approved prior to release of the Zoning & Architectural permit for construction of the garage.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-128 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

240 West Broadway – Dr. Natalie Marsh/Denison University – Application #09-129

Village Institutional District (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a temporary banner sign.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-129:

Dr. Natalie Marsh, Denison University, stated the sign would be up through May 21st  of next year.  Ms. Terry noted that the approval requires a variance due to the proposed size.  She stated that there are multiple colors in the sign, but since it is a temporary sign a variance for the number of colors is not required.  Dr. Marsh stated that the sign will be illuminated with lights that already exist on the side of the Burke Hall building and there are timers used.  Ms. Terry noted that temporary signs cannot be illuminated according to the Code and an existing light was approved before the sign was requested by the applicant.  Dr. Marsh stated that a previous banner was in this same location before the lighting was installed.  She explained that both signs she is proposing this evening will be hanging at the same time, and the other sign will be in place through December.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any issues regarding the existing lighting in place at Burke Hall.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-129:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sign is stylistically compatible with Burke Hall.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the banner will celebrate the historical nature of this district.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the banner helps to advertise a cultural event.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the banner depicts celebrations of past generations.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria pertaining to the external lighting of the banner and the size and duration:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is not proposing the sign for monetary purposes, so this criteria does not fit.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance for the sign would be substantial because it is doubling the size of the sign allowed by Village Code.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the adjacent property owners are across the street and the signage will be screened with substantial landscaping. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that justice will be done in granting the variance.

 

(c)        That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(d)   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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(e)    In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-129 with the variance to increase the maximum size of the banner from thirty-two (32) square feet to seventy (70) square feet for a time period of sixty (60) days to two hundred and fourteen days (214) days and to allow for external illumination of the sign with the existing lighting in place on Burke Hall.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-129 is approved with a variance for the size, lighting, and duration of time allowed for the banner.

 

240 West Broadway – Dr. Natalie Marsh/Denison University – Application #09-130

Village Institutional District (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a temporary banner sign.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-130:

Dr. Natalie Marsh, Denison University, stated this sign will be in place from October 5 through December 31st

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-130:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.     

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign contributes to the use of Burke Hall. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign contributes to the use of Burke Hall.    

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign contributes to the use of Burke Hall. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria pertaining to the external lighting of the banner and the size and duration:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance for the sign would be substantial because it is doubling the size of the sign allowed by Village Code.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(c)        That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(f)     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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(g)   In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

    

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-130 with the variance to increase the maximum size of the banner from thirty-two (32) square feet to seventy (70) square feet for a time period of sixty (60) days to sixty-five (65) days and to allow for external illumination of the sign with the existing lighting in place on Burke Hall.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-130 is approved with a variance for the size, lighting, and duration of time allowed for the banner.

 

119 ½ South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks – Application #09-131

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications to upper

story windows on the eastern side of the home. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Barbara Franks, and Dan Rogers.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-131:

Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant does not need a variance as indicated in the staff report because she mistakenly calculated the square footage wrong.  Ms. Terry indicated that the application meets all of the criteria.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-131:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that by advertising a new business in the area it contributes to the continuing vitality of the district.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and that the sign keeps the building viable by adding another business to the building and advertising it.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-131 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-131 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-121: Young Tae Lee

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 hereby gives their recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-121.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-124: Christian Kuntz

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-124 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-124.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-125: Jeff Mullett

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 #09-125 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-125.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-126: David and Rebecca Schnaidt

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-126 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-126.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-127: Barb LeCompte

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, hereby gives their approval of Application #09-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-127.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-128: Phil Templeton

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning District, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-128.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-129: Denison University

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, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-129 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-129.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Application #09-130: Denison University

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, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-130 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-130.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-131: Dan Rogers

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, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval for an amendment to Application #09-131 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-131.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval of Absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the September 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes for the September 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, October 13 (Mr. Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

October 26, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 14, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: One Vacancy.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Andy Ross, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, Dale and Barbara McCoy, Jason Adamkosky, Flo Hoffman, Seth Patton, Nick Schott, Steven Gaubert, Mark Clapsadle, Kent Maynard, Cynthia Cort, Ned Roberts, and Gwynyth Huff.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

Mr. Mitchell  made a motion to switch the order of Application #09-97 and Application #09-98 as it appears on the agenda.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote to amend the agenda: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  

Motion carried 4-0.

 

332 North Granger Street – Michael Carey - Application #09-98 (Previously Tabled)

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new one-and-a-half story rear

detached garage. 

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, and Dale and Barbara McCoy.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-98:

Mr. Ryan clarified that the new proposal is a one story building with a bump out in the back.  Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, stated that this is the 5th time he has been before the Planning Commission regarding approval for a garage.  He thanked the Hickman’s and the McCoy’s for their help with the process and their participation with the BZBA in presenting this new plan.  Mr. Carey stated that this new plan has several advantages because it’s a head in garage which is easier to navigate in and out of.  He stated that the new plan offers him the same space as the old plan and is not as massive to the neighbors.  Mr. Carey stated that another advantage is that many details from the previous plan carry over into the new plan. 

 

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that he is very appreciative of everyone’s time regarding the plans for Mr. Carey’s garage.  He stated that they wholeheartedly approve of this new garage and feel it would be a great addition to the neighborhood.

 

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated he agrees with Mr. Hickman and he would be very happy to see this new garage built.

 

Mr. Ryan asked if the required variances were approved by the BZBA and Ms. Terry stated yes.  She indicated that there was some concern by the BZBA regarding the approval of the footprint and whether or not there ought to be some requirements in place to allow for a story and a half or a one story.   Mr. Mitchell stated that the plan “looks wonderful to him.”  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials for the previous garage have been carried over for the new structure.  Mr. Johnson asked the color of the proposed roof.  Mr. Carey stated it will be gray. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98 (Option 2):

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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 removal of a dilapidated garage and replacement  with an updated structure is  in character with the Village. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by adding to the continued usage of the structure, this contributes to the District. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the consistency of historical details contribute to the physical surroundings. 

e)      Building Massing:  Mr. Mitchell stated that by moving the proposed structure  and reducing the height this in turn reduces the massing concerns.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new structure is subordinate to the primary structure.

f)        Use of Materials:  The Planning Commission determined that the Use of Materials are appropriate.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-98 as submitted with Option 2.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-98 is approved as submitted.

 

332 North Granger Street– Michael Carey – Application #09-97 (Previously Tabled)

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a rear detached one-story

garage.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Michael Carey

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-97:

(Please refer to application #09-98)

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-97:

 

                                                (a)        The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

 

(b)        The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

 

                                                (c)        The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

 

                                                (d)        The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

(Ord. 29-05.  Passed 9-7-05.)  Refer to Zoning Permit Application #09-98 for the review of a new detached garage.  See attached schedule submitted by the property owner.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #09-97 to Village Council.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-97 is recommended for approval to Village Council.

 

New Business:

 

West Broadway/Denison Fine Arts Campus – Granville Historical Society – Application #09-107

Village Institutional District (VID) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of an historical marker.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-107:

Flo Hoffman, 713 Friends Lane, stated that she represents the Granville Historical Society.  She stated that the location of the proposed marker was chose due to the location on the campus where women have always and continue to be educated.  She stated that the steps mark the entrance to the Charles Sawyer’s building in 1833 that schooled young women.  Ms. Terry noted that a variance is not needed to place more than one freestanding sign on the property and this was a mistake on the staff report.  She noted that there is only one freestanding sign on the property.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is still needed for the sign due to the increase in colors and the proposed square footage of the sign.  Ms. Hoffman stated that Denison University is pleased to have the sign on their property.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant later wants landscaping around the sign would they need to come back to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-107:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that this criteria is not applicable because the sign is an historical marker and will not yield a return of any kind.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a large piece of property with a large open space.  

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Burriss answered that zoning did not exist when this property was purchased.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-107 with the following variances:

1)      To increase the maximum number of colors from three (3) to six (6); and

2)      To increase the minimum square footage from twelve (12) square foot to thirteen point one two five square feet (13.125). 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-107 is approved with the above stated variances.

 

484 South Main Street – Ross Granville Market – Application #09-112

Suburban Business District (SBD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new 30 foot by 40 foot storage

building to be located behind the main building.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Andy Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-112:

Andy Ross, 484 South Main Street, stated that they would like to clean up the rear of the property and they are in need of storage space for the store itself.  Mr. Ryan asked if there are windows at the top of the structure.  Mr. Ross stated yes.  Mr. Ross stated that there will not be any retail or traffic directed to the rear structure.  Mr. Ross stated that the existing gravel in the rear would lead up to the structure.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is under the lot coverage requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the applicant received several variances from the BZBA on September 10, 2009.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this will be a foundation or slab.  Mr. Ross stated it will be a slab. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-112:

a)      Building Massing:  Mr. Mitchell stated that building massing is not an issue.

b)      Building Style:  The Planning Commission stated that the structure is  appropriate in architectural massing and scale.

c)      Use of Details: The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the use of details is appropriate.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-112 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-112 is approved as submitted.

 

 

664 West Broadway – Nick Schott – Application #09-114

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) and Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for a freestanding sign for a Guest House.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Nick Schott.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-114:

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that he would like to install a freestanding sign for The Broadway Guest House at 664 West Broadway which was approved in August as a conditional use by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  Mr. Schott stated that he is proposing a black sign with gold lettering and it fits within the specifications noted in the Village Code for freestanding signs in the Suburban Residential District-C.  He added that he would like to add ground lighting and he would be willing to ensure that the light is turned off by 11:00 PM each night.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sign will be on West Broadway or a side street.   Ms. Terry explained the location of the proposed sign and access to the property.  Mr. Schott stated that the sign would be located between the 664 West Broadway property and his residence at 660 West Broadway.  Ms. Terry stated that any TCOD property cannot have more than six (6) square foot total and the applicant is proposing and eight (8) square foot sign, four (4) square feet per side therefore a variance is required.  Mr. Ryan asked if the measurements of the sign are from the top and include the dead air space.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant could describe what the sign will be hung from.  Mr. Schott stated that the post will be the same design as the post located at Granville Veterinary Clinic’s retail store.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the picture of the post was not included as part of the submitted information and he asked that the picture be submitted as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission generally requests that sign lighting be camouflaged with some type of landscaping.  Mr. Schott indicated that he would be glad to add landscaping around the lighting fixture.  Mr. Mitchell asked the specifications of the lights Mr. Schott is proposing.  Mr. Schott stated they would be on a timer and the lights would not be too bright.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the brightness of the lights.  Mr. Schott stated that it is his intent to use pinpoint lighting that focuses on the sign without a glare and to avoid any passer by or neighbor getting light pollution.  Mr. Mitchell asked the type of landscaping to be used to shield the ground lighting.  Ms. Terry suggested the use of an evergreen plant material.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #09-114:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that no special circumstances exist.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sign is not excessively sized.  

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the property sits back far from the road.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a minimum size sign that is still visible.      

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated that he likes how the proposed sign is broken into two separate signs.   

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.   Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed sign is consistent architecturally with the neighborhood.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Each member of the Planning Commission answered TRUE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss.  Indicated that a variance is the most efficient way to handle this.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. Mr. Burriss indicated that the applicant has indicated that the proposed lighting will be subdued.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are some conditions with the approval of the sign.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-114, as submitted with the following conditions:

1)         That the lighting of the sign will consist of ground lighting on a timer that will be turned off before 11 PM; and

2)         That the lighting fixture will be concealed with evergreen plant material; and

3)         That the application be approved with a variance to increase the proposed size from six (6) square feet to seven point five three (7.53) square feet.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-107 is approved with the above stated conditions an variances.

 

335 North Granger Street – Kent Maynard & Susan Diduk – Application #09-115

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace two (2) doors with two (2)

metal doors on the front elevation of the home.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Kent Maynard.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-115:

Kent Maynard, 335 North Granger Street, stated that he would like to replace two wooden storm doors with much better quality metal doors.  He stated that the door behind the storm doors are pane glass and historical and the new metal doors will allow better visibility of the historic panes of glass on the main doors.  Mr. Maynard stated that the old doors and the new doors have black trim. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the approval would be consistent with other approvals in the same zoning district. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new doors would allow for better visibility of the existing main doors which are historically significant.   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-115 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-115 is approved as submitted.

 

 

317 East Maple Street – Mark Clapsadle for Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert – Application #09-117

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new first floor addition.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mark Clapsadle and Steven Gaubert.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-117:

Mark Clapsadle, Granview Road, stated that he is the architect for the proposed project.  He stated that the applicant, Mr. Gaubert, is wanting to install an addition to the front elevation of the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that all of the existing bathrooms in the home are “landlocked” and this addition will allow for better access.  Ms. Terry stated that the addition did receive a variance from the BZBA to reduce the front yard setbacks from thirty (30’) feet to sixteen (16’) feet.  Ms. Terry noted that a drawing by Mr. Clapsadle submitted at the meeting, depicting the elevations and final outcome, would be labeled as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant is matching windows, siding, trim, roofing.

Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on the pitch of the roof.  Mr. Clapsadle showed her on the drawing that the new pitch will match the old pitch on the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the house has been added onto multiple times and they are trying to create some type of continuity with the house. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed changes would unify the look of the home.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that historically appropriate materials are proposed by the applicant.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed addition will screen, protect, and enhance. 

e)      Building Massing:  Mr. Burriss stated that the massing is appropriate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-117 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-117 is approved as submitted.

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason and Christi Adamkosky – Application #09-96

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications to upper

story windows on the eastern side of the home. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jason Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-96:

Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that they would like to propose the six over six paneled windows for the two attic triangular windows.  Ms. Terry stated that this application proposal would be an amendment to the original application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the amendment to the application is historically compatible.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed changes are historically accurate. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to amend Application #09-96 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-96 is amended as proposed.

 

 

445 North Pearl Street – Ned Roberts for Gwynyth Huff – Application #09-119

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and Transportation Corridor Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the northern side of

the home.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, Gwynyth Huff, and Ned Roberts.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-119:

Ned Roberts, 317 Maholm Street, Newark, indicated that he is the contractor for the proposed project.  Mr. Roberts proceeded to go over the construction plans, and the Planning Commission stopped him because they stated that they are only able to review the part pertaining to the TCOD.  Mr. Ryan stated that the only reason the Planning Commission is reviewing this application is because it is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Ms. Terry agreed. 

 

Gwynyth Huff, 445 North Pearl Street, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  She stated that the pitch of the roof on a back covered porch is wrong and beams, causing water damage have had to be replaced twice. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-119 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-119 is approved as submitted.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-97: Michael Carey

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby gives their recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-97.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-98: Michael Carey

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-98 as submitted by the applicant.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-98.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

New Business:

Application #09-107: Granville Historical Society

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 #09-107 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-107.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-112: Ross Granville Market

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-112 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-112.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-114: Nick Schott

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 #09-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-114.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-115: Kent Maynard & Susan Diduk

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 Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-115 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-115.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-117: Steven and Elizabeth Gaubert

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District hereby gives their approval of Application #09-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-117.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-96 (AMENDED): Jason and Christi Adamkosky

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 for an amendment to Application #09-96 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-96.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-119: Gwynyth Huff

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-119 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-119.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the August 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  10:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

September 28, 2009

Tuesday, October 13

Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 11, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: One Vacancy.

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

Visitors Present: Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Sharon Sellito, Brian Miller, Charles and Eleanor Cohen, Brice Corder, Mel Bomprezzi, Chris Avery, Sabato Sagaria, Don Andrews, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, Dale and Barbara McCoy,

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to amend the agenda and hold ‘New Business’ before ‘Old Business.’  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Amend the Agenda as presented:  Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion Carried 4-0. 

 

New Business:

 

331 East Broadway – Charles and Eleanor Cohen– Application #09-105

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of the installation of a generator.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Charles and Eleanor Cohen.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-102:

Ms. Terry showed the Planning Commission the location of the proposed generator.  She indicated that screening of the generator was not included as part of the application.  Ms. Cohen stated that the unit will be screened.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the screening needs to be an evergreen plant material or a fence.  Ms. Cohen stated it may be screened with a fence.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the generator could be screened with a fence if the screening is approved by Village staff prior to installation. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-105:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by screening the generator – the application is compatible with other requests the Planning Commission has had for the installation of a generator. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is also agreeing to screen an existing air-conditioning unit along with the proposed generator. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the physical surroundings are improved and enhanced with these actions by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-105 with the following conditions:

1)         The generator and the existing air conditioner shall be appropriately  landscaped with evergreen plant material to screen it from Broadway and the eastern neighbor, at a height equal to or greater than the height of the generator at the time of installation; or

2)         The generator is screened by fencing approved by the Village Planner.  The fence shall be finished with paint or stain. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-105 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

Old Business:

123 South Prospect Street – Barbara Franks and Dan Rogers – Application #09-03 (Remanded by Village Council)

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

The request is for approval of a change in use from the Category “E: Retail Outlets”

designation to Category “D: Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses” designation.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria, Christopher Avery, Don Andrews, and Dan Rogers.

                                                 

Discussion regarding Application #09-03:

A court reporter was present to transcribe the hearing.

 

Ms. Terry noted that Jeremy Johnson was not on the Planning Commission when this application first came before them.  She stated that Mr. Johnson was given the transcripts and application information to review so he would be permitted to vote on this application.  Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he has read the transcripts and reviewed all of the application information pertaining to Application #09-03.

 

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she has done away with some of the previously presented parking spaces per Ms. Terry’s request.  She indicated that she has five parking spaces and a patio is located where parking spaces 1 and 4 were previously located.  Ms. Franks stated that spaces 2 and 3 will remain as is and there is one additional space added that will overhang somewhat onto Park National Bank’s lot.  Ms. Franks stated that she feels she doesn’t want to deal with the parking issue any longer and she feels that the spaces she is referring to will accommodate compact cars.  Ms. Franks stated that what is of real importance to her is having the Planning Commission determine what is the classification of her barn.  She stated that she can provide evidence that 40-60 cars per day passed through the property while it was used for various businesses that were located there.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, encouraged the Planning Commission to take this one step at a time and to address whether or not the proposed space is ‘Retail.’

