Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes December 13, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 13, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Also Present: Dan Ream.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

127 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #2010-179

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of two trash enclosure areas.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Dan Ream, 79 Victoria Drive, indicated that he is the son of the applicant, Greg Ream.  Mr. Burriss asked if any bollards are being proposed?  Mr. Ream stated that he didn’t think there were any in the proposal, but his father did place them behind the coffee shop so he may want to place them at 127 East Broadway as well.  Mr. Burriss stated that the bollards offer protection from refuse haulers and snow plows.  Mr. Mitchell explained that if the applicant wishes to put them in place he would need to come back in.  Mr. Mitchell stated that another option is to have bollards approved this evening and choose whether or not to use them.  Mr. Ream agreed that it would make the most sense to have them approved with the application and they would determine later if they want to install them.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-179:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other similar requests.   

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 proposing to cover up trash receptacles and this is preferred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed modification.

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 #2010-179 as submitted with the addition of bollards per ‘Exhibit A’.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

224 East Broadway – Anne Sara Odor - Application #2010-178

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

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

 

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

 

Discussion:

Anne Sara Odor, was not present to address questions and/or comments by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission indicated that it would be advantageous for them to have the applicant present.  Ms. Terry attempted to call the applicant at 7:15 P.M., but there was no answer.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2010-178 because the applicant was not present to address question/concerns by the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session for Awnings for Village Offices – 141 East Broadway:

Village Planner Terry stated that the Village Offices would like to install new awnings on the outside of the building.  She indicated that she has been working with Mr. Burriss on several options.  The Planning Commission took measurements and discussed various options for awnings outside of the Village offices located at 141 East Broadway.  Ms. Terry indicated that they would also purchase awnings for the police department entrance and Reader’s Garden book store.  Mr. Mitchell suggested getting a quote from an architect of how much a permanent structure would cost that could be framed and shingled.  He indicated that he doesn’t think the presented awnings work because they are not functional.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see the discussion reopened on spending more on the front façade of the building.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village is receiving complaints about the mirrored window in front of the Utility Clerk’s office.  She indicated that this particular office receives glare and heat from sunlight so the reflective lining was placed on the window.  Mr. Burriss stated that he suggests leaving the awning that they have in place if they do not want to look at a permanent fix at this time.  He suggested placing a small awning above the entrance to Reader’s Garden.  Ms. Terry indicated that they most likely will not be able to color match the Village Offices awning – so it may need to be recovered.  Mr. Burriss also suggested blinds in the front windows, instead of an awning along the handicap ramp. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-179: Greg Ream; Trash Enclosures

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 Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-179 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-179. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from the November 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of Meeting Dates for 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the 2011 meeting dates as amended for the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.     

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.   

Next meetings:

Monday, January 3, 2011

Monday, January 24, 2011

 

GPC Minutes November 22, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 22, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Steven Hawk, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair).

Members Absent: Tim Ryan (Chair), Jeremy Johnson, and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Mackenzie Peterson, James Green, and Steve Mershon.

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

110 East Elm Street – Mackenzie Peterson - Application #2010-172

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a three point fifty five (3.55)

square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on East Elm Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mackenzie Peterson.

 

Discussion:

Mackenzie Peterson, 1479 West Quail Run Drive, Newark, Ohio 43055, stated that she is applying for signage for her psychology practice.  Ms. Terry indicated that there are no variances needed for this application and it meets all of the requirements. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-172:

 

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 has provided signage that is consistent with other signage in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-172 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burris, Mitchell, Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

110 East Elm Street – Mackenzie Peterson - Application #2010-173

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a one point seventy-seven (1.77)

square foot wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mackenzie Peterson.

 

Discussion:

Mackenzie Peterson stated that she would like to place a wall sign under the existing Granville Sentinel sign.  Ms. Terry explained that Ms. Peterson’s sign would go under the border on the existing Granville Sentinel signage.  Ms. Peterson indicated that there would not be a border around her portion of the sign and the sign as a whole has a border already around it. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-173:

 

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 has provided signage that is consistent with other signage in the Village.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage. 

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-173 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burris, Mitchell, Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

221 North Pearl Street – James Green - Application #2010-174

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

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

balusters, with original turned style balusters on the front porch.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and James Green.

 

Discussion:  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds the effort of Mr. Green in choosing the style of spindles for the porch.  He questioned if the applicant is adjusting the height of the porch from the ground and if so he may have to also adjust the height of the railing to conform to the Licking County Building Code.

 

James Green, 221 North Pearl Street, explained that the porch was sinking and he does not believe the height will adjust more than one inch.  Mr. Burriss stated that for safety reasons he believes a higher railing is required if the porch is thirty inches or higher from the ground.  He stated that this would have to be confirmed with the Licking County Building Department.  Ms. Terry explained that the height of the railing would be a building department issue, and the Planning Commission reviews the architectural detailing.  She stated that a copy of the zoning permit is sent to the Licking County Building Department.   Mr. Green questioned if he needed to get the building department involved if he is doing an exact replacement of what was already in place.  Ms. Terry stated that a significant amount of the porch has been removed from the structure and that the new structure may need to be inspected.  She stated that she would suggest checking with the building department to determine their code requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village oversees if an applicant is code compliant.  Ms. Terry stated that the building department receives a copy of the permit so they can determine if a permit is required for code compliance.  She also stated that all applicants are required to meet the building code requirements and they send the Village all of the copies of their approved permits.  Mr. Green asked that the record reflect that he did not take the whole porch down.  He stated that the posts were supporting the roof, which was not touched.  Mr. Burriss stated that the height of the porch from the ground may not be an issue, but he would encourage the applicant to check into this.  He explained that the Planning Commission is charged with ensuring health, safety and welfare and the railing height may or may not need to be addressed.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the existing columns are staying and a higher railing wouldn’t look appropriate with the remaining columns.  Mr. Green agreed and stated that a higher railing would look “horrible.”  He stated that he has put a lot of time, energy, and money into renovating the home and changing the height of the existing railing would undo everything he has done to date.  Mr. Green asked how the Planning Commission qualifies that enough of the porch has been taken down that it is now considered to be a new structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of the porch has been removed because the floor, railings, and spindles were gone.  Ms. Terry explained that the Licking County Building Department is different from the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission only does architectural review of how the applicant is modifying the structure.  She explained that the applicant could get an amendment to the application if the building department says that the railing has to be raised.  Mr. Burriss stated that the spacing of the spindles would also have building code specifications for safety reasons.  Mr. Green stated that he is aware of this.  Mr. Burriss asked if the spindles will go all the way down to the porch floor or will there be a lower rail?  Mr. Green stated that he expects to have a lower rail just like the original.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the existing spindles went down to the floor.  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds and supports what the applicant is doing, but he also wants to ensure the improvements are up to code.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it doesn’t look as though the porch is above the maximum height.  Mr. Green asked how he could obtain a copy of the building code.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Licking County Building Code department was in the process of updating and making changes to the building code.  He and Ms. Terry suggested calling them for an updated copy.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-174:

 

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 has provided plans that preserve the historical character.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed structure is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-174 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Hawk, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

128 South Main Street – The Lakeholm Company - Application #2010-175

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

The request is for review and approval of a four point three seven five (4.375) square foot

freestanding tenant panel sign to replace the existing sign located on South Main Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Steve Mershon.

 

Discussion:

Steve Mershon, was present to address any questions/concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained that the original staff report indicated that a variance was necessary for this sign, however this was inaccurate and there is no variance required.  She indicated that the application meets all of the requirements and is proposed to be white, green, and black.  The Planning Commission agreed that the presented application was for a “nice looking sign.”   Mr. Mershon explained that there is an existing post already in place and he is proposing to shrink the height of the existing sign by approximately three inches.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there is not any lighting proposed for the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-175:

 

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. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is of the appropriate historical character for the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-175 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-172: Mackenzie Peterson; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-172 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-172. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-173: Mackenzie Peterson; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-173 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-173. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-174: James Green; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-174 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-174. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-175: The Lakeholm Company; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-175 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-175. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burris, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members’:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jeremy Johnson and Tim Ryan from the November 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

Adjournment:  7:40 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 13, 2010

Monday, January 3, 2011

GPC Minutes November 8, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 8, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jeremy Johnson, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Tom Mitchell.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, Debi Hartfield, Melissa Hartfield, Cheryl Gardner,  Johne Brennan, Steve Katz, Constance Barsky, Tim Klingler, Gail McConnon, Jim and Catherine Jung, and Joy Wujek.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-153 (Previously Tabled), submitted by Debi Hartfield for the property located at 327 West Maple Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval, for the rear accessory structure, of the following:

1)         Siding:  Removing stucco and replacing with engineered wood siding on the second & third stories.  Siding to have 3/8" grooves, 8" on center with a tongue and groove overlap;

2)         Windows:  Removal of existing double hung windows and replacement with wood, double hung windows;

3)         Window trim: Changing the window trim on the south, north, east and west sides and the front door trim to cedar;

4)         Garage Door:  Wood paneled doors with top panels in clear glass;

5)         Lighting:  Exterior carriage lights with sensors on each side of garage doors and beside the front door (north elevation); and

6)         Removal of the southern elevation steel pipe.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Debi Hartfield.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to remove Application #2010-153 from the table.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated that she would like to withdraw the previous proposed change to the siding of the accessory structure.  Ms. Hartfield indicated that this would remain stucco. She stated that she would like to add to the application that she is also requesting to remove the big pipe that goes up the back of the accessory structure.  She explained that she would be relocating windows, installing lighting, and installing garage doors.  Mr. Johnson clarified that the applicant was not planning to put anything on top of the stucco.  Ms. Hartfield explained that the stucco will remain as is and she will do repairs as needed with stucco placed on stucco.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission should have received cut sheets for the windows, garage doors, and lighting.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be grids in the windows.  Ms. Hartfield stated no and the garage doors only come in two panels due to custom order sizing.  Mr. Hawk clarified that the garage door being proposed was the long plain window option on the spec sheet.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be eliminating two windows above the garage door and replacing it with three windows.  Ms. Hartfield explained that there are two banks of windows with three windows total being installed on the lower elevation.  Mr. Johnson asked if the existing windows would be in-filled.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the three windows near the stairs will be eliminated and two windows will be replaced in this area.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the electric service lines are being moved.  Ms. Hartfield stated that according to the code the electric meter had to be moved to the corner of the structure and she has a permit for this already.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant was still proposing to use the same trim that she mentioned at the previous meeting.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-153:

 

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 consistent with other structures within the district. 

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 proposed improvements are an upgrade to the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-153 as amended by the applicant to include leaving stucco on the accessory structure and doing any repairs to the structure with stucco; the replacement of windows with double hung windows; the replacement of the garage door per submitted spec sheet; the replacement of the exterior lighting with carriage lighting; the installation of trim per option #2 as indicated in ‘Exhibit A’ and the removal of the steel pipe (chimney flue).

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

New Business:

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner - Application #2010-160

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

The request is for review and approval of the structural demolition of a one-and-a-half story detached garage located in the rear yard.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Sheryl Gardner, Jim and Catherine Jung, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, stated that the accessory structure he is proposing for demolition was built in the 1950’s and is in desperate need of repair.  He stated that it has a 16x20 footprint and it was not used as a garage because there is not a driveway to it.  Mr. Ryan noted that there was a letter from the Historical Society in their packets that stated that the structure is of no historical significance.

 

Sheryl Gardner, 216 West Elm Street, stated that her property and Mr. Reiner’s are back to back properties and she thinks that this is a “wonderful idea” to remove the deteriorated structure.  

 

Catherine Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she lives to the west of Mr. Reiner and she is fine with the idea of tearing down the structure. 

 

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that he whole-heartedly supports the proposed demolition and he sees the safety of the building as being “risky.” 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-160:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the removal of the structure would not have any adverse affects on the property or neighboring properties. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed structure for demolition had no historical significance. 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition for Application #2010-160 to Village Council.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner - Application #2010-161

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a one-and-a- half story detached accessory structure to be located in the rear yard, constructed of the following materials:               

1.         Roof Material:  Dimensional asphaltic shingles;

2.         Siding & Trim:

a.         Siding:  Wood, primed & painted, 5" reveal;

b.         Trim:  Wood trim, fascia, soffits;

3.         Service Doors:

            a.         North Elevation:  Six-panel wood, primed & painted;

b.         South Elevation:  French Doors, wood with true divided lites;

4.         Gutters and Downspouts:  Aluminum, half round;          

5.         Windows:  

a.         North Elevation:  Wood, true divided lite half round window

b.         West & East Elevations:  Wood, true divided lite double hung with sidelights and a half round above on the first floor; Three single hung wood, true divided light windows on the upper floor;

6.         Foundation:  Block with a sandstone veneer (see sample photograph submitted with the application);

7.         Columns:  Round, 8" Fiberglass; and

8.         Chimney:  Block with brick veneer (see sample photograph submitted with the application).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Sheryl Gardner, Catherine and Jim Jung, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, indicated that he would like to replace the demolished structure with a new, slightly larger structure. He described the materials used - lap wood siding, recycled historical door, sandstone, and true divided light windows.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant plans to add electric and water services to the structure.  Mr. Reiner stated yes and it will be insulated and treated like a studio.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant would need a Variance for setbacks.  Mr. Johnson asked the height of the structure compared to the house.  Mr. Reiner was unsure of the exact height of his home, but stated that it is a two story home.  Mr. Johnson noted that the proposed structure will be taller than the demolished structure.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the lot coverage is ok.  Ms. Terry explained that a Variance is required and the applicant is already over in lot coverage with the current building. She stated that the applicant is requesting an increase from 50% to 57% lot coverage and the BZBA will hear the application on November 18th

Mr. Johnson asked if both sashes of windows will have true divided light panels.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  

 

Sheryl Gardner, 216 West Elm Street, stated that she has reviewed the plans for the proposed structure at the Village Offices, as well as looking at the property.  She stated that the structure will be 15 feet from her yard and she feels the applicant is always respectful of neighbors and she wholeheartedly supports the “beautiful structure.” 

 

Catherine Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she is fine with the proposed structure.

 

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that he supports the applicant’s request. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-161:

 

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 applicant has provided plans that preserve the historical character.    

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 proposed structure is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed structure. 

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-161 contingent upon the applicant receiving the required variances from the BZBA.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

126 West Elm Street – Johne and Leigh Brennan - Application #2010-164

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following exterior

modifications:

1)         Replacement of wood double hung, simulated divided lite windows with vinyl double hung windows with no grids, on all elevations of the house;

2)         Replacement of three-tab asphalt shingles with Owens Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles in Estate Grey color; and

3)         Replacement of a vinyl garage door with a vinyl and steel garage door in a carriage house style.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Johne Brennan.

 

Discussion:

Johne Brennan, 126 West Elm Street, stated that the existing windows are inefficient and they are requesting to replace them with vinyl double hung windows.  He stated that they are also requesting to replace the existing 25 year old roof with a similar color and product of asphalt shingles.  Mr. Brennan stated that they would like to replace the carriage house garage door with an updated carriage house door.   Mr. Johnson asked why the applicant chose not to keep the look of the original divided lite windows.  Mr. Brennan stated that they already have four windows that they do not have to replace that aren’t true divided lite and it was a personal preference.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-164:

 

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. Johnson stated that the proposed work on the property does not negatively affect the district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-164 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

221 East Elm Street – Steve Katz and Constance Barsky - Application #2010-166

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

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

1)         Replacement of front concrete driveway strips with exposed pea gravel concrete strips;

2)         Removal of brick walkway from the house to the rear driveway and replacement with an exposed pea gravel driveway;

3)         Installation of a concrete drain trough, with steel grating, in front of the garage entrance; and

4)         Installation of a sandstone border along the edge of the back driveway.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Steve Katz and Constance Barsky.

 

Discussion:

Steve Katz and Constance Barky, 221 East Elm Street, stated that there is a correction to the submitted information on ‘Number 2’.  He stated that the driveway replacement with exposed pea gravel concrete is not what they would be using, but instead just pea gravel.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there was an outlet for drainage.  Mr. Katz explained that they are trying to divert the water to a lower grassy area and there wasn’t anything originally built to properly handle the drainage.  Constance Barsky stated that they will be installing a French drain.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-164:

 

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. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-166 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

224 East Broadway – Petali Teas/Joy Wujek - Application #2010-167

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

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use for 359 square feet from Category "B", Specialty Shops to Categories "B", Specialty Shops and Category "D", Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a retail tea shop and tea room.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Joy Wujek.

 

Discussion:

Joy Wujek, Worthington Road, Alexandria, stated that they would like to be able to sell some tea and cookies and the Change of Use is required to do this.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-167 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

222 South Prospect Street – Gail McConnon- Application #2010-168

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

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

1)         Replacement of existing front concrete steps with cedar steps;

2)         Extension of front porch roof, 3-tab asphaltic shingles, twenty-nine (29") inches by seventy-three (73") inches; and

3)        Installation of a wood handrail.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gail McConnon

 

Discussion:

Gail McConnon, 222 South Prospect Street, stated that the staff report makes mention of a roof being replaced and this is not the case.  Ms. McConnon apologized for work that had already been done on the porch steps.  She stated that she had a friend who began work for her on them.  Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any pickets within the proposed hand rail.  Ms. McConnon stated no.  He later stated that the applicant may want to check if balusters are required by Code because of the twenty-eight inch height.  He stated that he could not estimate the height from the submitted picture.  Mr. Hawk asked if the handrails are already finished.  Ms. McConnon stated no and they ceased work when she realized she needed approval. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-168:

 

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 new, renovated structures in this district.

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 proposal is historically accurate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements by making the steps safer.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-168 as with the condition that the sides of the stairs are filled in with lattice work to mask the old stairs and they are painted to match other porch features.  He also clarified that nothing is being done to the roof. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-153: Debi Hartfield; Exterior Modifications

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 approval of Application #2010-153 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-153. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2010-160: Kevin Reiner; Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1162, Structure Demolition and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-160 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-160. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-161: Kevin Reiner; Accessory Structure

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, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-161 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-161. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-164: Johne and Leigh Brennan; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-164 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-164. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-166: Steve Katz & Constance Barsky; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-166 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-166. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-167: Petali Teas; Change of Use

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 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-167 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-167. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2010-168: Gail McConnon; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-168 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-168. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members’:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Jack Burriss from the November 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

 

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

Adjournment:  7:55 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 22, 2010

Monday, December 12, 2010

 

GPC Minutes October 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Mike King.

