GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 26, 2009
Members Present: Lyle McClow, Tom Mitchell, Gina Reeves, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).
Members Absent: Jack Burriss.
Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Law Director, Mike Crites.
Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Phillip Templeton, Sabato Sagaria, Natalie Marsh, Brian Miller, Bill Hoekstra, Brice Corder, Rose Wingert, Jack Thornborough, Cynthia Feidler, Chris Avery, and Holly Simans.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
405 ½ West Maple Street – Phillip A. Templeton – Application #09-01
SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The request was for approval of a lot split and lot combination.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Phillip Templeton.
Discussion regarding Application #09-01:
Phillip Templeton, 405 ½ West Maple Street, stated he submitted an application that would allow him to acquire a lot thirty feet (30’) by fifty feet (50’) and add it to his property. He went on to say that the neighbor, Mr. Oliverio, is obviously fine with the plan. Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Oliverio submitted a letter to the Village indicating he is fine with the lot split and she stated that the applicant, Mr. Templeton, did receive a variance from the BZBA. Ms. Terry stated that she still needs Mr. Templeton to supply a plan depicting the full lot combination. Mr. Templeton stated this information was forwarded to her today via email. Ms. Terry explained that she may have received it, but she is experiencing some email problems. Mr. Mitchell asked how the Oliverio’s currently access their property. Mr. Templeton stated that they can access their property directly off of Maple Street. He went on to explain that there used to be egress/ingress through Village property and this was before Stone Street was vacated many years ago. Mr. Templeton stated that there is nothing on this property except woods. Mr. Mitchell asked where the Oliverio home is located on the lot. Ms. Terry explained the location and she stated that the driveways run parallel with a fence separating them.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-01 with the requirement that the 0.038 acre lot split, for property currently owned by Carl Oliverio & Randy K. Oliverio, shall be required to be combined with the 0.135 acre lot owned by Phillip A. Templeton. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.
Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.
Application #09-01 is approved as submitted.
240 West Broadway – Denison University – Art Chonko – Application #09-02
VID (Village Institutional District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The request was for approval of a temporary banner sign for Burke Hall.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dr. Natalie Marsh.
Discussion regarding Application #09-02:
Natalie Marsh, Denison University, stated that she is here in place of Art Chonko who submitted the application. She stated that the sign will be temporary and similar to the previous temporary sign that was approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan asked how long this sign will be located on Burke Hall. Ms. Terry stated that the application indicates that it will be up through the end of March.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-02:
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 the temporary sign will notify residents of an event occurring at Burke Hall, as well as distributing information.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that the sign will advertise a cultural event at Burke Hall.
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes. Ms. Reeves stated that it advertises a cultural event and does not alter the structure.
Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-02 with the condition that the temporary banner sign only be valid until March 31, 2009. Seconded by Mr. McClow.
Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.
Application #09-02 is approved as submitted.
123 South Prospect Street – Barbara Franks and Dan Rogers - Application #09-03
VBD (Village Business District) AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The request was for approval of a Change of Use from Retail Outlets (E) to Food, Drug,
and Beverage (D). The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located
within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Barbara Franks, Chris Avery, Brice Corder, Sabato Sagaria, Bill Hoekstra, and Dan Rogers.
Discussion regarding Application #09-03:
Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, indicated that she is applying for the Change of Use for property located at 123 South Prospect Street. Mr. Ryan stated that he recalled a tenant of Ms. Franks wished to relocate his business in the rear structure at 123 South Prospect. Ms. Franks stated that this was the case at one time but he (Buddy) has decided that he does not want to move back there. Ms. Terry explained that the applicant will need to apply for a variance for parking. Ms. Franks understood that a variance would need to be acquired. Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission can go ahead and discuss Application 09-03, but they can’t give a conditional approval on something that still requires a variance. Ms. Reeves asked if Ms. Franks can be very clear on the planned usage for the rear structure at 123 South Prospect. Ms. Franks stated that she would like the option to sell food and beverage from the structure. She went on to say that this would be maximizing her property to make the most money possible. Ms. Franks stated that she cannot get real particular on the usage because she does not actually know yet who will occupy the space. Mr. Franks stated that before she can determine the exact usage she needs the blessing from Planning Commission that food can be sold from the structure. Mr. McClow asked if Ms. Franks knew what type of food business would be located in the structure. Ms. Franks stated that it would be for food and beverage purposes and there has been some talk of having a taco business there. Mr. McClow asked what type of beverages would be served. Ms. Franks stated soft drinks.