 

Don Andrews, stated that he is an attorney representing Ms. Franks and Mr. Rogers.  He suggested that the Planning Commission only address the matter regarding the classification of the building as it was remanded by Village Council to do.  He stated that the applicant would be willing to table the other matter pertaining to the health, safety, and general welfare of the application as it is presented.  

 

Sam Sagaria, wished to present a PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission concerning the ruling from Judge Spahr regarding he and the property owners of 121 South Prospect Street.  Law Director Crites indicated that the information pertaining to the ruling by Judge Spahr could not be heard unless it is the official written ruling.  Mr. Sagaria stated that this has not yet been prepared and released by Judge Spahr’s office. 

 

Chris Avery, Cedar Street, stated that he would like for Judge Spahr’s written decision to be heard by the Planning Commission.  He also stated that Linda Kovreg would like to present testimony and she wrote a letter to the Planning Commission and was not aware she needed to be present to have her testimony heard.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that he believes the existing use of the structure (barn) is an accessory use. 

 

Mr. Burriss stated that from a safety standpoint he doesn’t feel that the proposed location for a restaurant is appropriate – both from a vehicular and pedestrian standpoint.

 

Mr. Johnson concluded that from what he has read in the presented testimony - the front and rear property acted in conjunction with each other, and whether it is storage or not – it has acted as an accessory structure to the front building. 

 

Each member of the Planning Commission concurred that the rear building was an accessory use/building. 

 

Don Andrews stated that the back lot is a separate lot from the front piece of property.  Ms. Terry indicated that although the property is divided into two lots, it has the same tax parcel ID with Licking County.  She presented a print out of the lot size and parcel number from the Licking County tax records.  Mr. Andrews questioned the definition of “parcels” versus “lots.”  He stated that the Granville Code makes reference to lots and not the parcels of land.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Code was updated with a 2009 version and there are new definitions for “accessory use” and “accessory building.”  Mr. Andrews questioned when exactly this came into affect and stated that the earlier definitions and Code that was in place when the application was submitted should be the only Code referenced. 

 

Dan Rogers indicated that he would like Judy LaVoie to come in to offer testimony on his behalf and he also feels he should have the ability to bring in other people to speak to the fact that the back lot has been used for retail purposes.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that Ms. Franks testified that 40-60 cars utilized the driveway  and she wants to mix those cars now with pedestrian traffic which he sees as a safety issue.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are major maneuverability issues with the parking and use of the driveway for both vehicles and pedestrians.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the 40-60 cars Ms. Franks is referring to were primarily for businesses located at her address only.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that realistically that number could be more when you consider Dr. Avery’s business too.  Ms. Franks stated that she is not proposing a business that invites people to drive there, but more encourage pedestrian traffic for carry out.

 

Mr. Burriss stated that he agrees it could be beneficial for the Planning Commission to have the official court ruling document from Judge Spahr as well as clarity of testimony from other witnesses.  Other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-03.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-03 is Tabled.

 

332 North Granger Street – Michael Carey - Application #09-98 (Previously Tabled)

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new one-and-a-half story rear

detached garage. 

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, and Dale and Barbara McCoy.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove Application #09-98 from the Table.  Seconded by

Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to remove Application #09-98 from the Table: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-98:

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he did listen to the tape and read the transcript from the previous meeting for Applications #09-97 and #09-98 for Michael Carey. 

 

Ms. Terry presented the information submitted by the applicant with the information requested by the Planning Commission.  She stated that she took measurements for the principle and accessory structures to get an average measurement of the footprint of homes in that neighborhood.  She went on to say that Bird and Bull used their surveying equipment to measure the principle structure heights.  Ms. Terry stated that the two issues at the last meeting entailed building height and building massing and she read aloud the Code pertaining to Height.  Ms. Terry reviewed the figures presented by Bird and Bull and she presented pictures she had taken of homes in the neighborhood - one to the south, two homes to the north, and two homes across the street.  Mr. Johnson asked which home has the twenty-four foot wide garage.  Ms. Terry stated that the yellow home across the street from the Carey’s has a twenty-four foot wide barn.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the homes presented by Ms. Terry are in the AROD.  Ms. Terry stated yes and that the homes to the west are in the Village Residential District (VRD) and the homes on the east are in the Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).

 

Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on the requested information he submitted for the Planning Commission.  He indicated that he is in support of the proposed structure to be placed on the property. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission needs to go through the criteria in Section 1161.02 since they went through it at the last meeting.  Ms. Terry encouraged the Planning Commission to add any allow any comments to the criteria by Mr. Mitchell. 

Law Director Crites agreed.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked the depth of the old structure.  Mr. Carey indicated that the old structure is twenty feet deep and the proposed new structure is twenty-two feet deep. 

Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Terry’s conclusion on the footprint averages agrees with building massing in the Code.  Ms. Terry stated that this is to be determined by the Planning Commission.  She indicated that in foot print size it appears to be consistent with the Code if one looks at average height of 10% - the numbers fall in that 10% range. 

 

Joe Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that with all things considered the applicant is proposing a very nice garage.  He stated that he finds it hard to believe when you look at the new structure versus the existing structure – one wouldn’t see the new structure as considerably larger than the old.  He went on to say that it would raise some concerns if you were living next to the newly proposed structure.  Mr. Hickman stated that the height of the school was not included in the calculations presented by Ms. Terry.  Mr. Hickman stated that the Village has indicated that they are not sure of the exact location of the one hundred foot boundary and he would like the Village to get it right.  Mr. Hickman stated that he has a problem if the numbers aren’t correct.  Mr. Hickman stated that during a work session the applicant talked about bringing the structure down by one foot.  Mr. Carey stated he was going to try to bring it down one foot, but he also feels that this could change the dynamics of it being a story and a half structure.  Mr. Hickman stated that Mr. Burriss is the only member on the Planning Commission that approved the McCoy garage and he has now changed his viewpoint with the approval of the Carey garage.  He indicated that this is not being consistent. 

Ms. Terry stated that Village staff was unable to find anything in the McCoy file indicating that a garage plan was not approved or disliked by the Planning Commission.   She also indicated that the building massing language in the Code has changed from when the McCoy garage was approved in 2000.  Mr. Hickman stated that the 24 foot barn that has been referred to is across the street and is 200-300 feet away from the Carey property.  He went on to say that the school is within 100 feet of the Carey property and was not included in the calculations to determine building massing.  Mr. Ryan stated that the school is not in the AROD district and the houses Ms. Terry used in her calculations are.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Code refers to properties within 100 feet and doesn’t specify the AROD district.  She questioned if the Planning Commission would want the 100 feet measured from the property line or from the physical structure because this is not specified in the Code.   

 

Barbara McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, read aloud a statement to the Planning Commission that is attached as part of these minutes.  Ms. McCoy stated that the job of the Planning Commission is to preserve the quaintness of the Village and their street does not have huge homes like other areas in the Village.  She stated that this was the reason their proposed garage was not allowed eight years ago.  Ms. McCoy indicated that they object to the proposed dormers by the applicant because it will overlook their family room.  Ms. McCoy also stated that their house has two different heights and she wondered which height was measured.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Engineer did the measurement from the front elevation of the home and the height at the ridgeline.   

 

Dale McCoy, 338 North Granger Street, stated that he thinks he has figured out what has happened since 2000 when his garage was approved.  He stated he was told “there were no two story buildings allowed and that was it.”  Mr. McCoy stated that to be compatible with the Village his garage, as it currently is, is all he was allowed.  Mr. McCoy stated that the Planning Commission is looking at something by the Carey’s that is “grandiose and it doesn’t fit into our neighborhood.”  Mr. McCoy stated that he searched around the Village and he cannot find another building with a shed dormer.  He went on to say that the Planning Commission told the Carey’s that they couldn’t have a two story structure, but they allowed a big long shed dormer so the applicant has the space upstairs that he wants.  Mr. McCoy stated that another point he would like to make is that a structure such as this accessory structure ought to be placed in the rear of the property if you want to stay in the character of Granville.  Mr. Johnson asked Mr. McCoy the height of his garage and the height he would have liked to have made it.  Mr. McCoy stated sixteen feet (16’) is the current height and he would have liked to have had the building be twenty feet (20’) high, but he was told this wouldn’t fit into the character of the neighborhood.  Mr. McCoy indicated that if the accessory structure were to be in the back of the lot he could live with that. 

 

Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson indicated that at the last meeting each person indicated that they would rather have the accessory structure located in the current location rather than the back of the property.  Mr. McCoy stated that he just said he didn’t want it long ways and he would rather see it located clear at the back.  He stated that he could not speak for the Hickman’s. 

 

Karen Hickman, 326 North Granger Street, stated that she looked at the Auditor’s website and if you use their legend it is relatively easy to see what structures are located 100 feet away.  Mrs. Hickman stated that there needs to be a clear understanding if the 100 feet (for massing) is measured at the four edges of the property line, or 100 feet centered on the location of the new structure, or 100 feet from the existing garage. 

Mrs. Hickman also stated that the interpretation of the 10% is not clear and she questioned what the Ordinance says regarding this.  Mrs. Hickman submitted a Licking County website aerial photo of her property – Labeled Exhibit A.  Michael Carey indicated that he had the same questions regarding the height measurements and he asked Ms. Terry what is the worst case scenario.  He stated that he took all of his measurements from the height of any structure and this included all buildings including the school.  He stated that he tried to be conservative in the measurements and all of the height measurements in Ms. Terry’s calculations are larger than what he is encompassing.  Mr. Carey also indicated that he has a 3D PowerPoint view of the neighborhood if the Planning Commission would like to see it.  Mr. Carey stated that he doesn’t dispute that the new structure he is proposing is bigger and his point in building the structure is to make it larger.  He also stated that he is starting with a significantly small structure and he believes he meets all of the guidelines and this has been verified by Ms. Terry’s measurements.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Terry how she measured the 100 feet – from what point.  Ms. Terry stated that she measured from the property lines and she would be willing to measure the school if the Planning Commission would like that height included in her calculations.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he doesn’t see it as appropriate to include the school in the calculations because it’s a different type of building and it should be interpreted differently.  Mr. Johnson stated that if 332 North Granger Street, 326 North Granger Street, and 338 North Granger Street were all measured in height (primary structure and accessory structure) that Mr. Carey’s structure is well within what the Code allows.  He added that if the height measurement were extended to 342 North Granger Street than it will be a benefit to the applicant.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the structure will be an imposing change for the resident to the south and it would seem that a building that big should be further back on the lot. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed location of Mr. Carey’s accessory structure was a short-lived discussion at the previous meeting and no one said they had a problem with the location until now.  Mr. Ryan stated that the problem is that Mr. Carey now has a variance from the BZBA for the current location.  Ms. Terry recalled that there was some discussion regarding not placing the structure further back because the applicant didn’t want his yard impacted.  She also questioned if the Hickman’s didn’t want it back there because of the location of their pool.  Ms. Terry stated that the ultimate decision was to put the garage in the location as proposed with no windows to the south side of the structure.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this was what was agreed to by the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated yes, and the height was not known at that time and the BZBA did specify that it be a maximum of a 1 ½ story garage. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Carey how he is handling the draining from the gutters.  Mr. Carey stated that the downspout will point to the east and there will be a splash block.  Mr. Carey stated that this is currently how the water drainage is handled.   

 

Barbara McCoy asked that the Planning Commission look at the proposed dormer regardless of what they decide this evening.  Mr. Carey stated that he went with a shed dormer because it slopes down and he feels this would be better for building massing.  Mr. Carey stated that a normal dormer would project out more.  Mr. Carey stated that the shed dormer allows him to keep the building height down and still allows the space he would like inside the building.  He stated that in the research he did regarding a 1½ story building – one half of the space has to be at least seven feet tall in order to be considered a 1 ½ story.  Mr. Carey stated that if he allows the building height to go below 20 feet (20’) it would be considered a single story structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-98 again so Mr. Mitchell could add any comments.  The Planning Commission also reviewed this same criteria at their July 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  (Please refer to the Criteria for Application #09-98 dated July 27, 2009 for additional comments.) 

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with the Planning Commission.

e)      Height:  Mr. Burriss felt the height of the proposed structure was appropriate.   Mr. Mitchell added that he has no basis for which to disagree that the height doesn’t conform.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson concurred with these comments.

f)       Building Massing – Mr. Ryan stated that he has a concern over the size of the building – and the massing as it relates to the other buildings in the neighborhood, specifically 326 North Granger.  Mr. Ryan stated that with this being said there is a lot of landscaping and fencing that is shielding the garage that currently exists.  He stated that the new roof is higher.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he concurs with Mr. Ryan’s expressed concerns with the size of the structure and he stated that the massing would be more palatable further away from the main structure.  Mr. Johnson agreed.  

g)      Use of Details – Mr. Mitchell stated the use of detail is appropriate to the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is consistent use of detail throughout the structure.  Mr. Johnson agreed with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Johnson questioned if there are still concerns regarding moving the building to the back of the property.  Mr. Hickman indicated that during the variance process when they agreed to the location of the proposed garage they did not realize the actual height of a 1 ½ story structure.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is any benefit to the Hickman’s if the structure were to be moved further back on the property.  Mr. Hickman stated probably not. Mr. Carey stated that he would be concerned that there would be too much coverage on his lot with concrete and if the move would require another variance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the structure can be moved back thirty-seven feet (37’) without a variance.  Mr. Carey agreed that moving the structure back would help the neighbor’s site line concerns, but it will also open up privacy issues for the Hickman’s.  Mr. Carey indicated that at one point the main concern was privacy and now it is site lines.  He stated that he chose the current location to address the neighbor concerns regarding privacy.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant may very well need a variance for the additional lot coverage.  The Hickman’s and McCoy’s agreed that they would support a variance for the lot coverage if the building were to be moved back.  Ms. Terry indicated that a new variance application would have to be submitted.  Mr. Mitchell asked if not for the administrative issues, would the applicant be agreeable to moving the structure.  Mr. Carey stated that moving the garage back would take up more green space where he was going to put a garden and he would have to play with this and see.  Mr. Carey stated that he preferred to have a head in garage and that was not the chosen alternative by the neighbors.  He stated that if the garage were to be moved back he would like it to be a head in garage.  He added that this approval ought to be one process and it is very confusing to come to the Planning Commission and then the BZBA and go back and forth.  Mr. Ryan stated that one concern with the change in the location of the garage is the lot coverage.  Mr. Hickman stated that they would support the lot coverage variance.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not sure what they are achieving by moving it completely. 

 

Mr. Johnson indicated that the Planning Commission has the ability to approve/disapprove the structure as presented by the applicant and they also have the ability to approve it contingent upon the applicant moving the building location. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if the original alternative he presented at a Planning Commission work session – to drive straight back into the garage was still a consideration.  Mr. Carey indicated that he would be willing to compromise on the location of the garage but he has been told by his contractor that the Building Code may have some concern over the negative grade on his property.  He also indicated that he has some concerns over the lot coverage – and if this would be impacted due to Code regulations.  Mr. Carey asked the Planning Commission if they did agree on the structure itself.  He stated that he is hearing that the only concern that still needs to be addressed is the location of the structure.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Burriss both indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposed structure.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the building were to be moved back and the grade and fill issues were addressed it could potentially cause the building to be higher.  Ms. Terry read aloud the definition of the building height.  She stated that she could also foresee the need for a retaining wall due to the slope in the yard.  Mr. Carey agreed.

 

Mr. Ryan explained that the application can be voted on today as is or it can be tabled so the applicant can work with the neighbors on the location of the structure.  Mr. Burriss explained that if the application is tabled and Mr. Carey comes back with the same application then the Planning Commission would not have to readdress the structure – only the location.  He stated that if a whole new application is submitted then all of the discussion and the criteria will have to be re-addressed.  Mr. Carey clarified that if the application is tabled then the only area open for conversation would be the location of the building and everything else stays intact.   Mr. Carey stated that he would support tabling the application. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-98.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-98 is Tabled

 

332 North Granger Street– Michael Carey – Application #09-97 (Previously Tabled)

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a rear detached one-story

garage.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Michael and Brenda Carey, Joe and Karen Hickman, and Dale and Barbara McCoy.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #09-97 from the Table.  Seconded by

Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to remove Application #09-97 from the Table: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-97:

(Please refer to application #09-98)

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #09-97 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote to Table: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-97 is Tabled.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-105: Charles and Eleanor Cohen

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville

Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161,

Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application

#09-102 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-105.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

August 24, 2009 (Canceled)

September 14, 2009

September 28, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 27, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: One Vacancy.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Julie Smith, Scott Walker, Mike Carey, Joe Hickman, Jason Adamkosky,

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

332 West Elm Street – Julie Smith – Application #09-76 (Previously Tabled)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)     Porte cochere attached to the western side of the structure to be constructed of the

        following materials:

a.         Roof:  Slate look fiberglass shingles; 7:12 pitch & 9:12 pitch roof connecting to the main structure;

b.         Gable end detail facing Elm Street with wood fish scale shingles to match main house;

c.         Decorative brackets under porch connecting to box columns, to match front porch brackets on main house;

d.         Nine-inch (9") box wood columns;

e.         Roll up awning on the north, west & south sides; and

2)     New Retaining Wall: three-foot (3') high retaining wall along the western side of the driveway;

3)     Replacement of existing asphaltic shingle northern porch roof with a standing seam metal roof.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Julie Smith.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove Application #09-76 from the Table.  Seconded by

Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

                                                 

Discussion regarding Application #09-76:

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-76.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-76 is approved as submitted.

 

New Business:

405 &405 1/2 West Maple Street– Phillip Templeton – Application #09-95

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a lot split and lot combination. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Phillip Templeton.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-95:

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-95:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-95 is approved as submitted by the applicant.

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason Adamkosky – Application #09-96

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)      Rear 2nd story addition; and

2)      Exterior Modifications: Substantial renovations to exterior, including but not limited to, front porch, front door, lighting, modification of garage to porte cochere, new Hardie-plank siding, new aluminum clad exterior windows, removal of rear chimney, side door, and a new dimensional asphaltic roof.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Jason Adamkosky.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-96:

Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated that the

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-96:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

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

e)       

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-96 with the

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-96 is approved as with the above stated conditions.

 

 

332 North Granger Street – Michael Carey - Application #09-97

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of the demolition of a rear detached one-story garage. 