Visitors Present: Sharon Sellito, Todd Feil, Tim Hughes, Debi Hartfield, Douglas Hoyt, Scott and Martha Keyes, Sam Sagaria, James Crates, Greg Wasiloff, Mike and Wendy Duffey, Brian Miller, Eleanor Cohen, John Noblick, Chip Gordon, John Cassell, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Jurgen Pape, and Dennis Cauchon.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-126, submitted by Terra Nova Partners, LLC. for the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment within the Village Business District zoning classification which would expand the existing Conditional Use section "E. Single family residential." to read "E. Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses."  If the proposed amendment is approved, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be permitted as Conditional Uses within the Village Business District (VBD).  This property located at 384 East Broadway is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), however, the requested zoning amendment would affect all properties within the Village Business District (VBD) zoning category. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2010-126 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Original Motion: That Application #2010-126 requesting an amendment to the zoning be recommended for approval to the Village Council (Motion by Steven Hawk); (Second by Jack Burriss).

 

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to revise the motion as it currently stands.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion To amend the original motion with the following language: “That language be added to the end of Item (b) Conditional Uses, (2) Village Business District, (E) Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses, as follows:

Two-family and multi-family residential uses may be allowed within the Core Business District only on the upper floors of structures and only when the first floor of the same structure is designated for a commercial use.   For the purposes of this conditional use, the Core Business District area is defined as:

1.         East Broadway, on the north and south sides, from Main Street to Pearl Street;

2.         North and South Prospect Streets, on the west and east sides, from College Street to Elm Street; and

3.         South Main Street from Broadway to Elm Street.

 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Johnson arrived at 7:07 PM. 

 

Mr. Hawk stated that this amendment would require that a structure have commercial use on the first floor if it were to ever be destroyed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees the grandfathering issue of particular uses as a separate matter that Council would need to create a separate Ordinance for.  He stated that he thinks grandfathered uses should be allowed in the Code to still exist if they were ever destroyed.  Mr. Mitchell explained that this amendment would not allow a business that was destroyed in the core business district to be completely used as a multi-family dwelling.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the business district boundaries are being redefined.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Mitchell’s amendment says that in certain areas of the business district a residential conditional use request would not be allowed on the first floor, while in other areas it could be. He asked the Assistant Law Director to clarify whether this would constitute spot zoning?  Assistant Law Director King stated no and that the research they found shows that they would have to have singled out a small individual lot to constitute spot zoning.  Mr. Burriss stated that they would be breaking down areas of the Village Business District and does this mean that anything outside of the core business district would not have multi-family use listed as a ‘Conditional Use’.  Mr. King stated that Mr. Mitchell’s amendment would still allow multi-family use to be listed as a ‘Conditional Use’ in areas outside of the core business district.  He stated that within the core business district the first floor would be committed to commercial use.  Mr. Burriss stated that they would in essence be defining an area in the core business district where multi-family or two family dwellings would be allowed, but he wants to ensure that they are not limiting areas outside the core area to prohibit multi-family and two-family uses.  Mr. King stated that the amendment does not have this distinction.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is a need to clarify “outside of the core business district.”  Mr. King stated that it depends if you wanted more clarification, and he has not seen anything that suggests that this is an issue.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission wants to ensure that they are clear to Council as to their intent of the amendment to the motion.  He stated that the area known as the core business district would be the only area that would require a first floor commercial use. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the amendment to the original motion for Application #2010-126:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no), Johnson (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Roll Call Vote on Application #2010-126 as Amended:  Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2. 

New Business:

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2010-145

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a wooden, scalloped, white picket fence along the western rear property line.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Sharon Sellitto.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated that she would like to install more of the same fencing that she already has in the rear yard because the new owners of the neighboring property want to take down the existing chain link fence.  Ms. Sellitto explained that there is no change to the fence that already exists and she will match the existing fence.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing any gates in the fence.  Ms. Sellitto stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-145:

 

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 new fence is an upgrade from a chain link fence.  

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements and what was previously in place.

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 #2010-145 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2010-146

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

The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a one car detached garage located in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Greg Wasiloff and Michael and Wendy Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, indicated that they are requesting demolition of the existing garage and they found nothing of historical significance when researching the history of the garage.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Village would not be negatively impacted from losing this structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-146:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the removal of the structure would not have any adverse affects on the property or neighboring properties. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed structure for demolition had no historical significance. 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and area consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  (Refer to Zoning Permit Application #2010-147 for the review of a new one and a half story detached garage.)

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Demolition for Application #2010-146 to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2010-147

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a new two-car detached garage to be located in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Greg Wasiloff and Michael and Wendy Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, stated that their yard is terraced and there is a steep drop off.  He stated that from the front of the house the proposed garage will appear to be a one-story garage, but it is actually a two-story garage.  He explained that the appearance would be minimal from the house view.  Mr. Duffey stated that the height will be 21 feet high at the ridgeline and you will be able to see that it is a two-story garage from the alley.  Mr. Hawk asked how the storage area would be accessed.  Mr. Duffey stated that they would put in an internal staircase that will turn and rise to the second story.  Mr. Hawk asked if the floor would be concrete.  Mr. Duffey stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sewer line goes under the garage.  Mr. Duffey stated that he thought it was to the side of the existing garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sewer lines goes under the neighbor’s garage (to the south) and the sewer line in that area is in a very unusual location.  He went on to say that he thinks it could be located under the new garage.  Ms. Terry stated that this may be something that the applicant looks at having moved prior to building the new garage.  Mr. Burriss commented that the proposed door on the east doesn’t seem to match the proposed front door.  Mr. Duffey stated that they chose this particular side door because of weather issues on that side of the home, financial reasons, and because the door won’t be seen.  Mr. Johnson asked if the back cement block wall would be water proofed.  Mr. Wasiloff stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspout on the left of the alley would turn back to the east.  Mr. Wasiloff stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned the double hung window next to the proposed door on the west side.  Mr. Duffey stated that they wanted tri-light tops.  He stated that they could consider looking at matching the door to this window.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would prefer to see the applicant create similarity in the window and door given that they have spent so much time and energy in architectural review.  He stated that he would like to see consistency.  Mr. Duffey stated that this is a good suggestion and he will do this.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there have been any comments regarding the application from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-147:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other structures approved in this area.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed level of detailing by the applicant contributes to the district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 garage is more architecturally appealing than the structure that it is replacing. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-147 with changes to the east elevation window and door as depicted in ‘Exhibit A.’  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

418 West Broadway – Scott and Martha Keyes - Application #2010-148

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of conversion of a gravel driveway to a concrete driveway. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Construction, stated that he is representing the homeowner as the contractor for the proposed project.  He stated that they are requesting to change a gravel driveway to concrete.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant’s request does require a variance from the BZBA.  She stated that the Code requirement says that a driveway should not come within five feet of the property line and the proposed driveway is located one foot from the property line.  Mr. Noblick stated that the one foot is at the closest point up near the street.  Mr. Johnson asked if saw cut joints would be used.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.   Mr. Johnson asked if the driveway would be flush at the approach.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the contractor will have to do a fair amount of excavating.  Mr. Noblick stated that he didn’t believe so because it’s a fairly level lot. Mr. Mitchell stated that this is a good question to ask because they wouldn’t want to see anything done that could create a problem for the neighboring properties and this is gravel moving to an impervious structure.  Mr. Noblick stated that there would not be a significant amount of water that they will be dealing with and there is landscaping nearby and the property raises as it goes back.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks the contractor will have to dig it down to flush out.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a sandstone walkway that may need to be cleared out.  He questioned if curb detailing can be done to encourage the movement of water to the street and not towards the neighbor.  Mr. Noblick stated that the sidewalk in this area was replaced and there has been a widened curb cut put in.  Mr. Burriss stated that the ariel view of the neighbor’s downspouts depict that their water is draining on the surface and the applicant’s house shows all of the water being taken away from the house underground.  He questioned that if the surface drainage isn’t a problem for that neighbor, then the driveway run-off most likely won’t be an issue. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-148 with the condition the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

 

 

575 West Broadway – Todd and Robin Feil - Application #2010-151

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

(The AROD Criteria applies because the expansion is more than twenty (20%) of the gross livable area of the structure.)

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

1)         Construction of a new two-car attached garage to be located on the eastern side of the home;

2)         Expansion of basement in rear of home;

3)         Screened porch addition on the rear of the home, above the expanded basement;          and

4)         New deck on the rear of the home, above the expanded basement. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Todd Feil.

 

Discussion:

Todd Feil, 575 West Broadway, stated that they went through the BZBA for approval for the required variances.  He stated that their lot is narrow and the area just behind the house slopes down drastically to the rear of their property.  He stated that they want to install a French drain on the side where the garage will be located and drain the roof to this area.  Mr. Johnson asked if the drain would be within a foot from the surface.  Mr. Feil stated yes.  He went on to say that they want the driveway to slope away from the house for water drainage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is proposing standing seam metal roofing.  Mr. Feil stated that they will add a standing seam metal roof and he was unsure if it will be screwed down or a true standing metal seam.  Mr. Burriss stated that on the south elevation or rear elevation – there are two windows and a basement door.  He asked if those are new or are they being covered up.  Mr. Feil stated that their builder drew these in the wrong way and they will be added to the structure.  Mr. Johnson asked if the existing block retaining wall would stay.  Mr. Field stated that it would be excavated and replaced.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is adding on to the basement.  Mr. Feil stated yes and that the add-on will not be heated, it is a glorified potting shed.  Mr. Johnson asked about the right rear elevation down spouting and what will be done with it?  Mr. Feil stated that they would be replacing all of the gutters on the house and this rear right drain will daylight drain on top of the garage.  Mr. Johnson stated that on the east and west elevation of the garage there are no gutters depicted.  Mr. Feil stated that these would be added if they find they are needed.  Mr. Johnson asked what would happen to the water near the screened in porch?  Mr. Feil stated that if you look at the west gutter, it breaks to the right and continues to the end of the screened in porch.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the applicant tried to match the existing slope on the house.  Mr. Feil stated that they did as much as they could without having to excavate too deeply.  He explained that the slope is like it is because of where they are starting the garage.  Mr. Burriss commented that the hip roof is reminiscent of what is on the porch.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wondered about the exposed glazed ceramic block that is unique to the home.  Mr. Feil stated that if it still existed they would try to match it with the new garage, but it's unlikely that they will find this type of glazed block tile.  He stated that it is their intent to cover the cement block with vines.

Mr. Burriss suggested that the cement block should at least match the color of the glazed block foundation on the home because it is a strong distinct feature of the house.  He stated that the applicant could consider a concrete dye.  Mr. Burriss also questioned the number of division panels on the garage door.  Mr. Feil stated that they are not sure right now what this will be and he would prefer to see less divisions.  Mr. Ryan questioned if much of the original foundation block would be showing.  Mr. Burriss stated yes to the west and east.  Mr. Mitchell stated that from the street one wouldn't see much because other homes are so close.  Mr. Hawk asked if there have been any comments from neighboring properties.  Ms. Terry stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-151:

 

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 structure is consistent with other structures approved in the same district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed structure uses historically appropriate materials in the district. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that some of the proposed work on the main house is more appropriate appearance wise than what is currently in place. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-151 with the condition that the applicant matches the proposed foundation concrete block to the existing foundation color on the home.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

316 West Elm Street – Douglas and Maria Hoyt - Application #2010-152

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

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

1)         Front porch:  Replace the existing charcoal roof with a standing seam metal roof; and

2)         Northern elevation, rear window:  Removal of single pane window and replacement with three colonial style Anderson 200 Series double hung windows with interior grids.  Replace trim around windows to match existing trim.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Douglas Hoyt.

 

Discussion:

Douglas Hoyt, 316 West Elm Street, stated that they would like to take out the smaller window and put in a big window so they can see in their back yard.  He stated that they have chosen a colonial window to match the rest of the house and he will match the existing trim on the home.  Mr. Hoyt stated that they are proposing a standing seam screwed down metal roof in charcoal gray.  Mr. Hoyt also stated that he would be taking out the electrical box used for knob and tube wiring. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-152:

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 proposal is consistent with other new and renovated structures in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is historically accurate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 #2010-152 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

327 West Maple Street – Debi Hartfield - Application #2010-153

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

The request is for architectural review and approval, for the rear accessory structure, of the following:

1)         Siding:  Removing stucco and replacing with engineered wood siding on the second & third stories; and

2)         Window trim: Changing the window trim on the south, east and west sides.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Debi Hartfield.

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated that there is no side on this accessory structure that matches and all of the sides are different.  She stated that she would like to bring the structure back to something more beautiful.  She stated that she will eventually pull off the asbestos siding on the primary structure to expose the lap siding underneath and the siding she is proposing for the accessory structure would be more congruent with the primary structure.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the house just needs someone to love it and bring it back – restore it.  She stated that she is proposing a material that is durable, but won’t break the bank.  Mr. Burriss questioned which direction the applicant is proposing hanging the siding.  Ms. Hartfield stated horizontally because the primary structure’s siding underneath is horizontal.  Mr. Burriss asked what the applicant is proposing to use for the corner trim.  Ms. Hartfield stated painted cedar would be used for the corners and the trim around the garage door, which may also need to be repaired.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the entire structure would get painted yellow and soft ivory trim.  Some of the stucco will be removed and some areas will have the siding wrapped over it.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the south side stucco on the accessory structure is in good shape and she will leave this as is.   She explained that they will put house wrap around the structure and the siding will be on top.  Mr. Johnson asked what the applicant is proposing to do with the depth they will be adding where they are and are not removing stucco.  He was concerned with the depth of siding in relation to the existing windows.  Ms. Hartfield stated that this will be filled in behind the house wrap and siding.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the windows would be replaced.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes with JELD-WEN windows.  Mr. Burriss asked if the stovepipe would remain? Ms. Hartfield stated no it will be removed.  Mr. Burriss questioned the proposed curved top of the windows and the reason this was chose.  Ms. Hartfield stated that she wanted a softer, wider, and elongated look.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is proposing any exterior lighting.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the applicant choose their lighting and bring this back for the Planning Commission to review.  He questioned if the application should be tabled because they really need additional information for review.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not familiar with the type of siding material proposed by the applicant.  He questioned if it is a type of plywood or T111.  Ms. Hartfield stated that it imitates lap siding nicely and it essentially is a type of plywood or T111.  She stated that it has a fifty-year warranty.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the warranty would be in affect if it has stucco and lathe behind it.  He stated that the applicant may want to check into this.  He also questioned if it can be applied easily and securely with the lathe underneath.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the product appears to be only 3/8 inches thick.  Mr. Ryan suggested that the applicant provide a sample of the material for the Planning Commission to review.  He stated that they are fully in favor of this structure being renovated, but there is not enough clarity and documentation on approving the application with what they have in front of them.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have required this type of information from other applicants with similar proposals.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see a sample of the proposed material and he would not be in favor of anything resembling T111.  He questioned what the applicant had in mind for the trim – specifically for the trim around the door.  Ms. Hartfield stated that this will remain as is, but she may need to replace the deteriorated wood with the same look.  She stated that the front of the structure has zero windows.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant had provided two examples for the trim.  Ms. Hartfield stated that she prefers the look of the second option she presented.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the windows will be flush with the frame and sloped to prevent water settling on them.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing that the ends of the piece to the window trim be sloped?  He stated that he is not sure how he feels on significantly changing the lintel of the window.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t have a significant problem with it.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the trim would have to be replaced because the existing is deteriorating.  Mr. Johnson agreed that the application overall is a bit difficult to interpret without all of the details in place and he suggests tabling the application.  Mr. Johnson stated that given what they have in front of them, the horizontal trim seems more appropriate for the house.  He stated that it is a tall structure from that elevation.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could be talked into changing the window trim, but he would like to see this illustrated on the proposed overall elevation.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2010-153.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

339 East Maple Street – James Crates - Application #2010-154

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a porch roof over an existing porch on the eastern side of the home. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

James Crates, 327 West Maple Street, stated that this existing porch is almost impassible with snow on it, so he would like to add a roof.  He stated that this proposal is architecturally consistent with the roof on the west side.  Mr. Crates stated that he is proposing a standing seam metal roof and he would eventually like to replace all of the porch roofs with the same metal roofing.  Mr. Crates stated that the addition would be painted to match other porches with six by six-fluted posts.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed width of the new roof.  Mr. Crates stated that it is going the length of the whole bay and will go the length from the corner to the end corner so it also covers the air conditioning compressor.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the roof will impede the existing window.  Mr. Crates stated that the contractor has indicated that this window will not be impacted. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any fascia and gutter.  Mr. Crates stated yes and the gutter will run into a rain barrel.  Mr. Burriss stated that the other two porches have multiple columns and he questioned what supports the new roof.  Mr. Crates stated that as you face westward the southern support will butt against the existing 4x4 and the header will be 2x6 with 2x6 stringers.  Mr. Crates guessed that the roof would be twelve foot long.  Mr. Johnson asked if the roof would stop at the porch.  Mr. Crates stated yes.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the posts for support should match other supports on the other porches.  He suggested the use of detailed fencing to cover trash bins.  Mr. Crates stated that this would be a relatively inexpensive addition and he would agree to match this. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-154:

 

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 improvement is consistent with other approvals 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 stated that the proposed detailing of the proposed changes are historically accurate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that a covered porch is more historically appropriate for this structure than an open deck.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-154 with the modifications per ‘Exhibit A.’  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-126: Terra Nova Homes; Zoning Amendment

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Amendments.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-126. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

New Business:

Application #2010-145: Sharon Sellito; Fencing

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 1187 Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-145 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-145.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-146: Michael and Wendy Duffey; Structural Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2010-146 to the Village Council, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-146.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-147: Michael and Wendy Duffey; New Garage

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, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-147.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-148: Scott and Martha Keyes; Driveway

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1176, Transportation  Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-148 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-148.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-151: Todd and Robin Feil; Addition, Screened Porch, Deck

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-151 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-151.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2010-152: Douglas and Maria Hoyt; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-152 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-152.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-154: James Crates; Exterior Modification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-154 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-154.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.    