Mr. Ryan questioned the accessibility to the property via the two driveways. Ms. Franks explained that to access the rear structure people can come down the long driveway between 121 and 117 South Prospect. She stated that she would imagine all deliveries would occur in the rear of the structure as is the case with all the other businesses located along Broadway. Mr. McClow asked what numbers one, two, three, and four represent on the submitted drawing. Ms. Franks stated that these are four of seven parking spaces available on sight. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Ms. Franks has access to the parking lot at Park National Bank. Ms. Franks stated that most deliveries would come through that parking lot as is the case for Crosswalk and Alltel. Ms. Franks went on to say that she would think a lot of the traffic would be by pedestrians. Mr. McClow asked how Ms. Franks would go about advertising the business located at 123 South Prospect. Ms. Franks stated that she would utilize the tenant panel sign as well as two signs already in place on the property now. She also stated that there were previously three or four signs located on her property. Ms. Franks guessed that there would be a sign on the back building over the two doors. Ms. Franks stated that they moved the entrance of the structure to the other side due to a neighbor at 117 South Prospect and this being a residence. Mr. Ryan clarified that the entrance will be on the south side of the building. Ms. Franks stated yes. Mr. Ryan stated that there is also a door on the west side of the building and he asked the intended use for this door. Ms. Franks stated that this was in place since 1889 and there is also an existing window. Ms. Franks stated that she will likely use the west entrance as a delivery door with handicap accessibility. She clarified that the entrance on the south side is also handicap accessible. Mr. Ryan stated that he recalls that some of the previous problems with the application were ingress and egress issues whether walking or driving, along with some issues with the width of the shared driveway. Ms. Franks stated that their driveway is eleven feet on both sides and Park National Bank’s driveway is narrower than that. She went on to say that a second driveway belongs to Dr. Avery and he has customers four days a week. Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant intends to utilize both driveways. Ms. Franks stated yes and she stated that the only access before when “Judy” previously owned the building was between the Kussmaul home and hers. Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Franks how she sees this use changing from a retail use to serving food and beverage in that neighborhood where most other businesses are professional businesses and they also have at least one residence. Ms. Franks stated that Elm’s Pizza and Subway are the same sort of businesses she is proposing and they are within close proximity to her proposed location. She stated that she does not see much difference.
Bill Hoekstra, 133 South Prospect Street, stated that he is one property south of 123 South Prospect Street. He went on to say that he would like the Planning Commission to consider the parking issues and instead not view this as a “cart blanche” approval. Mr. Hoekstra stated that he and his family also reside at the funeral home.
Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated that his property is adjacent to the property in question. He stated that he has some serious concerns regarding this request. Mr. Sagaria stated that he would like to first say that in accordance with Section 1159.01 of the Code - the goal of the regulations are to ensure that businesses are harmonious and compatible with the existing neighborhood. He stated that he would like to make a case that the proposed use by the applicant does not enhance the Village District. Mr. Sagaria stated that the driveway between 117 and 121 South Prospect was never meant to be used for a sushi bar, carryout, or restaurant because the driveway is too narrow being ninety inches (90”) at the narrowest point. Mr. Sagaria stated that the narrowness raises serious safety concerns. Mr. Sagaria questioned what would prevent a customer from parking in the driveway if there is nowhere else to park. He stated that he would see the driveway as a viable place to park if you have a business where you run in and run out. He stated that his residence will be negatively impacted. Mr. Sagaria stated that he is not aware of any maintenance agreement between the property owners of the driveway. He asked what would happen if there were an accident and who is responsible for damage done to his property or noise, vibration, dust, and depreciation of his property. Mr. Sagaria stated that the Planning Commission’s decision on this Change of Use can greatly impact him.
He stated that a second concern is trash. Mr. Sagaria stated that he has regularly observed boxes of trash and when the wind blows it goes on to his property. He stated that cups, straws, and paper are routinely found on his property now. Mr. Sagaria stated that on December 27, 2008 he arrived at this home to find trash everywhere and a garbage bag filled with paper in front of his garage door. Mr. Sagaria stated that he purposely left the bag there to see if Mr. Rogers or Ms. Franks picked it up and he ultimately had to call the police department whom asked Mr. Rogers pick it up. Mr. Sagaria stated that if a restaurant were to be placed at 123 South Prospect there would be plenty of trash. He also questioned where the dumpster (if any) would be located. Mr. Sagaria stated that he would be concerned with varmints. Mr. Sagaria stated that there are already three businesses located at the address – Footloose, a chiropractor, and an apartment. He stated that the applicant’s proposal will increase density, require additional parking, and add congestion. He went on to say that there is not adequate parking in place for the businesses located at the property now. He stated that it is not a good fit for the first block of South Prospect Street. Mr. Sagaria stated that there are numerous reasons to deny the application for reasons he read in the Code – Sections 1145.03 and 1155.01 but there are also others. He asked the Planning Commission to please not approve this change of use.