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner Alison Terry, and Michael Carey.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-97:

Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street,

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-97:

(a)                The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.

 

                                    (b)        The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.

 

                                    (c)        The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.

 

                                    (d)        The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-97 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-97 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

 

332 North Granger Street – Michael Carey - Application #09-98

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new one-and-a-half story rear

detached garage. 

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner Alison Terry, and Michael Carey.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-98:

Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street,

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-98

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-98 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

201 North Mulberry Street – Scott Walker/Denison University - Application #09-99

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)      Replacement of two (2) sets of French doors with two (2) sets of the following: one aluminum 8-lite French door with muntin bars and a sidelight; and

2)      Installation of wood replacement shutters.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-99:

Scott Walker,

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-99:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-99 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-99 is approved as submitted.

 

100 North Plum Street – Scott Walker/Denison University– Application #09-100

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of the installation of an electrical generator, with evergreen

plant material for screening on the north side of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-100:

Scott Walker, stated that

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-100:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-100 with the following conditions:

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-100 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

201, 202, 203, & 204 North Mulberry Street – Scott Walker/Denison University– Application #09-101

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)      Removal of eight (8) existing light poles and replacement with Holophane Granville pole lights, in black finish, acorn light fixture; and

2)      Installation of one (1) recessed step light in stone retaining wall.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-101:

Scott Walker, stated

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-101:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

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

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-101 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-101 is approved as submitted.

 

100 North Plum Street – Scott Walker/Denison University– Application #09-102

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for approval of the installation of an electrical generator, with evergreen

plant material for screening on the north side of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-102:

Scott Walker, stated that

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-102:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-102 with the following conditions:

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-102 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #09-76: Julie Smith

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-76.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

New Business:

Application #09-95: Phillip Templeton

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B and hereby approved Application #09-95 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-95.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-96: Jason Adamkosky

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 the Application #09-96 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-96.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-97: Michael Carey

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 11620.4, Demolition and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-97 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-97.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-98: Michael Carey

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-98 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-98.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-99: Scott Walker/Denison University

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 hereby gives their approval of Application #09-99 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-99.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-100: Scott Walker/Denison University

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 #09-100 as submitted by

the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-100.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-101: Scott Walker/Denison University

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 #09-101 as

submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-101.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-102: Denison University

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 #09-102 as

submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-102.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

August 24, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 13, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: One Vacancy.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Law Director, Mike Crites.

Visitors Present: Andy Ross, Kristine Martin, Bill Hanes, Scott Walker, Kim Vernau, Jerry Martin, Joy and John Wujek, Fred Ashbaugh, Sara Lee, Daniel Bonar, Brian Miller, Phil Wince, and Theresa Applegate.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

484 South Main Street – Ross Granville Market – Application #09-70

Suburban Business District (SBD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of one (1) of the following options, for the existing Granville Video front façade:

1)                  Provide reflective coating on existing glass windows & doors, with framed walls behind; or

2)                  Remove windows and doors and replace with siding to match the existing elevation.                                          

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Andy Ross.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-70:

(Jeremy Johnson recused himself from the discussion/voting on Application #09-70 because the company he works for is bidding on the project.  He then was seated in the audience during the discussion & vote.)

Andy Ross, 484 South Main Street, stated that he would like to see the second option he presented - with the removal of the windows approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to compliment the applicant for the job that they have done on the building renovation.  He stated that he feels this proposal is consistent with the type of work that has been done thus far.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-70 according to the West Elevation of Exhibit ‘A’.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-70 is Approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

 

 

(Jeremy Johnson rejoined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:10 PM)

 

New Business:

332 West Elm Street – Julie Fudge Smith – Application #09-76

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                     Porte cochere attached to the western side of the structure to be constructed of the following materials:

a.         Roof:  Slate look fiberglass shingles; 7:12 pitch & 9:12 pitch roof connecting to the main structure;

b.         Gable end detail facing Elm Street with wood fish scale shingles to match main house;

c.         Decorative brackets under porch connecting to box columns, to match front porch brackets on main house;

d.         Nine-inch (9") box wood columns;

e.         Roll up awning on the north, west & south sides; and

2)                     New Retaining Wall: three-foot (3') high retaining wall along the western side of the driveway;

3)                     Replacement of existing asphaltic shingle northern porch roof with a standing seam metal roof.

                                                 

Discussion regarding Application #09-76:

Ms. Terry presented an email to the Planning Commission from the applicant requesting to have the application tabled because of the placement of a sanitary sewer line that needs to be further researched.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-76.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-76 is Tabled.

 

128 East Broadway – Jerry Martin – Application #09-78

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk café area and

associated tables and chairs.  The applicant is proposing four (4) tables measuring

twenty-four inches (24”) by twenty-four inches (24”) with eight (8) chairs, to be used on

Saturday mornings only. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Jerry Martin.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-78:

Ms. Terry noted that this application needs to have a recommendation by the Planning Commission for Council.  Jerry Martin, owner of Brews Café, stated that the tables and chairs would be used on weekends – mainly Saturday mornings.  Mr. Mitchell asked the applicant if they wish to be limited to Saturday’s in the final approval.  Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Martin has any issues with the list of staff recommendations for approval.  Mr. Martin stated no.  Mr. Burriss stated that his only concern is what would happen to the tables and chairs when they are not in use.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant is being required to take the tables and chairs in.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that other cafes have their tables and chairs roped/chained when not in use.  Mr. Martin stated he would be taking the tables and chairs indoors when they are not in use.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-78:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that its  in keeping with the historical character of the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that it keeps the operating facility alive and vital.  

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Council that Application #09-78 be approved with the noted restrictions A-M on the Village Staff report.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-78 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

121 North Pearl Street – Fred Ashbaugh – Application #09-79

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear brick patio.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-79:

Fred Ashbaugh, 121 North Pearl Street, stated that the manufactured pavers would be the same color as the foundation stones on his home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the grade would be raised as depicted in the submitted photo.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-79:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is using the same color of stone that is in the foundation of the home. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the back yard of the home will be improved. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-79 with the stipulation that the pavers for the patio blend with the existing foundation of the home.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-79 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

124 South Cherry Street – Sara Lee - Application #09-80

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 29" height black wrought iron

fence to be located along the northern property line.                                           

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Sara Lee.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-80:

Sara Lee, 124 South Cherry Street, was present to address any questions/concerns regarding her application.  Mr. Burriss stated that the owner has made numerous improvements to the property that have certainly enhanced it.  Mr. Burriss asked how the fence will be terminated along the street.  Ms. Lee stated that there will be an ending pole in the same material with an end cap.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-80:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the detailing is appropriate for the district. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvements are architecturally appropriate for this area.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-80 contingent only upon the following:

1)         That the fencing erected along the side property line shall have the finished and not the structural side facing the neighboring property, alley, or street. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-80 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

224 East Broadway, “E” – Mootz Run, Ltd., Joy Wujek - Application #09-84

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

The request is for review and approval of a change of use from Category “C”, Business

and Professional Offices to Category “B”, Specialty Shops for a retail tea store.                                                  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner Alison Terry, Joy Wujek, and Phil Wince.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-84:

Joy Wujek, Worthington Road, Alexandria, was available to address any questions/concerns by the Planning Commission.

Phil Wince, 2350 West Broadway, stated that the applicant operates an existing tea shop on SR 161 and would like to open a shop in Granville. 

Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is in compliance with parking.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if a separate application will be submitted for signage.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign was approved administratively since the original sign was previously approved by the Planning Commission and matched that approval, with a change in name only.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-84.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-84 is approved as submitted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

117 South Plum Street – Stephen and Theresa Applegate – Application #09-85

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of new redwood, six panel double garage doors, in a white finish.

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-85:

Theresa Applegate, 117 South Plum Street, stated that they currently do not have a garage door in place.  Ms. Applegate indicated that the door would be painted white to match the existing trim.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-85:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed doors are architecturally appropriate and better than the current state of no door at all. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-85 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-85 is approved as submitted.

 

237 West Elm Street – Daniel and Martha Bonar– Application #09-86

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 21 wooden beams

across the front of the porch and replacement with a decorative wood trim piece across

the fascia.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Daniel Bonar.

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-86:

Daniel Bonar, 237 West Elm Street, stated that the beams extend approximately two feet beyond the roof line and they are always exposed to the weather elements.  He stated that the beams need to be addressed because they are rotting.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is a gutter.  Mr. Bonar stated yes and that the gutter is built in to the edge of the roof line.  Mr. Johnson asked if the ends of these beams are supporting any part of the gutter.  Mr. Bonar stated no.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the ends would be capped off or would a solid fascia be put in place.  Mr. Bonar stated that they hope to have a solid fascia and then some trim.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this trim would also be installed on the sides.  Mr. Bonar stated no.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the ends of the trim would be capped off.  Mr. Bonar stated that they will trim it out to be architecturally appealing.  He indicated that these beams are original to the structure and at some point the home was hit by a tree and some modifications were made at that time.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the 2x2 boards will be replaced.  Mr. Bonar clarified that some of the 2x2’s will be replaced and the longer fourteen foot 2x2’s will not be replaced.  Mr. Burriss asked how the existing roof will relate to the proposed molding and will it come out over the beam.  Mr. Bonar showed Mr. Burriss the location of the molding on the submitted drawings.  Mr. Burriss asked if the four inch overhang will remain.  Mr. Bonar stated yes.  Mr. Ryan clarified the location of the fascia board.  Mr. Burriss stated that he has some concern because the detailing on the home is so architecturally rich and he wants to ensure that they get a clear idea of the details presented by the applicant.  He also stated that he has some concern with how the trim will end.  Mr. Ryan asked if the fascia board will have an end cap with a finished end.  Mr. Bonar stated yes.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the proposal by the applicant will change the look of the porch that is currently in place.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they will lose the look of the architectural detailing.  Mr. Burriss stated that he also understands the reason for the change due to the maintenance.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has 95% of the information, but not exactly what will be put in place once these details are removed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it would be an expensive replacement, and the Planning Commission is looking at the loss of a significant architectural detail.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed improvements would help ensure that the existing porch is preserved.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is happy to hear that the existing beams will remain in place, but the ends are also a significant piece of architecture.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would feel better approving this application if there were drawings that could be used at some point to restore this detailing.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed drawing is a good documentation of the original detailing and the photographs that were submitted are also helpful.  Mr. Bonar stated that he would be willing to take photos of the existing porch to preserve the look.  He also indicated that he would like to put the end caps back in place if at all possible in the future.  He stated that he is as eager as the Planning Commission to keep the detailing, but it is difficult to maintain the exposed wood.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like a drawing submitted with the end cap detailing.         

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-86:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is consistent with other new porches approved. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this should help to preserve the porch and with the good documentation presented of the original architecture – it contributes to the historical character. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by removing this detail, it may help to preserve the detailing in the rest of the porch.   

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-86 with the condition that a drawing of the end cap detailing and terminus of the new trim piece be submitted and approved by Village Staff prior to installation.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-86 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

135 North Main Street – Scott Walker/Denison University - Application #09-87

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement of existing wooden,

5-panel, triple garage doors with steel Wayne Dalton, Model 6100, Somerset, 3-panel,

double garage doors, including decorative hardware.                                        

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-87:

Scott Walker, that they would like to replace the existing doors because they are not weather tight and they do not function well.  Mr. Walker stated that the proposed doors would match the detailing of the home.  He stated that the replacement doors would have a carriage style look.  Mr. Burriss asked if the new door would be an overhead door with the appearance of being a double door.  Mr. Walker stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked the color of the garage door.  Mr. Walker stated they would like to use the factory white and this would match the trim on the home.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-87:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is historically appropriate to the style of the primary structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes – by upgrading the structure.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the doors are architecturally consistent with doors that would have been used by past generations. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-87 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-87 is approved as submitted.

 

241 West College Street – Scott Walker/Denison University– Application #09-88

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a concrete handicap ramp & steel

handrails, painted black, to be located on the south elevation of the building. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-88:

Scott Walker, stated that they will need to remove shrubbery for the installation of the handicap ramp and they would replant the shrubs with boxwoods.  Mr. Burriss asked about the existing door and will it remain in place.  Mr. Walker stated that the existing door is in ADA compliance & can remain there.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the set of steps going into the door is concrete.  Mr. Walker stated yes and they will add to it with a landing.  Mr. Burriss asked if the size of boxwoods should be specified in the approval.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if there is enough room between the face of the building and the sidewalk for the installation of the ramp.  Mr. Walker indicated that there is enough room, although the photograph doesn’t accurately reflect that.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-88:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is consistent with other handicap ramps in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the accessibility of the building enhances the structure.  

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-88 with the following conditions:

1) Landscaping be returned to the building; and

2) Evergreen plant material chosen by the applicant is to be at a minimum height of three foot when planted. 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-88 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

201 & 202 North Mulberry Street – Scott Walker/Denison University– Application #09-89

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a concrete handicap ramp & steel

handrails, painted black, to be located between 201 & 202 North Mulberry Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-89:

Scott Walker, stated that they would like to make 202 North Mulberry easier to access for students and to make the facility handicap accessible.  He stated that the intent is to connect this pathway with the Cleveland Hall renovation and make Cleveland Hall, 201 and 202 North Mulberry all accessible by a pathway.  Mr. Burriss asked how one would get on the path if utilizing a wheelchair.  Mr. Walker stated that access could be made at Cleveland Hall.  Mr. Burriss asked if a handicap individual needed picked up at the North Mulberry circle would it be possible.  Mr. Walker stated no.  Mr. Walker also indicated that EMH&T did the engineering and topography drawings.  Mr. Johnson asked if the top of the walk would be flush with the grass.  Mr. Walker stated that he would like the walkway to be as close to the grass as possible.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-89:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the building will become more accessible. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the improvement increases the viability of an older building. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-89 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-89 is approved as submitted.

 

 

230 East Broadway – Adam Vernau– Application #09-90

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new projecting tenant sign panel, with new decorative hanging arm bracket, painted black.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Kim Vernau.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-90:

Kim Vernau, stated that the post will be ten feet two and one half inches in height.  Ms. Terry stated that this would be under the fourteen foot requirement and all of the other requirements have been met.  Mr. Ryan asked if the coloring will be black and white.  Ms. Vernau stated that they would like to match the existing McFarland signage.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he liked the look of the proposed bracket.  Mr. Ryan asked if any lighting if proposed.  Ms. Vernau stated no.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-90:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent with the style and presentation that the Planning Commission has been encouraging. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality is enhanced with a business located in this district.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is historically appropriate for the district. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-90 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-90 is approved as submitted.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #09-70: Ross’ Granville Market

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-70 according to West Elevation of Exhibit ‘A.’

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-70.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (abstain), Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-71: Keith and Monique Keegan

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of the application as modified by the applicant, and according to ‘Exhibit A’ with a 42-inch steel fence along Elm Street and back along both side property lines to the front of the structure, and a 72-inch steel fence along the remainder of the sides and rear property line.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-71.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss (abstain), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #09-78: Jerry Martin

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 #09-78 as submitted by the applicant with the noted restrictions A-M on the Village Staff Report.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-78.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-79: Fred Ashbaugh

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 the Application #79 as submitted by the applicant with the condition that the pavers for the patio blend with the existing foundation of the home.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-79.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-80: Sara Lee

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1187, Height, Area & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-80 as submitted by the applicant contingent upon the fencing erected along the side property line having the finished and not the structural side facing the neighboring property, alley, or street.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-80.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-84: Mootz Run/Joy Wujek

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 1183, Off-Street Parking & Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-84 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-84.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-85: Stephen and Theresa Applegate

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 hereby gives their approval of Application #09-85 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-85.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-86: Daniel and Martha Bonar

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 #09-86 with the condition

that a drawing of the end cap detailing and terminus of the new trim piece be submitted

and approved by Village Staff prior to installation.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-86.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-87: Denison University

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 the application, as indicated

below.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-87.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-88: Denison University

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 #09-88 with the

following conditions:

1)      Landscaping be returned to the building; and

2)      Evergreen plant material chosen by the applicant is to be at a minimum height of three foot when planted.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-88.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-89: Denison University

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 #09-89 as

submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-89.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-90: Adam Vernau

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

1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of the Application #09-90 as submitted by

the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-90.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 11, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Johnson abstained because he was not present at the meeting.)

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 26, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 2-0.  (Mr. Johnson abstained because he was not present at the meeting.)

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes as amended for the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Burriss abstained because he was not present at the meeting.)

  

Adjournment:  8:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

July 27, 2009

August 10, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 8, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and one vacancy.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: James and Emily Browder, and Nick Schott.

Citizen’s Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Planning Commission - Oath of Office:  Jeremy Johnson

Jeremy Johnson was administered the Oath of Office by Mayor Hartfield and appointed to the Granville Planning Commission.

 

New Business:

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder – Application #09-59

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                  Installation of a six foot by six foot (6’ x 6’) shed in the rear yard; and

2)                  Installation of a brick patio on the south side of the home, replacing an existing concrete patio area.                                           

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Browder.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-59:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that the shed installation is a kit from Lowe’s and he is in need of the shed to store lawn equipment.  Mr. Browder stated that he feels the shed will be aesthetically pleasing with the ornate hinges and decorative features.  He indicated that the patio would be “kidney bean shaped” and he plans to use old bricks from Burg Street he purchased at an auction.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Terry if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant will need BZBA approval for the installation of the shed.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shed has a floor in it.  Mr. Browder stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-59:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the shed is typical of other sheds in the same zoning district and the brick patio contains bricks from historic Granville.     

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that by using the bricks - the historical character is upgraded.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-59 with the condition that the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-59 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

660 West Broadway – Nick Schott – Application #09-61

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for review and approval of the removal of a flagstone walkway from the house to the street and replacement with a concrete walkway.                                   

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Nick Schott.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-61:

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated the stone steps would remain in place and he is looking to remove the stones on the walkway and replace them with a concrete walkway.  Ms. Terry explained that the Planning Commission is reviewing this application because of the TCOD requirements. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-61 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-61 is approved as submitted.

 

664 West Broadway – Nick Schott - Application #09-63

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

The request is for review and approval of a six (6’) foot wood fence.

