Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 28, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Young Tae Lee, Stephanie Kuntz, David Schnaidt, Mike Vecchione, Sharon Sellito, Carrie Barnes-Mullett, Jeff Mullett, Mel Bomprezzi, Natalie Marsh, and Sam Sagaria.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

140 East Broadway – Young Tae Lee - Application #09-121

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

The request is for architectural review and a recommendation to Village Council for

public sidewalk portraiture creation and sales.

                                                 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Young Tae Lee.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-121:

Young Tae Lee was present to address any questions or concerns.  Ms. Terry asked if this is the only portrait board Mr. Lee is proposing to use.  Mr. Lee stated yes and he would only be setting up on Saturday’s from 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM – weather permitting.  Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Young of Kussmaul Gallery sent a letter in support of Mr. Lee’s endeavor.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation to Council.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the portraits are always done on site.  Mr. Lee stated that sometimes custom portraits are done with a photograph and delivered to the customer.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a precedent for this type of business in the Village.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has previously recommended approval of the flower sales (Artiflora) business.  Ms. Terry clarified that businesses such as the kettle corn sales are issued by permit from the Village Manager because they are for a temporary time period.  She stated that Mr. Lee is seeking approval for the portraiture year round.  Mr. Mitchell questioned the approval because it is a freestanding business taking place on a public sidewalk.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Planning Commission can recommend to Village Council approval of the application, approval with conditions, or recommend disapproval of the use.  Mr. Ryan asked if there will be other pictures for sale to purchase or just portraits.  Mr. Lee stated that he can sell custom portraits or figure portraits he has already created.  Mr. Ryan asked if money will change hands on the sidewalk.

Mr. Lee indicated that this will be the customer’s choice and he later clarified that customers will not pay inside Kussmaul Gallery.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that Mr. Lee’s proposal is a neat thing, but it essentially is a stand alone business.  He also stated that the Planning Commission is not considered to be a precedent setting board.  He stated that they later could have requests for all sorts of businesses on the public sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated that Council could place other restrictions on the approval.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the application could be recommended for approval for a temporary period to see how it would function.  He stated that he understands the type of materials proposed for the business and that the concept is unprecedented.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is not like the approval for the flower business or having café tables.  He also stated that if Kussmaul said that they want to have someone out there selling on their behalf, he wouldn’t have a problem with it.  Mr. Ryan questioned how the street vendors during the antique fair and Street Scenes are able to sell items.  Ms. Terry stated that this is by permits issued by the Village Manager and this is for a specific event and specified time period.  Mr. Ryan asked why this type of request is coming before Planning Commission and the other similar type of requests are issued by permit.  Ms. Terry stated that this is because the applicant is proposing to use the public sidewalk – similar to the requests for cafés and the Artiflora business that required Planning Commission recommendation.  Mr. Ryan asked if this application is in conjunction with Kussmaul Gallery.  Mr. Mitchell asked the applicant if he can be affiliated with Kussmaul.  Mr. Johnson stated that it is apparent that the gallery wants to have a relationship with Mr. Lee because they wrote a letter on his behalf.  Mr. Ryan questioned if Mr. Lee sold some items in Kussmaul and then also had a freestanding portraiture setup – does that make a difference to anybody on the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would be a step in the right direction and he would suggest Kussmaul Gallery be a co-applicant.  Mr. Ryan asked if member’s of the Planning Commission would feel better about recommending approval if an item of Mr. Lee’s would be paid for inside of Kussmaul.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson stated that this is not necessary in order for them to recommend approval.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Kussmaul doesn’t own the public sidewalk.  He recalled that somebody was going to sell furniture (perhaps Green Velvet) on the public sidewalk and the Planning Commission did have some concerns about this.  Mr. Johnson stated that he would say its simple to recommend approval if it is an extension of the business (Kussmaul), but what happens if somebody wants to have a freestanding business on the sidewalk and they don’t have permission of the business in front of the sidewalk.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to express support for this idea, but he is struggling with allowing a business on the public sidewalk. 

