Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes March 30, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 30, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Walter Gloshinski, Bob and Erna Holland, Britney Lang, Phil Wince, Steven Michael, Bill Hoekstra, John Noblick, Brian Blanchard, Mike Vecchione, Randy Crothers, Art Chonko, Richard Liebson, Gwynyth Chamara-Huff, Connie Westbrook, Fletcher Chamara-Huff, John and Georgia Denune, Gail Wince, Jason Adamkosky, and Christine Adamkosky.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

428 East College Street, Walter & Judy Gloshinski, Application #09-05:

The request is for approval of a generator to be located on the western side of the home.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Walter Gloshinski.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-05:

Walter Gloshinski, 428 East College Street, stated that he would like to locate the generator next to the existing air-conditioning unit and it is already located behind a fence.  Mr. Gloshinski stated he would be willing to shield the unit with greenery to keep it out of view.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed location seems like a reasonable location to place the unit.  Mr. Burriss stated he is in favor of approving the application if the applicant agrees to shield the unit with greenery.  Mr. McClow asked what type of greenery Mr. Gloshinski would use.  Mr. Gloshinski stated he is open to any suggestions.  The Planning Commission suggested an evergreen of some type.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant received a variance from the BZBA for the location of the generator. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-05:

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

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

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. McClow stated that the unit would be an asset to the property.

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

                        e)         Materials and Texture.  The applicant is proposing installation of a generator in the western side yard.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-05 contingent on installation of evergreen landscape screening material that will attain a height equal to or higher than the generator.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-05 is approved with conditions.

 

224 East Broadway, Brits Follies, Application #09-06:

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications on the front elevation of the structure, as follows:

1)         Replace sandstone columns with ten-inch (10") fiberglass columns on the first floor;

2)         Replace wood columns with ten-inch (10")  fiberglass columns on the second floor;

3)         Replace wood railing with forty-two inch (42") high vinyl railing on the second floor;

4)         Add dentil molding, urethane material, along the top portion of the second floor roof;

5)         Add corbels, polymer composite material, to the first and second floors;

6)         Add boxed cedar trim centered under each column between the first and second floors;

7)         Add two outdoor aluminum wall lanterns on the first floor.

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Phil Wince, Robert Holland, and Gayle Wince.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-06:

Phil Wince, provided an example of the landscaping pots they plan to use.  Mr. McClow asked if Mr. Wince is using one row of dental molding.  Mr. Wince stated yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the columns on the lower level remain smooth with no additional detailing.  Mr. Wince stated that they did add a box around the columns to see what it would look like and they didn’t like it and the neighbors didn’t like it either so they removed it.  Mr. Ryan stated that there have been concerns over the columns and the amount of detailing on them.  He stated he is fine with the current look of the columns.

Ms. Reeves stated that she does like the railing system on the second floor and she stated that the improvements go a long way from where the applicant had started.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the building does look much better.  Mr. Ryan stated that he feels the columns as they are today look more like the original look would have been years ago.  Robert Holland, 560 Abaw Place, Thornville, stated that he is a partner in the project to renovate the building at 224 East Broadway.  He stated that he is responsible for putting up the electric box.  Mr. Holland stated that up and down College Street you see the exact same thing – where the electric box is in sight from the front of the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if the current location of the electric box is where the electric service has always been located. Mr. Holland stated no, there were two separate electrical boxes and this is illegal according to today’s code.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant could clarify if the plan detail with the five rows of bushes or the elevation plan with six rows of bushes is being proposed by the applicant.  Mr. Wince stated that the sidewalk is definitely off center and this is why the plans show the bushes being off center.  Gail Wince stated that they would like to have the plan depicting five bushes to be considered.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing any exterior lighting on the second floor.  Mr. Holland stated that they are looking at installing ceiling lights.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has a concern with the power unit being so close to the road and there is no screening.  Mr. Holland agreed and stated that most people don’t like to see the electrical boxes so he can understand Mr. Ryan’s point.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is any reason the box couldn’t be located further down the side of the building.  Mr. Holland stated that it is as close to the corner as possible because the service pull is on the front of Broadway.  Mr. Mitchell questioned why the hood is facing the back.  Mr. Holland stated because the cables are so big – instead of bending them together.  He added that the electrical box was inspected today by the County and passed.  Erna Holland indicated that they also did not want the electric box located where it currently is.  Mr. Wince stated that the Newark Building Department told us that that is where the electric box had to be located.  Ms. Terry stated that the Building Department is not supposed to approve anything on the exterior of a building until the Village has approved the exterior modifications to the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has put considerable time and money into the restoration of the building and the placement of this electric box ruins this in a number of ways.  Mr. Burriss stated that when walking up and down the block, he doesn’t see any other buildings that have meters that are so evident.  Mr. Burriss stated that when the Taylor building was built, they were able to make the electric service hidden and the applicant’s placement of the electrical box is not consistent with the historical character they try to maintain in the historic district.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant did do a nice job with the placement of the gas meters.  He added that he doesn’t think, having driven down that alley many times, that there is enough room for much landscaping/screening.  Ms. Reeves asked if the electrical box can be painted white.  Mr. Holland stated yes and he stated that they could come up with a plan to help block the look of the electrical box.  Ms. Terry suggested including their plan for screening in a separate application.  Mr. Burriss also advised the applicant to include approval for any dumpsters, air-conditioning units, and signage at this time.  Ms. Terry clarified that the signage approval could be discussed at the same meeting, but it is a separate application and fee. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-06:

                        a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated yes by evidence of historical documentation.  

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it preserves an old building and brings it back to modern use. 

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

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that it preserves an old building in the historic district.

                        e)         Landscaping: The use of landscaping would be per the plan detail submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-06 as submitted with the qualification that the landscaping to be done is per the plan detail that was submitted by the applicant.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application #09-06 is approved as submitted with the above stated condition.

 

New Business:

 

273 East Maple Street, Grace & Steven Michael, Application #09-13:

The request is for architectural review and approval to remove three-tab asphalt shingles and replace with dimensional asphaltic shingles.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  

                                                 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-13:

Steven Michael, 103 Knoll Drive, stated that the new shingles will be pretty much the same as what is currently on the home.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is a valley detail.  Mr. Michael stated yes and he believes the valley will be constructed of painted metal.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-13:

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed roof is compatible to what is currently in place.  

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

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

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

            e)         Materials and Texture.  The applicant is proposing removal of three-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with dimensional asphaltic shingles.

 

Mr. McClow made a motion to approve Application #09-13 with the condition that the look of the valley detail will remain the same as it currently is.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-13 is approved as submitted.

 

133 South Prospect Street, Bill Hoekstra, Application #09-14:

The request is for review and approval to replace the sign panels on the existing internally illuminated ground sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Hoekstra.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-14:

Bill Hoekstra,   133 South Prospect Street, stated that the State Board is requiring that he add his name to the McPeek name and this is the reason for the change to the sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the internal illumination would require a variance by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that the light from the sign also provides pedestrian light for people congregating outside.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign is essentially a non-conforming sign now and once you change any part to it – it is required to come into conformity or a variance could be granted.  The Planning Commission recalled that they have received other requests for internally illuminated signage.  Ms. Terry stated that the Certified gas station and Lisa Mckivergin’s office sign were not approved with internal illumination. Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the light on top of the sign is allowed.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign were not internally illuminated – would the post light be sufficient enough for people not familiar with the area to find the funeral home.  Mr. Hoekstra agreed he could use up lighting, but if he does that he would need a larger sign and he feels that there would be even more light shining on his neighbors.  He added that the existing sign has been there fifty plus years. 

Ms. Reeves stated that given the nature of the business, she wonders if having the sign internally illuminated might be appropriate in this case.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Hoekstra would need a variance and the current sign has been there forever.  He added that the application could get turned around at Council if the Planning Commission approves it.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is another alternative and that is to have the sign lit the same way as Ross’s Granville Market sign – goose neck lighting.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that the bar going out would look ugly given the size of his sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign is at the corner of the property and up lighting and down lighting might not be the best option.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is also aware of what the Village Ordinance says regarding internal illumination.  Mr. Burriss stated that the internally illuminated sign as it currently is is wide and he questioned how it might look if it were thinner with a hooded light.  Mr. Hoekstra stated “with all due respect I think it makes the corner look less appealing.”  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is aware that the sign has always been there and they also need to be consistent with what they have always approved.  He stated that if we deny the application, Council can overturn the decision and approve it or vice versa.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would compliment the applicant for the discretion of their signage and the proposed sign in their application is discreet and something that is appropriate for a residential area.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting body.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would suspect that not many people will even notice the change to the sign.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-14:

            Architectural Review Overlay District Criteria

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

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because the look of the sign would not be changing.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign’s function does not promote the owner of the building to ask for additional signage. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Reeves stated that there is no change to the look of the sign as it currently is.

            e)         Signage.  As regulated by the sign regulations, signage will be most significant in communicating the character of the building.  Signage should be discreet and minimal.  Signs oriented to the pedestrian should be small in scale; those oriented toward automobile traffic may be larger.  Color should be subdued, and where appropriate, the architectural character of the sign should be consistent with that of the building.  Signs flush on the building face are in many cases preferable to projecting signs. The applicant has an existing freestanding pole sign with a decorative metal pole, bracket, and hanging sign that is appropriate to the style of the building and is smaller in scale, orienting it more towards pedestrian traffic to meet this requirement.  The applicant is proposing to remove the existing sign panels and replace them with white plexi-glass and black lettering.  The applicant is also proposing that the sign be allowed to continue to be internally illuminated, as it is now.