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

Schott.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-63:

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, indicated that there is a portion of the fence that is located within the TCOD and requires Planning Commission approval.  He stated that the fence will look like the existing fence located at 660 West Broadway.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-63 with the following conditions:

1)                  That the proposed fence is stained or painted within one year; and

2)                  The finish will be the same on each side. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-63 is approved as submitted.

 

332 East College Street – Lauren Andrew – Application #09-62

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new air conditioning unit on the east side of the home.                                                 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-62:

Lauren Andrew was not present at the meeting.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has also applied for a variance from the BZBA for the side yard setback.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there has been any response from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-62:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there are many other air-conditioning units in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the livability of the home is improved. 

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

 

Mr. Jeremy made a motion to approve Application #09-62 with the condition that the applicant screen the air-conditioning unit with evergreen plant material and that the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-62 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #09-59:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby approves Application #09-59 with the condition that the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-59.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-61:

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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and yard Modifications, and hereby approves Application #09-61 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-61.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-63:

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 and Yard Modifications and hereby approves Application #09-63 with the stated conditions.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-63.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-62:

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 approves Application #09-62 with the stated conditions:

1)      That the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA; and

2)      That the applicant screen the unit with evergreen plant material.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-62.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on June 8, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

June 22, 2009

July 13, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 26, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell and one vacancy.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: James Brooks, Einar Gruething, Britney Wood, Bob Warner, Mark Bryan, Joshua Bow, Richard Liebson, Ken Rittenhouse, Doug and Maria Hoyt, and Tim and Cathy Klingler.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

219 Summit Street – Tim Klingler – Application #09-33 AMENDED

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval to modify the south side bay window

area, removing the existing wood double hung windows and replacing with aluminum

clad windows and a single french door.                                    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Tim Klingler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-33:

Tim Klingler, 219 Summit Street, indicated that everything in his submitted plans will remain the same except for the installation of two doors, rather than one.  Mr. Klingler stated that the door would have the same stain.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the trim would go to the ground.  Mr. Klingler stated yes and it will be trimmed out to match the existing stain on the home. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-33:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant’s changes complement some of the aspects of the new garden design. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by enhancing this structure of historical significance, the entire area is protected and enhanced.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-33 as amended by the applicant.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-33 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

New Business:

134 South Mulberry Street – Richard and Leah Liebson – Application #09-44

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:

1)      Installation of low stone walls in the rear yard; and

2)      Installation of a stepping stone patio on the north side of home, with steps connecting around to the rear garage.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Richard Liebson, and Ken Rittenhouse.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-44:

Richard Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street, stated that he is seeking approval for the landscaping to his home.  He went on to say that Ken Rittenhouse, with John Klauder Associates, drew up the plans.  Mr. Liebson stated that on the west and south side of the property dead shrubbery will be removed and replaced with new plantings along with mulch.  He stated that a retaining wall is proposed for the slope along the driveway.  And the area between the house and the garage will have stepping stones.  Mr. Liebson believed these were already approved as part of the garage plan submitted a couple of months ago.  Mr. Liebson proposed a low retaining wall or planting boxes (with ferns) near the back foundation of the home because the contractor has recommended not removing dirt because of the condition of the foundation.  Mr. Liebson stated that the rear east of the new garage has the remains of a low stone wall and their proposal is to re-pile the stone along the driveway and also add a planter box.  He went on to say that they would like to put the two stone steps at the front corner of the garage back in.  Mr. Liebson stated that they would like to try to reestablish steps in the rear of the property using natural stone to create a safe walkway.  Mr. Liebson stated that they are proposing to remove the broken portions of the fence that were not taken out previously by a fallen tree.  He indicated that he needed a variance for the north side portion of the patio & walkway and this was granted by BZBA on May 14, 2009.  Mr. Liebson stated that the rationale for this project is that they would enhance the landscaping to compliment the home and he believes all of the criteria in the Code have been met.  Mr. Liebson stated that he has spoken with the neighbors and there have been no issues.  He stated that the neighbor most affected (Daniel Finkleman) by these changes has sent a letter of support to the Village.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant had a very nice proposal.  He noted that the second air conditioning unit doesn’t have screening, but the larger air-conditioning unit does.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission generally likes to see some landscaping around these types of units.  Ms. Terry stated that the air-conditioning unit Mr. Burriss is referring to is an existing unit and she questioned if the Planning Commission could require that the unit be screened.  Mr. Liebson stated that he thought this was a good point by Mr. Burris, and he has no problem screening the unit with plant material.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-44:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that when the landscaping is improved - you improve the historical character. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   Mr. Burriss stated that the project would contribute to the vitality of the District.

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 approving the appearance and this emphasizes the primary structure on the property.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-44 with the addition that a boxwood is planted to screen the second existing air-conditioning unit located on the landscape plan.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-44 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

309 West Broadway – Pilgrim Lutheran Church – Application #09-49

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with Owens Corning, dimensional asphaltic shingles in Onyx Black.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bob Warner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-49:

Bob Warner, 309 West Broadway, stated that the roof on the church was originally done wrong because there is a seam down the middle of the structure.  Mr. Warner stated that he has noted that there are dimensional shingles already in the same zoning district.  Ms. Reeves asked if the new shingles will match the color of the old shingles.  Mr. Warner stated that the color is black onyx and they will attempt to match the shingles as best they can.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-49:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the structure, the vitality of the district is preserved. 

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing Owens-Corning dimensional asphalt shingles in black onyx. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-49 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-49 is approved as submitted.

 

238 East Broadway – Jim Brooks - Application #09-50

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for approval of a sidewalk sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner,  Alison Terry, and James Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-50:

James Brooks, 238 East Broadway, indicated that he is available to address any questions or concerns.  Mr. Ryan asked if the sign would be located four foot (4’) from the sidewalk and twenty-two feet (22’) from Pearl Street to the East.  Mr. Brooks stated yes.    Mr. Ryan asked if the new sign would conflict with the existing sign.  Mr. Brooks stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant has met all of the signage guidelines.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is aware that the sign can only be placed outside during business hours.  Mr. Brooks stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is generally not a fan of sandwich boards, but he would compliment the applicant on the design of this sign.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the opening date for the candy store.  Mr. Brooks stated June 5th - after they receive their occupancy permit from the Village. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-50:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the vitality of the district will be enhanced by the look of the sign.

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

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-50 with the condition that the applicant locate the sign as per ‘Exhibit A’ and that the sign be removed from the sidewalk during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-50 is approved as submitted.

 

 

238 East Broadway – Jim Brooks - Application #09-51

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for approval of a projecting sign, to replace the existing projecting sign on

the North Pearl Street elevation.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-51:

James Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that the proposed sign will replace the HER sign and it will have the same brackets, but re-painted.  Mr. Burriss asked if the access to the shop is still on Broadway and will there be any confusion for entry into the shop space with the proposed location of this sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that they did discuss this, but did not feel it would be a problem.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss complimented the applicant on the consistency in his submittals and he stated that this is something that the Planning Commission promotes in the district.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be a future request for a sign at the front of the building.  Mr. Brooks stated no.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-51:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated yes due to the historical character.    

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-51 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-51 is approved as submitted.

 

 

337 North Pearl Street – Douglas and Maria Hoyt – Application #09-52

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of two (2) retaining walls within the front yard, adjacent to the front landing of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Doug and Maria Hoyt.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-52:

Doug Hoyt, 337 North Pearl Street, stated that the wall will be three tiers with flowers and shrubs.  He stated that the wall would be eight feet long at the longest point, and five feet long at the smallest point.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-52:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that within this area of North Pearl Street retaining walls are used.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the landscaping will be preserved and protected. 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-52 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

Application #09-52 is approved as submitted.

 

545 West Broadway – Joshua Bow– Application #09-53

Suburban Residential District – C (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6’) foot wood fence, dog-ear

style, in the side and rear yards.                                      

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Joshua Bow.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-53:

Joshua Bow, 545 West Broadway, indicated that he would like to put a clear stain on the fence within one year of installing it.  He indicated that he would stain both sides of the fence. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-53 with the condition that the fence shall be stained within one year of installation to provide weatherproofing.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-53 is approved as submitted.

 

238 East Broadway – Jim Brooks - Application #09-55

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:

1)      Removal of the existing wood louvered shutters and replacement with polycarbonate louvered shutters on the front on the front, back and eastern side of the home;

2)      Removal of two (2) blank windows on the rear of the home and residing of the structure over the entire area with cedar to match the rest of the elevation; and

3)      Installation of a full view glass metal black storm door on the front entrance door.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-55:

James Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that the existing shutters could not be salvaged.  Mr. Brooks stated that he would like to propose that the blank windows on the upper north side of the home be replaced with windows to match the rest of the new windows & with obscure glass – rather than being removed & siding installed over the window openings.  Mr. Burriss asked if the glass would be put in place for both of the blank windows.  Mr. Brooks stated yes.  He went on to say that the windows are currently located behind a wall in a bathroom.  Mr. Burriss stated that the smaller window Mr. Brooks would be replacing is not original to the structure and could even be removed.  Mr. Burriss asked if shutters would be placed on both blank windows.  Mr. Brooks stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the front storm door needs to have special glass because it is being used for business purposes.  Ms. Terry stated that this is regulated by the Licking County Building Department.  Mr. Burriss stated that approximately four years ago a business he had down the street was required to have specialty glass for safety reasons.  Mr. Burriss asked which way the louvers will be installed.  Mr. Burriss stated that if the louvers on the shutters are turned down water runs away from the siding and this is better for the structure.  Mr. Brooks stated that he sees louvers turned both ways and he wasn’t sure which way was most appropriate.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-55:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that by simulating historically accurate details the shutters contribute to the historical character.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss that the applicant’s actions further move towards restoring the entire structure. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-55 with the following conditions:

1)                  To remove the two blank windows on the rear of the home and to install two new 6-lite, obscure glass windows; and

2)                  To install a full viewed glass metal door on the front entrance and that the applicant checks with the Licking County Building Department for the type of glass that must be used.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-55 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #09-33 AMENDED:

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 approves Application #09-33 as amended by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-33.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #09-44:

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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and yard Modifications, and hereby approves Application #09-29 with the following conditions:

1)         To approve the application with the condition that there is one additional boxwood installed adjacent to the second air-conditioning unit.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-44.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-49:

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 approves Application #09-39 as presented.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-49.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-50:

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 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-50 with the following condition:

            1) That the location of the sandwich board sign is as in ‘Exhibit A’ and that the sign shall be removed and secured during non-business hours.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-50.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

Application #09-51:

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 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-51 as submitted.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-51.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-52:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby approves Application #09-52 as presented.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-52.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Application #09-53:

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 approves Application #09-53 with the following condition:

            1) That the fence shall be stained within one year of the installation to provide weatherproofing.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-53.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-55:

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 approves Application #09-55 with the following conditions:

1)                  To remove the two blank windows on the rear of the home and to install two new 6-lite, obscure glass windows; and

2)                  To install a full viewed glass metal door on the front entrance and that the applicant checks with the Licking County Building Department for the type of glass that must be used.

 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-55.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Tom Mitchell from the Planning Commission meeting on May 11, 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Other Business:

Ms. Terry read aloud a Resolution of appreciation from Village Council to Gina Reeves for her time served on the Granville Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated Jeremy Johnson has been chosen by Village Council to serve in Ms. Reeves place.

 

Ms. Terry noted that Lyle McClow will no longer serve on the Planning Commission and the Granville Board of Education will be making a recommendation to the Village Council regarding a new appointment for his position.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the minutes for the April 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Adjournment:  8:15 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

June 8, 2009 (Mr. Burriss stated that he will not be at this meeting.)

June 22, 2009

 

Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 11, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves, Lyle McClow, and Councilmember O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Eileen Arant, James and Donna Brooks, Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Leavell, Meg Paolacci, Brenda Carey, Michael Carey, Fred Abraham, and Joe Hickman.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

238 East Broadway – James Brooks – Application #09-29- AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement of all existing double

hung windows, currently wood, with vinyl double hung windows with 6 lite interior

grids. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and James Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-29:

James Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that after the discussion at the last Planning Commission meeting he decided to take Mr. Burriss’s suggestion of installing six divided lite windows.  He stated that he is amending Application #09-29.  Mr. Burriss questioned the width of the grids.  Mr. Brooks stated that they are standard size.  Ms. Terry stated that there is an architectural example of a home very similar to Mr. Brooks’ home in the ‘American Field Guide.’  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the single pane windows were previously approved and this is an amendment to this application.  Ms. Terry agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that he votes that this is a positive amendment to the application.  Mr. Brooks stated that he will also be submitting to install new shutters on the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would certainly be in favor of this.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-29:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are architecturally appropriate to the structure.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Improves integrity of the structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new windows  contribute to the authenticity of the district.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are a restoration of the original structure. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing to replace windows with vinyl six lite divided windows.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-29 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-29 is approved as submitted.



New Business:

 

234 West Elm Street – Daniel Leavell – Application #09-39

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

The request is for review and approval of the following items:

1)      To replace all existing asphalt 3-tab shingled roof with standing seam metal roof in a dark gray color; and

2)      To replace existing box gutters with 5” square aluminum white gutters & 2” x 3” rectangular aluminum white downspouts.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Daniel Leavell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-39:

Dan Leavell, 234 East Elm Street, stated that all of the shingles will remain and the metal roof will be put over them.  Mr. Ryan asked the color of metal that will be used.  Mr. Leavell stated ‘Charcoal Gray.’  Mr. Leavell presented a picture of an example of a white house with the same color of gray roof.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if a metal roof is historically fitting.  Mr. Burriss stated that a metal roof would not be inappropriate on this particular house.  Mr. Burriss asked how the ridges will be detailed.  Mr. Leavell stated that there will be a vented cap.  Mr. Leavell stated that he is unsure exactly how the ridges will be installed, and he does know that the rubber part at the top of the roof will be replaced.  Mr. Burriss stated that there have been problems with these type of metal roofs making buildings look like farm or agricultural buildings.  Mr. Leavell stated that he intends to use seamless aluminum guttering.  He explained that there will be thirty-six inch (36”) panels and nine inches (9”) between the ridges and the metal pieces will be custom cut at the St. Louisville factory.  Mr. Leavell stated that he likes that the installer does not have to tear off the original roof and put it in a landfill.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant is doing away with the box gutters.  Mr. Leavell stated because they do not work and drain well.  Mr. Burriss agreed that they are very shallow.  He then asked how the detailing of the metal roof coming down to the new gutter will be handled.  Mr. Leavell explained that they will be cut back a little and plywood will be installed, along with a new fastener.  He stated that the installation will be very similar to the roof job done on the Schnaidt house, only metal will be used instead of shingles.  Mr. Burriss questioned how wide the plywood would be.  Mr. Leavell stated three to four foot of plywood.  Mr. Ryan asked if the front porch will also be done.  Mr. Leavell stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he typically votes against this type of thing because he likes the look of the box gutters and he likes to see them salvaged when at all possible.  Mr. Leavell stated that the home is a vinyl house that has had the slate removed over twenty years ago, and the box gutters haven’t worked since he has lived there for nineteen years.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he likes the look of the proposed roof.  Mr. Leavell questioned why there is any architectural reason for the box gutters to remain.  Mr. Burriss asked if the clean hipped roof will be altered.  Mr. Leavell stated yes.  Mr. Burriss wondered if this would look like a collared metal roof .  Mr. Ryan stated that the area of the roof Mr. Burriss is referring to will not be very visible.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does not have an issue with the newly proposed gutters because it will add a detail that is missing since the siding was installed.  He went on to say that he is not sure about the proposed break in the metal.  Mr. Leavell stated that the home will look much better than it currently does.  Mr. Leavell stated that he does not think the break will be visible and the roofer did not feel it would be visible.  Mr. Leavell stated that the metal roof seems like the most creative solution for his home, given the condition of the old roof and the water leakage.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wished he knew how far the bridge piece would go.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed slope of the collar.  Mr. Leavell guessed what the slope might look like.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he respects Mr. Burriss’ opinion architecturally and the Planning Commission has approved less attractive alternatives.  Mr. Burriss asked if the valleys on the roof will be detailed.  Mr. Leavell stated yes, and the company has accessories for the valleys in their brochure.  He stated that he really does not know the exact detailing.  Mr. Burriss suggested having the Village staff review the ridge cap detailing prior to the installation of the roof.  Mr. Burriss stated that as a point of clarification the applicant is not proposing the use of a square gutter, but rather a ‘k’ gutter.  Mr. Leavell stated that this is similar to what would be put on the home.  Ms. Terry stated that she had asked the roofer for information on the gutters and a ‘squarer’ was the language he used to describe the gutters. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-39:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that metal roofs were in general usage before asphalt shingle and the proposed roof could be considered a more historic use of material. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the structure is being maintained.  

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 protecting and enhancing an historic structure. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a metal roof in ‘Charcoal Gray’. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-39 with the following conditions:

1)  The proposed gutters be the same as ‘Exhibit A’ depicting ‘k’ gutters; and

2) Village staff review the look of the proposed ridge caps prior to installation.

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-39 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Thrift Store - Application #09-40

CSD (Community Service District)

The request is for approval of a new wall sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-40:

No one was present to represent the Granville Thrift Store.

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant has contracted with Mr. Greenwood to construct the sign.  She went on to say that Fred Abraham, landlord,  has requested that the sign be located further up on the building and mounted from the top of the building, rather than being mounted to the stone.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign would look better above the wood arches as requested by Mr. Abraham.  Mr. Burriss agreed and he stated that he would want the location specified since they don’t have the proposed location in their submittal.

Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-40 with the following conditions:

1)      The sign is to be centrally located between the keystone and cap; and

2)      The existing wall sign is eliminated.

  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-40 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

126 East Elm Street – Eileen Arant/Broadway Pub – Application #09-41

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Eileen Arant.

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-41:

Eileen Arant, Bryn Du Drive, stated that she would like to replace the existing sign with a new sign.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission recently approved a new handrail and he asked when the temporary one will be removed and the new one installed.  Ms. Arant stated that the contractor has been waiting for dry conditions to install the new railing.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this looks like a pretty straightforward application.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the lighting will not be modified. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-41:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the new sign has a higher level of detail compared to the existing sign.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new sign is historically significant.     