 

Adjournment:  9:30 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 8, 2010

Monday, November 22, 2010

 

GPC Minutes September 27, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 27, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Dennis Cauchon, Sharon Sellito, Steve Mershon, Mary Lee Van Meter, Richard Van Meter, Paul Jenks, Barbara Franks, John Compton, Wes Sargent, Lisa McKivergin, Eleanor Cohen, Ben Rader, Brian Miller, Bill York, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Tony Beckerley, Herach Nazarian, C. David Johnson, Bryon Reed, Georgia Denune, John Denune, David Goldblatt, John Ulmer, Ed Vance, C.B. Spencer, Ray Paprocki, Sherry Paprocki, Joel Richeiner, Gene Agan, Dena McKinley, Kirsten Pape, Sheryl Gardner, Robert Gardner, Cynthia Feidler.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Public Hearing:

A Court Reporter was present to transcribe the hearing.  A copy of the testimony and discussion during the hearing is included as a part of these minutes. 

 

Application #2010-126, submitted by Terra Nova Partners, LLC. for the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment within the Village Business District zoning classification which would expand the existing Conditional Use section "E. Single family residential." to read "E. Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses."  If the proposed amendment is approved, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be permitted as Conditional Uses within the Village Business District (VBD).  This property located at 384 East Broadway is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), however, the requested zoning amendment would affect all properties within the Village Business District (VBD) zoning category.  Any person wishing to testify regarding this application will be permitted to do so.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive went through a power point presentation of the proposal. (A hard copy of the presentation was also submitted to Staff for the official record).  Mr. Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill Road, also assisted in the applicant presentation.  The applicants discussed their background and how their proposal was consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan.

 

 

 

Ms. Sharon Sellito, 215 Cherry Street, stated that she doesn't agree with the zoning amendment.  She thinks it will cause a parking problem for this area.  She also thinks that the proposed structures are placed poorly on the submitted site plan.  She thinks this property should be developed as a single family residence.

 

Mr. Bill York, 100 Pren Tal Way, stated that he owns the Granger Street Apartments adjacent to 384 East Broadway and that parking is a big concern to him.  He thinks the Village needs a formula to determine that they meet a parking minimum on-site.

 

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated she is a business owner and a property owner in the Village Business District.  She feels that the existing parking lot should not be changed, that it should be kept for future parking.  She stated that the Planning Commission and the Village Council have discussed the parking situation in this District numerous times and that it is a serious concern.

 

John Compton, 341 East Broadway, stated that he feels there is a shortage of parking in the downtown area.

 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, stated that the proposed project is not relevant to this zoning change.  He further stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan is also not relevant, only the 1998 Comprehensive Plan is valid.  He stated that he would love to see this property redeveloped into a single family house or a business.  He stated that student housing was a major problem in the Village District in the past.  He stated that the proposed language is too broad.  He submitted a hard copy of his comments to the Staff for the official record.

 

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, stated she is unclear what this proposal means and that there should be some clarification.  She wants a tighter package presented rather than just an indication of apartments or condominiums.

 

Ed Vance, 233 East Broadway, stated that he agrees with most everything that has been said at this hearing.  He stated that he thinks there should be zoning specifically for this property only.

 

Lisa McKivergin, 329 East College Street, stated that she is in support of this zoning request as a property owner in the Village Business District.

 

Discussion by the Planning Commission:

Mr. Hawk asked if there is an opportunity to rezone just a single property with these proposed regulations.  Mr. Crites indicated that this was not an option.  Mr. Crites went on to review the three options the Planning Commission has available to them when making a recommendation tot the Village Council.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he feels that a mixture of residential and business makes sense in the Village Business District.  He does not feel that a first floor residential use makes sense in this District.  Mr. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission could recommend adding additional language to this proposed text change to make it more palatable.  Mr. Crites again indicated that the Planning Commission has an option to make a recommendation to the Council with modifications.  Mr. Ryan discussed the issue of existing non-conforming structures in this District and how this text change would address some of those grandfathered properties.  He stated that he also agrees with Mr. Mitchell's assessment regarding residential uses in combination with other business uses.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the criteria pertaining to Application #2010-126 for a Zoning Amendment:

 

a)         Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't feel that a multi-family use would be compatible and that it should be limited to the second floor.

b)         Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't see any issues with access and traffic flow.  Mr. Ryan stated that parking is a consideration for the zoning change.

c)         Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels that having businesses on the first floor and residential on the second floor is better.  Mr. Johnson stated that he doesn't think multi-family should be allowed wholesale and would agree with second floor residential.

d)         Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn't feel that it would affect available services or general expansion plans.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion that Application #2010-126 requesting an amendment to the zoning be recommended for approval to the Village Council.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

The Planning Commission discussed whether there should be an amendment to this motion to further limit two-family and multi-family residential to the second or third floors of buildings.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend the original motion adding the following language:  to allow two-family or multi-family residential uses when the first floor is occupied by commercial.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

The Planning Commission further discussed whether this additional language was a fit when the entire Village Business District is considered, or does it make more sense in only some of the areas.

 

Roll Call Vote on motion to amend:  Mitchell - yes, Burriss - no, Johnson- yes, Hawk - no, Ryan - no.  Motion failed 2-3.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made another motion to amend the original motion adding the following language:  with the condition that for the core Business District from Main Street to Pearl Street, on the north and south sides of Broadway, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be allowed only on the upper floors when the first floor is occupied by commercial.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

Roll Call vote on motion to amend:  Mitchell - yes, Burriss - no, Johnson - yes, Hawk - no, Ryan - no.  Motion failed 2-3.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to table Application #2010-126.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote on motion to table:  Mitchell - yes, Burriss - yes, Johnson - yes, Hawk - yes, Ryan - yes.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-126 with the following stipulations:

 

Old Business:

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-140 (Previously Tabled)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square wall sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Dana Landrum.

 

Discussion:

Mrs. Dana Landrum, 642 Chateaugay Drive, S.W., Pataskala, Ohio  43062 stated that she would like to propose a compromise regarding the concerns that the Planning Commission had over her request to have two additional signs on her building.  She suggested that she do away with the ‘Landrum Cottage’ sign and just place a ‘Bistro’ sign where the former ‘Antique’ sign was located.  She added that she would eliminate the sign over the door.  Ms. Landrum stated that the Planner had suggested, based on the Planning Commission's discussion at the last hearing for her sign application, replacing the wall sign with a projecting sign, but she questions if this would be effective since she is so far set off from the street.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant does have a sidewalk sign in place closer to the street.  He went on to say that he prefers the look of a projecting sign.  Mr. Johnson asked what would tell a customer to go to the Bistro versus the Bakery.  He questioned if adding a ‘Bistro’ sign will solve the problem because people don’t know where the bistro is.  Mr. Hawk stated that no retail is going on where the current signage is located, so why have a bakery sign located on the building?  Ms. Landrum stated that she often gives patrons a tour of the bakery.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is any retail going on in the bakery.  Ms. Landrum stated no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he has the same question as Mr. Hawk on why there is a need to have a bakery sign on the building if there isn’t retail occurring there.  Ms. Landrum explained that when she started the business the bakery was in this building and she had spent over $1,000 having the sign put up and she doesn’t want to take it down now.  Ms. Landrum stated that two matching signs would look very nice back there.  She explained that the idea to open the bistro came after she had already opened the bakery.  Ms. Landrum stated that the Planning Commission suggested having a ‘Bakery' sign instead of what she proposed – ‘Landrum Cottage.’  Mr. Ryan stated that he feels as though there is a sign that would fit in better for the proposed location.  Mr. Mitchell questioned why there was a second application for signage.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is requesting that a second sign say ‘Landrum Cottage’  Mr. Hawk questioned if the ‘Bakery’ sign had already been approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the signage proposed by the applicant will cause additional confusion and he doesn’t see how this will eliminate any current confusion that exists with there being “a lot of signage on some little buildings.”  Mr. Burriss stated that his thought in having a projecting sign with ‘Bistro’ on both sides and placed by the entrance door is that this would offer promotion and clarification for a business with one sign rather than two signs.  He added that the vocabulary of the projecting wall sign hasn’t been used with Ms. Landrum’s business.  He stated that projecting signage has been recommended by the Planning Commission for promoting other businesses in town.  Mr. Burriss stated that when one goes past the proposed wall ‘Bistro’ sign they may not be sure which door is for the bistro.  He explained that the projecting sign could have signage on both sides and would clearly indicate once someone goes back there which door is for the bistro.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he had no problem if the signage said the words ‘Bistro’ and ‘Landrum Cottage.’ Mr. Burriss stated that he wants people to utilize Ms. Landrum’s business and go back there, but he doesn’t feel as though the proposed ‘Bistro’ wall sign on the building will clarify the usage.  Ms. Landrum questioned if she would have to have a drawing made up and come back to the Planning Commission for approval for a projecting sign.   Mr. Ryan stated that if the projecting sign matched the existing signage in terms of color and font – he would have no problem approving the sign this evening.   Mr. Burriss stated that this applicant has spent a great deal of time and money on their existing signage and he would want to make sure that the bracket they choose for the projecting sign is historically appropriate.  He suggested that this could be something that they ask the Village Planner to review before installation.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is not able to approve the proposed wall sign because he feels that it will not fit the criteria that the Planning Commission uses for review.  The remaining member’s of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Ryan.  Ms. Landrum indicated that she would be willing to place a projecting sign on the building.  The Planning Commission agreed that their review of the Criteria should pertain to Ms. Landrum’s change in signage to a projecting sign.  Ms. Landrum also indicated that she would be withdrawing her second application (Application #2010-141) from the agenda because she will just need the one projecting sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-140 for a Projecting Sign:

 

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. Burriss stated that the projecting sign is consistent with other signage in the Village District and historically appropriate.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.   

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 projecting sign is historically appropriate for the district.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-140 with the following stipulations:

1)      That the proposed sign should be a two-sided projecting hanging wall sign; and

2)      That the graphics, color, and font be consistent with the approved sidewalk signage; and

3)      That the sign say ‘Landrum Cottage Bistro’; and

4)      That the bracket for the projecting sign be approved by the Village Planner prior to installation; and

5)      That the location of the sign be in facing to the elevation to the north of the door in front of the historical bronze marker – facing East Broadway – (Per ‘Exhibit A’).

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-141

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot wall sign. 

 

Discussion:

Dana Landrum requested that the application (Application #2101-141) be Withdrawn.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-140: Dana Landrum/Landrum Cottage; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-140. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.    

 

Adjournment:  9:25 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Monday, November 14, 2010

GPC Minutes September 13, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 13, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Charlie Dutton, Jeanie Montgomery, Don DeSapri, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

425 South Main Street – Eva Montgomery/Mark Clapsadle - Application #2010-135

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a platform, handicap ramp and stairs surrounding the building, and as a result of elevating the structure above the base flood elevation.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeanie Montgomery, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, Granville, stated that he received a permit to raise the first floor of the building above the floodplain elevation.  He explained that he is there for approval of a platform around the building to meet the setback requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the application meets all of the setback requirements and the applicant is doing a ramp, platform, and stairs.  She explained that the ramp will be separated with columns due to potential flooding and the first floor would be elevated.  Ms. Terry stated that there is not any AROD Criteria to review for this application. 

 

Jeanie Montgomery, 9809 Betteker Lane, Potomac, MD, was present to address any questions or concerns by the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-135 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

119 East Elm Street, Rear – Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop - Application #2010-137

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 3 square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on South Main Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Charlie Dutton.

 

Discussion:

Charlie Dutton, stated that he would like to add a tenant panel sign to the existing freestanding tenant panel sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the tenant panel sign would be the same color of green as the rest of the signs on the tenant panel sign.  Mr. Dutton stated that his signage is blue and white.  Mr. Johnson asked if the variance is required because the signage exceeds the maximum allowed.  Ms. Terry presented an example of the sidewalk signage that was originally approved which showed a date of 1981 and discussed the reason for the variance.  Mr. Dutton stated that the tenant panel sign is already in place and the blue was approved per Mr. Williams, the owner of the property.  Mr. Burriss recalled the Village Baker sign being approved at the same time as the fencing.   Mr. Mitchell stated that he wasn’t sure that the blue signage looked appropriate with a green background.  Mr. Dutton questioned if the Planning Commission would like him to paint the sign green and white.  Mr. Hawk stated that he agrees that the signage should match the other tenant panel signs on the freestanding sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have encouraged that tenant panel signs be consistent with other panels on the signage, but this already graphically does not match.  He stated that the other signage is blue and white that the applicant is proposing.  Ms. Terry noted that the sign is two sided and there aren’t any variances included with the signage as it stands now.  She stated that if another panel were added in the same place as the tenant panel sign – a variance wouldn’t need to be added – and the Variance given today would stand.  Mr. Hawk clarified that the variance given by the Planning Commission today is to legitimize the size because there isn’t a variance on file and there should have been since it doesn’t conform to the code.  Mr. Ryan questioned if changing the color of the tenant panel will improve the look of the sign because the signage is not in the best shape.  Mr. Mitchell stated that requiring that the tenant panel sign be consistent in color is being consistent with other signage they have approved in the past.  Mr. Dutton indicated that he would rather not change the color of the tenant panel sign, but he would be willing to change it if the Planning Commission requires him.  Mr. Johnson stated that if the application were for a new sign then they would have limited it to three colors. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-137:

 

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.  Mr. Ryan stated that the peculiar nature of the application is because it is located in the TCOD District which has limitations on the size of signage.  Mr. Burriss stated that the size of the parking lot is unique in this situation.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Mitchell agreed. 

 

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 agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the benefit that is being allowed is equivalent to the rights of other property owners.   Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Johnson also agreed. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated that the variance is substantial, but is necessary.   Mr. Mitchell agreed.  Mr. Johnson stated that the number of businesses in this complex also comes into play.

 

(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 stated FALSE. 

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the signage in this district would require a variance. 

 

(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 stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed 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.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

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.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-137:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage in the Village.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by being consistent with the graphics that are in place the sign is an upgrade to the historical character

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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 #2010-137 with the following variances:

1)         To increase the maximum size for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to forty-one point six two (41.62) square feet;

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 83.24 square feet to allow for a freestanding tenant panel sign on South Main Street; and

3)         To require that the tenant panel sign match the existing tenant panel signage on the sandwich board sign and be in the colors of white (lettering) and green (background).  

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

119 East Elm Street, Rear – Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop - Application #2010-138

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sandwich board sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Charlie Dutton.

 

Discussion:

Charlie Dutton, 119 East Elm Street, was present to address any questions from the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Dutton was getting rid of any of the existing signage.  Mr. Dutton stated he would like to keep it, but he was told he could not.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage Mr. Dutton is referring to is a changeable copy sign and they are not permitted in this District.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the dry erase board on the sign could have different colors if it is changed daily.  Ms. Terry stated yes and she indicated that in the past the Planning Commission has been requiring that the business' logo be at the top of the signage.  Mr. Dutton stated that he doesn’t see how his hand-writing will look neater than what is on the current sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that this sign should  identify that this is his business and having the logo on the sign will accomplish this.  Mr. Dutton questioned if he could put his company name on the sign he already has in place.  Mr. Ryan stated that the issue with his sign is that it is a changeable copy sign – which are not permitted.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the code doesn’t allow for changeable copy signage.  Mr. Dutton indicated that it doesn’t make sense, if he used the current sign he has it would be more legible than if he were to write on a dry erase board.  Mr. Ryan stated that if it were up to the Planning Commission, he doesn’t think anyone on the Commission would even allow for sidewalk signage, but according to the code – they are permitted.  Mr. Johnson asked if the variance is for two sidewalk signs.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign by Elm’s Pizza is on a different lot, and this lot includes the Village Baker and The Sport Shop.  She indicated that the variance is needed because you are only allowed one sandwich board sign per property.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that they do not have a picture of what the signage would look like with permanently applied lettering at the top.  Mr. Ryan pointed out the business logo that the applicant is proposing to put on a window of the business.  Mr. Dutton agreed that this would be the graphic he would choose to use on the sandwich board sign.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-138:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the location and the number of tenants make it a unique application in this District.

 

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. Hawk and Mr. Burriss stated that sidewalk signage has been allowed for other businesses in the district.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the business would yield a reasonable return without the variance.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

(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.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that other businesses in this district have sidewalk signage.

 

c.      That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed 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.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

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 the signage should have the business logo on it and it should only be allowed to be placed outside during business hours.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-138:

 

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 signage aids a business and therefore the district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell motioned to approve Application #2010-138 with the following conditions:

1)         That a duplicate of the window sign logo be applied to the sign on both sides

2)         That the signage be put in place only during business operating hours

3)         That the location of the sign shall be located between the curb and sidewalk and shall not block exiting vehicle view of traffic on South Main Street;

And approval of Application #2010-138 with the following Variances:

4)         To increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs per building from one to two and;

5)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 93.74 square feet to allow for a sidewalk sign on South Main Street.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

119 East Elm Street, Rear – Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop - Application #2010-139

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 3 square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on South Main Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Charlie Dutton.

 

Discussion:

Charlie Dutton, 119 East Elm Street, stated that he would like to place his company logo on the window.  Ms. Terry stated that a variance is required because the sign exceeds the15% requirement for signage on a single window.  Mr. Johnson questioned if a variance is also required for the TCOD.  Ms. Terry stated that this particular sign will not be located within the TCOD district because it is further than 100 feet from the right-of-way. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-139:

 

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.  Mr. Ryan stated that the space that the tenant occupies one window on this side of the structure.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is peculiar with the location of the business within the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are unique businesses located within this structure. 

 

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 agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Dutton’s business requires a sign. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.   