 

           

 

 

Variance Criteria:

            a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this sign was already in existence before the Ordinance pertaining to internally illuminated signs came into effect.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant purchased the property with a sign that was internally illuminated.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a business, such as a funeral home,  is unique and justifies as though special circumstances do exist. 

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is located in a residential area where light pollution should be taken into consideration.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission concluded no.

                        (3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Mr. Burriss stated that the approval of the application would be consistent with the way the sign has been for several decades. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission concluded no.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Mr. Hoekstra stated that he had no prior knowledge that getting approval to replace the sign would be a problem.

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Ms. Reeves stated that the other alternatives are not as feasible.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that not granting the variance would be detrimental to not just Mr. Hoekstra but also his neighbors.

            c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the state board is requiring him to add an additional name to the sign.

            d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign will not increase congestion in the street or add any light pollution to the area. Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with the sign that has always been there. 

            e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has discussed with other businesses about having their lighting turned off at a particular time and this may be appropriate in this situation given the character of the residential area.  Mr. Burriss added that if the applicant agrees to this, it would justify the continued use of this sign.  Mr. Hoekstra had no problem with the sign being turned off at a particular time in the evening. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-14 granting a variance that is contingent upon the applicant agreeing to turn off the internally illuminated sign by 11:00 PM.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-14 is approved with the above stated condition.

                                                                                                           

134 South Mulberry Street, Richard and Leah Liebson, Application #09-15:

The request is for review and approval to permanently remove three pairs of window shutters on the front elevation and replacement of wood fascia and soffit boards with Azek trim and bead board to match original. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-15:

John Noblick, stated that the Jerry McClain company is the contractor he is representing on this project.  Mr. Burriss asked about the crown molding that wraps around the top of each bracket - will it be replaced.  Mr. Noblick stated that it would be replaced as is if it is replaced at all.  Mr. Burriss stated that the rear addition has less detailing and the applicant is proposing the same type of detailing that is on the main house to make it consistent.  Mr. Noblick agreed.  Mr. Burriss asked if they will be using a forty-five degree angle at the corners that is consistent with the original.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the existing brackets will be removed and Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the removal of the shutters does not detract from the character of the house. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-15:

            a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is upgrading the detailing to greater consistency.     

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is restoring historical detailing that is more appropriate. 

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

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a preservation of a detail that is appropriate to this structure.

            e)         Materials and Texture. The applicant is proposing to permanently remove three pairs of window shutters on the front elevation and replace the wood fascia and soffit boards with Azek trim and beadboard to match original.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-15 with the condition that the old soffit be removed and replaced and the trim around the brackets be replaced with the same profile trim.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-15 is approved as submitted.

 

399 West Maple Street, Brian Blanchard, Application #09-17:

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

1)         Remove existing shed roof on the rear elevation and replace with a pressure treated deck;

2)         Remove existing wood fencing and replace with antique wrought iron fencing, forty-two inch (42") in height in the front yard;

3)         Remove existing rear window and replace with a set of wood clad french doors;

4)         Remove existing front porch and replace with new front porch;

5)         Adding rear gravel driveway with parking area;

6)         Modification of eastern window fenestration; and

7)         Addition of an air conditioning unit on the western side of the home.

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

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

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-17:

Brian Blanchard, 75 Denbigh Drive, and Mike Vecchione, 142 Merywen Circle, indicated that they are making improvements to the home with plans to sell it.  Mr. Burriss inquired on why the porch is being proposed as an open structure.  Mr. Blanchard stated they felt that it would be appropriate to match the gables on the second floor and it would be more consistent with the existing structure.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant has any detailing information for the hand railing on the front steps.  Mr. Blanchard stated that they believe that the two rises to the door may not necessitate a railing.  Mr. Burriss complimented the applicants’ on the completeness of their submittal.  He asked if they are proposing a finish for the deck.  Mr. Vecchione stated that they would be unable to paint any decking for one year due to the use of pressure treated lumber.  Mr. Blanchard indicated that they would be willing to paint or stain the decking to compliment the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has consistently required a stain or paint to be applied at some point.  Mr. Blanchard stated that they think they can address this by utilizing a transparent stain.  Mr. Burriss stated that in the floor plan/site plan the applicant indicated screening the air conditioning units and he questioned what material they would use.  Mr. Blanchard stated that the ac unit sits down in a ravine and are not viewable.  He stated that he would be willing to put in a boxwood or small pine screening more so from the front.  Mr. Vecchione clarified that the sketch and notes pertaining to the handrail being forty-four (44”) inches are inaccurate, and it is actually forty-two (42”) inches.  Mr. Blanchard stated that regarding the detailing and finishing touches he would like to establish the basic footprint tonight and allow the potential buyer to choose some of the finishing touches.  