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is historically appropriate for the building.

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a poly-metal sign.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-41 as submitted with the clarification that the current lighting of the sign will not be modified.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-41 is approved as submitted.

 

204 East College Street – John and Meg Paolacci– Application #09-42

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace the existing asbestos tile

(T-Lock) roof on the main house with Owens Corning Berkshire, slate-look, asphalt

shingles in a “Dover Mist” color.                                                

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Meg Paolacci.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-42:

Meg Paolacci, 204 East College Street, stated that the proposed new roof will make the rear roof look like it all goes together consistently.  She clarified that the rear roof will not be replaced.  Mrs. Paolacci stated that wind damage from the September storm and December ice storm did some minor damage to the rear roof and some repairs will need to be done in that area.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is ok with the application as proposed.  Mr. Burriss agreed.  Mr. Ryan asked if each Commission member is ok with part of the roof on the structure being replaced and part not.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the structure is large and he is comfortable with the application as proposed by the applicant.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-42:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new roof is historically accurate for the structure. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed roof is historically appropriate for the home.  

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing replacing the existing roof with Owens Corning Berkshire Dover Mist slate-like shingles.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-42 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-42 is approved as submitted.

 

Other Business:

Work Session with Michael Carey – 332 North Granger Street

Mr. Carey asked for the Planning Commission’s guidance regarding a garage/carriage house for the rear of his home.  He indicated that he has received a variance from the BZBA for the setbacks.  Joe Hickman was present and he stated that he does have concerns of the interpretation of a story and a half, as well as building massing.  Mr. Carey stated that he looked up the definition of a story and a half and it states that it does have usable living space and there are typically windows for lighting.  Mr. Carey indicated that Mr. Hickman has indicated that he would not like windows on the side facing his property.  Mr. Hickman stated that there are not any carriage houses in the neighborhood and the applicant is actually replacing an existing garage.  He provided an example of a garage at 313 N. Granger Street, a garage on the McCoy’s property, and a garage on Spellman Street.  Mr. Carey indicated that the structure does not have to be referred to as a carriage house as far as he is concerned.  He also stated that the plans he would like to submit to the Planning Commission are really very similar to his neighbor’s garage (Jason Gay) which is an example submitted by Mr. Hickman.  Mr. Carey indicated that he would like the structure referred to as a story and a half and he believes the definition of a story and a half provides livable space on the second story.  Mr. Hickman indicated that he is cautious about the “usable space,” specifically regarding building massing and height.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission should review the Code guidelines.  Mr. Carey stated that these guidelines can be considered to be rather ambiguous.  Mr. Hickman indicated that his concerns are the usability of the space on the upper level.  Mr. Ryan questioned what the second floor would be used for.  Mr. Carey stated that he would like to have a woodworking shop on the second floor.  Ms. Terry indicated that the neighbor’s - The McCoy’s - came in and stated that they do have concerns regarding building massing.  Ms. Terry stated that The McCoy’s preferred the third option the most (Option D), but they still felt it was too tall and could be lowered.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #09-29 (AMENDED):

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 approves Application #09-29 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-29.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #09-39:

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 approves Application #09-39 with the following conditions:

1)  The proposed gutters be the same as ‘Exhibit A’ depicting “k” gutters; and

2) Village staff review the look of the proposed ridge caps prior to installation.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-39.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-40:

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 hereby approves Application #09-40 with the following conditions:

3)      The sign is to be centrally located between the keystone and cap; and

4)      The existing wall sign is eliminated.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-40.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-41:

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 hereby approves Application #09-41 with the clarification that the current lighting of the sign will not be modified.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-41.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-42:

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 approves Application #09-42 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-42.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves and Lyle McClow from the Planning Commission meeting on May 11, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

June 8, 2009

 

Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 27, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Britney Lang, Phil Wince, Erna Holland, Bob Holland, Christine Oliver, Charles Bachmann, John Noblick, Tim and Cathy Klingler, Donna and James Brooks, Dennis Cauchon, Don DeSapri, Leah Liebson, Roger Kessler, Mike Mueller, and Samuel Wilson.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

134 South Mulberry Street – Jerry McClain Co./Richard and Leah Liebson – Application #09-28

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architecture Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                  New kitchen window on the northern side of the house;

2)                  Removal of front step metal handrails and replacement with wooden handrails; and

3)                  Widening of existing wooden steps to accommodate new wooden handrails.                                         

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-28:

John Noblick, 51 North 3rd Street, Suite 701, Newark, Jerry McClain Company, indicated that he is representing the applicant, Richard Liebson.  Mr. Noblick stated that the applicant would like to widen the steps and install wooden handrails.  He added that there is an existing post on the porch that they would like to replicate and add two additional railings.  Mr. Ryan noted that the applicant provided ‘Exhibit A’ which depicts the style of railings and detailing of the new post.  Mr. Noblick stated that the steps will need to be a little wider to accommodate the railings.  Mr. McClow asked if the steps will look as they currently do.   Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed new railing will be the same height as the railing already in place.  Mr. Noblick stated that there are two inches in difference – approximately thirty-three inches (33”) and the other railing is approximately thirty-one inches (31”).  Mr. Noblick believed that the proposed height of the railings were grandfathered in.  Mr. Burriss asked if this is the allowable railing height by the Building Department.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the standard height for railings in a residential area.  Ms. Terry stated that she was not sure because the Building Department regulates this and they just updated their standards this past summer.  Mr. Noblick believed the Building Department standards are around thirty-three inches (33”)  and this may be a little bit of a challenge that they will have to work with them on.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has to meet the code for the Building Department, but the railing height is not something required by the Village.  Mr. Noblick stated that regardless of the height of the railing, it will be this proposed style.  Mr. Ryan noted that a window was in place that was taken out some years ago and would now be opened back up with a new window.  Ms. Reeves asked if it will be a casement window.  Mr. Noblick stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-28:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated

b)      that the proposed project is an improvement to the front view of the home. 

c)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new rail enhances the architectural detailing on the front porch.. 

d)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.     

e)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that they are proposing a restoration of an architectural detail.

f)       Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing the following:

1.         New kitchen window on the northern side of the house,  Anderson Casement exterior vinyl clad window, with white finish (see brochure);

2.         Removal of front step metal handrails and replacement with wooden handrails (see elevation & photograph); and

3.         Widening of existing wooden steps to accommodate new wooden handrails (see elevation & plan detail).

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-28 as submitted with exhibit a and the railing be done at the proper height to meet the code.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-28 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

238 East Broadway – James Brooks – Application #09-29

Village Residential District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request if for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                     Replacement of all existing double hung windows, currently wood, with vinyl double hung windows;

2)                     Replacement of roofing, currently diamond shaped asbestos tiles, for entire second story structure with Owens Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles;

3)                     Removal of brick chimney on second story; and

4)                    Removal of aluminum storm door on sun porch and replacement with wood/glass door.

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and James and Donna Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-29:

James Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that he would like to have three dimensional shingles on the second story and this would match the existing roofing on the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if the double hung windows on the front porch are being replaced.  Mr. Brooks stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the storm windows on the north side will be replaced.  Mr. Brooks stated yes and that any window visible from the home, other than the front sun porch, will be replaced.  Mr. Brooks indicated that the shutters will not be reinstalled.  Ms. Terry stated that this needs to be approved by the Planning Commission in a separate submittal because it was not originally noted on the public notice.  Mr. Brooks stated that the shutters are wood and are in very poor condition.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the chimney on the main story will be removed.  Mr. Burriss stated that originally the windows in the home would have been true divided light windows – six over six.  Mr. Brooks stated that he is proposing single pane windows with no dividers.  He stated that they would all be guessing how the original windows were on the home when it was built.  Mr. Burriss stated that it would have had to have been divided because there were not large pieces of glass available.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he is not opposed to dividers in the windows, but he does question if the inside look may make it appear a little “busy.”  Mr. Brooks also stated that he would guess that the shutters would not be original to the home. 

 

Donna Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that they thought it would be best to keep the look of what it was and to not make it look really busy from the outside.  Mrs. Brooks stated that they want to be consistent with what is there and the house looks bad with the slats from the shutters coming off.  Mrs. Brooks stated that she has had numerous people remark that they hope the shutters are not put back on.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he would be willing to come back for approval of the removal or replacement of the shutters.

He stated that the question is regarding divided light windows and he would like to keep the look that is currently there. Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Burriss is saying that this is an opportunity to bring the home back to what is historically correct.  Mr. Burriss questioned  

how others on the Planning Commission feel regarding the divided windows.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not sure they have adequate information to approve or disapprove the windows and the applicant may decide they want this application voted on as it currently is.   Mr. Burriss stated that they also need to discuss the storm doors.  Mr. Ryan stated that the storm door would be replaced with a wooden door pictured in the submitted information.  Mr. Burriss felt this wooden door would be a positive change.  He then asked for an example of the proposed roofing.  Mr. Brooks provided an example of the roofing materials and he stated that it matches the lower roof and it does compliment the house.  He stated that he has chosen Owens Corning - Driftwood.  Mr. Brooks stated that they are kind of locked in on the color since part of the roof already has this kind of shingle.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he has no problem with the removal of the chimney.  Mr. McClow asked if Mr. Brooks feels that it is cost prohibitive to do the grids on the outside of the windows.  Mr. Brooks stated yes.  Ms. Reeves questioned the total number of windows being replaced.  Mr. Brooks stated twenty-five (25).  Mr. Ryan stated that on the north and east elevation a combination of different windows will be replaced and all are the same size as what is in there now.  Mr. Brooks stated that he is not opposed to a divider down the middle of the window. Mr. Burriss asked if the vinyl clad will be white to match newly painted trim.  Mr. Brooks stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-29:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the improvements are in keeping with what is currently there now. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant should be complimented with the care that they have taken in restoring the home.  He stated that this is prominent member of the downtown historic district and the maintenance done to the home certainly meets this criteria.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the applicant is maintaining the home.  

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing the following:

1.         Replacement of all existing double hung windows, currently wood, with vinyl double hung Simonton windows;

2.         Replacement of roofing, currently diamond shaped asbestos tiles, for entire second story structure with Owens Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles;

3.         Removal of brick chimney on second story; and

4.         Removal of aluminum storm door on sun porch and replacement with wood/glass door.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-29 provided that the windows are white to match the newly painted trim.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #09-29 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

238 East Broadway – James Brooks – Application #09-30

Village Residential District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use for 285 square feet of the 1st floor from Category “C”, Business and Professional Offices to Category “B”, Specialty Shops, specifically for a candy store.                    

                         

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and James and Donna Brooks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-30:

Mr. Brooks stated that the change of use is for square footage in the southeast corner of the structure and it has its own entrance – one on the east side and one through the front door.  Mr. McClow asked the difference in categories from ‘Office’ to ‘Specialty Shop’ - from ‘C’ to ‘B’.  Ms. Terry stated that anytime someone goes from one category to another it requires approval as a Change of Use.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if ‘Specialty Shop’ is different from ‘Retail’.  Ms. Terry stated that they are permitted in the Village Business District, but are listed in separate categories.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant were to change from a candy shop – what other uses could there be within the category ‘Specialty Shop.’  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a list of uses in the staff report and Code and these include a camera shop, sporting goods, etc.  Mr. Ryan asked if the tenant will be manufacturing candy on site.  Mr. Brooks stated no.  Mr. McClow asked the proposed hours of the business.  Mr. Brooks guessed from 10am until 8pm.  Mrs. Brooks stated that this is the hours of their current business.  Mr. Brooks stated that it is an already existing company that approached him to rent the space.  Mr. Burriss stated that since the product is made offsite - what kind of delivery vehicle will be used and how will they enter the business.  Mrs. Brooks stated that they currently use a delivery van.  Mr. Brooks stated that he has a rear entrance or the east entrance and someone could park in the rear lot and walk around the sidewalk.  Mr. Burriss asked if there has been any additional consideration for trash.  Mr. Brooks stated that he has two dumpsters in place now and he can’t imagine the trash needs will increase significantly.  Mr. Brooks went on to say that the applicant will be required to follow the Health Department guidelines.  Mrs. Brooks stated that the renter currently utilizes two totes with Big ‘O’ Refuse.  Mr. Ryan inquired if all of the parking requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry agreed that the parking requirements were met according to the Code. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-30 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-30 is approved as submitted.

 

224 East Broadway – Brits Follies – Application #09-31

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                     Installation of 4 air conditioning units at the rear of the building, screened with evergreen landscaping;

2)                     Installation of 4 gas meters on the east side of the house;

3)                     Installation of an electrical panel on the front, southwest corner of the building, painted white;

4)                    Finish of front porch floor in an adobe slate stamped concrete;

5)                     Add gravel from the drive access to the concrete slab at the rear of the property; and

6)                     Gravel a 10' x 10' space next to the parking area to accommodate trash containers, to be screened with evergreen plant material on the south side.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner Alison Terry, and Phil Wince.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-31:

Phil Wince,  2350 West Broadway, Granville, stated that the air conditioning units are in place and they will be screened with evergreen plant material.  He went on to say that the gas meters are in and painted and they had to be located where they are because of the gas company’s requirements.  Mr. Wince stated that the electrical panel on the southwest corner of the building will be painted white.  Mr. Ryan asked if the pipe going up the side of the building will also be painted.  Mr. Wince stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant will be submitting a landscape plan.  Mr. Wince stated no because he believed the previously submitted information included the areas where they plan on placing planters.  Mr. Burriss later noted that the Planning Commission generally requires that a landscaping plan be submitted that depicts the location of the dumpster area, as well as any proposed landscaping and parking areas.  Mr. Wince stated that the dumpster would be to the left of a concrete slab in the rear of the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that when the drug store next door was built they were required to build around their dumpster area for screening.  He asked if Mr. Wince’s structure is in the same district?  Mr. Burriss stated that they typically do not allow open dumpster areas and he stated that the Delmar had to do fencing around their dumpsters and the Planning Commission needs to be consistent with other approvals.  Mr. Wince stated that they prefer to have their tenants use totes that are screened with evergreens rather than having a designated dumpster area.  Mr. Ryan stated that existing gravel would be brought in to help accommodate the parking.  Mr. Burriss stated that regarding the screening of the air-conditioning units, he would like to ensure that the size of the evergreens are equal in height to the size of the air-conditioning units so they would screen from the beginning and not take a number of years.  Mr. Burriss stated that regarding the trash containers – it doesn’t sound as though the applicant will need a dumpster and they will use totes.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the applicant submit a landscaping plan depicting where they will be placing the totes and this could be submitted to Village Staff and made a condition of approval for the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-31:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this application helps to upgrade the condition of the existing building.  Mr. Ryan agreed and added that the site is also improved. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the building will become an active viable rentable building.  

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing the following improvements:

a)           Installation of 4 air conditioning units at the rear of the building, screened with evergreen landscaping;

b)           Installation of 4 gas meters on the east side of the house;

c)         Installation of an electrical panel on the front, southwest corner of the building, painted white;

d)           Finish of front porch floor in an adobe slate stamped concrete;

e)         Add gravel from the drive access to the concrete slab at the rear of the property; and

f)          Gravel a 10' x 10' space next to the parking area to accommodate trash containers, to be screened with evergreen plant material on the south side.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-31 as submitted with the conditions that the applicant provide to Village staff the following:

1)                  Landscape site plan;

2)                  Screening for the air conditioning units be equal or a higher height that is the same height as the air-conditioning units; 

3)                  The 10x10 gravel area be located on a landscape plan with the exact location of the trash area and parking locations clearly indicated.

 

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-31 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

224 East Broadway – Brits Follies – Application #09-32

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding sign and two (2)

wall signs.      

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, Bob Holland, Erna Holland, and Roger Kessler.

                                     

Discussion regarding Application #09-32:

Roger Kessler, stated that his company will be making the sign and it would be externally illuminated.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission generally requires that the lighting be screened with landscaping.  Mr. Kessler indicated that this would not be a problem to screen.  Mr. McClow asked if the letters will be flush.  Mr. Kessler stated that the lettering will be painted on the sign and the letters on the building will be raised letters with some dimension to them.  Mr. Ryan asked the location of the freestanding sign.  Mr. Kessler stated that the location on the photo is accurate and it will be located in the center of the grassy area.  Mr. Kessler indicated that they could turn the external lighting off by midnight.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant would need the sign lit until midnight.  Bob Holland stated that they are willing to work with whatever regulations the Planning Commission sets regarding the timing of turning the lights off.  Furthermore, he stated that the wall signs are not lit.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is required for the requested two wall signs because the Code only allows for one wall sign per building.  She suggested going through all of the criteria for the AROD, as well as for the Variance.  Mr. Kessler stated that the sign will look pretty much as presented, but the font may change some.  Ms. Terry stated that if it is not the font that is presented than this is considered a change to the sign and requires approval by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Kessler stated that he cannot guarantee the exact font at this time because they do not yet know who will be occupying the space and perhaps someone will want to use their logo.  Ms. Terry suggested submitting the fonts that the applicant intends to use as Exhibit ‘B’ and if it changes - come back in for review.  Ms. Terry stated that she did suggest to the applicant that there should be some consistency in the wall signs and the freestanding sign.  Mr. Kessler indicated that this suggestion is being carried through.  Ms. Terry asked if the third business would place a sign in the rear of the building.  Mr. Kessler stated yes and they would come back to the Planning Commission to add the third tenant wall sign.  Ms. Reeves suggested that the sign panel with a phone number is not consistent with the other panel not listing a phone number.  Erna Holland stated that this panel has a phone number because the office will not be staffed at all hours.  Mr. Kessler added that the size of the phone number is a smaller font.  Mr. Burriss clarified that he would like to see the sign centered between the pillar columns and the submitted information does not depict this.  Mr. Kessler agreed that this should be centered and this was always the intent. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-32:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the upgrading of the building and the signs are in the character of the Village District. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because they allow people to know how to get in the particular businesses.  

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant indicates that they want to install a freestanding ground sign and two (2) wall signs.  The freestanding signage will be HDU background with a pebbled finish, with attached panels made of Sintra (HDU) with vinyl lettering.    The wall signs will be Sintra material on top of Sintra - routed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #09-32:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Ms. Reeves stated that there are two businesses in one structure.  The Planning Commission agreed that special circumstances do exist that are peculiar to the land. 