 

(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.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed 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.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

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.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-139:

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 signage is consistent with other signage in the same zoning district 

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. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-139 with a variance to increase the maximum percentage of window area for the window sign from 15% to 40% for a five point two five (5.25) square foot sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-140

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six point twenty five (6.25) square foot wall sign. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Mrs. Dana Landrum, 642 Chateaugay Drive, S.W., Pataskala, Ohio  43062 was not available for comment on the application. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned how much signage is required for the business.  Mr. Burriss suggested that rather than having a Bistro sign on the Broadway elevation and another sign above the door, it may serve the business better to have a projecting sign.  The Planning Commission asked for clarification on what signage they have previously approved for the business.  Ms. Terry stated that they have approved a bakery sign and a sidewalk sign.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Burriss and stated that instead of two signs (as presented by the applicant) he would also suggest a projecting sign with the word ‘Bistro’ because it covers the purpose of both signs with one projecting sign.  He stated that the Planning Commission doesn’t clearly know the applicant’s intent with her not being present.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant had indicated that she might be late arriving at the meeting.  Mr. Ryan agreed that he prefers Mr. Burriss’s suggestion to what is being presented by the applicant.  The Planning Commission discussed tabling the application, and asked Ms. Terry to make the applicant aware that they are not inclined to approve what she has presented in terms of signage. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2010-140.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-141

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot wall sign. 

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

Discussion:  None.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2010-141.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

 Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-135: Eva Montgomery/Mark Clapsadle; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1167, Community Service District, Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-135 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-135. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2010-137: Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-137. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-138: Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-138 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-138. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-139: Charlie Dutton – The Sport Shop; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-139 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-139. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the August 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0.  Mr. Hawk abstained.    

 

Additional Comments by the Planning Commission:

Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to take a moment during the Planning Commission meeting to say some words about Village Planner, Alison Terry.  Mr. Burriss stated that she is the most professional Village Planner he has had the pleasure to deal with and he greatly appreciates the job she does.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he “would agree with Jack and raise him one.”  Mr. Ryan stated that he whole-heartedly agrees with Mr. Burriss and he would recommend telling Village Council, the Mayor, and Village Manager their thoughts on the Planner, Alison Terry.  He indicated that they have begun work on a letter to send to them.  Mr. Ryan continued by stating that he has done work all over the Midwest, seeking various approvals for clients in front of boards and it is evident that the level of professionalism with Planner Terry supersedes others he has appeared before.  He indicated that one wants to hire the most professional – most experienced person they can.  He stated that as Planner of this Village she has the expertise and experience required to do the job.  Mr. Burriss stated that Ms. Terry’s knowledge and relaying of information helps the Planning Commission understand the process and her way has been clear and to the point.  Mr. Burriss stated that Ms. Terry is the 7th Village Planner that he has dealt with and she deserves their compliments and thanks.  Mr. Johnson stated that he is relatively new to the Planning Commission, but from an applicant standpoint going through the process – Ms. Terry made it very clear as to what was expected of him in order to present a complete application to the Planning Commission.  He stated that he has observed that some people may feel that they don’t have to follow rules and present a full application – but he is confident that Ms. Terry instructs each applicant of what is expected by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that Ms. Terry doesn’t make the rules, but she instructs others on how they need to be followed.  Mr. Mitchell went on to say that the make up of the Planning Commission board and the relationship they have with the Village Planner is the most productive since he’s been there and “there is nobody in the same ballpark/class as our current Planner.” 

 

Mr. Hawk asked procedurally how a public hearing is handled since he is new to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is sworn in and gives their testimony.  She stated that the Planning Commission can ask questions of the applicant and staff.  She stated that in the case of a rezoning application - anyone in the Village can speak.  The process is usually that each person receives five minutes to speak and then they move on to the next person.  Ms. Terry stated that after everyone has spoken, if the Planning Commission chooses they can ask if anyone wishes to speak a second time.  That person will then be allowed three additional minutes.  She stated the testimony they give the second time should not address anything that they have previously stated on the record, but instead it should be new testimony.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission can continue the public hearing or make a decision that night.  She stated that they are not required to render a decision that night, and even if they close the public hearing that they could hold further discussion and vote on the application at their next meeting. 

 

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

September 27, 2010

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

GPC Minutes August 23, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 23, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).  Steven Hawk was sworn in as a member of the Planning Commission prior to Roll Call.

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Hugh Price, Michael and Patti Urbatis, Bill and Lindi Mihalovich.

 

Swearing in of Planning Commission Member:

Mayor Melissa Hartfield was present to swear in Steven Hawk to the Granville Planning Commission. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

110 East Elm Street A – Air Repair Heating & Cooling - Application #2010-123

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a tenant panel sign on South Main

Street. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Bill Mihalovich, 3740 Gale Road, Granville, stated that he would like to replace the signage that was used by Padgett Business Services.  Ms. Terry explained that a Variance is required because the sign is located within the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if the size of the old signage was in excess.  Ms. Terry stated yes and a variance was required.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant has any intention of putting a border on the sign. Mr. Mitchell stated that the use of borders on signage has been encouraged in the past.  Mr. Mihalovich indicated that he would be willing to paint a border around the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-123:

 

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.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the TCOD District would be considered a special circumstance.       

 

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 agreed FALSE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that without proper signage the business would not be viable in this location.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(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.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed 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.  The Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

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.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-123:

 

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

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 proposed improvements in signage are an improvement to the entire district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Hawk stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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 #2010-123 as submitted with the condition that there be a two-inch royal blue border around the perimeter of the sign and with a variance to increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 37.64 square feet to allow for a freestanding tenant panel sign on South Main Street and East Elm Street. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

110 East Elm Street A – Air Repair Heating & Cooling - Application #2010-124

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a tenant panel sign on East Elm

Street. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Bill Mihalovich, stated that he would be willing to place the same blue border on the sign.  The Planning Commission indicated that they increased the square footage on the last sign on South Main Street so a variance is not required.

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-124:

 

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. Mitchell stated that the proposed improvements in signage are improvements to the entire district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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 #2010-124 as submitted with the condition that there be a two-inch royal blue border around the perimeter of the sign, and he noted that a variance is not required at this time. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

238 East Broadway – Hugh Price - Application #2010-125

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Hugh Price.

 

Discussion:

Hugh Price, 2356 Vista Court, Newark, stated that he is there to request a change to the current sign and the dimensions will not change.  He stated that he would be changing ‘Donna Brooks and Associates’ to ‘Hugh Price and Associates.’  Mr. Price stated that he would also like the signage to identify the property as a real estate office.  He went on to explain that he would be refacing the current sign and it will have the same shape with no changes other than the lettering.  Mr. Ryan clarified if the applicant will be adding additional language to the sign.  Mr. Price stated yes he would be adding ‘The Granville Home Finding Center’ and putting his website on the sign.  He stated that he would also note on the sign that this location is the Granville office.  Mr. Ryan questioned the Planning Commission member’s if they felt that the proposed signage indicates that Mr. Price's business is the only place one could come to in Granville for this type of service.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks the wording proposed by Mr. Price is clever.  Mr. Hawk stated that he is not bothered by any of the proposed language by Mr. Price.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the applicant feels that the proposed changes on the signage will clarify things for visitors.  Mr. Price stated yes.

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Planning Commission has the authority to control what verbiage goes on the sign.  Ms. Terry stated that there isn’t anything in the Code to regulate what can be put on a sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the signage is being changed and the application is treated as though this is a brand new sign.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he is a little confused about what the sign will look like.  Mr. Price stated that he would be reducing the size of ‘Hugh Price and Associates’ and ‘HER’ will stay the same.  He went on to explain that the size of the phone number will be smaller and he will put ‘Granville Office’ underneath the phone number.  Mr. Price indicated that the two symbols and ‘238’ would not change.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the sign would continue to have uplighting.  Mr. Price stated that he would like the uplighting to remain as is.  He indicated that he is aware that the former owner of the property had requested a change to the signage that would require a variance and that if he received the Variance the lighting on the signage could be changed by the Planning Commission.  He questioned if the Planning Commission was able to change the lighting on the signage since his application does not require a variance.  Mr. Price added that the size of the signage is currently compliant to the Code standards.  He stated that he would prefer to keep the uplighting on all night long.  Mr. Ryan explained that since this is a new application before the Planning Commission they are able to address the signage as a whole.  He added that he does not feel that the lighting needs to be on all night long. 

Mr. Price stated that he is responsible for paying the electric bill.  Mr. Johnson explained that the Planning Commission has been asking that lighting be turned off somewhere around 10:00 PM – 11:00 PM and be placed on a timer.  He stated that they are trying to be sensitive to light pollution.  Mr. Johnson agreed that this is a cleanup process and some signs with lighting are not currently in compliance.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he too would like to see the applicant agree to turning the lighting off at 10:00 PM and he is in agreement with Mr. Johnson.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission required that Mr. Brooks limit the hours the sign was lit when he wanted to add to the signage.  He stated that Mr. Brooks later withdrew the application.  Mr. Price stated that Mr. Brook's application required a variance and his does not and he would agree to disagree with Mr. Ryan on this because he thinks the need for a variance makes the application more substantial.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission set the same conditions with other businesses in the area such as, Goumas, Petali Teas, and Noir.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the Planning Commission has allowed for provisions for the uplighting to be turned back on at 6:00 AM - 7:30 AM in the morning.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has not limited lighting in the morning hours.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it would help Mr. Price if the lighting was allowed to be turned back on at 6:00 AM.  Mr. Price stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-125:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage approved in the Village District.

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 proposed improvements in signage are an improvement to the entire district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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 #2010-125 as proposed per Exhibit "A" with the lettering in Exhibit "B" with the condition that the applicant turn off the uplighting on the signage from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

238 East Broadway – Hugh Price - Application #09-55 AMENDED

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

The applicant previously received approval for the removal of the existing wood louvered shutters and replacement with polycarbonate louvered shutters on the front, back and eastern side of the home.  The applicant is requesting an amendment to the original approval which would not require the applicant to replace the shutters.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Hugh Price.

 

Discussion:

Hugh Price, stated that he does not want to put the shutters that were previously on the house back on as requested by the Planning Commission to the former owner of the property.  Mr. Price stated that he has had many compliments on the building’s current appearance without the shutters.  He also stated that he has looked at other Greek Revivals in the Village and not all of them have shutters on them.  Mr. Price stated that he is committed to being a good steward of the property.  Mr. Hawk stated that he would support the idea that one sees more architectural detail when the building is not being masked by the previous shutters.  Mr. Mitchell asked how long the house has had shutters.  Ms. Terry stated she was unsure.  Mr. Price stated that the charm and character of the building is noticeable without the shutters.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-55 AMENDED:

 

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 proposal by the applicant to not put the shutters back on the home would be more compatible with the period of the building.

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 restoration would be restored to a Greek Revival look.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the building would be enhanced and past generations occupied the structure.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-55, AMENDED, as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-123: Air Repair Heating & Cooling; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1187, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-123 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-123. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-124: Air Repair Heating & Cooling; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-124 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-124. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-125: Hugh Price; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-125 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-125.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #09-55 AMENDED: Hugh Price; Exterior Modifications

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 #09-55 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-55 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Commission Member:

Mr. Mitchell moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the August 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  Mr. Hawk abstained.    

 

Adjournment:  7:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

September 13, 2010

September 27, 2010

 

GPC Minutes August 9, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 9, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Don DeSapri, Cindy Brennaman, Mary Paumier, Chris O’Neill, and Becky Wagner.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

527 Newark-Granville Road – RE/MAX Consultant Group - Application #2010-89 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 5.24 square foot tenant panel sign to be located on the existing freestanding sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mary

Paumier and Chris O’Neill. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-89:

Chris O’Neill, 6650 Walnut Street, New Albany, stated that he is representing the REMAX Consultant Group located at 527 Newark-Granville Road.  Mary Paumier, 11 Brecon Circle, stated that she is also representing RE/MAX Consultant Group.  Mr. O’Neill stated that they are back before the Planning Commission because they were asked by the Planning Commission to submit a material other than corrugated plastic.  He indicated that the amended application shows the material as aluminum instead.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Johnson indicated that he would have some concerns over the way the applicant is proposing to attach the sign, with screws, to the existing sign.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sign would be affixed so the border is in front of it.  Ms. Paumier stated that the submitted drawing looks as though the sign would be inset, but it is not and it’s actually a flat surface.  Mr. O’Neill stated that the sign would be screwed to the front edge of the existing sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the sign would be lit.  Ms. Paumier stated no and the sign is only replacing exactly what is there with a different name.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he has concerns over the way the way the sign is going to be mounted.  He asked if there is any recessed lettering behind the proposed sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign has sandblasted lettering behind it and there is currently a plastic sign in place on top of the sandblasted lettering.  Mr. Ryan asked if the plastic sign would be removed.  Ms. Paumier stated yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson questioned if there could be a more appropriate way to fasten the signage to the existing sandblasted sign.  Mr. O’Neill stated that they would use vinyl stickers on the surface of the screws to cover them.  Ms. Terry provided an example of what is under the existing signage.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the sign overall (top sign and bottom sign) will meet the maximum amount of colors allowed in the Code.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code allows up to three colors and the signage will have red, royal blue, and light blue, as the Planning Commission has indicated that they do not consider white to be a color. 

 

Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-89:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage 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 stated that the signage is historically consistent with other historical signage in the Village.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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 #2010-89, AMENDED, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

New Business:

222 South Main Street – Becky Wagner/Village Pet Market - Application #2010-118

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6) square foot sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Becky Wagner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-118:

Becky Wagner, Pinehurst Drive, stated that she would be using chalk paint on the bottom portion of the sign so that she can use chalk on the sign.  Mr. Ryan asked the proposed location of the sidewalk sign.  Ms. Wagner stated that she talked to Ms. Terry about placing the sign in between the sidewalk and the curb in the yard.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is proposing placing the sign in the tree lawn between the sidewalk and the curb closer to the driveway.  She went on to say that staff’s only concern was that the sign be far enough away from the driveway so views from people turning in and out are not blocked.  Mr. Burriss asked about framing around the sign.  Ms. Wagner stated it would have a raised black border on the sign.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is required due to the overall square footage allowed on the property because the sign is located within the TCOD.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-118:

 

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.  Mr. Ryan stated that all of the businesses located on this street (within the TCOD) would experience similar issues regarding in the need for a variance. 

 

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.  Burriss stated that the current tenant has done much to approve the appearance of this building.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the business couldn’t get a reasonable return if they weren’t allowed to let people know about their business and its location.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the requested Variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

c.         That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant did not build the structure or place the tree in the tree lawn. 

 

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 unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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.  

 

Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-118:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage in the Village.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed font and graphics are consistent with what is historically 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 the proposed font and graphics are consistent with what is historically appropriate.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-118 with the following variances:

 

1)         To permit a 12 square foot sidewalk sign within the TCOD; and

 

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on the TCOD lot to 18 square feet to permit the 12 square foot sidewalk sign and current 6 square foot freestanding sign

 

3)         To approve the application on the condition that the sign shall be placed per ‘Exhibit A’.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

222 South Main Street – Becky Wagner/Village Pet Market - Application #2010-119

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a one point fifty-eight (1.58) square foot window sign. 

 

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

Becky Wagner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-119:

Becky Wagner, Pinehurst Drive, stated that she would like to place the window sign on the front door. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-119:

 

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.  Johnson stated that the variance for the signage is appropriate and would allow the business to yield a reasonable return. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed false.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE because a variance is needed to place a sidewalk sign in the TCOD District. 

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

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 unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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 unanimously agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-119:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage 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 stated that the proposed signage is historically appropriate for the district. 

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 the proposed signage is historically appropriate for the district. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-119 with the following Variances:

 

1)                  To increase the maximum percentage of window area for window signs from 15% to 38% for a 1.58 square foot sign;

2)                  To permit the 1.58 square foot window sign within the TCOD; and

3)                  To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on the TCOD lot from 6 square feet to 19.58 square feet. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

133 South Main  Street – John and Sharon Ferguson - Application #2010-120

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new bay window on the first floor and the addition of wood shutters on the second floor windows all on the southern elevation of the home. 

 

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

Cindy Brennaman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-120:

Cindy Brennamen, 36144 Township Road 72, Frazeysburg, Ohio, stated that she is there representing the contractor doing the proposed improvements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the shutters would match what is there now – wood.  Ms. Brennaman stated that if the current shutters were wood then they would likely be replaced with wood.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the window is a pre-manufactured window.  Ms. Brennaman indicated that she was unsure. 

Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed window is more historically appropriate than the current awning window in place.  He stated that he also thinks that there are a number of historical homes that have had bay windows added that are of a “slightly different architectural language” than the original and they still compliment the structure. 

Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has indicated that they may also propose a future phase to landscape the area.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is planning to do anything on each side of the bump outs (side elevations) of the bay window.  Ms. Brennaman stated that if the homeowner plans on anything additional - they would come back to the Planning Commission for approval.  Mr. Burriss asked if the bay window is a cantilever bay.  Ms. Brennaman indicated that she does not think that there will be foundation work under this window.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he recalled reading somewhere in the submitted information that the window is a cantilever bay window.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission needs to know what each side of the bay window will look like.  Ms. Terry stated that she had asked Ms. Ferguson, the homeowner, to provide this information.  The Planning Commission suggested that the sides of the bay window ought to duplicate the look of the front panels of the window.  Mr. Mitchell presented an example of the sides of the bay window in ‘Exhibit A.’

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-120:

 

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. Burriss stated that the proposed improvements are more historically appropriate than what is currently in place.  

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 the applicant is replacing the existing window with one that is more of an  historically accurate element.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-120 as submitted with the stipulation that the sides of the bay window will duplicate the front of the addition per ‘Exhibit A’.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #2010-89 AMENDED: RE/MAX Consultant Group; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-89, AMENDED, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-89 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2010-118: Becky Wagner/ Village Pet Market; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-118 as submitted by the applicant with variances.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-118.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2010-119: Becky Wagner/ Village Pet Market; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-119 as submitted by the applicant with variances.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-119.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-120: John and Sharon Ferguson; Exterior Modifications

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 1159, Village District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-120 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-120.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Burriss abstaining).

 

Adjournment:  7:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

August 23, 2010 (Mr. Burriss stated he is unable to attend this meeting.)

