Granville Community Calendar

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

 

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.