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Burriss stated that in order to utilize the different spaces in the building – the multiple entrances need to be identified.  Ms. Reeves agreed.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the variance is not substantial.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated no.  Mr. Ryan stated that there is an adjacent building with similar circumstances.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated no.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant purchased the building without signage.  The Planning Commission asked the applicant if he purchased the property knowing he/she would need a variance for signage and the applicant stated no.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated no.   

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated yes because the applicant is proposing two businesses with two different front entrances.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated yes.

 

d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that they will not.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve a Variance for Application #09-32 to allow two walls signs on the building and approve Application #09-32 with the following conditions:

            1) The font and size of lettering is per Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’; and to be placed on placard per Exhibit ‘C’ and the wall sign be centered between the columns as shown on Exhibit ‘D’;

            2) Location of the ground sign to be located on the landscape plan to be submitted by the applicant to Village Staff;

            3) The lighting for the ground sign be screened and lighting to allowed from dusk until 10:00 PM.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-32 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

224 East Broadway – Brits Follies – Application #09-38

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

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use fro 359 square feet of the 1st floor to Category “C”, Business and Professional Offices, specifically for a business office.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Phil Wince.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-38:

Phil Wince, 2350 West Broadway, stated that they are requesting for a Change of Use for space that is currently ‘Residential’ changed to ‘Office’.  Mr. Ryan asked if the parking requirements are being met.  Mr. Wince stated yes.  Ms. Terry agreed.  Mr. Burriss asked the applicant to clarify if the foyer area is included in the total square footage for the Change of Use.  Mr. Wince stated that there is a header in place, but no door in the entrance area.  Ms. Terry stated that the foyer area was included in the square footage.  

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-38 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-38 is approved with the above stated conditions.

 

219 Summit Street – Tim Klingler – Application #09-33

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architecture Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                     Installation of a new garden shed, measuring eight (8') feet by eight (8') feet;  and

2)                     Modification to the south side bay window area, removing the existing wood double hung windows and replacement with aluminum clad double hung windows and French doors.

                                     

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Tim Klingler.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-33:

Tim Klingler, 219 Summit Street, stated that he would like to install an 8x8 garden shed that is based on an English garden design.  He stated that the bay window would be reused on the south side of the shed.  He stated that the roof will be a cedar shake.  Mr. McClow asked if the building will be on a cement slab or pole construction.  Mr. Klingler stated that it will be pole construction with ship lap siding that is stained the same as the barn.  Mr. Klingler proposed antique hinges be used on the shed that are also on the garage doors.  He provided an example of the windows he would like to use and he stated that they are made to look like true divided light windows.  Mr. Klingler stated that the windows will be chocolate brown.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant will install any gutters and downspouts.  Mr. Klingler stated no.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant meets all of the Code requirements.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-33:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing the following items in this application:

                                       1.       Installation of a new garden shed, measuring eight (8') feet by eight (8') feet by 14'6"  in height.  The structure will be made of wood vertical siding, cedar shake shingles and will have a window that was salvaged from the primary structure;  and

                                       2.       Modification to the south side bay window area, removing the existing wood double hung windows and replacement with aluminum clad double hung windows and French doors.

f) Landscape Materials:                       

1.         Ground cover with understory shrubs & perennials;

                                                2.         Hemlock hedge at the rear of the property;

                                                3.         Boxwood hedge;

                                                4.         Raised beds for herbs & veggies; and

                                                5.         Perennial borders.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-33 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-33 is approved as submitted. 

 

221 East Broadway – Christine Oliver/Robbins Hunter Museum – Application #09-34

Village Business District-B (VBD-B) – Architecture Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sandwich board sign.

                                     

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, Charles Bachmann, and Christine Oliver.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-34:

Christine Oliver stated that the proposed sign is the same sign (and size) as previously approved for The Counting House.  She stated that she temporary glued the letters on the sign so the Planning Commission could see what the sign will look like.  Mr. Ryan asked the intended location for the sandwich board sign.  Ms. Oliver stated it will be located between the library and The Avery Downer House.  Ms. Terry indicated that the sign meets all of the Code requirements.  Ms. Oliver’s picture of the sign was labeled Exhibit ‘A.’

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-34

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because it directs pedestrians back to this area for the business.  

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a wood sign with black background and gold lettering.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-34 as submitted per Exhibit ‘A’ and that the sign only be placed on the sidewalk during business hours.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-34 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

221 East Broadway – Christine Oliver/Robbins Hunter Museum – Application #09-37

Village Business District-B (VBD-B) – Architecture Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, Charles Bachmann, and Christine Oliver.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-37

Christine Oliver provided an example of the proposed sign on her camera.  She stated that she did not have enough time to print the picture.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the Code requirements are met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the location is proposed to be between the corner of the building and the window.  The applicant indicated that there will not be any up-lighting on the sign.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-37:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and colors are consistent. 

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing a wood sign.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-37 per Exhibit ‘A’ and the sign to be centered between the corner of the building and the window.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-37 is approved as submitted with the condition that the sign be centered between the corner of the building and the window.

 

110 East Elm Street – Padgett Business Services – Application #09-35

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architecture Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding sign panel

replacement.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and David Houser.

                                     

Discussion regarding Application #09-35:

David Houser stated that he is submitting for approval of a door sign and a freestanding sign panel replacement.  Ms. Reeves noted that the sign will be 12”x 24”.  Mr. Ryan asked if all the criteria have been met for each sign.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-35:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the signage is compatible with other signage already on the building. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is consistent with other signage approved in the same zoning area.

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant indicates that they want to install a wood sign panel in the existing freestanding sign on the side of the building facing East Elm Street.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-35 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-35 is approved as submitted.

 

110 East Elm Street – Padgett Business Services – Application #09-36

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architecture Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a door sign.

                                     

Discussion regarding Application #09-36:

(See discussion under Application #09-35)

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-36:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign is consistent with other signage on the structure. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent with other signage previously approved and signage already in place in the same zoning district.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-36 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-36 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #09-28:

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 approves Application #09-28 with the condition.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-28.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-29:

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 approves their approval of the Application #09-29 with the condition that the windows be white to match the painted trim.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-29.  Seconded by Mr. McClow   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #09-30:

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 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-30.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-30.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-31:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-31 as indicated in the motion.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-31.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-32:

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 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-32 as indicated in the motion.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-32.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-38:

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 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby approves Application #09-38 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-38.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-33:

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 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-32 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-33.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-34:

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 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-34 with the condition

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-34.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-37:

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 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-37 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-37.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-35:

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 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-35 as submitted

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-35.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-36:

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 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-36 as submitted.

 

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-36.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to excuse Tom Mitchell from the Planning Commission meeting on April 27, 2009.  Seconded by Mr., Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment: 9:35 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

May 11, 2009

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

 

Planning Commission Minutes April 13, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 13, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Lyle McClow.

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

Visitors Present: Chuck Dilbone, Barbara Rogers, Brice Corder, Holly Simons, Dan Rogers, Bill Wernet, Ann Lowder, Brian Miller, Sabato Sagaria, Chris Avery, Bill Hoekstra, Dennis Cauchon, Craig McDonald, Richard Cherry, Don Andrews, Gail McConnon, Michael Andrew, Thomas Swonger, Ned Roberts, Charles Troy, Lisa Bomprezzi, Mel Bomprezzi, John Reef, Dan Hill, Greg Moore, Emily George, Amy Price, Cynthia Feidley, Jodi Schmidt, Ethan Schmidt, Jim Schmidt, Charles Bachmann, Earl Schurtz, Philip Dickson, Pui Han, Megan Takebo, Kate Maanen, Steve Contini, Jed Levere, Bill Hoekstra, Hugh Lucas, Cathi Lucas, Sally Messick, Bill Wernet, Karen Kramer, and Larry Nadwodney.    

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

123 South Prospect Street, Barbara Franks, Application #09-03:

The request is for a change of use from Retail Outlets (E) to Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses (D).  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Barbara Franks.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-03:

The hearing regarding Application #09-03 was transcribed by a court reporter.  Please reference Transcript for 123 South Prospect Street, April 13, 2009.

The following individuals spoke during the hearing:

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street - applicant

Holly Simons, 210 East Maple – Law Director Crites indicated that he believed  this individual did not have standing to testify in regards to #09-03.  The Planning Commission agreed and Ms. Simons was not permitted to testify.

Brice Corder, 215 South Mulberry Street - small business owner in Granville

Dr. Christopher Avery, 343 Cedar Street – adjacent property owner at 127 South Prospect Street

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple  - co-applicant

Bill Hoekstra, 133 South Prospect – nearby property owner

Rich Cherry, 223 South Main Street – small business owner in Granville

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street – adjacent property owner at 117 S. Prospect St.

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, representing Friends of Granville Downtown who support the historical character of Granville

Don Andrews, 197 Louise Court, attorney for Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny Application #09-03 as proposed.

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no). 

Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #09-03 is denied.

 

 

New Business:

 

326 Spellman Street, Mike and Laura Hills, Application #09-22:

The request is for architectural review and approval to modify the front gable roof elevation, adding hardie-plank siding and a new corner detail. The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ned Roberts. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-22:

Ned Roberts, indicated that the house has a shed room addition.  He stated that he is suggesting the use of cement board because it will take the paint better than hardi-plank.  Mr. Roberts stated that he would like to redefine the front gable to give the front of the house balance and symmetry and the porch detail will remain the same.  Mr. Burriss asked if the one dimensional corner piece will remain.  Mr. Roberts stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-22:

                        a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other renovated structures in the same district and it indicates the original frontal appearance to the home.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it restores the home.   

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the building is being maintained by the improvements.

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

e)         Materials and Texture:  The applicant is proposing removal of the front siding and replacement with siding, a new gable detail and corner board.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-22 as submitted with the  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-22 is approved as submitted.

 

 

1820 Newark-Granville Road, Greg Moore/Spring Hills Baptist Church, Application #09-25:

The request is for architectural review and approval to make a minor modification to the front, northwest corner of the building, replacing three parking spaces with a concrete outdoor patio space and six (6’) foot vinyl fencing surround.  The property is zoned Planned Unit Development District (PUD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Greg Moore.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-25:

Greg Moore indicated that he is representing Spring Hills Baptist Church.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is charged with determining if this application is considered to be a minor modification to the originally approved development plan.  He asked if the removal of three parking spaces is minor or major.  Mr. Burris stated that when you consider the overall scope and the impact to the site, he easily considers this to be a minor modification to the development plan.  Ms. Reeves agreed.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if taking away the three parking spaces would impact the total number of spaces required by Code.  Mr. Moore stated that the parking spaces will be removed and replaced in the rear of the building.  Ms. Terry stated that original development plan called for a gravel area and this was later changed to the rear of the building and the applicant would like to reclaim this area for the patio. Mr. Burriss asked if any of the landscaping is in existence in the proposed area.  Mr. Moore stated that they anticipate the growth of additional vines.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the fence should be set back a bit with the rest of the building - rather than protruding out even with the front elevation.  Mr. Moore stated that the only area that this area will be viewable is from Galway Drive.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the fence will end up covering a window.  Mr. Burriss stated that the fence would be located between the window and the door.  Mr. Burriss indicated that there is one gate on the fence and questioned if there will there be any others.  Mr. Moore stated no.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-25 as a minor modification to the original Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD).  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-25 is approved as submitted.

 

 

232 Granger Street, GEVSD, Application #09-26:

The request is for architectural review and approval to establish an organic community –school garden and install deer fencing during the growing season.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Craig McDonald, Larry Nadwodney, Steve Contini, and Chuck Dilbone.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-26:

Chuck Dilbone, Newark, stated that he supports the community garden idea as it fits well with the school’s newly developed wellness program. 

 

Craig McDonald, 211 Sunrise Street, stated that his proposed idea is a school/community partnership.  The growing’s from the garden would be used for the school and they would also like to use this opportunity for mentoring with the high school, middle school, and elementary school. Mr. McDonald continued by saying he would also like to use this as an opportunity to partnership with the school district and the community.  Mr. McDonald envisioned eight (8) gardening plots total.  He went on to say that he would like to reserve three (3) of the plots for schools and five (5) for the community.  Mr. McDonald stated that they would setback the plots fifty (50’) feet from Sunrise Street and there would not be any permanent structures placed on the property.  He stated that the proposed deer fencing would be seasonal.  Mr. McDonald stated that the type of fencing he chose was something that would work against the deer, but also not stand out.  He stated that the fence would be comprised of six foot green metal posts with black deer netting.  Mr. McDonald later clarified that the Gardner’s would have to install their own fencing with their plot.  He stated that he anticipates a mixture of vegetables and aesthetically pleasing flowers.  Mr. McDonald stated that he did speak with neighbors on Sunrise Street and College Street and the only matter brought up pertained to traffic.  He stated that he doesn’t believe this will be an issue.  He also stated that there is one home on the corner of Sunrise that does not have driveway parking and he will make it known to not park on the street in front of this particular home.  Mr. McDonald indicated that the water for the garden would have to be carried to the garden.  Mr. McDonald stated that he will be mindful of how the plots look and to try and make sure they are aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood and he will be issuing a garden agreement that speaks of weeding and meeting particular standards.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. McDonald will be the person overseeing that the agreement is adhered to.  Mr. McDonald stated yes.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned when the garden area would be cleaned up for the winter.

Mr. McDonald stated that the National Weather Service issues freeze warnings for this area beginning October 15th so he would anticipate the cleaning up occurring within two weeks after that.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it might be helpful to Mr. McDonald to indicate in their motion for approval that the cleanup must occur by a particular date.  Mr. McDonald stated that he may still have some gardeners planting things that grow until late fall and he would prefer to not have a specific date set in place. 

 

Mr. Burriss questioned the dimensions and design of the compost pile.  He indicated that he would not want this to be an unattractive site for the neighbors.  He also stated that scarecrows and items used to repel birds might also want to be addressed.  Mr. McDonald agreed and stated that these issues could be handled in the plot agreement. 

 

Mr. Burriss stated that they really do need to have a site plan for the file.

Ms. Terry agreed. 

 

Larry Nadwodney, 217 Sunrise Street, stated that he is known as the ‘Village Carver,’ and he spoke regarding the growing season.  He indicated that he is in support of the community garden proposed by Mr. McDonald.

 

Steve Contini, 210 Sunise Street, stated that he fully supports Mr. McDonald’s idea regarding a community garden.  He also stated that the garden would be a great asset to the neighborhood. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-26:

 

Architectural Review Overlay District Criteria

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated gardens are part of history.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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

e)         Materials and Texture:  The applicant is proposing a six foot high metal fence and posts

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-26 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-26 is approved as submitted.

                                                                                                           

 

 

221 East Broadway, Robbins Hunter Museum, Application #09-27:

The application is submitted by Ann Lowder on behalf of the Robbins Hunter Museum.  The request is for a change of use to Category “B”, Specialty Shops, specifically for an antique shop & gift shop. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ann Lowder, and Don DeSapri.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-27:

Ann Lowder, 505 South Park Avenue, Bexley, stated that the Robbins Hunter home had a room that was referred to as the ‘wood shed’ and this was used as an antique shop and operated until 1979.  Ms. Lowder stated that when the building was opened as a museum, the director used it as a visitor center and antique shop.  She stated that this building was also used as a quilt shop by Ann Ormond.  Ms. Lowder stated that when she came on board, she had a small cupboard and offered small items such as note cards and replicas of the house.  Ms. Lowder stated that they are before the Planning Commission because they want to increase their inventory and sell antiques out of the space.   

 

Don DeSapri stated that he is the president of the board of directors for the Robbins Hunter Museum.  He stated that they hope the antique shop will increase visitors and increase revenues, as this is a critical financial time for the museum.  He added that the museum is a tremendous asset to the Village and the antique shop will add financially and culturally to the Village.

 

Larry Nadwodney stated that in this economic situation we should give all the support we can to the museum. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing any signage for the building.  Ms. Lowder stated yes and they have a plan on having signage that says ‘Antiques.’  Ms. Terry indicated that there was an application made today for a sandwich board sign and the building sign is also going to be submitted.

 

Charles Bachmann, 624 Lexington Avenue, Thornville, stated that he is working with the Avery house to sell antiques and he is also the curator at the Robbins Hunter Museum. He stated that regarding signage, they would like to place a vertical sign on the side of the building and they first need to trim some bushes so it is visible.  Mr. Burriss stated that this could be clarified in a separate application.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-27 as submitted.

Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-27 is approved as submitted.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #09-03, Barbara Franks, 123 South Prospect Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be inconsistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1183, Off-street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their disapproval of Application #09-03 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-03.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no). 

Motion carried 3-1.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-03 are approved.

 

New Business:

 

Application #09-22, Mike and Laura Hills, 326 Spellman Street:

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 approves Application #09-22 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-22.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.    

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-22 are approved.

                                                                       

Application #09-25, Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1172, Planned Development Districts and hereby approves Application #09-25 as a minor modification to the original Planned Unit Development Plan (PUD).

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-25.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-25 are approved.                 

 

Application #09-26, GEVSD, 133 South Prospect Street:

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 #09-26 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-26.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-26 are approved.

 

Application #09-27, Robbins Hunter Museum, 221 East Broadway:

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 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-15 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-27.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-27 are approved.

 

 

Approval of Absent Commission Member

Ms. Reeves made a motion to excuse Lyle McClow from the Planning Commission meeting on April 13, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of Meeting Minutes from March 30, 2009:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held on March 30, 2009 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:42 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

April 27, 2009

May 11, 2009

 

Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 30, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Walter Gloshinski, Bob and Erna Holland, Britney Lang, Phil Wince, Steven Michael, Bill Hoekstra, John Noblick, Brian Blanchard, Mike Vecchione, Randy Crothers, Art Chonko, Richard Liebson, Gwynyth Chamara-Huff, Connie Westbrook, Fletcher Chamara-Huff, John and Georgia Denune, Gail Wince, Jason Adamkosky, and Christine Adamkosky.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

428 East College Street, Walter & Judy Gloshinski, Application #09-05:

The request is for approval of a generator to be located on the western side of the home.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Walter Gloshinski.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-05:

Walter Gloshinski, 428 East College Street, stated that he would like to locate the generator next to the existing air-conditioning unit and it is already located behind a fence.  Mr. Gloshinski stated he would be willing to shield the unit with greenery to keep it out of view.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed location seems like a reasonable location to place the unit.  Mr. Burriss stated he is in favor of approving the application if the applicant agrees to shield the unit with greenery.  Mr. McClow asked what type of greenery Mr. Gloshinski would use.  Mr. Gloshinski stated he is open to any suggestions.  The Planning Commission suggested an evergreen of some type.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant received a variance from the BZBA for the location of the generator. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-05:

                        a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. McClow stated that the unit would be an asset to the property.