September 13. 2010

GPC Minutes July 26, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 26, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Flo Hoffman, Cynthia Cort, Forrest Blake, and Brian and Dana Krieg. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

103 East Elm Street – Granville Historical Society/Old Academy Building - Application #2010-115

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the complete removal of a non-functioning brick chimney.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Cynthia Cort, and Flo Hoffman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-115:

Cynthia Cort, 1632 Newark Granville Road, stated that the chimney was on the Main Street side of the building and the contractor stated that it was a hazard and needed to be removed.  Ms. Terry stated that Ms. Hoffman did contact the Village to let them know that the contractor was on the roof and has stated that it was an emergency situation where the chimney had to be removed.  She stated that Ms. Hoffman indicated at that time that she would come back for approval.  Mr. Johnson asked what the contractor did below the roofline.  Flo Hoffman, 713 Friends Lane, explained that the chimney was not being supported from the ground up.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the chimney had already been removed from the interior of the structure some time ago. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-115:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Ryan stated that non-functioning chimneys have been removed from buildings for safety reasons in the same zoning district.  All members concurred.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Ryan stated that the chimney is dangerous and not functioning.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the removal of the chimney protects the building from further damage.   All members concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by improving the structure.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the building is being protected by the removal of the chimney.  All members concurred.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-115 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

226 South Mulberry Street – Forrest Blake - Application #2010-49 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of aluminum siding and replacement with hardie-plank siding, trim and soffits.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Forrest Blake.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-49 AMENDED:

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, stated that he has decided to take out all of the aluminum and replace it with hardie-plank siding.  Mr. Ryan asked if the trim would match the existing trim.  Mr. Blake stated that the trim would match the trim on the front porch.  He indicated that some of the trim will be hardie-plank and some will be wood.  Mr. Mitchell clarified which type of hardie-plank board would be used.  Mr. Blake stated that he will use a four-inch board and he has not yet decided on the color, but the trim will be white.  Mr. Blake asked the process if he decided to add shutters to the home.  Ms. Terry explained that this would require Planning Commission approval and Mr. Blake would need to provide the type of materials used and if they will be functional shutters.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked for clarification of the application because of the addition mentioned in the application.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is amending the original application that was approved because he did not request the removal of the existing siding at that time.  Mr. Blake stated that he was unsure when he originally submitted the application if he would be changing all of the existing siding.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be replacing the siding on the porch or just above the porch.  Mr. Blake stated that all of the siding on the home will be replaced with hardie-plank boards and there will be a foam board under them.  Mr. Johnson stated that the existing aluminum siding is five inches wide.  Mr. Blake stated that the new siding boards would be four inches wide.  Mr. Johnson clarified that the width of the siding will be the same throughout the home.  Mr. Blake stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-49 AMENDED:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant is restoring the home with lap siding that resembles the original structure.  All members concurred.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the historical character of the Village is improved with the improvements. All members concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements. All members concurred.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-49 AMENDED as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

226 East Maple Street – Brian and Dana Krieg - Application #2010-116

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of several sections of four (4’) foot white picket wood fencing. 

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-49 AMENDED:

Brian Krieg, 226 East Maple Street, stated that they are requesting installation a four foot (4’) white wood picket fence.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the fencing on the other properties is also four foot in height.  Mr. Krieg stated that one fence is four foot and the other is five foot high.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the applicant will be adding a fence directly next to the existing fences on the other homes properties on both sides.  Mr. Krieg stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the fence will be painted white and does the applicant understand that the finished side of the fence has to face the neighboring property.  Mr. Krieg stated he did realize this. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-116:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the fencing is stylistically compatible with the neighboring fences. All members concurred.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the historical character of the Village district is improved.  All members concurred.

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. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-116 with the condition that the fence shall have the finished side, and not the structural side, facing the alley or street.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-115: Granville Historical Society; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-115 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-115.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-49 AMENDED: Forrest Blake; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-49 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-49 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-116: Brian and Dana Krieg; Fencing

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 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-116 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-116.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of Absent Commission Member’s:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on July 26, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

August 9, 2010

August 23, 2010 (Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she may not be able to attend this meeting.)

GPC Minutes July 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Mona Fine, Ryan Srbljan, John Cassell, Eric George, Don DeSapri, Mr. and Mrs. James Browder, Tim Klingler, and Dave Getreu. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-95

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 8.33

square foot freestanding sign and relocation of the sign in front of the building on

Broadway.  

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that they are working with Huntington Bank on their new corporate logo.  He stated that they will not be increasing the size of square footage for the signage for this entire project and the proposed signage is the main identity signs for property.  Ms. Terry asked if the up lighting will move and she explained the current location of the proposed signage.  Mr. Srbljan indicated that the ground lighting will move with the relocated freestanding signage and he also presented the proposed paint samples for the signage.  Mr. Ryan inquired on the stars medallions.  Mr. Srbljan stated that the stars under the canopy will remain as is.  Mr. Srbljan stated that they want to update the overall image of the structure with the signage and they have found that a taller thinner sign causes less of a traffic obstruction.  He stated that the attempt is to increase aesthetics of the property, as well as update the signage.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the lime green is historically accurate.  Mr. Burriss agreed that he didn’t prefer the lime green color on the signage either, but he would have less of an objection if the lime green color were not used on the wall sign on the front of the building as proposed by the applicant.  He indicated that he would be ok with the lime green color as proposed on some of the other signage.  Mr. Ryan asked if the gray is the main color proposed for the signage and the green is only for the accent and logo. He agreed with Mr. Burriss and stated that the word ‘Huntington’ on the building ought to be gray.  Mr. Srbljan stated that anytime they use the ‘Huntington’ logo in a solid single word they use the color green.  He went on to say that if the board does not approve the green, he would obviously go back and request that this be changed by the Huntington representatives.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Johnson indicated that they too agree with Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Ryan asked if there were any concerns with moving the front sign to the other side of the sidewalk.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the lighting should be concealed with landscaping, as they have required with other applications. 

Ms. Terry asked if the lighting would stay on all night.  Mr. Srbljan stated that this lighting is on the same switch as the exterior lighting on the flag and it would remain on all night.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this application doesn’t require a Variance and he didn’t see any issues with requiring that the lighting be turned off since it is currently left on.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant had any plans to bring further applications for signage before the Planning Commission.  Mr. Srbljan stated no.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-95:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-95 with the condition that the lighting will be masked with landscaping.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-95: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-95 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-96

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 8.33

square foot freestanding sign on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan)

See application #2010-96 for Discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-96:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-96 with the condition that the  lighting will be masked with landscaping.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-96: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-96 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-97

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 3.19

square foot wall sign on the front of the building facing Broadway.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan)

See application #2010-97 for Discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-97:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-97 as proposed with the condition that the color of the sign will be changed to graymoor metallic (Per Exhibit A).   Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-97: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-97 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-98

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 3.11

square foot incidental sign and replacement with a new 3.125 square foot incidental sign

in the parking lot area on North Prospect Street. 

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan)

See application #2010-98 for Discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-98:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that they are consistent with other signs that have been approved in this District, especially because the wall sign would be a dark gray color; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that overall presentation is consistent with the historical appearance of this area; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the graphics and style are consistent and protect and enhance examples of physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-98 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-98: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-98 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-99

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 4

square foot incidental sign and replacement with a new 3 square foot incidental sign in

the parking lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that the Huntington Bank signage is for customer parking signs.  He stated that these will be replaced with smaller signage than currently exists and that the new signage will comply with current branding standards.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant needs a variance because the sign has a commercial message and commercial messages are not allowed on incidental signage.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed new signage is simpler, cleaner, and more consistent than the existing signage.    Ms. Terry read aloud the definition of a commercial message and incidental sign from the Village Code. She indicated that the variance is allowing a commercial message to appear on an incidental sign and increases the number of individual signs allowed on the property.  She stated that the sign would still be classified as an incidental sign.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application’s #2010-99:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is compatible with other signage approved in the same zoning district; all members concurred.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all members concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it protects and enhances the examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-99:

 

 

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 because of the unique situation with the parking area and the drive thru.           

 

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

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the bank would have a problem without the signage because other people would utilize their parking lot.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the variance is the most common sense way to handle this request by the applicant. 

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 

 

 

 

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 unanimously agreed 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 #2010-99 with the following variances:

1)         To allow an incidental sign to contain a commercial message; and

2)         To increase the maximum number of individual signs per storefront from four (4) to five (5)."

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-99: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-99 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-100

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

The request is architectural review and approval of the removal of a 4 square foot

incidental sign and replacement with a new 3 square foot incidental sign in the parking

lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that this ‘Huntington Bank’ sign will be attached to a pole.  Ms. Terry asked if a sign that is located behind the building in the parking area would be removed, since it was not indicated in this sign package.  Mr. Srbljan stated that this was apparently missed when they completed the initial survey. He indicated that this sign would be removed.  Ms. Terry asked that this be noted in the final approval given by the Planning Commission. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-100:

 

 

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is compatible with other signage approved in the same zoning district; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of a sign package it protects and enhances the examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

            (As discussed in the review for Criteria for Application #2010-99.)

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-100:

 

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 because of the unique situation with the parking area and the drive thru.           

 

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

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the bank would have a problem without the signage because other people would utilize their parking lot.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the variance is the most common sense way to handle this request by the applicant. 

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 

 

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 unanimously agreed 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.

 (As discussed in the review for Criteria for Application #2010-99.)

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-100 on the condition that the sign on the northern edge parking lot be removed and with the following variances:

1)         To allow an incidental sign to contain a commercial message;

2)         To increase the maximum number of incidental signs on a zone lot from two (2) to three (3); and

3)         To increase the maximum number of individual signs per storefront from four (4) to six (6).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-100: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-100 is Approved.

 

 

 

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-101

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 3

square foot incidental sign and replacement with a new 1.66 square foot incidental sign in

the parking lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., stated that Huntington Bank

Mr. Ryan asked the location of the proposed signage.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage will face Prospect Street and be in front of the ATM. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-101:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character of the Village; all members concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that this creates a consistent style of graphics for the entire property which protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-101:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the parking lot and ATM are special circumstances.     

 

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.  Burriss stated that the signage is for safety reasons; all members concurred. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that a variance would be the most expedient process.

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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 #2010-101 with a variance to increase the maximum number of incidental signs on a zone lot from two (2) to four (4).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-101: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-101 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-102

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of two (2) existing 1.5

square foot canopy internally illuminated signage and replacement with two (2)  new 1.25

square foot canopy internally illuminated signage for the drive thru located in the parking

lot area on North Prospect Street.

 

Discussion:

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., was present for questions/comments.

Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be switching over to LED lights.  Mr. Srbljan stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell commented that the variance for an internally illuminated light is not listed.  Ms. Terry clarified that this should have been listed as a variance on the staff report.  Mr. Srbljan stated that the reason for the internal illumination is a way-finding measure, and not necessarily for advertising.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed LED lighting would be brighter.  Mr. Srbljan indicated that they will be using lenses with diffusers and they are red and green. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-102:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage is compatible with other Village signage in the same zoning district; all members concurred.  

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage establishes consistency which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated that this creates a consistent style of graphics for the entire property which protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-102:

 

 

 

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 because of the vehicular maneuvering pattern in the parking lot and the entrance/exit to the ATM.

 

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

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage is needed for safety. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(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 TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the variance is the most practical way to handle the matter.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the internal illumination is a practical requirement with this particular request.

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE. 

 

 

 

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 agreed 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 #2010-102 with the following variances:

1)         To increase the maximum number of canopy signs per zone lot from one (1) to two (2);

2)         To increase the maximum number of colors from one (1) to three (3); and

3)         To allow internal LED illumination.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-102: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-102 is Approved.

 

Huntington Bank, 222 East Broadway,  Application #2010-103

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the refacing of the existing 48.75

square foot freestanding ATM located in the parking lot area on North Prospect Street. 

 

(Ryan Srbljan, Eric George, and Alison Terry were sworn in by Mr. Ryan )

 

Ryan Srbljan, DaNite Sign Co., indicated that they would be willing to remove the honeycomb emblem if the Planning Commission wishes.  Mr. Ryan asked how the board feels regarding the ‘Huntington’ label on the top of all four sides of the ATM.    Eric George stated that it should say ATM on two sides.  Ms. Terry indicated that she classified this sign as a wall sign, and not an incidental sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that he would be in favor of the removal of the graphics Mr. Srbljan spoke of, the honeycomb emblems.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could see having the word ‘Huntington’ on two sides, rather than four sides.  He stated that he questions the need for the word ‘ATM.’  He stated that he does not like the honeycomb emblem, as proposed for this signage.  Mr. Johnson stated that he is in favor of Mr. Burriss’ suggestions and he is fine with the word ‘Welcome’ staying on the sign.  Mr. Terry indicated that even if the Planning Commission removes some of the language on the ATM, it would still require a variance due to the total number of individual signs allowed for a storefront.  Mr. Burriss asked if the words ‘Huntington’ and ‘ATM’ would be at the same height.  Mr. Srbljan stated yes.    Mr. Ryan commented that he doesn’t see the need for four ‘Huntington’ signs on an ATM machine located at Huntington Bank.  He stated that the Planning Commission is suggesting that the word ‘Huntington’ be located on the ATM at the top facing west, with the word ‘Welcome’, and no ‘ATM’ lettering on the signage.  Mr. Srbljan agreed to these terms. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-103:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is compatible with other signage that has been approved in this District; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the consistency of the signage it upgrades the historical character; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the district; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past      generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated that by establishing consistency of signage it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-103:

 

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 agreed TRUE.  Mr.  Burriss stated that the signage is for safety reasons. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE the variance is not substantial.

 

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

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with         

knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

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 unanimously agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-103 as modified per Exhibit "A" and with a variance to increase the maximum number of individual signs per storefront from four (4) to seven (7).          

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-103: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.  Application #2010-103 is Approved.

 

230 E. Broadway – Mona J. Fine - Application #2010-106

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of a 1.66 square foot tenant panel sign to be attached to the bottom of the existing projecting sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mona Fine.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-106:

Mona J. Fine, 230 East Broadway, stated that she is requesting a tenant panel sign to hang from the existing projecting sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is decreasing the size from what Mr. Vernau had previously shown.  Ms. Fine stated that the signage would have the same color and same font (Times New Roman).  Mr. Burriss stated that as long as the signage has consistency with the font and color he is fine with approving it. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-106:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent with other signs that have been previously approved in this District; all members concurred. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character of the Village; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is historically appropriate which protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-106 with the condition that the color and font are consistent with the adjacent McFarland sign.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

216 East College Street– John Cassell - Application #2010-108

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of three-tab asphaltic shingles and replacement with asphaltic dimensional shingles in pewter gray color. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Cassell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-108:

Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Cassell is planning to reshingle the garage.  Mr. Cassell stated no, not at this time. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-108:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that this type of shingle has been approved for other structures in this District; all members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the upgrading of the shingles is more consistent with the historical character of the area; all members concurred. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by upgrading the roof it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-108 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-113

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a Change of Use for 487.5 square feet from Category “B”, Specialty Shops (former antique store) to Category “D”, Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a bakery, which will also contain retail sales and indoor seating.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Dana Landrum, and Don DeSapri.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-113:

Dana Landrum indicated that she would like to take out the front retail counters at the current bakery and move them to where the antique shop was previously located.

She stated that her hours of operation would be extended, and she expects that there will be more morning traffic.  Ms. Landrum stated that there will not be an additional build out of the structure and she read aloud several written recommendations by customers.  She later indicated that she had a verbal “ok” from the Johnson’s who live next to the property and their neighbors.  She stated that the neighbors often come to her business.  Mr. Ryan inquired if the parking variance was granted by the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She went on to say that as part of the approval, Ms. Landrum has stated that all of the existing tables on the outside of the bakery would be removed and relocated to the inside of this new space.  Ms. Landrum stated that the new space would not open until 9:00 AM daily.  Mr. Burriss asked if the food would be prepared at the bakery and taken over to the adjacent proposed space.  Ms. Landrum stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there would be congestion using the front entrance for both customers and food service.  Ms. Landrum stated that she plans on having buffet service and if the museum were utilizing the side door – she would plan on having a place to put dirty dishes in the back of the room.  Mr. Burriss asked if the set of French doors would be removed in the museum.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.  Ms. Landrum stated that they have handicapped accessibility to the restaurant and the bathrooms that are currently in place have been approved by the Health Department.  She went on to say that the Robbins Hunter Museum would be installing new bathroom facilities in the Fall.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the bakery would still be classified to sell food.  Ms. Terry stated yes, that the approval was for a food, drug and beverage business, for a bakery in conjunction with retail sales.  Ms. Landrum stated that she would be doing all of the shopping for the business and there would not be delivery trucks using the private driveway from Elm Street.  She stated that she may look at having a linen service, but if this is the case – she will have them access the property from Broadway.  Mr. Burriss questioned how trash is removed from the facility.  Ms. Landrum stated that she has two trash totes that are taken to the curb at Broadway on a weekly basis.  The Planning Commission questioned if this would be enough trash receptacles for the proposed restaurant use.  Ms. Landrum indicated that she would make any necessary provisions for trash.  She stated that the trash bins are located in the back of the building behind the bakery.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned how often the museum has teas.  Don DeSapri stated that they originally wanted to have the teas once per month, but they didn’t get enough response, so they are less often.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the proposed fireplace in the structure.  Ms. Landrum explained that this would be electric and is just for ambiance.  Mr. Burriss asked how the applicant would load the van for catered events.  Ms. Landrum stated that they typically go outside the bakery door in the back and she said that they don’t do much off site catering. 