Ms. Terry asked Mr. Lee how he decided to locate in front of Kussmaul Gallery.  Mr. Lee stated that he approached Mr. Young and he agreed to allow him to do the portraits.  Mr. Ryan asked if he had talked to Mr. Young about selling in his shop.  Mr. Lee indicated that sales are not possible in his shop because he specializes in custom orders.  Mr. Johnson indicated that he doesn’t really have a problem with recommending approval of this application because he sees this as an extension of Kussmaul Gallery and they also sent a letter stating they support Mr. Lee.  Mr. Ryan questioned if they should recommend approval for a thirty day period and see how this would work.  Mr. Lee indicated that he would prefer seeking approval for a full year from the hours of 10:00 AM until sunset.

 

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. Ryan stated that they are not talking about the structure, but rather the applicant’s setup.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels this would be a nice addition to the Village.  Mr. Johnson agreed. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would supplement the other business in the area and upgrade the character of the Village by adding a cultural service to the Village.  Mr. Johnson agreed.

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. Mitchell stated that the business doesn’t protect, but it does enhance the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #09-121 to Village Council and the Planning Commission recommends that Council should consider making the approval contingent upon the applicant’s affiliation with Kussmaul Gallery and the business hours shall be from 10:00 AM until sunset.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-121 is recommended for approval to Village Council with the above stated condition.

 

 125 West Elm Street– Christian Kuntz – Application #09-124

Village Residential District (VRD) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the replacement of entry and patio doors.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Stephanie Kuntz.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-124:

Stephanie Kuntz, 125 West Elm Street, stated that the new door will be a metal door with architectural glass.  She also indicated that the front door would be painted blue.  Mr. Ryan asked the proposed color of the French doors.  Ms. Kuntz stated white.  Ms. Terry indicated that the door will have side lights. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-124:

 

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 door 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.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the door is more energy efficient. 

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. Mitchell stated that the contemporary structure will be upgraded in a contemporary manner.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-124 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-124 is approved as submitted.

 

201 North Pearl Street – Jeff Mullett – Application #09-125

Village Residential District (VRD) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of an air

conditioning unit.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeff and Carrie Barnes-Mullett.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-125:

Jeff Mullett, 201 North Pearl Street, stated that the air conditioning unit will be placed behind the existing shrubbery.  Mr. Mullett showed Mr. Mitchell the existing placement of the unit and the proposed new location.  Mr. Mullett stated that the ideal location would be on the north side, but they have a concrete driveway on the north side that won’t allow them to place the unit in this location.  Mr. Mullett stated that their first choice for the location of the air-conditioning unit is depicted in Option 1. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-125:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed improvements are stylistically compatible with other structures in this Village district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the unit is more energy efficient. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the improvement will keep the older structure updated. 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-125 stipulating that Option 1 is the approved location, and that the applicant retain or replace the existing landscaping to a height that is equal to the height of the air-conditioning unit.  

 

Johnson seconded.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-125 is approved as submitted with the above stated conditions.

 

139 West Elm Street – David and Rebecca Schnaidt – Application #09-126

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new retaining wall, flagstone

patio, bridge, waterfall, and pergola.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and David Schnaidt.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-126:

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, distributed a site plan that was marked as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Schnaidt indicated that there are some minor changes from the first site plan that he submitted to Ms. Terry and that he wanted to make it clear that the far right side retaining wall was mistakenly shown in front of the stairs, which is not the case.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the proposed material will be stacked stone, some of which they already have, and some that will be added.  He stated that the boulders will be the same colors and an all natural material.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the stairs will be redone to make them safer because they have some loose stones there now.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that all of the proposed material is natural stone.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.  Ms. Terry noted that the distance of the patio & pergola from the eastern property line will require a variance from the BZBA.  Mr. Ryan questioned what exactly the variance is for.  Ms. Terry stated that the patio and pergola cannot be within ten (10’) feet of the side property line without a variance.  Mr. Ryan questioned if all of the lot coverage requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry asked Mr. Schnaidt if the proposed columns are to be wood or fiberglass.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that the columns would be identical to the columns on the house porch which are fiberglass.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that they will also be doing some landscaping at the top of the waterfall for a buffer.  Mr. Johnson asked if the columns on the front of the home are two-piece.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he believed that they are one-piece columns. Mr. Johnson asked if the columns on the front of the house are structural.  Mr. Schnaidt stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-126:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal is consistent with other garden features in the district.  Mr. Mitchell added that it is compatible by improving an historical home with appropriate landscaping that is stylistically appropriate to the house.

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 property will be upgraded. 

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. Mitchell stated that the property will be enhanced with appropriately styled landscaping.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-126 per ‘Exhibit A’ submitted by the applicant with the condition that the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA for the sideyard setback and that the applicant’s use of stone be of all natural materials.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Application #09-126 is approved as submitted with the above stated conditions.

 

399 West Maple Street – Barb LeCompte – Application #09-127

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached garage.

                                                             

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

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-127:

Mike Vecchione, Bryn Du Woods, stated that he is the contractor for Ms. LeCompte.  Mr. Veccione indicated that he did the modifications to the home at 399 West Maple Street and now the homeowner, Ms. LeCompte, would like to build an 18x20 foot garage.  Mr. Veccione stated that the proposed siding is lap wood siding.  Mr. Mitchell asked the proposed roof pitch.  Mr. Vecchione stated that the pitch of the garage roof would be the same as the roof pitch on the house.  Mr. Johnson asked about the ridge height in Mr. Vecchione’s submitted plans.  Mr. Veccione stated that this is incorrect and was generated by the computer.  Mr. Johnson asked if there are gutters on the garage.  Mr. Veccione stated yes and they will be aluminum painted to match the house.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is an existing shared driveway on Palmer Lane.  Mr. Vecchione stated that most of the driveway is relatively new, and there are portions of it that will be shared with 405 ½ West Maple Street.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is proposing any landscaping.  Mr. Vecchione stated no.  Mr. Vecchione stated that there will be one light over the door and one coach light above the garage door and these will match the existing light on the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if the mandoor would be made of wood or steel.  Mr. Vecchione stated that he would like to leave this option open, but the door will match the doors on the existing house and it would be hard to tell what the door is made of from any distance.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lot coverage and setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Vecchione stated that he played around with the parking, and it does meet the five foot setback requirement.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-127:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed garage is stylistically compatible with the home.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the character is upgraded.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that by adding the garage it contributes to the vitality of the district. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan added that the garage adds to the viability of the property and the house.

e)      Height: The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the height seems appropriate given the distance from the primary structure.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #09-127 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-127 is approved as submitted.

 

 

405 ½ West Maple Street – Phillip Templeton – Application #09-128

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached garage.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-128:

Mike Vecchione, Bryn Du Woods, indicated that he is representing the homeowner for this portion of the project.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the applicant is using the same site plan as was used for the property at 399 West Maple Street, and this applicant is on the other side and not in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  Ms. Terry stated that there is no criteria for the Planning Commission to review for this application and it is before them because it is a new structure and they are reviewing the lot coverage requirements and height of the structure.  Mr. Johnson noted that the staff report notes that the proper paperwork concerning the lot combination has not yet been submitted.  Ms. Terry stated that she received this today and this needed to be done in order for the property have an accessory structure built on it. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-128 contingent upon the following condition: 

            1)         Submission of an exempted lot combination, consistent with the Village Code requirements to be administratively approved prior to release of the Zoning & Architectural permit for construction of the garage.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-128 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

240 West Broadway – Dr. Natalie Marsh/Denison University – Application #09-129

Village Institutional District (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a temporary banner sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dr. Natalie Marsh.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-129:

Dr. Natalie Marsh, Denison University, stated the sign would be up through May 21st  of next year.  Ms. Terry noted that the approval requires a variance due to the proposed size.  She stated that there are multiple colors in the sign, but since it is a temporary sign a variance for the number of colors is not required.  Dr. Marsh stated that the sign will be illuminated with lights that already exist on the side of the Burke Hall building and there are timers used.  Ms. Terry noted that temporary signs cannot be illuminated according to the Code and an existing light was approved before the sign was requested by the applicant.  Dr. Marsh stated that a previous banner was in this same location before the lighting was installed.  She explained that both signs she is proposing this evening will be hanging at the same time, and the other sign will be in place through December.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any issues regarding the existing lighting in place at Burke Hall.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-129:

 

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 Burke Hall.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the banner will celebrate the historical nature of this district.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the banner helps to advertise a cultural event.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the banner depicts celebrations of past generations.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria pertaining to the external lighting of the banner and the size and duration:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

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

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is not proposing the sign for monetary purposes, so this criteria does not fit.   

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance for the sign would be substantial because it is doubling the size of the sign allowed by Village Code.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the adjacent property owners are across the street and the signage will be screened with substantial landscaping. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that justice will be done in granting the variance.

 

(c)        That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(d)   That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(e)    In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-129 with the variance to increase the maximum size of the banner from thirty-two (32) square feet to seventy (70) square feet for a time period of sixty (60) days to two hundred and fourteen days (214) days and to allow for external illumination of the sign with the existing lighting in place on Burke Hall.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-129 is approved with a variance for the size, lighting, and duration of time allowed for the banner.

 

240 West Broadway – Dr. Natalie Marsh/Denison University – Application #09-130

Village Institutional District (SRD-B) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a temporary banner sign.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dr. Natalie Marsh.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-130:

Dr. Natalie Marsh, Denison University, stated this sign will be in place from October 5 through December 31st

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-130:

 

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

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign contributes to the use of Burke Hall. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign contributes to the use of Burke Hall.    

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the sign contributes to the use of Burke Hall. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria pertaining to the external lighting of the banner and the size and duration:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  

 

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 stated TRUE.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance for the sign would be substantial because it is doubling the size of the sign allowed by Village Code.

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(c)        That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(f)     That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

(g)   In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

    

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-130 with the variance to increase the maximum size of the banner from thirty-two (32) square feet to seventy (70) square feet for a time period of sixty (60) days to sixty-five (65) days and to allow for external illumination of the sign with the existing lighting in place on Burke Hall.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-130 is approved with a variance for the size, lighting, and duration of time allowed for the banner.

 

119 ½ South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks – Application #09-131

Village Residential District (VRD) and Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications to upper

story windows on the eastern side of the home. 

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-131:

Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant does not need a variance as indicated in the staff report because she mistakenly calculated the square footage wrong.  Ms. Terry indicated that the application meets all of the criteria.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-131:

 

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. Ryan stated that by advertising a new business in the area it contributes to the continuing vitality of the district.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and that the sign keeps the building viable by adding another business to the building and advertising it.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-131 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-131 is approved as submitted.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #09-121: Young Tae Lee

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 hereby gives their recommendation of approval to Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-121.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.   

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-124: Christian Kuntz

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-124 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-124.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-125: Jeff Mullett

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 #09-125 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-125.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-126: David and Rebecca Schnaidt

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-126 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-126.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-127: Barb LeCompte

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, hereby gives their approval of Application #09-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-127.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-128: Phil Templeton

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning District, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-128.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-129: Denison University

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, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-129 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-129.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Application #09-130: Denison University

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, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-130 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-130.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #09-131: 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval for an amendment to Application #09-131 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-131.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Approval of Absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the September 28, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes for the September 14, 2009 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:45 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, October 13 (Mr. Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

October 26, 2009

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.