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

                        e)         Materials and Texture.  The applicant is proposing installation of a generator in the western side yard.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-05 contingent on installation of evergreen landscape screening material that will attain a height equal to or higher than the generator.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-05 is approved with conditions.

 

224 East Broadway, Brits Follies, Application #09-06:

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications on the front elevation of the structure, as follows:

1)         Replace sandstone columns with ten-inch (10") fiberglass columns on the first floor;

2)         Replace wood columns with ten-inch (10")  fiberglass columns on the second floor;

3)         Replace wood railing with forty-two inch (42") high vinyl railing on the second floor;

4)         Add dentil molding, urethane material, along the top portion of the second floor roof;

5)         Add corbels, polymer composite material, to the first and second floors;

6)         Add boxed cedar trim centered under each column between the first and second floors;

7)         Add two outdoor aluminum wall lanterns on the first floor.

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Phil Wince, Robert Holland, and Gayle Wince.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-06:

Phil Wince, provided an example of the landscaping pots they plan to use.  Mr. McClow asked if Mr. Wince is using one row of dental molding.  Mr. Wince stated yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the columns on the lower level remain smooth with no additional detailing.  Mr. Wince stated that they did add a box around the columns to see what it would look like and they didn’t like it and the neighbors didn’t like it either so they removed it.  Mr. Ryan stated that there have been concerns over the columns and the amount of detailing on them.  He stated he is fine with the current look of the columns.

Ms. Reeves stated that she does like the railing system on the second floor and she stated that the improvements go a long way from where the applicant had started.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the building does look much better.  Mr. Ryan stated that he feels the columns as they are today look more like the original look would have been years ago.  Robert Holland, 560 Abaw Place, Thornville, stated that he is a partner in the project to renovate the building at 224 East Broadway.  He stated that he is responsible for putting up the electric box.  Mr. Holland stated that up and down College Street you see the exact same thing – where the electric box is in sight from the front of the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if the current location of the electric box is where the electric service has always been located. Mr. Holland stated no, there were two separate electrical boxes and this is illegal according to today’s code.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant could clarify if the plan detail with the five rows of bushes or the elevation plan with six rows of bushes is being proposed by the applicant.  Mr. Wince stated that the sidewalk is definitely off center and this is why the plans show the bushes being off center.  Gail Wince stated that they would like to have the plan depicting five bushes to be considered.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing any exterior lighting on the second floor.  Mr. Holland stated that they are looking at installing ceiling lights.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has a concern with the power unit being so close to the road and there is no screening.  Mr. Holland agreed and stated that most people don’t like to see the electrical boxes so he can understand Mr. Ryan’s point.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is any reason the box couldn’t be located further down the side of the building.  Mr. Holland stated that it is as close to the corner as possible because the service pull is on the front of Broadway.  Mr. Mitchell questioned why the hood is facing the back.  Mr. Holland stated because the cables are so big – instead of bending them together.  He added that the electrical box was inspected today by the County and passed.  Erna Holland indicated that they also did not want the electric box located where it currently is.  Mr. Wince stated that the Newark Building Department told us that that is where the electric box had to be located.  Ms. Terry stated that the Building Department is not supposed to approve anything on the exterior of a building until the Village has approved the exterior modifications to the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has put considerable time and money into the restoration of the building and the placement of this electric box ruins this in a number of ways.  Mr. Burriss stated that when walking up and down the block, he doesn’t see any other buildings that have meters that are so evident.  Mr. Burriss stated that when the Taylor building was built, they were able to make the electric service hidden and the applicant’s placement of the electrical box is not consistent with the historical character they try to maintain in the historic district.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant did do a nice job with the placement of the gas meters.  He added that he doesn’t think, having driven down that alley many times, that there is enough room for much landscaping/screening.  Ms. Reeves asked if the electrical box can be painted white.  Mr. Holland stated yes and he stated that they could come up with a plan to help block the look of the electrical box.  Ms. Terry suggested including their plan for screening in a separate application.  Mr. Burriss also advised the applicant to include approval for any dumpsters, air-conditioning units, and signage at this time.  Ms. Terry clarified that the signage approval could be discussed at the same meeting, but it is a separate application and fee. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-06:

                        a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated yes by evidence of historical documentation.  

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it preserves an old building and brings it back to modern use. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it preserves an old building in the historic district.

                        e)         Landscaping: The use of landscaping would be per the plan detail submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-06 as submitted with the qualification that the landscaping to be done is per the plan detail that was submitted by the applicant.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application #09-06 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition.

 

New Business:

 

273 East Maple Street, Grace & Steven Michael, Application #09-13:

The request is for architectural review and approval to remove three-tab asphalt shingles and replace with dimensional asphaltic shingles.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Grace Michael and Steven Michael.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-13:

Steven Michael, 103 Knoll Drive, stated that the new shingles will be pretty much the same as what is currently on the home.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is a valley detail.  Mr. Michael stated yes and he believes the valley will be constructed of painted metal.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-13:

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed roof is compatible to what is currently in place.  

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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

            e)         Materials and Texture.  The applicant is proposing removal of three-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with dimensional asphaltic shingles.

 

Mr. McClow made a motion to approve Application #09-13 with the condition that the look of the valley detail will remain the same as it currently is.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-13 is approved as submitted.

 

133 South Prospect Street, Bill Hoekstra, Application #09-14:

The request is for review and approval to replace the sign panels on the existing internally illuminated ground sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Hoekstra.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-14:

Bill Hoekstra,   133 South Prospect Street, stated that the State Board is requiring that he add his name to the McPeek name and this is the reason for the change to the sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the internal illumination would require a variance by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that the light from the sign also provides pedestrian light for people congregating outside.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign is essentially a non-conforming sign now and once you change any part to it – it is required to come into conformity or a variance could be granted.  The Planning Commission recalled that they have received other requests for internally illuminated signage.  Ms. Terry stated that the Certified gas station and Lisa Mckivergin’s office sign were not approved with internal illumination. Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the light on top of the sign is allowed.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign were not internally illuminated – would the post light be sufficient enough for people not familiar with the area to find the funeral home.  Mr. Hoekstra agreed he could use up lighting, but if he does that he would need a larger sign and he feels that there would be even more light shining on his neighbors.  He added that the existing sign has been there fifty plus years. 

Ms. Reeves stated that given the nature of the business, she wonders if having the sign internally illuminated might be appropriate in this case.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Hoekstra would need a variance and the current sign has been there forever.  He added that the application could get turned around at Council if the Planning Commission approves it.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is another alternative and that is to have the sign lit the same way as Ross’s Granville Market sign – goose neck lighting.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that the bar going out would look ugly given the size of his sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign is at the corner of the property and up lighting and down lighting might not be the best option.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is also aware of what the Village Ordinance says regarding internal illumination.  Mr. Burriss stated that the internally illuminated sign as it currently is is wide and he questioned how it might look if it were thinner with a hooded light.  Mr. Hoekstra stated “with all due respect I think it makes the corner look less appealing.”  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is aware that the sign has always been there and they also need to be consistent with what they have always approved.  He stated that if we deny the application, Council can overturn the decision and approve it or vice versa.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would compliment the applicant for the discretion of their signage and the proposed sign in their application is discreet and something that is appropriate for a residential area.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting body.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would suspect that not many people will even notice the change to the sign.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-14:

            Architectural Review Overlay District Criteria

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sign is stylistically compatible with itself.  

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because the look of the sign would not be changing.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign’s function does not promote the owner of the building to ask for additional signage. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Reeves stated that there is no change to the look of the sign as it currently is.

            e)         Signage.  As regulated by the sign regulations, signage will be most significant in communicating the character of the building.  Signage should be discreet and minimal.  Signs oriented to the pedestrian should be small in scale; those oriented toward automobile traffic may be larger.  Color should be subdued, and where appropriate, the architectural character of the sign should be consistent with that of the building.  Signs flush on the building face are in many cases preferable to projecting signs. The applicant has an existing freestanding pole sign with a decorative metal pole, bracket, and hanging sign that is appropriate to the style of the building and is smaller in scale, orienting it more towards pedestrian traffic to meet this requirement.  The applicant is proposing to remove the existing sign panels and replace them with white plexi-glass and black lettering.  The applicant is also proposing that the sign be allowed to continue to be internally illuminated, as it is now.

 

           

 

 

Variance Criteria:

            a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this sign was already in existence before the Ordinance pertaining to internally illuminated signs came into effect.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant purchased the property with a sign that was internally illuminated.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a business, such as a funeral home,  is unique and justifies as though special circumstances do exist. 

            b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is located in a residential area where light pollution should be taken into consideration.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission concluded no.

                        (3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Mr. Burriss stated that the approval of the application would be consistent with the way the sign has been for several decades. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission concluded no.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that he had no prior knowledge that getting approval to replace the sign would be a problem.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Ms. Reeves stated that the other alternatives are not as feasible.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that not granting the variance would be detrimental to not just Mr. Hoekstra but also his neighbors.

            c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the state board is requiring him to add an additional name to the sign.

            d.         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, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign will not increase congestion in the street or add any light pollution to the area. Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with the sign that has always been there. 

            e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has discussed with other businesses about having their lighting turned off at a particular time and this may be appropriate in this situation given the character of the residential area.  Mr. Burriss added that if the applicant agrees to this, it would justify the continued use of this sign.  Mr. Hoekstra had no problem with the sign being turned off at a particular time in the evening. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-14 granting a variance that is contingent upon the applicant agreeing to turn off the internally illuminated sign by 11:00 PM.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-14 is approved with the above stated condition.

                                                                                                           

134 South Mulberry Street, Richard and Leah Liebson, Application #09-15:

The request is for review and approval to permanently remove three pairs of window shutters on the front elevation and replacement of wood fascia and soffit boards with Azek trim and bead board to match original. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-15:

John Noblick, stated that the Jerry McClain company is the contractor he is representing on this project.  Mr. Burriss asked about the crown molding that wraps around the top of each bracket - will it be replaced.  Mr. Noblick stated that it would be replaced as is if it is replaced at all.  Mr. Burriss stated that the rear addition has less detailing and the applicant is proposing the same type of detailing that is on the main house to make it consistent.  Mr. Noblick agreed.  Mr. Burriss asked if they will be using a forty-five degree angle at the corners that is consistent with the original.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the existing brackets will be removed and Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the removal of the shutters does not detract from the character of the house. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-15:

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is upgrading the detailing to greater consistency.     

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is restoring historical detailing that is more appropriate. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a preservation of a detail that is appropriate to this structure.

            e)         Materials and Texture. The applicant is proposing to permanently remove three pairs of window shutters on the front elevation and replace the wood fascia and soffit boards with Azek trim and beadboard to match original.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-15 with the condition that the old soffit be removed and replaced and the trim around the brackets be replaced with the same profile trim.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-15 is approved as submitted.

 

399 West Maple Street, Brian Blanchard, Application #09-17:

The request is for review and approval of the following items:

1)         Remove existing shed roof on the rear elevation and replace with a pressure treated deck;

2)         Remove existing wood fencing and replace with antique wrought iron fencing, forty-two inch (42") in height in the front yard;

3)         Remove existing rear window and replace with a set of wood clad french doors;

4)         Remove existing front porch and replace with new front porch;

5)         Adding rear gravel driveway with parking area;

6)         Modification of eastern window fenestration; and

7)         Addition of an air conditioning unit on the western side of the home.

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mike Vecchione, and Brian Blanchard.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-17:

Brian Blanchard, 75 Denbigh Drive, and Mike Vecchione, 142 Merywen Circle, indicated that they are making improvements to the home with plans to sell it.  Mr. Burriss inquired on why the porch is being proposed as an open structure.  Mr. Blanchard stated they felt that it would be appropriate to match the gables on the second floor and it would be more consistent with the existing structure.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant has any detailing information for the hand railing on the front steps.  Mr. Blanchard stated that they believe that the two rises to the door may not necessitate a railing.  Mr. Burriss complimented the applicants’ on the completeness of their submittal.  He asked if they are proposing a finish for the deck.  Mr. Vecchione stated that they would be unable to paint any decking for one year due to the use of pressure treated lumber.  Mr. Blanchard indicated that they would be willing to paint or stain the decking to compliment the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has consistently required a stain or paint to be applied at some point.  Mr. Blanchard stated that they think they can address this by utilizing a transparent stain.  Mr. Burriss stated that in the floor plan/site plan the applicant indicated screening the air conditioning units and he questioned what material they would use.  Mr. Blanchard stated that the ac unit sits down in a ravine and are not viewable.  He stated that he would be willing to put in a boxwood or small pine screening more so from the front.  Mr. Vecchione clarified that the sketch and notes pertaining to the handrail being forty-four (44”) inches are inaccurate, and it is actually forty-two (42”) inches.  Mr. Blanchard stated that regarding the detailing and finishing touches he would like to establish the basic footprint tonight and allow the potential buyer to choose some of the finishing touches.  

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-17:

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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

            e)         Materials and Texture.  The applicant proposed the following:

1)         Remove existing shed roof on the rear elevation and replace with a pressure treated deck;

                        2)         Remove existing wood fencing and replace with antique wrought iron fencing, forty-two inch (42") in height in the front yard;

                        3)         Remove existing rear window and replace with a set of wood clad french doors;

                        4)         Remove existing front porch and replace with new front porch;

                        5)         Adding rear gravel driveway with parking area;

                        6)         Modification of eastern window fenestration; and

                        7)         Addition of an air conditioning unit on the western side of the home.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-17 with the conditions that the all weather wood decking be stained to compliment the house structure; that the air conditioning unit be screened with evergreen plant material equal to or higher than the ac unit; and that there be a front porch pair of brackets per exhibit ‘A’.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-17 is approved as submitted.

 

102 East Broadway, Centenary United Methodist Church, Application #09-18:

The request is for review and approval of an air conditioner compressor unit on the western side of the building. The property is zoned Village Square District (VSD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Randy Crothers.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-18:

Randy Crothers, stated that he would be adding one unit to the additional two units already in place.  He also clarified that the units are currently screened.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-18:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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

            e)         Materials and Texture. The applicant is proposing to install an air conditioner compressor unit on the western side of the building, behind an existing wood picket fence.  It would be located between two existing compressor units.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-18 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-18 is approved as submitted.

 

300 Livingston Drive, Denison University, Application #09-19:

The request is for review and approval of a 2,528 square foot addition to the Chiller Plant. The property is zoned Institutional District (ID).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gwynyth Chmara-Huff, and Art Chonko.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-19:

Art Chonko, stated that the Chiller Plant is an existing building already on campus.  Mr. McClow asked how big the proposed addition will be.  Mr. Chonko stated that it is a new structure that will double the size of the previous building.  He added that the previous building will continue to operate.  Gwynyth Chmara-Huff requested to review the plans.  She asked if there will be any increase in noise due to the addition.  Mr. Chonko answered no.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked what this particular building houses.  Mr. Chonko stated that it provides cold water to buildings on campus and he added that there will be cooling towers on the roof.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-19 with the condition that the applicant shall receive conditional use approval from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for this addition.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-19 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

Work Session

Jason and Christine Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, proposed some ideas on pillars, doors, railings, roof, window replacement, and a chimney that is not tied into anything on the house. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #09-05, Walter & Judy Gloshinski, 428 East College Street:

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 approves Application #09-05 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-05.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-05 are approved.

 

Application #09-06, Brits Follies, 224 East Broadway:

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 approves Application #09-06 as amended.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-06.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.     

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-06 are approved.

                                                                       

New Business:

 

Application #09-13, Grace & Steve Michael, 273 East Maple Street:

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 approves Application #09-13 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-13.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-13 are approved.                 

 

Application #09-14, Bill Hoekstra, 133 South Prospect Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby approves Application #09-14 with the condition that the sign shall not be internally illuminated

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-14.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-14 are approved.

 

Application #09-15, Richard and Leah Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street:

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 approves Application #09-15 as presented.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-15.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-15 are approved.

 

Application #09-17, Brian Blanchard, 399 West Maple Street:

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 approves Application #09-17 as presented.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-17.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-17 are approved.     

 

Application #09-18, Centenary United Methodist Church, 102 East Broadway:

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 approves Application #09-18 as presented.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-18.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

Findings of Fact for Application #09-18 are approved.     

 

 

Application #09-19, Denison University, 300 Livingston Drive:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1169, Institutional District, and hereby approves Application #09-19  with the condition that the applicant shall receive conditional use approval from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for this addition.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-19.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-19 with the above stated condition.

 

 

Approval of Meeting Minutes from March 9, 2009:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held on March 9, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

 

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

April 13, 2009

April 27, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes March 9, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 09, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Charles Nigg, Patricia Nigg, and Amanda Jordan.

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

2780 Newark-Granville Road – Robert Weiler Company on behalf of the JVB Group – Application #09-09

Planned Unit Development (PUD)

The request is for approval of a temporary real estate sign to be set back fifteen feet (15’)

from the right of way of Newark-Granville Road. 

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Amanda Jordan.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-09:

Amanda Jordan, Robert Weiler Company, stated that they currently have the sign located at Route 16, and they would like to move it to the north end of the property because it cannot be seen from where it currently is located.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign would be set back fifteen feet from the right of way.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if other realty companies might request the same size sign.  Ms. Terry stated that this property is unique because there are 22 acres plus the home.  She stated that the house on the property is located closer to Newark-Granville Road.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would not want to set any precedence that other real estate agents could also get a 4x8 sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-09 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-09 is approved as submitted.