Mr. Burriss asked if the trash receptacles are shared with the museum.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.  Councilmember O’Keefe agreed that there would be more trash with the business changing to serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner.  Ms. Landrum stated that much of her business is take out.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has typically required that all trash receptacles be screened with either fencing or landscaping.  Mr. DeSapri stated that they used to keep the trash bins in an area that was landscaped to screen them and perhaps they could move them back to this location.  Mr. Burriss stated that they could make that decision and let Village staff know.  Ms. Landrum also discussed using lattice for screening the trash cans.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission would like to see the trash receptacles screened on three sides so they are not visible from the museum or the alley.  Mr. Burriss asked the procedure for parking if an outside vendor were to come in for a wedding or event at the museum.  Ms. Landrum stated that she would vacate the two spaces at the museum and park elsewhere.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-113 with the condition that the trash are shall be fully screened and that the screening shall be approved by Village Staff.  

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder - Application #2010-114

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphaltic shingles and replacement with Owens Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles.

 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-114:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, indicated that he would be replacing the shingles and the gutters would remain.  He stated that they will also add ventilation to the roof and it won’t be visible from the street.  Mr. Browder indicated that the roof shingle will be green. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-114:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed roof is consistent with similar approvals in the same zoning district; all members concurred. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the historical character of the Village; all members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that it protects an existing historical home; all members concurred.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approval of Application #2010-114 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2010-95: Huntington Bank; Freestanding Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-95 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-95.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-96: Huntington Bank; Freestanding Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-96 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-96.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-97: Huntington Bank; Wall Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-97 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-97.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-98: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-98 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-98.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-99: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

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 Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-99 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-99.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-100: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

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, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-100 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-100.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-101: Huntington Bank; Incidental Signage

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, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-101 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-101.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Application #2010-102: Huntington Bank; Canopy Signage

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, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-102 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-102.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-103: Huntington Bank; Wall (ATM) Signage

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, Signage and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-103 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-103.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-106: Mona J. Fine; Projecting Tenant Panel Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-106 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-106.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-108: John Cassell; Roof/Exterior Modification

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 #2010-108 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-108.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-113: Landrum Cottage; Change of Use

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 #2010-113 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-113.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-114: James Browder; Roof/Exterior Modification

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 #2010-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-114.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 24, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried: 3 yeas; 1 abstention (Mr. Ryan). 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the June 14, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried: 3 yeas; 1 abstention (Mr. Burriss). 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the June 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried: 3 yeas; 1 abstention (Mr. Mitchell).  

 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

July 26, 2010 (Jack Burriss indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

August 9, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 28, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Brian Miller, Eleanor Cohen, Jack Reynolds, Tim Rollins, and Mr. and Mrs. James Browder. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Public Hearing:

1919 Lancaster Road/Mill District – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2010-87

Application #2010-87, submitted by Metropolitan Partners, for certain real properties located along Lancaster Road (South Main Street) in Granville Township, including 1919 Lancaster Road and adjacent properties owner by Mill District, LLC and 1919 Lancaster Road, LLC.  The request is for a zoning amendment to rezone the property from General Business District (GB) within the Granville Township zoning regulations to Village Gateway District (VGD) within the Village of Granville zoning regulations.  The property is currently in the annexation process and will be reviewed for annexation to the Village by the Village Council in June and July of 2010.  (Any person wishing to testify regarding this application will be permitted to do so.) 

Discussion:

Jack Reynolds, representing Metropolitan Partners, stated that they have been working with the Village for over two years on this proposal.  He stated that the property in question is currently zoned ‘General Business’ in Granville Township.  Mr. Reynolds stated that the applicant had worked for a long period of time with the Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Village Council to draft the lengthy pre-annexation agreement that is before the Planning Commission.  He stated that the prior to submitting the zoning amendment request, the applicant thoroughly reviewed both the Suburban Business District (SBD) and Village Gateway District (VGD) classifications.  Mr. Reynolds explained that the applicant felt that the best zoning classification for this property was the Village Gateway District, because this zoning classification was recently adopted by the Village Council to address this gateway area specifically.  He went on to say that the recommendation tonight would only include the zoning district and they would be coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of the site plan in terms of final layout, storm water retention, architectural elevations, etc.  Mr. Reynolds stated that the storage unit buildings and another house on River Road will be removed and replaced with buildings as shown on the Site Plan.  Mr. Reynolds stated that in terms of the Comprehensive Plan for the community, they feel their proposed uses are certainly compatible.  Mr. Reynolds indicated that the Village is looking for this area to be a gateway into the community and if people weren’t aware of the high quality of work done by Metropolitan Partners in previous projects, he would be happy to provide some pictures and additional information. 

Tim Ryan clarified that the Planning Commission is only reviewing the zoning classification in their recommendation to Village Council.   He stated that the site plan and architecture would come before the Planning Commission at a later time.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant has done a tremendous job in the preparation of their materials related to this zoning amendment and that he appreciates all of the work done by those involved, including work done in the past with the Village Planner, Village Administrator and Village Council.    

Jack Burriss stated that the applicant will come back to the Planning Commission with the details for the proposed structures and he feels that the applicant did a good job presenting all of the information required for their recommendation on the zoning classification. 

Mr. Johnson indicated that he has read through all of the materials and his concerns had been addressed with this application. He indicated that he had some additional questions that will relate to the future development plan review, which is not a part of what the Planning Commission is considering this evening. 

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, questioned what would become of the other buildings on River Road, the coffee shop and various restaurants, once this land is annexed to the Village.  Ms. Terry stated that the buildings she is referring to are not a part of this annexation and will remain within the Township.  She explained that this annexation includes the Shurtz building and a small building adjacent to this, as well as the storage buildings.  

Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that she received a phone call from ODOT District 5 and they are requesting a meeting on July 19th to get a better understanding of what the Village is considering for this area.  She stated that they expect feedback from ODOT District 5 and Village Council will receive this information prior to deciding the zoning classification for this land.  Ms. Terry also noted that no one appeared to speak regarding the zoning for the proposed annexed land at the previous Planning Commission public hearing.  She also stated that the public hearing scheduled for June 14 was tabled, prior to any discussion, because there was not a quorum present.  

Mr. Burriss recommended approval of Application #2010-87 to the Village Council.  Mr. Johnson seconded. Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

New Business:

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder - Application #2010-91

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following wood window

replacements:               

1)         Replacing wood double hung windows with vinyl double hung white windows with interior grilles on the upper portion of the window only, and only for the second floor windows on the south and west elevations;                

2)         Replacing wood double hung windows with vinyl double hung white windows with interior grilles on the upper portion of the window only, and for the first and second floor windows on the north elevation; and                    

3)         Replacing a wood casement window with vinyl double slide white window with interior grilles on both sides of the slider, for the first floor window on the back of the house. 

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

Discussion:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that he would like to replace the windows located between his home and the 124 North Pearl Street residence.  He stated that he chose windows that would match the grids that currently exist.  Mr. Browder stated that the bay window is not architecturally appealing and would be removed at some point in the future.  He went on to say that he had considered wood windows, but they were cost prohibitive.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant was proposing any screens for the second floor windows.  Mr. Browder stated that these windows would have full screens.  Mr. Ryan stated that they have approved vinyl windows in the past.  Mr. Browder clarified that he would like to revise the application because they are not going to do the wood casement window with the sliders and he would like to remove this item from the approval.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-91:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that similar windows have been approved in both new and old structures, which is stylistically compatible.  All members concurred. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that we've contributed to the upgrading of the house which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the vitality of a house therefore it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are identical to other windows on the house therefore it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members concurred.

e)         Materials:  The applicant is proposing replacement of wood double hung windows on the second floor of the south and west side of the home and on the first and second floor of the north side of the home with vinyl windows.    

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-91, as submitted, removing the casement window from the approval.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

201 North Pearl Street – Jeff Mullett - Application #2010-91

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a wood, sixteen (16) panel garage door with a similar style steel, sixteen (16) panel garage door which faces College Street.

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

Discussion:

Jeff Mullett, 201 North Pearl Street, stated that he wishes to replace the garage door and he would like it to match the other garage door on the side of the home which faces Pearl Street.  He stated that they didn’t install the other garage door.  Mr. Johnson asked for the plans for the windows above the door.  Mr. Mullett stated that they will remain as is and they will use a spring for the installation.  Mr. Johnson asked if the door would be painted to match the trim around the windows.  Mr. Mullett stated yes.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-91:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other replacement garage doors.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it's a replica of the previous door which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the improvement of the structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by restoring the garage door it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members concurred. 

e)         Materials: The applicant is proposing the replacement of a wood, sixteen (16) panel garage door with a similar style steel, sixteen (16) panel garage door which faces College Street. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-91 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage/Dana Landrum  - Application #2010-43 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum.

 Discussion:

Dana Landrum, 221 East Broadway, stated that the antique store will be vacant in two weeks and she would like to go through the process for a change of use.  Ms. Landrum explained that the first third of the building would be used to sell goods and the other part would be used for indoor seating.  She stated that all of the baking would be done in the existing bakery building.  Ms. Landrum stated that all of the proposed signage would echo the existing freestanding museum signage.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the application before them tonight is just for the wall signage and not the Change of Use.  Mr. Ryan asked if the proposed sign meets all of the requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the space above the door seems much narrower than what could support a two-foot high bakery sign.  Ms. Landrum stated that the proposed sign would be smaller than what was there previously and smaller than the existing temporary banner sign.  Ms. Landrum thanked Ms. Terry for all of her help regarding the signage for the property.  Ms. Terry clarified that the other signage, two (2) wall signs, on the submitted information is not yet being considered and the applicant will apply for this at a later time.  Mr. Ryan asked the material used to construct the sign.  Ms. Landrum stated vinyl.  Mr. Johnson asked why the application is considered to be amended.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant originally submitted signage that mimicked the ‘Antiques’ signage, which was a wooden black and gold sign. She astated that the Antiques business would be closing soon and so she suggested that Ms. Landrum consider matching the signage associated with the Robbins Hunter Museum so all of the signage has the same font, style, and color.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-43 AMENDED:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent and compatible with other signage that has been approved in this district.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the improvement and upgrading.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is historically accurate when compared to other signs that would have been used in the past.  All members concurred.  

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-43 AMENDED as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage/Dana Landrum - Application #2010-93

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sandwich board sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum. 

Discussion:

Dana Landrum, 221 East Broadway, stated that she would like the sidewalk sign in place to put daily specials on.  She indicated that the signage is consistent with other signage already on the property.  Mr. Ryan asked where the proposed location would be.  Ms. Landrum stated that she planned to locate the sandwich board sign where the present ‘Antiques’ sign is located.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing to just put the sign up during business hours.  Ms. Landrum stated yes.  Mr. Burriss added that he appreciated the architectural embellishment on the top of the signage, so that it is similar in style to other signage on the property, even though he is not a big fan of sandwich board signage. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-93:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other sandwich board signs that have been approved in this district.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is a graphically correct style which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All members concurred. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by achieving an historically correct representation it protects and enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members concurred. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-93 with the condition that the signage will be placed outside during business hours only and that the sign not be placed any further north than the south edge of the Broadway sidewalk per Exhibit ‘A.’   Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

331 East Broadway – Gunton Corp./Charles & Eleanor Cohen - Application #2010-94

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following five (5) wood window replacements:

1)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad fixed picture window on the first floor, to the left of the front door, on the northern elevation;

2)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window with interior metal blinds on the first floor, to the right of the front door, on the northern elevation;

3)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window with interior metal blinds on the first floor, front corner, on the western elevation;

4)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window with interior metal blinds between the first and second floors, next to the stair landing, on the western elevation; and

5)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window on the first floor eastern elevation.

All windows will be recessed with aluminum cladding painted to match the existing exterior trim. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Erin Flynn. 

Discussion:

Erin Flynn, Gunton Corporation, stated that Eleanor Cohen, the homeowner, has selected wood windows with aluminum cladding with their exterior trim precision fit installation.  She explained that they do not take off interior trim due to the plastered walls and the edge of the windows will replicate the exterior trim that currently exists.  Mr. Burriss asked how much of the exterior trim will be removed.  Ms. Flynn stated that only what is attached to the window will be removed and not the sills.   Mr. Burriss asked if the picture window would have sidelights.  Ms. Flynn stated no.  Ms. Flynn explained that some of the windows on the west and front elevation would have an interior blind, and the front picture window would not have an interior blind.  She also stated that the blinds could be removed.  Mr. Burriss asked if the blinds could be pulled up.  Ms. Flynn stated yes.    

He asked for the dimension of the interior blinds.  Ms. Flynn stated that they are micro mini blinds - approximately ¾" width.  Mr. Johnson asked if the only window that will be a fixed window is the picture window and this is due to the size.  Ms. Flynn stated yes.  Ms. Flynn provided an example of how the aluminum trim will replicate the brick mold that currently exists.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-94:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are consistent with other windows that have been approved in the district.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed windows are historically appropriate and they contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of the house it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new windows replace the original windows and eliminate the need for aluminum storm windows, which is preferred.   All members concurred. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-94 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-91: James Browder; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-91 as indicated in the motion. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-91.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-92: Jeff Mullett; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-92 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-92.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 Application #2010-43 AMENDED: Landrum Cottage; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-43, AMENDED, as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for AMENDED Application #2010-43.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-93: Landrum Cottage; Sidewalk Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-93 as indicated in the motion. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-93.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-94: Charles & Eleanor Cohen; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-94 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-94.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to Excuse Absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell from the June 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.   

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

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

Next meetings:

July 12, 2010

July 26, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 14, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner Alison Terry; Law Director Michael Crites, Clerk of Council Mollie Prasher

Visitors Present: Jack Reynolds, Kris and Socrates Goumas, John Noblick, Patricia Armstrong, George Martin, Roger Kessler, Jim Fowler, Matt Ackerman, Jim Green, Dave Getreu, Brian Miller

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak during Citizen’s Comments.

Public Hearing:

1919 Lancaster Road/Mill District – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2010-87

Mr. Mitchell recused himself from the meeting.  Law Director Crites indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Mitchell and concurred with his decision.   Due to Mr. Mitchell’s recusal, the Commission did not have a quorum and could not take testimony.  Law Director Crites recommended that the Commission should reschedule the hearing.  Chair Ryan advised Jack Reynolds, counsel for Metropolitan Partners, of the need to reschedule the hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting on June 28, 2010.   Community members in attendance were also advised of the reason for cancelling the hearing.  The Commission asked if there were community members in attendance who were interested in testifying at the public hearing.  No one indicated interest in speaking.

New Business:

226 E. Broadway – Goumas Confections - Application #2010-81

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use for 890 square feet from Category "E", Retail Outlets to Category "B", Specialty Shops, specifically for a candy store.      

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Socrates Goumas. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-81:

Soc Goumas, 224 E. Broadway, indicated that he would like to move the store to the building next door, the space previously occupied by Noir Boutique, due to the need for increased space.  Planner Terry indicated that there were no issues involving off street parking.   

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-81 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Ryan, Mitchell, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.

226 East Broadway – Goumas Confections - Application #2010-82

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a 10.67 square foot freestanding tenant panel sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Socrates Goumas. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-82:

Soc Goumas, 224 E. Broadway, indicated that he wanted to move the panel from his existing sign, paint the Noir sign, and install the panel sign.  Planner Terry indicated that the applicant is proposing refacing the existing freestanding wood sign and adding the sign foam tenant panel from their existing sign.  The sign is 10.67 square feet. 

Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed sign would be lighted.  Mr. Goumas indicated that he would like to light the sign in the same manner as his existing sign.  Planner Terry indicated that this current application could be amended to include lighting.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-82:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that as the sign already exists next door it would certainly be compatible with all other signage.  All members concurred. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that by contributing to a structure within the District, it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the area.  All members concurred. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that by contributing to the vitality of a member of the District, it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell s stated that it is consistent with signs that existed historically.  All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-82 as submitted. Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

226 East Broadway – Goumas Confections - Application #2010-83

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Socrates Goumas.

Discussion regarding Application #2010-83:

Soc Goumas, 226 East Broadway, indicated that he was moving his current wall panel to the new location and hanging it from the soffit. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-83:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that as the sign already exists next door it would certainly be compatible with all other signage.  All members concurred. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that as it is the same sign that was approved at 224 East Broadway, it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the District.  All members concurred.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the previously approved sign contributed and this sign will as well.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it protects and enhances the viability of the structure and business.  All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-83 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Ryan, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

131 W. Broadway – John Noblick on behalf of Russ and Melissa Bow - Application #2010-86

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing 15-pane window, divided light wood mandoor replaced with a Masonite mandoor with four panels and a half round divided window at the top, to be located on the western elevation adjacent to the garage.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and John Noblick.  

Discussion regarding Application #2010-86:

John Noblick, Pataskala, indicated that he worked for the contractor of the proposed project.  Mr. Noblick stated that he would be replacing the existing 15-pane garage service door with a Masonite door, jam and hardware. 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the door would now coordinate with the other existing door and windows of the residence.  Mr. Noblick answered in the affirmative.  He stated that many of the other doors and windows had the arched architectural design and the homeowners wanted to maintain that continuity. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-86:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this door would be consistent with the other doors and windows on the structure.  All members concurred.  

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 was consistent with the other doors and windows on the structure contributing to the improvement and upgrading.  All members concurred  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that by being more consistent with the other adjacent windows, it contributes to the continuing vitality.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated the change enhanced an existing structure in the District.  All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approval of Application #2010-86 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Ryan, Mitchell, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.

214 South Cherry Street –Jim and Bonny Fowler - Application #2010-88

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The property is located at 214 South Cherry Street, zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request if for architectural review and approval of a wrought iron handrail in the rear yard.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Jim Fowler. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-88:

Jim Fowler, 214 South Cherry Street, indicated that he was adding a wrought iron hand rail on one side of the steps leading into his backyard as pictured in the Commission’s packet materials.

Mr. Johnson asked how the railing would be installed.  Mr. Fowler indicated that a cement pad would be poured for the three base poles and mounted to the concrete.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-88:

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 railing was consistent with other railings in the District.  All members concurred. 

