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

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.