 

 

 

 

 

225 South Pearl Street – Patricia Nigg – Application #09-10

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

The request is for approval of a tile roof (asbestos shingles) and replacement with

dimensional shingles.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Planner, Alison Terry, and Charles Nigg .

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-10:

Charles Nigg stated that they would like to replace the tile shingles on the roof and they have learned that the asbestos tiles cannot be replaced as is.  Ms. Terry stated that she spoke with the Ohio Health Department, Ohio EPA, and The Licking County Health Department and each of them follow the OCEA standards.  Ms. Terry explained that the OCEA standards state that the installer must be certified and they are not allowed to throw tiles from the second story.  The applicant, Mr. Nigg, stated that he understands the restrictions.  Mr. McClow questioned the disposal requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that OCEA is the only restricting force - due to it being a residential property and the Village has no responsibility as to the disposal.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure that they are certified to handle asbestos shingles.  Ms. Terry agreed and she stated that if the Village were to hear of a violation they could phone OCEA.  Mr. Nigg stated that the contractor, Mickey’s Roofing, has indicated that they are certified to handle the removal of asbestos shingles.  Mr. Nigg stated that they are proposing the use of Owens Corning Duration Dimensional shingles in ‘Estate Gray.’  Mr. Burriss asked the current roof color.  Mr. Nigg stated that the color is a faded red tile that looks more gray then red and it was installed somewhere around 1924.  Mr. Burriss questioned if in discussions with the contractor – has he given any idea on the ridges and where they are capped?  Mr. Burriss stated that capping can be done with the shingles Mr. Nigg is proposing.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would suggest that they be capped in a way that is similar to the look of what is there now.  He later stated that capping would be best – rather than lacing.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the applicant considered the use of  synthetic tiles.  Mr. Nigg stated that they hadn’t looked into any synthetic materials.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it would cost more money than asphalt shingles, but other materials are available.  Mr. Nigg and Patricia Nigg indicated that they probably wouldn’t be a consideration due to money.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the ridges can be managed with shingles. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-10:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss, Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Reeves stated yes because many others have done this type of roof  in the same district due to practicality.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is a roof that is appropriate with the house and the new roof would preserve the structure. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the house would be maintained and kept up. 

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

e)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant is proposing Owens Corning Duration dimensional asphalt shingles.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-10 with the stipulation that all ridges of the main house, dormers, and bay window be capped.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application #09-10 is approved with the above stated stipulation.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #09-09:

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 hereby approves Application #09-09 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-09.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #09-10:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter

and hereby approves Application #09-10 with the stipulation that all ridges of the main house, dormers, and bay window be capped.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-10.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Approval of Meeting Minutes from February 9, 2009:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes as amended from the Planning Commission meeting held on February 9, 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  Motion carried 3-2 (2 abstentions – Burriss & McClow). 

 

Approval of Meeting Minutes from February 23, 2009:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes as amended from the Planning Commission meeting held on February 23, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-1 (1 abstention - Ryan). 

 

Adjournment: 7:30 PM

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

March 30, 2009

April 13, 2009

April 27, 2009

Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 23, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, Councilmember O’Keefe.

Members Absent: Tim Ryan.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Britney Lang, Phil Wince, Erna Holland, Bruce Cramer, Chuck Schwartz, Corey Brokaw, and Edgar Millard.

 

Swearing in of re-appointed member – Jack Burriss

Mr. Burris was previously sworn in at the Village Offices on February 23, 2009 by Mayor Hartfield.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

537 Jones Road/Bryn Du Mansion Property – Buckeye Valley BIA– Application #09-07

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A)

The request is for approval of a temporary banner sign on the fence facing the

intersection of Jones Road and Newark-Granville Road.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bruce Cramer.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-07:

There was no one at the meeting to represent the applicant for Application #09-07.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant was notified that they needed to attend the meeting.  She went on to explain that an eight foot (8’) by four foot (4’) sign (Total square footage = 32 sq. ft.) is proposed by the applicant.  She stated that the banner would be yellow, white, and green.  Ms. Terry stated that the only stipulation she would recommend on the application is for the approval to be void after the first of April.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant can put the sign up on March 6th, which is after the ten day appeal period.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the application ought to be tabled for additional comment due to the proposed size of the banner.  Ms. Terry stated that she does not feel the size is necessarily too large, especially when one considers the distance from the roadway. Ms. Terry stated that this is the first time for this particular event and the applicant has not ever requested a banner in the past.  She went on to say that this is not considered a community activity, so a permit from the Planning Commission is required.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Cramer if he sees any problem with approving the banner for this event considering other events that are held at the property.  Bruce Cramer, who represented the Bryn Du Mansion property, stated that he does not see any issues with having the temporary banner.  He went on to explain that he wouldn’t mind being allowed to have six (or so) of these types of temporary banners throughout the year.  

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-07 with the condition that the temporary banner is removed by April 1, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-07 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

224 East Broadway – Brits Follies – Britney Hayes Lang - Application #09-06 CONTINUED

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

The request is for approval of round fiberglass columns on the first floor and the

replacement of wood railings with vinyl railings on the second floor to the front

elevation of the structure.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner Alison Terry, Phil Wince, and Britney Lang at the last hearing.  Erna Holland was sworn in by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-06:

Phil Wince, 2350 West Broadway, stated that what the Planning Commission was proposing at the last meeting is in conflict with what he found to be consistent with the historical character of Granville.  Mr. Wince explained how Granville, Ohio was founded from descendants of Granville, Massachusetts.  He stated that one of those descendants is Dr. William Bancroft who in 1852 occupied the property at 224 East Broadway for a hydrotherapy/spa.  Mr. Wince presented a picture of the building in the 1850’s with connecting buildings and he stated that the porch in question was not there at that time.  Mr. Wince stated that the style of architecture on the building in 1852 was Colonial New England and this is known to be plain, dignified, honest, and substantial.  Mr. Wince stated that the porch that was placed on the building many years later is more Victorian and does not fit with the original architecture from 1852.  Mr. Wince stated that he has brought a photo board showing examples of houses up and down Broadway and all over Granville that mimic the Colonial New England style he is referring to.  Mr. Wince stated that in addition to these examples, they have found more than 100+ examples in Granville of architectural detailing that is consistent with what they are proposing.  He stated that they have reviewed the historic homes compiled for the Granville Bicentennial and they are all similar to what he is proposing with square spindles and round columns.  Mr. Wince went on to explain that they clearly comply with the review standards and criteria listed in the Code.  He also stated that they have received numerous comments from residents in Granville stating that they feel they are contributing to the upgrading and historical character of the structure.  Mr. Wince stated that the previous porch was close to falling down and their proposed improvements will greatly enhance the structure.  He also stated that they are contributing to the vitality of the Village by providing residences downtown.  Mr. Wince stated that ultimately they decided to keep the porch, but also blend it in with Granville architecture and style.  He stated that all of the porch materials would be painted white and they have added some square decorative pieces to the front of porch structure betweent the first and second floors.  They hope to put the ‘1852’ date on each end and the name of the original building in the middle.  Mr. Wince stated that it is not visible in the current pictures that have been presented, but there is an additional ring that exists at the top of the column and will be exposed once the cap is permanently secured.  He added that they would like to propose some dental molding above the upstairs porch and downstairs porch to add more interest, and in keeping with the architectural style.

 

Ms. Terry asked that it be clarified for the record that both Jack Burriss and Lyle McClow have listened to the tape of the meeting on February 9, 2009 for Application #09-06, as this is the only way they would be permitted to vote on the application.  Both Mr. Burriss and Mr. McClow verbally indicated that they had listened to the tape and read the meeting minutes. 

 

Mr. Burriss apologized he was not available to be at the previous meeting and hear the comments in person, but he did listen to a cassette tape of the meting.  Mr. Burriss stated that having run a business next door to 224 East Broadway, he is very aware of the building.  He stated that he has a couple things for the applicant to look at and think about.  He stated that one of the things that he felt was put forth in the last discussion was the applicant’s lack of detail in the proposed presentation, even though the detailing wasn’t original to the building - it was detailing with character and it was distinctive to the building.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he tried to take some of the comments made by fellow Planning Commission member’s and come up with a solution that could incorporate some character back into the structure.   He asked Mr. Wince if they are proposing a commercial use on the first floor and the second floor.  Mr. Wince stated that the second floor has two apartments – one in the front and one in the back.  Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if he has considered the style of commercial signage he would like to eventually use because this will be important to the overall character of the building and should be considered at this point.  Mr. Burriss stated that regarding the railing on the second floor with square posts – they are required by law to be a certain height and no one can get around this.  He stated that one thought on this might be to place a planter on the front of the railings , that could be made out of a non-degradable material, to help balance the scale betweent the porche and the railing.  He clarified that the top of the planter would be at the top of the railing and go in front of it.  Mr. Burriss stated that a half railing could be appropriate on the bottom porch that would add some detailing and help bring the two elevations together.  Mr. Wince stated that most structures with railings on the bottom level are raised four inches off the ground, where their porch sits pretty much at ground level.  Mr. Burriss also suggested that lattice could be considered appropriate on the sides of the building.  He encouraged the use of plantings because this enhances the character of the structure along with the detailing the applicant is proposing. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated Mr. Burriss’s suggestions would certainly be dressing the building up.  He stated that he hears Mr. Wince indicating that the details he currently has on the building are in use in many areas around town and therefore should also be allowed to be used on this building– and Mr. Mitchell stated he does not agree with that assessment.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there was a look to Mr. Wince’s building that was not architecturally correct - it is considered vernacular architecture.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is asking the applicant to provide examples of architectural detailing that can be added to the structure, but in terms of harder – more permanent details other than lattice and planters.   Mr. Mitchell stated that regarding the proposed use of dental molding – he would like to see it – especially on a drawing of the building along with all of the other details he wants to put on the structure.  Mr. Mitchell stated that in his mind it doesn’t seem like a lot to ask and he is aware of many column manufacturers that could provide detailing for the base and capitals.  Mr. Wince stated that if you go anywhere around the Village - the use of columns, along with the detailing they are proposing, are on various structures throughout the Village.  Mr. Mitchell stated he didn’t mean to suggest that they aren’t in heavy use in Granville, but his point is just because they are in heavy use, doesn’t mean they are ok on this structure.  Mr. McClow asked Mr. Wince if he is opposed to adding the level of detailing the Planning Commission is suggesting.  Mr. Wince stated that there is already a base and capital in place and any more detailing would mean that they dismantle the porch. Mr. Burriss stated that he noticed that the applicant is proposing a single row of dental molding on the top porch and a double row of dental molding on the bottom porch.  He stated that it would be more historically appropriate to have the dental molding on the top porch only.  Other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed. Ms. Terry inquired on how the dental molding would tie into the squares placed on the building between the first and second floors.  Mr. Wince stated that it would meet up to the squares.   Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there is already some detailing on each column.  Mr. Wince stated yes and when the trim is raised up you will be able to see this more clearly.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing a Doric column and these were most prevalent during the Colonial Revival period.  Mr. Wince stated that regarding the planter and lattice ideas suggested by Mr. Burriss – he likes the idea but he is a little concerned that the front view could be blocked.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels this could be worked out so it doesn’t block the view anymore than the railing height is going to block it.  He went on to say that visually from the front of the structure they would help the railings appear shorter.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is still hearing from other Commissioner’s that the detailing on the columns is not sufficient.  Ms. Reeves stated that she likes some of the ideas going forward regarding the dental molding and she can let go of some of the other ideas regarding the shape of the spindles.  She stated that for her she needs something that architecturally pulls the bottom porch altogether with the top porch.  Ms. Reeves went on to say that she is sad to see some of the eclectic detailing go away, but she is very willing to find some sort of compromise and ultimately would like a greater understanding of what the applicant proposes for the bottom porch.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that planters could also be placed on the ground floor/bottom porch.  Mr. Burriss stated that he thought about this and he would encourage a consistency of permanent architectural detailing.  He stated that a planter may not look attractive in the wintertime and he feels a railing is better suited for the bottom level and the half railing idea could deemphasize the four sets of French doors.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see detailing that is permanent - no matter whom the owner of the building is. 

Erna Holland stated that she would like to clarify that one of the things that the Planning Commission doesn’t like is the height of the top railing.  She stated that she would agree because it makes the building look shorter, but she would have concerns with putting the railing on the bottom because it will shorten the building even more.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is no railing restrictions on the bottom and visually the lower and top railing would look at odds, not matching, and this is one reason he proposed the idea of a planter.  Ms. Holland stated that they do have plans for landscaping the front area, as well as planters on the front porch because they really want to make it look nice.  Ms. Holland stated that if they place planters across the top railing, then they are dependent on renters to maintain them.  Mr. Burriss felt that it would not necessarily be a detriment to ask a renter to do this or to incorporate it into their lease agreement.  He stated that this would be an enhancement to the property overall.  Mr. Wince stated that regarding the lattice on the side of the building, he would have concerns because the two front areas are going to be commercial spaces and he would not want any area blocked.  Mr. Burriss stated that another thought would be that it wouldn’t have to be full width lattice panels, and it could be designed with borders to not take up the full width.  Mr. McClow stated that he likes the simple look of what the applicant has proposed here now.  He stated that he would agree he isn’t sure about the double row of dental molding.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would like to see a visual entrance for the bottom floor once it is finished, and she added that she would like the applicant to bring some character back that was taken away with the removal of the sandstone columns.  Ms. Reeves stated that the spindles are a non-issue for her and she appreciates the effort put forth to gather the information presented by the applicant.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would like a visual  to be provided by the applicant that shows whether or not they will see just four doors with a column down the middle or something with more detail and character.  Ms. Holland stated that they would be using the existing sidewalks and they will be determining the landscaping and how this will soften the front entrance.  She went on to say that they are certainly going to put flowers pots out to soften the front porch.  Ms. Holland stated that she would agree that the signage will add to the permanent look of the building.  She went on to say that one potential renter has indicated that they do not want any obstructions to the view of Broadway.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there have been many ideas put forth this evening, but he does not see a drawing depicting anything he would feel comfortable approving tonight.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Planning Commission is suggesting that the applicant install a second railing and is this something they can mandate.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they are asking the applicant to come back with a drawing that shows more architectural interest and detail and something that adds back - to a good degree - the character that the building had before.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the plans do not have to be drawn by an architect, but they do need to know what the applicant intends to do.  He added that he has a general problem with the Planning Commission designing things for applicants and the ideas they throw out are just suggestions.  Mr. Wince stated that to be honest he has a little bit of a problem with that himself. He stated that if there is “set criteria” that we can work off of then that should give some indication of the guidelines.  He stated that “he has his likes and she has her likes” and exactly what standard is he being held to?  Mr. Mitchell stated that this property had an architectural look that the applicant has removed and that the Planning Commission would like the same level of character put back in.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that there is very little change in the applicant’s submittal from the last meeting and he didn’t want to approve it at the previous meeting because there was not enough architectural detail.  Mr. Wince stated that he is presenting what the character of Granville is and he finds it kind of odd that this is one of the few times he has been before this Board and they are saying they don’t want the structure to look like old Granville, they want it to look like something different.  Mr. Wince stated that we have a historic district that has certain criteria that should be followed.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is hearing that member’s of the Planning Commission would like some enhancements in the detail.  He apologized to Mr. Wince if he felt that his suggestions were trying to design his building.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels the applicant is leaving without a clear understanding of what the Planning Commission expects.  He also stated that if you look closely at photographs provided, there is a high level of detail in them and we just want to ensure the same level of detailing.  Ms. Holland stated that there is some feeling as though they are being asked to start the approval process over again from what was originally approved in July.  Ms. Terry explained that the July application indicates that all parts of the porch are to be reconstructed identical to what was originally in place on the date of the application.  Ms. Holland clarified that really there are two issues we are talking about and that is the columns on the first floor and the balusters and railing on the second floor.  Ms. Reeves and Mr. Mitchell agreed.  Mr. Wince questioned what guidelines and standards he is to meet when he completes an application.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is going off of the set of drawings the Village has on file and the expectations are to replace what was originally in place.  Mr. Wince stated that the drawings on file, for the July hearing, related only to the replacement of the windows and doors.  Mr. Wince stated that when they spoke in regards to replacing the structure back to its original condition – they meant back to the New England style architecture, not the previous porch detailing.  Mr. Burriss stated that ideally, as soon as the applicant realized the original columns couldn’t be used, he should have approached the Village Planner or Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does not have a problem with the Doric columns and he knows the designer that the applicant is working with and he trusts her ideas.  He went on to say that he thinks there was some unique architectural detailing that existed on that building and “historic Granville architecture” is an idea they have struggled with throughout the years.  Mr. Burriss explained that the Planning Commission does not necessarily need an architectural drawing, but a detailed example of what the building will look like, as well as sample of the spindles, etc.  Ms. Terry stated that for example the applicant could submit information (a cut sheet) stating they would like 4” vinyl spindles with the cap and base detailing.  Mr. Wince asked if the Planning Commission could make a decision on the square or turned spindles and he presented an example of each.  Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Reeves preferred the look of the turned spindle.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the turned spindle clearly has more detailing.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant would also need to indicate whether or not the gutters are going to change.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is already dental molding on the building.  Ms. Terry stated that there is not dental molding currently on the building, and she indicated that the gutters, spindles, and detailing could be specified in an amendment to this application.  Mr. Wince questioned if he could install the spindles at this time.  Ms. Terry stated that no further work is to be done on the structure until the time of approval by the Planning Commission and there is then a 10-day appeal process after approval.  The applicant, Mr. Wince, agreed to tabling the application.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #09-06.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Reeves, Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-06 is approved.

 

Other Business:

Review of Ordinance pertaining to Signage, to amend Sections 1189.01, 1189.09, 1189.10, 1189.11, of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to temporary, exempt, and prohibited signs.

 

Discussion:  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed changes by the Planning Commission are highlighted in yellow. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council to amend Sections 1189.01, 1189.09, 1189.10, 1189.11, of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to temporary, exempt, and prohibited signs.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #09-07:

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 hereby approves Application #09-07 with the stipulations that the sign be removed by April 1, 2009.

 

Mr. McClow moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-07 with the stipulation that the sign be removed by April 1, 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from the Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

March 9, 2009

March 30, 2009

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.