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 railing contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historic character of the residence.  All members concurred. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the railing will improve the safety of the property thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the wrought iron railing was indicative of materials used by past generations.  All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-88 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

527 Newark-Granville Road –Matt Ackermann/RE/MAX - Application #2010-89

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of a 5.14 square foot tenant panel sign to be located on the existing freestanding sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry.  No one appeared for the applicant. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-89:

Planner Terry advised the Commission that the replacement sign would be utilizing corrugated plastic, which was the same material that was currently used on the existing sign.  Mr. Mitchell suggested tabling the discussion of application #2010-89 and asking the applicant for more information regarding the construction of the sign as replacing the sign with current materials may not be acceptable to the Commission.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to table Application #2010-89.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Ryan, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

221 North Pearl Street –Jim Green - Application #2010-90

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:  removal of 3-tab asphaltic shingles and replacement with Certain Teed dimensional asphaltic shingles in Georgetown Gray; and the removal of half round and modern gutters, replacing with aluminum 6” half round gutters and round downspouts in a bronze color. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Jim Green. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-90:

Jim Green, 221 North Pearl Street,  indicated that he would be replacing all of the shingles on his home with dimensional shingles and replacing all of the gutters using half round gutters.

Mr. Ryan asked if the gutters would all be the same color.  Mr. Green answered in the affirmative.  Mr. Johnson asked how the roof would be vented.  Mr. Green indicated that there would now be a ridge vent.  He will eventually vent the soffits at the time he painted the entire house.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the valleys would be handled.  Mr. Green indicated that snow and ice guards would be place on the eaves and valleys and the shingles would be weaved in the valleys at various points where the roof pitch met.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-90:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated the roof and gutters were compatible with other approved roof and gutter projects.  All members concurred.  

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 project contributed to the improvement and upgrading of the District.  All members concurred.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the restoration of the structure.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that a new roof will protect and enhance the structure.  All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-90 as submitted.   Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Ryan, Mitchell, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

121 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #2010-35 AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a change to the background colorof a previously approved wall sign from a cream color (PMS 4545) to an off-white color (PMS 7401).

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Rodger Kessler.

Discussion regarding Application #2010-35:

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-35:

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 change in background color was consistent and compatible with the other new renovated and older signs.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the only change in this previously approved sign was in the background color.  All members concurred. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that by contributing to the improvement and upgrading of the building it improved the historical character.  All members concurred. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by contributing to the continuing vitality of the building.  All members concurred.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that this change protects and enhances the building and economic viability of the District. All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-35 AMENDED as submitted. Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

123 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #2010-36 AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a change to the background color of a previously approved wall sign from a cream color (PMS 4545) to an off-white color (PMS 7401).

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Rodger Kessler. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-36:

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-36:

e)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the change in background color was consistent and compatible with the other new renovated and older signs.  All members concurred. 

f)        Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that by contributing to the improvement and upgrading of the building it improved the historical character.  All members concurred. 

g)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by contributing to the continuing vitality of the building.  All members concurred.

h)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that this change protects and enhances the building and economic viability of the District. All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-36 AMENDED as submitted. Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

125 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #2010-37 AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a change to the background color of a previously approved wall sign from a cream color (PMS 4545) to an off-white color (PMS 7401).

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Rodger Kessler. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-37:

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-37:

i)        Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the change in background color was consistent and compatible with the other new renovated and older signs.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the only change in this previously approved sign was in the background color.  All members concurred. 

j)        Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that by contributing to the improvement and upgrading of the building it improved the historical character.  All members concurred. 

k)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by contributing to the continuing vitality of the building.  All members concurred.

l)        Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that this change protects and enhances the building and economic viability of the District. All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-37 AMENDED as submitted. Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

127 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #2010-38 AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a change to the background color of a previously approved wall sign from a cream color (PMS 4545) to an off-white color (PMS 7401).

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Rodger Kessler.

Discussion regarding Application #2010-38:

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, appeared on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-38:

m)    Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the change in background color was consistent and compatible with the other new renovated and older signs.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the only change in this previously approved sign was in the background color.  All members concurred. 

n)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that by contributing to the improvement and upgrading of the building it improved the historical character.  All members concurred. 

o)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by contributing to the continuing vitality of the building.  All members concurred.

p)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that this change protects and enhances the building and economic viability of the District. All members concurred.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-38 AMENDED as submitted. Second by Mr. Johnson, Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Johnson moved to remove Application #2010-89 from the table.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Roll Call Vote:  Ryan, Mitchell, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0

527 Newark-Granville Road –Matt Ackermann/RE/MAX - Application #2010-89

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) The request is for architectural review and approval of a 5.14 square foot tenant panel sign to be located on the existing freestanding sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Chair Ryan swore in Planner Terry and Matt Ackerman 

Matt Ackerman, 527 Newark-Granville Road, indicated the he was planning to removed the existing sign and replace it with a corrugated plastic RE/MAX sign. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-89:

Mr. Mitchell asked the applicant if the sign material would be the same as the existing sign material.  Mr. Ackerman indicated in the affirmative.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the existing sign material was not attractive and had not weathered well.  Mr. Ryan suggested making their sign part of the existing wooden sign.  Planner Terry asked the Commission if they would like to table this application until the June 28, 2010 meeting to allow the applicant to provide samples of the sign materials.  Mr. Ackerman asked about temporary signage.  Planner Terry indicated that a temporary sign permit could be requested.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to table Application #2010-89.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-81: Goumas Confections; Change of Use

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 #2010-81 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-81.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-81.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-82: Goumas Confections; Tenant Panel Sign

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 #2010-82 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-82.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-82.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-83: Goumas Confections; Wall Sign

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 #2010-83 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-83.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-83.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-86: John Noblick/Russ and Melissa Bow; Door Replacement

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 #2010-86 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-826.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-86.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-35: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 #2010-35 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-35.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-35.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-36: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 #2010-36 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-36.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-36.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-37: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 #2010-37 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-37.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-37.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-38: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

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 #2010-38 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-38.  Second by Mr. Johnson. Vote to approve Application #2010-38.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-88: Jim and Bonny Fowler; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-88 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-88.  Second by Mr. Johnson.Vote to approve Application #2010-88.  Motion carried 3-0.

 Application #2010-90: Jim Green; Roofing/Gutters

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 #2010-90 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-90.  Second by Mr. Johnson.Vote to approve Application #2010-90.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Approval of Absent Commission Member(s):

Mr. Johnson made a motion to excuse Mr. Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on June 14, 2010.  Second by Mr.  Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  

Approval of the Minutes:

As there was not a quorum of members present who had attended the May 24, 2010 meeting, the minutes will be approved at the June 28, 2010 meeting.  Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Mitchell sworn in all witnesses during the May 24, 2010 meeting. 

Adjournment:  8:20 PM

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

Next meetings:  

June 28, 2010

July 12, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes May 24, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 24, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair), Jack Burriss, and Jeremy Johnson.

Members Absent: Tim Ryan and Councilmember O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Travis Ketron, Philip and Charlene Ward, Melissa Hilton, Thomas Foster, Sohrab Behdad, and Scott Walker. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

239 West Broadway – Philip and Charlene Ward - Application #2010-73

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace the existing slate roof on the front of the home with Owens Corning asphaltic dimensional shingles in Estate Gray. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Philip Ward. 

Discussion:

Philip Ward, 239 West Broadway, stated that he would like to replace the front roof because of damage that occurred from ice dams this winter.  He indicated that the front gutter was pulled off the front of the house and the existing slate roofing was damaged.  Mr. Ward stated that they have determined that the cost to replace the slate is very expensive and it would be cheaper to replace the entire front of the roof with shingles in Estate Gray.  Mr. Ward stated that the cost to replace two rows of slate is the same as replacing the entire front of the roof with dimensional shingles.  He stated that there is a total of fifteen rows of slate that needs to be replaced.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the rest of the roof on the home is shingled.  Mr. Ward stated that about 2/3 of the rest of the roof is shingled and the rest is a mixture of rubber and slate.  He indicated that the small roof on the western side is still slate.  Mr. Johnson asked if the roof sub-structure is slat or sheeting.  Mr. Ward stated that there is currently slat roofing in the area is he proposing to change and the roofer will pull this off and put on sheeting material.  Mr. Burriss stated that years ago there was a fire on the second floor of this home and at that time the homeowner was given approval to replace the back slate roof with shingles.  Mr. Ward concurred and stated that they have since had to replace some of that material installed after the fire because of evident leaks.  Mr. Johnson stated that he asked the materials being used because he would be concerned if there were two different fascia depths.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the fascia depths are probably not level now.  Mr. Burriss asked if the vented cap roof is covered by shingles.  Mr. Ward stated yes. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-73: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with shingles approved in this district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed enhancements create similar roofing material throughout the home.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-73 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

218 East Maple Street – Ketron Custom Builders/Jim and Jodi Schmidt - Application #2010-75

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of remodeling of the front porch, putting in new posts, railing and flooring, and building a new stone retaining wall along the front sidewalk.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Travis Ketron. 

Discussion:

Travis Ketron, Ketron Custom Builders, 3611 Deeds Road, stated that he is representing the homeowner and is the contractor for the proposed project.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would like to revamp the cosmetic features of the porch and install a retaining wall.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would be widening up the beam structure and removing the Tuscan columns and replacing them with turned wood spindles.  He stated that based on his research of the home he has found it to be built somewhere around 1915-1916 and the neighbors state somewhere around 1900.  Mr. Ketron stated that this time period would put the house in the Folk Victorian period, which includes some of the Victorian details but scaled down.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there would be any trim where the beam is being located at the top of the columns.  Mr. Ketron stated no and that there is not any evidence that trim was ever there.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the stone retaining wall will look like sandstone.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Ketron presented an example of the baluster and porch floor that they are proposing to use.  Mr. Burriss asked the reason for the entry elevation.  Mr. Ketron stated that they are moving the stairs over because they are currently not aesthetically pleasing.  Mr. Ketron indicated that the client will rework the brick pavers to accommodate this.  Mr. Burriss asked if the gutters and downspouts will remain as is.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Ketron showed the proposed detailing for below the porch floor.  Mr. Ketron stated 1x3 strips will be used as a varmint guard.  Mr. Burriss clarified that the applicant is not proposing to use wire mesh.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would be using wood only and would leave just enough room between the vertical boards for the porch to breathe.  Mr. Burriss asked if the detailing below the porch will have a framed appearance when done.  Mr. Ketron stated that they have done this in both fashions – with and without a border.  He indicated that in this example, he is not proposing to frame it out on the bottom.  Mr. Burriss asked the profile of the top handrail.  Mr. Ketron stated that it will have a very simple look that allows the water to shed off.  He also presented an example of the railing.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on their restoration efforts with providing more accurate detailing.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he was having some difficulty picturing what the porch would look like below.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have had applicants request to put lattice in this area.  Mr. Ketron stated that he has not worked with any architects that call for the use of lattice and he doesn’t find it to be aesthetically pleasing.  He explained that the 1x3 vertical strips he is proposing will have a reveal and that the bottom rail that they attach to will not be seen.  Mr. Mitchell asked if he will use treated lumber for this.  Mr. Ketron stated no because it won’t hold the paint as well as cedar.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed retaining wall will come to the sidewalk.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the stones will be stacked.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if there will be returns on the ends.  Mr. Ketron stated yes and they would be grade dependent, but he would like to get them back to the top of the stairs.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have in the past required that retaining walls be placed back far enough to allow for the replacement of the sidewalk if need be.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant will use a packed stone foundation for the retaining wall.  Mr. Ketron stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the wall would be thirty six (36”) inches high from the sidewalk.  Mr. Ketron stated that it would be that high at its highest point and it would not exceed thirty six (36”) inches high, and they hope to be around twenty-four (24”) and thirty-two (32”) inches.  Mr. Johnson inquired as to how the geograde is tied to the stone.  Mr. Ketron explained that they would be laying a mesh that will hold dirt and it’s held in place by the weight of the ground & stones.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-75: 

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 changes are a restoration to the home and this is consistent with other structures 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 stated that the proposed improvements are an upgrade.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-75 with the condition that the base of the proposed retaining wall be held a minimum of nine inches (9”) from the edge of the sidewalk.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

115 North Prospect Street – Greenlee Hilton Insurance  - Application #2010-76

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a window/door sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Melissa Hilton. 

Discussion:

Melissa Hilton, 776 Westwood Drive, stated that she would like to place the sign on the door of her business so it is clearer as to what her business is.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the application requires a Variance.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage exceeds the 15% maximum allotment for a single window sign.  Mr. Burriss clarified that the applicant doesn’t want to place any additional signage on other windows.  Ms. Hilton stated that there is not any signage there, nor does she ever want there to be any.  Ms. Hilton stated that she is not in favor of the sandwich board signs that people use and she thinks that the proposal before the Planning Commission for a window/door sign is the most appropriate type of signage for her store front.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the other window area could be considered in the percentage so there wouldn’t have to be a Variance.  Ms. Terry stated that they can only consider the door area and it is separated from the front window and not used in the calculation.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-76: 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the division of the front window and door is a special circumstance and the window in the front cannot have signage on it. 

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that this does not apply.  Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is in need of the sign to inform the public of what the business is. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the proposed Variance is not substantial. 

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

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal by the applicant is the most favorable option presented to the Planning Commission.  

(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 that justice would 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 that the applicant did not build the building. 

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, it will not. 

  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 were no special conditions or requirements.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-76: 

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 signage is consistent with other signage in the same zoning district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed door signage is appropriate to the historical character in this zoning district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-76 with a Variance to increase the size of the window sign from 15% to 59% for a 5.8 square foot sign. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.

338 North Pearl Street – Thomas Foster - Application #2010-77

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6’) foot wood, board on board, fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Thomas Foster, and Sohrab Behdad. 

Discussion:

Thomas Foster, 338 North Pearl Street, stated that he would like to install a privacy fence around the back of his property.  He stated that the fence would be six foot (6’) tall, except for an area near the patio that would drop down to five foot (5’).  Mr. Foster explained that he has a neighboring garage that is on the property line and he would inset the fence so the neighbor has adequate access to the garage.  Mr. Foster went on to say that there would be a gate at the patio area on the south side, a double gate on the back, and a third gate near the car port on the north side of the property.  Mr. Burriss asked about fencing being applied along the back of the carport.  Mr. Foster stated that there will be enough room that the fence will run along existing flower beds and then step down to the patio.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant was aware that the finished side of the fence would have to face out to his neighbor.  Mr. Foster stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked how sharp the proposed dog ear fence is.  Mr. Foster stated that it is described as a treated dog-ear fence in the quote.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed finish for the fence.  Mr. Foster stated that it would have to cure during the summer and he would apply a clear sealant with a natural finish.  Mr. Burriss asked the width of the boards.  Mr. Foster stated one by six.  Mr. Burriss asked if the top of the gates are also dog eared.  Mr. Foster stated that the gates will be identical to the fence.  Mr. Foster also indicated that the large tree in the rear would be boxed in.  Mr. Burriss asked if the tree would be located within the fence.  Mr. Foster stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the retaining wall will be within the fence.  Mr. Foster stated yes.  

Sohrab Behdad, 530 Mill Race Road, stated that he and Mr. Foster have been good neighbors to each other and he appreciates him moving the fence back so he can get to the garage.  He stated that he owns the property located at 330 North Pearl Street.  Mr. Behdad stated that his question is what if the fence is not exactly located on the property line and he questions if it is really necessary for a six foot high fence.  Mr. Behdad explained that the other side of his property has a four foot picket fence and he does not feel that a six foot high fence is aesthetically pleasing.  Mr. Mitchell explained that the Planning Commission doesn’t have jurisdiction regarding someone’s survey and property lines and this would be considered to be a civil matter between the two parties.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the zoning code allows for a six foot fence in this zoning district and if he wants to arrange with his neighbor a different height – they can certainly do so.

Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Foster if he had given any consideration to lowering the fence.  Mr. Behdad also suggested that the fence would be more aesthetically pleasing by matching existing structures around the home.  Mr. Foster stated that a picket fence wouldn’t offer him the security and privacy he wants for his dog.  He went on to say that he wanted the six foot fence to help channel road noise between the houses.  Mr. Foster stated that the finish of the fence would not be good if it were to be painted because he lives in a shaded tree area where mold is prevalent and this would create a maintenance issue.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant had considered a pigmented stain.  He stated that he applauds the efforts made in restoration and maintenance to the home and a more finished fence would be more consistent with work done on the property and would not be so “unfinished looking.”  He added that the fencing will be clearly visible from the carport area in the front of the home.  Mr. Foster agreed that he would be willing to change the overall height of the fence to five feet and apply a pigmented stain on the fence within one year.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-77:

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 fence is consistent with other fencing approved for this district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence with a pigmented stain is an upgrade to the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-77 with the condition that the applicant install the fence to be five foot (5’) high and that the finish on the fence have a pigmented stain to be applied within one year. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

400 Ebaugh Drive – Scott Walker/Denison University - Application #2010-78

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for review and approval of the addition of athletic team rooms to the existing restroom facility.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker. 

Discussion:

Scott Walker, 865 Franklin Avenue, Heath, Ohio, stated that he representing Denison University.  He stated that there is an existing restroom structure that they would like to add on to with painted split face masonry and a shingled roof.  Mr. Walker stated that they would like team rooms installed on each side of the restroom.  He stated that they are following LEED standards and the donor wants to make sure that the building is environmentally friendly with a metal roof and skylights to reduce reliance on electricity.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the setback criteria is met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-78 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-73: Philip and Charlene Ward; New Roof

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 #2010-73 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-73.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-75: Ketron Custom Builders/Jim and Jodi Schmidt; Exterior Modifications

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 1187, Height Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-75 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-75.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-76: Greenlee Hilton Insurance; Window/Door Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-76 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-76.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-77: Thomas Foster; Fence

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 #2010-77 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-77.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-78: Scott Walker/Denison University; Addition

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 gives their approval of Application #2010-78 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-78.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

Approval of Absent Commissioner Member:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from the Planning Commission meeting on May 24, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the April 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 3-0.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the May 10, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

Next meetings:

June 14, 2010 (Melanie Schott and Jack Burriss indicated that they cannot attend this meeting.)

June 28, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 10, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Ralph Baker, David Baker, Dr. Mark Alexandrunas, Maggie Sobataka, Travis Ketron, Russ Adams, Jason Spinks, Mary Jo Spinks, Olivia Haas, and John Cassell. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

Old Business:

113 North Prospect Street – Aaath Co./Russ Adams - Application #2010-55

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

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

1)         Removal of wood sidelights on each side of the entry door and replacement with clear glass, beveled sidelights on each side;

2)         Replacement of exterior light fixtures on each side of entry door with brass light fixtures; and

3)         Addition of an electrical outlet on the south side of the stairs. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams. 