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-17:

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

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

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

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

            e)         Materials and Texture.  The applicant proposed the following:

1)         Remove existing shed roof on the rear elevation and replace with a pressure treated deck;

                        2)         Remove existing wood fencing and replace with antique wrought iron fencing, forty-two inch (42") in height in the front yard;

                        3)         Remove existing rear window and replace with a set of wood clad french doors;

                        4)         Remove existing front porch and replace with new front porch;

                        5)         Adding rear gravel driveway with parking area;

                        6)         Modification of eastern window fenestration; and

                        7)         Addition of an air conditioning unit on the western side of the home.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-17 with the conditions that the all weather wood decking be stained to compliment the house structure; that the air conditioning unit be screened with evergreen plant material equal to or higher than the ac unit; and that there be a front porch pair of brackets per exhibit ‘A’.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-17 is approved as submitted.

 

102 East Broadway, Centenary United Methodist Church, Application #09-18:

The request is for review and approval of an air conditioner compressor unit on the western side of the building. The property is zoned Village Square District (VSD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Randy Crothers.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-18:

Randy Crothers, stated that he would be adding one unit to the additional two units already in place.  He also clarified that the units are currently screened.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-18:

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

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

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

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

            e)         Materials and Texture. The applicant is proposing to install an air conditioner compressor unit on the western side of the building, behind an existing wood picket fence.  It would be located between two existing compressor units.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-18 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-18 is approved as submitted.

 

300 Livingston Drive, Denison University, Application #09-19:

The request is for review and approval of a 2,528 square foot addition to the Chiller Plant. The property is zoned Institutional District (ID).

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gwynyth Chmara-Huff, and Art Chonko.

                                                                       

Discussion regarding Application #09-19:

Art Chonko, stated that the Chiller Plant is an existing building already on campus.  Mr. McClow asked how big the proposed addition will be.  Mr. Chonko stated that it is a new structure that will double the size of the previous building.  He added that the previous building will continue to operate.  Gwynyth Chmara-Huff requested to review the plans.  She asked if there will be any increase in noise due to the addition.  Mr. Chonko answered no.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked what this particular building houses.  Mr. Chonko stated that it provides cold water to buildings on campus and he added that there will be cooling towers on the roof.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-19 with the condition that the applicant shall receive conditional use approval from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for this addition.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #09-19 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

Work Session

Jason and Christine Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, proposed some ideas on pillars, doors, railings, roof, window replacement, and a chimney that is not tied into anything on the house. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #09-05, Walter & Judy Gloshinski, 428 East College Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby approves Application #09-05 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-05.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-05 are approved.

 

Application #09-06, Brits Follies, 224 East Broadway:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby approves Application #09-06 as amended.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-06.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.     

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-06 are approved.

                                                                       

New Business:

 

Application #09-13, Grace & Steve Michael, 273 East Maple Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby approves Application #09-13 as submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-13.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-13 are approved.                 

 

Application #09-14, Bill Hoekstra, 133 South Prospect Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby approves Application #09-14 with the condition that the sign shall not be internally illuminated

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-14.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-14 are approved.

 

Application #09-15, Richard and Leah Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby approves Application #09-15 as presented.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-15.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-15 are approved.

 

Application #09-17, Brian Blanchard, 399 West Maple Street:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby approves Application #09-17 as presented.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-17.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-17 are approved.     

 

Application #09-18, Centenary United Methodist Church, 102 East Broadway:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby approves Application #09-18 as presented.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-18.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

Findings of Fact for Application #09-18 are approved.     

 

 

Application #09-19, Denison University, 300 Livingston Drive:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1169, Institutional District, and hereby approves Application #09-19  with the condition that the applicant shall receive conditional use approval from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals for this addition.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-19.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.  

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact for Application #09-19 with the above stated condition.

 

 

Approval of Meeting Minutes from March 9, 2009:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting held on March 9, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

 

Ms. Reeves moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

April 13, 2009

April 27, 2009

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.