Mr. Ryan stated that right now the property is zoned to allow retail sales. Ms. Franks stated that the barn has been used for retail purposes for years. Mr. Ryan questioned if the property address is zoned for Retail use as it is now. Ms. Terry explained that the overall property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and there are three addresses (119, 121) and a new address in the rear of 123 South Prospect. Ms. Terry stated that the Village was formerly told that this location (123) was used for antique furniture sales.
Ms. Terry stated that there is a shared driveway on both sides of the property. Ms. Franks stated that only one side is a shared driveway and not the side on Dr. Avery’s. Mr. Ryan clarified that Ms. Franks can have Retail use at 123 South Prospect with the current zoning today. Ms. Terry stated that the code labels this property as Retail in Section 1159.02 (A-2-E). Councilmember O’Keefe questioned how long ago this structure was used for Retail purposes. Ms. Franks stated that it was used in June 2008 for a tent sale and has been used yearly for the same purpose. She stated that before that Sam Schnaidt used to sell antiques out of the structure and it was known as ‘The Barn’. Mr. Ryan questioned if this space was used for warehouse purposes. Ms. Franks stated no that they sold stuff directly from the structure. Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Franks where the dumpster would go. Dan Rogers stated that “there won’t be a dumpster.” Ms. Franks stated that there is a trash area behind the building and if the zoning is changed she would imagine that the trash will have to be picked up more often. Mr. Ryan questioned the accessibility to the rear property and asked what would happen if someone did park in the driveway at 117 South Prospect Street. Ms. Franks stated that she is very happy to state that she will be celebrating her 10th anniversary of owning Footloose in this location and she has never had that happen. She stated that this seems to be Mr. Sagaria’s biggest concern but no one has ever blocked the driveway in ten years.
Ms. Franks stated that this is a shared driveway and it cannot be blocked. Mr. Ryan asked if there is any room to get a car by if a car is parked in the driveway at 117 South Prospect Street. Ms. Franks stated that there is still room if Mr. Sagaria pulls up all the way and if he did four cars could fit. Mr. Ryan stated that if a car is parked in spaces 1 and 2 – no one can pull in and out of the property without using Dr. Avery’s driveway. Ms. Franks stated that she and Dr. Avery have had a cordial agreement since she has lived there regarding the use of this driveway. She went on to say that a previous owner, “Judy” ran a beauty shop and her customers also used this driveway.
Dr. Christopher Avery, 343 Cedar Street, stated that he owns property next to 123 South Prospect Street and he clarified his driveway has been previously utilized by the applicant, Ms. Franks.
Mr. McClow stated he is confused on the driveway situation and asked if traffic flow can come in either driveway. He questioned if Ms. Franks plans to route traffic any particular way. Ms. Franks stated that it can be done to pull in and turn around, but it’s much more convenient to pull through to the other driveway. Mr. Ryan asked what would occur if you have four cars in there - how does the fifth car get in and out. Ms. Franks stated that they figured that if seven cars are in there it doesn’t affect any of the access. Mr. Ryan stated that he does not see how that is possible. Ms. Franks stated that there could be four cars in the front of the building, and one car in space number five, one car is located in where she currently parks everyday and one compact car in the rear of the structure. Mr. Ryan questioned if someone could still drive through. Ms. Franks stated that they would have to exit via Dr. Avery’s driveway or hey could shimmy their car to get turned around.
Ms. Franks stated that if you have six cars parked - the ingress and egress is going to be different than it is today and really no one wants to back up their car – they drive through the other driveway. Mr. Mitchell stated that Ms. Franks isn’t making any sense at all to him regarding parking. He went on to say that he cannot see how four cars can be parked back there and someone gets by. He also stated that Ms. Franks will have to make her argument for parking before the BZBA board and request a variance. Mr. McClow and Ms. Reeves agreed that they cannot see how the parking can work. Mr. Sagaria stated that he has been told he cannot trespass on this property at 119, 121, 123 South Prospect Street. He stated that he and any contractors or visitors he has to his home must back out of his driveway. He stated that this causes damage to his rims and he cannot see how cars will enter and exit the property if a business were located in the back.
Brice Corder, 215 South Mulberry Street, stated he is a graphic designer in town and he has personally “played the Granville Mariachi parking shuffle” and has even been towed.
Mr. Corder stated that the use of this facility as a restaurant would be a good fit. He stated that Barb Hammond recently closed her business and he questions where Granville businesses are going. Mr. Corder stated that he would like to encourage the Planning Commission and people in this room to think of the economic stance to allow businesses to survive in Granville. He stated that every person is involved and he would stress that grace, leniency and understanding should be taken into account to have more business is Granville.
Law Director Crites suggested tabling the application pending approval of a variance from the BZBA.
Councilmember O’Keefe asked what the proposed hours of operation would be. Ms. Franks stated that because she is not exactly sure of what will go in the space she cannot say for sure. She stated that they kind of have it planned to have afternoon or evening hours and this would be past Dr. Avery’s hours and the bank hours. She stated that she would anticipate any daytime traffic being pedestrians. Ms. Reeves asked if Ms. Franks plans to be the proprietor of whatever business goes in the structure. Ms. Franks stated no.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #09-03 until a date not later than April 13, 2009. Seconded by Mr. McClow.
