Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 13, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

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

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

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-121:

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

 

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

 

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

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the air conditioning unit makes the home more livable.   

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

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

 

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

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

windows with vinyl windows. 

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-137:

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Mr. Johnson seconded.

 

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

 

Application #09-137 is approved as submitted.

 

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

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

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

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-135:

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

 

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

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Application #09-135 is approved as Tabled.

 

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

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

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

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

January 28, 2008.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #07-042:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

“Exhibit B”:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made the following motion:

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

 

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

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

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

 

“Exhibit B”:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-133: James Browder

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

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

 

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

 

Application #09-137: Ann Hinkle

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

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

 

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

 

Application #07-042 AMENDED: Dan Rogers

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #07-042 as submitted by the applicant.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

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

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

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

October 26, 2009

November 9, 2009

 

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.