Law Director Crites suggested that there be an amendment to Mr. Mitchell’s motion to refer to the BZBA for minimum parking requirements.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend the motion “for the purpose of the applicant receiving approval of a variance from the BZBA and that the application be heard no later than the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.”
Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.
Application #09-03 is Tabled.
Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1177.01, 1177.03, 1177.04, 1177.05, 1177.06, 117.07, and 1177.08 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Flood Overlay District.
Discussion: Ms. Terry further researched some additional information for the Planning Commission regarding the Flood Overlay District. She stated that there was a ½ foot difference and it has been lowered from what it previously was. She went on to say that from what she understands the County has done a 2 foot (2’) minimum criteria requirement. Ms. Terry stated that she knows of no other communities that have done more than 2 feet (2’) requirement. Ms. Terry stated that there is the potential for residents to have lower insurance rates if the criteria is more than 2 feet (2’). Mr. McClow asked if Council has the final determination and if the Planning Commission is just making a recommendation. Ms. Terry stated yes. Mr. Ryan stated that we currently do not have much property in the Village that is affected by this. Ms. Terry agreed. Mr. Mitchell stated that he understands this pretty well from a job he is currently working on and the minimum FEMA requirement is 1 ½ feet, while the Planning and Zoning Committee is recommending 3 feet (3’). Mr. McClow questioned what FEMA’s reasoning is for making this change. Ms. Terry stated it is due to better mapping and better benchmarks and computer modeling. Ms. Terry stated that the elevations on the map have changed three feet and in 1959 there was a flood in the area.
John Klauder, stated that he owns some property that has the potential to be annexed into the Village. He asked where this request came from and he stated that if the County and Newark are recommending two feet (2’) – essentially why isn’t Granville. Mr. Klauder stated that there are some who would like to annex into the Village and this could make it difficult to getting to net zero. He stated that he would hate for this detail to be a problem because they have spent years on this. Mr. Klauder stated that if it is changed to three feet (3’), he hopes Council can justify why. He went on to say that he wants to be safe, and FEMA does give them standards to go by. He stated that one could also get flood insurance. Mr. Klauder ended by saying that he would like to ensure Council has all the facts and figures and can substantially justify why they see the need to increase it to three feet (3’) and go beyond the FEMA recommendations. Councilmember O’Keefe asked what would be the impact on the environment if having buildings in a flood plain that is one and one half feet (1 ½’) versus three feet (3’) and there is a flood. Mr. Mitchell stated that there should be no change because there is a net zero either way. He stated that these standards would simply raise the building and the water would be retained somewhere else. Mr. Klauder asked if these changes would change the compaction standards. Ms. Terry stated no.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees raising the standards to three feet (3’) will be counter productive and it will raise up roads and lower everything else. Mr. Mitchell stated that this would also allow for an irregular terrain. Ms. Reeves agreed and stated that there would be ditches everywhere and she stated that it would look strange and why would we do this. Councilmember O’Keefe stated that this was the former standard. Mr. Ryan argued that if we do two feet, as recommended by FEMA – it’s still back to the same standard as was previously in place. Mr. Ryan stated that all of this information ought to be brought before Council and he feels that the Planning and Zoning Committee should have asked these questions before coming up with the three foot (3’) figure. Ms. Terry stated that it was the intention of the Planning and Zoning Committee to return to the same standards as were in place previously before the FEMA change. Mr. Ryan stated that he is number one concerned about safety and the environment and it should also be considered that we don’t have an application to annex River Road before them. He stated that he feels comfortable with two feet (2’) being adequate. Mr. Mitchell stated that environmentally there would be no impact from two to three foot and three foot (3’) would just make things look funny. Ms. Reeves stated that three foot (3’) could also be hazardous.
Ms. Terry stated that these recommendations will be noted and it will come before the Planning Commission at their next meeting so they can formally send it to Council.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
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 #09-01 as submitted for the lot split and lot combination.
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-01. Seconded by Ms. Reeves.
Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan. Motion carried 4-0.
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, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-02 as submitted for a temporary banner sign for Burke Hall.
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-02. Seconded by Mr. McClow.
Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan. Motion carried 5-0.
Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on January 26, 2009. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 4-0.
Approval of the Minutes:
December 8, 2008
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the December 8, 2008 minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. McClow. Motion carried 4-0.
January 12, 2009
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the January 12, 2009 minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. McClow. Motion carried 3-0. Ms. Reeves abstained.
Adjournment: 8:45 PM
Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. McClow. Motion carried 4-0.
February 9, 2009
February 23, 2009