Discussion:

Mr. Burriss moved to remove Application #2010-55 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Russ Adams, Aaath Company, stated that he provided a drawing of what he would like to change regarding the side lights, as well as a paint chip of the color he would like to use.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the trim around the side lights will appear.  Mr. Adams stated that they didn’t plan to do anything different than what was used at 109 North Prospect.  He stated that they would use quarter round at each side light panel.  Mr. Burriss asked if the material that is proposed for over the door and above the side lights is the same as 109 North Prospect Street.  Mr. Adams stated that they will use the existing siding.  Mr. Burriss asked if the existing siding will carry on to the top of the sidelights.  Mr. Adams stated that there is a slightly indented ½ inch surface.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes that he is seeing that the top of the sidelights and windows are all going to be all one level continuous line.  Mr. Adams stated that this was proposed by the Planning Commission and he tried to adopt their idea.  Mr. Burriss asked how the lights are currently mounted on the door and he stated that the position of the light fixtures feels awkward.  Mr. Adams explained that the lights were chosen for this location because they didn’t want them to be covered up by the existing awning.  He went on to say that there is lighting within the awning and sign and he would consider not having the lights on the building.  He also stated that they chose to put lighting at this doorway because it is a new and different business.  Mr. Burriss stated that he appreciates all of these ideas, but he has some difficulty visualizing the proposed lighting and questioned whether it would be proportionate.  Mr. Burriss stated that the building without the proposed lighting would be architecturally appropriate considering their proposed height.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Adams explained that there will be an outlet at the bottom of the doorway.  Mr. Johnson asked if the sidelights and door will be replaced.  Mr. Adams stated that the existing door will be maintained and the side lights will be rebuilt.  Mr. Johnson stated asked if there will be some depth that will remain.  Mr. Adams stated that this will not change.  Mr. Johnson asked if a window sill will be created.  Mr. Adams stated the four and one half inches will change very little and there is quarter round in the front.  He went on to explain that the glass is about an inch and one half thick and it has two layers of protective glass around it.  He stated that the glass will sit on the existing lower fourteen inches and there will be a small piece of quarter round to set it back.  Mr. Adams stated that the glass will not quite be flush from the inside and it will be inset the same as the door on the outside.     

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-55: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is stylistically compatible with other structures in the Village without the proposed lighting.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed side lights are an appropriate detail for this district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is a historically appropriate enhancement. 

e)      Materials:  Clear glass beveled side lights. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-55 with the condition that the applicant not use the exterior lighting included in the application and the top of the sidelights and the top of the door lights are to be at the same elevation. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

319 Summit Street – Ralph Baker - Application #2010-56

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace the existing slate and shingle roof with Sierra Gray Oakridge asphaltic dimensional shingles.  

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

Discussion:

David Baker, 22 Blue Bonnet Drive, Heath, Ohio, stated that Ralph Baker is his father and he is representing him for this application.  Mr. Baker explained that two areas on the roof of the house already have shingles and there is slate on the other.  Mr. Baker stated that the porch roof is a flat rubber roof.  Mr. Ryan asked if the top of the roof that is flat will also be replaced.  Mr. Baker stated that they will also have rubber at the top of this area.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the ridges will be treated - shingled or metal.  The applicant and Mr. Mitchell believed after review of the application that the ridges would be shingled.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal will bring the primary and supplemental structures into conformity, which is preferable.  Mr. Johnson asked if there could be fascia depth issues where the old lathe meets the slate roof.  Mr. Baker stated that the roofer would be making this consistent.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-56: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with material with other new and renovated structures in the Village District.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed upgrades are consistent and makes the primary and supplemental structures consistent.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed improvements will preserve the structures on the property.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-56 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Sobataka  - Application #2010-60

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Marilyn Sobataka. 

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, 15 Donald Ross Drive, stated that she would like to place the sign once used by the Needling Yarn on the sidewalk and it would have her business name painted on it.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sidewalk signage will be used to write what the current collection is.  Ms. Sobataka explained that the sidewalk sign will not be used daily, but more for special events.  Ms. Sobataka stated that by placing the sign in front of the store front it doesn’t serve as great a purpose as it would from down the street.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she was told by Village Staff that placing the signage at the corner is no longer permissible.  Ms. Sobataka stated that the top of the sidewalk sign will be identical to the wall sign.  Mr. Burriss expressed some concern over the placement of the sign because the sidewalk in that area is not very wide.  Ms. Sobataka stated that there are new concrete pads that were recently laid and she questioned if this would be an appropriate location to place the sign.  She suggested having the sign closer to the curb so it doesn’t block the sidewalk.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is consistent with other signage in this district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign’s character is in keeping with the historical character of the Village District.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-60 with the condition that the applicant place the signage in accordance to the Village Staff Report and that the top of the sidewalk sign be as per Exhibit ‘A’ (picture submitted of the projecting sign for Gallery “M”.) Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Mr. Mitchell moved to amend the motion to add that the sidewalk sign shall only be displayed during business hours only. Mr. Burriss seconded. Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Sobataka - Application #2010-61

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 6.45 square foot projecting sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Marilyn Sobataka. 

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, 15 Donald Ross Drive, stated that she will use the current mounting already in place on the building.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the current lighting will be used.  Mr. Johnson asked if this lighting will be on a timer.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she will use the existing lighting and it works by a switch on the inside of the building.  She stated that she would likely leave the light on if it is safe.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have typically restricted the lighting hours.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she really has no preference because she will have inside lights that will project down in the window and they will be just as attractive.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is volunteering to turn the lighting off.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they have restricted lighting in the past, but this has been only when a Variance is involved.  Ms. Sobataka indicated that she had no problem turning the lighting off from dawn until 10:00 PM.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-61: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other signage in the district. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade in the historical character of the building.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

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

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-61 as presented with the condition that the outside lighting on the sign is turned off from 10:00 PM to Dawn.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

123 East Broadway – Mary Jo Spinks/Tickleberry Moon - Application #2010-36 AMENDED

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

The request is to amend Application #2010-36 for a wall sign.  The applicant is requesting that the sign font and colors be amended. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mary Jo Spinks, Olivia Haas, and Jason Spinks. 

Discussion:

Mary Jo Spinks, indicated that their business, Tickleberry Moon, will be moving from The Works to 125 East Broadway. She stated that they are before the Planning Commission to ask that the wall sign previously approved for the building be amended for the font and color.  Ms. Terry indicated that the owner of the building, Greg Ream, has stated that he would prefer that the border and background color be consistent with his other signage that was approved for the building.  She went on to say that he indicated in an email that if the Planning Commission wanted all of the other signage to have a cream background color – he wouldn’t be opposed, but he would not favor a stark white.  Olivia Haas, 125 East Broadway, stated that they have used the logo on the sign they are presenting for advertising and they can’t fit their logo on the sign already approved due to its size.  Ms. Haas stated that Mr. Ream does not want a glossy background and they are proposing a background with a matte finish. Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Ream has indicated he would change the background color of the signage to white.  Ms. Terry stated his email indicates that he would be opposed to a stark white background.  Ms. Spinks stated that Mr. Ream could not be at the meeting.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color of the signage was approved with overall approval for the improvements to the building and they have never approved more than three colors for a sign.  Ms. Spinks stated that from their standpoint, they came in with two sign colors that were already approved.  Ms. Haas stated that the approved signage doesn’t make their logo stand out or do anything for their branding.  She stated that they have a baby friendly business and hunter green and beige are not fitting for their business.  Ms. Spinks stated that they are trying to make the best color palette they could, given the colors that were previously approved.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if “Natural Modern Baby” is the logo and what has the Planning Commission done regarding the approval of logos on a sign in the past.  Mr. Burriss stated that they didn’t allow various banks or CVS drugstore use their entire logo because their signage islocated in the Architectural Review Overlay District.  Ms. Terry stated that Abe’s Body Shop has consistent colors with all of the signage on their property.  Ms. Haas stated that they advertise all over Licking County with this logo they are presenting.  She later indicated that they would be willing to shift to an off-white background and their main concern is legibility more than anything else.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission could have someone come in with six neon colors and they would have to consider the application.  He indicated that this is why there is a three color maximum in place.  Ms. Spinks stated that she understood, but two of the colors were chosen for them and they aren’t in their logo.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission can’t approve the signage if the owner of the building doesn’t want it.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have always held people to three colors for signage and he is not willing to deviate from this.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would consider the background color and border to be considered as an architectural element of the sign, but there are still more than three colors.  He also stated that he would consider a different font on the sign.  Mr. Ryan indicated that he would like for the signage to be consistent on the building.  Jason Spinks, 125 East Broadway, asked if it is correct that the Planning Commission wants a historical feeling with their signage so it is visually pleasing.  Mr. Burriss stated that this would be a “correct foundation assumption.”  He added that he doesn’t want the applicant’s signage to cause other business’s to say they weren’t treated fairly because they have also had lengthy discussions with other businesses requesting Variances for colors in the past.  Mr. Johnson inquired on the other signage for the building owned by Mr. Ream.  Ms. Terry explained that he would have to amend the other three applications to match what is changed, but he isn’t bound to do this.  Mr. Johnson stated that he feels that the other signage would have to be changed to have a cream background and he does see this as an architectural element.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has already approved a color palette for the building and the signage that was approved is consistent with that color palette.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color for the background of the signage was also being used on the building.  Ms. Terry stated that she and Mr. Ream did not have a conversation regarding him amending the other applications to have the other signage on the building changed to a cream background.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the applicant comes back with a plan and Mr. Ream is not willing to make the other signage the same on the building – they could still have an issue.  

Mr. Johnson made a motion to Table Application #2010-36 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

123 East Broadway – Mary Jo Spinks/Tickleberry Moon - Application #2010-63

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of sidewalk sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mary Jo Spinks, and Dr. Mark Alexandrunas. 

Discussion:

Mary Jo Spinks, stated that they are flexible with the placement of the sidewalk sign and they have a large sidewalk in front of their building.  Ms. Spinks stated that they will only have the sign out during business hours.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is submitting five to six colors for the sidewalk sign, depending on whether or not the background color (white) is included.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed sign meets the size requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign is two foot (2’) by three foot (3’) and it does meet the sidewalk sign requirement.  However, she also stated that the maximum sign area for signage on the building would need a Variance, and a Variance is necessary because the proposed sign has more than three colors.  Mr. Ryan questioned if this is the only sidewalk sign allowed for the entire building if they approve it.  Ms. Terry explained that the Code only allows for one sidewalk sign per building, and there have been Variances granted in the past for more than one sidewalk sign for a building.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant will be proposing a window sign.  Ms. Terry stated that a window sign would require another Variance.  Ms. Spinks indicated that they would like to apply for a window sign at some point.  Mr. Spinks presented the sign that they are proposing to use on the sidewalk.  Mr. Mitchell suggested approving the presented sign as a temporary sign.  Ms. Terry indicated that temporary signs can be used for the opening of a new business and they are valid for ninety days.  Mr. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission were to approve a wall sign color palette, would the applicant consider painting the remaining area of the sign to be consistent with other signage.  Mr. Spinks stated that the sign cannot be painted because it is printed on.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has tried to approve consistency of graphics for businesses. 

Ms. Spinks stated that this is why they wanted a white background for the wall signage, so the signage was consistent.  She added that if they change the color they are altering their logo.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees that they have “tasteful ideas and creative people” before them and the Planning Commission rules are prohibiting them from having the signage they want.  He stated that he would like to bend over backwards to help them.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the applicant work out the color scheme with the owner of the building.  He stated that he would like to see a consistent look between the wall, window, and sidewalk signage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant had ever considered “Natural Modern Baby” being the same color as “Tickleberry.”  Mr. Spinks stated that with no offense, he is not sure this is the right question to ask of them.  He went on to say that they already have money invested in the existing brand and the signs are already made.  Mr. Spinks stated that from a business standpoint, the Planning Commission is asking them to spend extra dollars to replace a sign that is functional and aesthetically pleasing and he wouldn’t consider this being good for business in Granville. 

Dr. Mark Alexandrunas, 121 East Broadway, stated that he will be occupying the same building with his dental office and he is in favor of having a consistent look on the building with the same type of signage on the top.  Dr. Alexandrunas suggested having the signage at the top of the building be the same, and allowing for logos on the window and sidewalk sign.  He added that this is consistent with signage he has seen in New England.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that you have to market your brand to market yourself. 

He also stated that he has plans to submit for a sidewalk sign.  The Planning Commission discussed Tabling the application.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Variance for the size of the sign would be to increase it 3.75 square feet over what is allowed, which is 41.25 square feet to 45 square feet.  Mr. Johnson stated that he doesn’t want to go so far as to ask the applicant to rebuild the sidewalk sign, but he has a different view point on the wall sign.  He went on to say that he is sympathetic to the need for a Variance for the number of colors because of business branding and the need for a logo to define the business. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-63: 

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 TRUEMr. Johnson stated that the reason the Variance is needed is because the building has architectural elements that are too expensive to repair and the signage is being used to cover up the imperfections of the building.      

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. Johnson stated that the business could still yield a return, but it is diminished if the applicant’s brand is not recognized.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there can be some beneficial use to the property if the variance is not granted.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated that the overage in square footage for signage is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson agreed.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ryan indicated that the requested number of colors for the sign from three to five or six colors would require a substantial Variance. 

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

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE, the owner of the building was aware of zoning restrictions, but the tenant may not have been aware.   

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the overage of the square footage of the sign could not be obviated through another method other than a Variance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the pre-existing sign cannot be shrunk and the tenant would have to spend money to rebrand the entire business.  Mr. Mitchell stated that that is not 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission would be granting them justice by granting the applicant a Variance                                       

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant is not the owner of the building and the request for more than three colors is an action of the applicant.  Mr. Mitchell stated FALSE. 

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.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-63: 

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 sign has more than three colors and although he thinks it is an attractive sign, he worries about any precedence set in approving the sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.  Mr. Mitchell stated that that the proposed signage looks nice and is stylistically compatible.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed signage is consistent with other signage in the Village.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed sign contributes to the historical character by adding a viable business.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by allowing that side of the street to become more viable and the sign allows for the business’s brand recognition.  Mr. Burriss did not agree.    Mr. Mitchell agreed with Mr. Johnson.

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 #2010-63 with a Variance for the sign coverage to increase from 41.25 square feet to 45 square feet and for a Variance for the number of colors to be increased from three to six colors, and that the sign must be removed during non-business hours. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1. 

121 East Broadway – Ketron Custom Builders - Application #2010-64

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

The request is for approval of a Change of Use from Category “B,” Retail, to Category “C,” Business and Professional Offices, specifically for a dental office and clinic. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Travis Ketron, and Dr. Mark Alexandrunas. 

Discussion:

Travis Ketron, 3611 Deeds Road, stated that they would like to change the space of what used to be B Hammonds to a Dental Office.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has met the parking requirements.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-64 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

204 East College Street – John Paolacci  - Application #2010-70

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

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

 Discussion:

John Paolacci, 204 East College Street, stated that he would like a 192 square foot patio in the rear of the property and this area is not visible from the road.  Mr. Paolacci provided an example of the 42 inch wood picket fence and he stated that he would like to let it age before they paint it.  He also presented an example of the proposed pavers.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the application meets all of the requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the landscaping is not required for review.  Mr. Burriss asked how the fence will connect to the house and what the relationship to the railing on the porch would be.  Mr. Paolacci stated that the fencing will be below the railing and he thinks it will blend in fine and they will equal the spacing on the wrap around porch.  He stated that the fence will be in line with railing and spindle posts on the porch.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing a gate because this is not indicated on the application.  Mr. Paolacci stated yes and it will be located in the middle of the fencing.  Mr. Burriss questioned the look of the fence next to the neighbor’s iron fence.  Mr. Paolacci stated that the white picket fence will not impede with Mr. Cassell’s fence.  John Cassell, 216 East College Street, the stated that previous neighbors put some wood scraps next to his property and then placed dirt on top of it which has now collapsed onto his property.  He stated that he is not objecting to what the applicant wishes to do, but he wants to ensure that nothing else will be placed on the wood scraps and dirt to make his fence lean any more.  He stated that he is trying to preserve his property.  Mr. Paolacci stated that he has assured Mr. Cassell that he won’t bring dirt up against the fence. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-70: 

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 fence and patio is consistent with other patios and fences 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 stated that the proposed fence and patio are an upgrade of the historical character in this district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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

e)      Materials: Paver Patio and wood picket fence. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-70 with the condition that the proposed gate blends in with the fence and is located in the middle, and the fence is to be painted white within one year, and the paver used is the same as presented by the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Mr. Mitchell amended his motion to add the following language: “The applicant agrees to avoid adding any additional soil to the eastern property line.” Second by Mr. Johnson.  Roll Call Vote on the Amended Motion: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #2010-55: Aaath Co./Russ Adams; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-55 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-55.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

Application #2010-56: Ralph Baker; New Roof

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 #2010-56 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-56.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-60: Marilyn Sobataka; Sidewalk Sign

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 #2010-60 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-61: Marilyn Sobataka; Projecting Sign

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 #2010-61 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-61.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 Application #2010-63: Mary Jo Spinks/Tickleberry Moon; Signage

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 #2010-63 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-63.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss (no), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1. 

Application #2010-64: Ketron Custom Builders; Change of Use

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 #2010-64 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-64.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-70: John Paolacci; Patio/Fence

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 #2010-70 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-70.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Adjournment:  9:55 PM

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

Next meetings:

May 24, 2010 (Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she cannot attend this meeting.)(Mr. Ryan indicated that he will not be able to attend the May 24th meeting.)

June 14, 2010 

Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 26, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Brice Corder, Rebecca Collen, Russ Adams, Lauren Fisher, Forrest Blake, Barbara Franks, Chris Avery, Deloris Collins, Mel Bomprezzi, Josh Fisher, Drew Bennett, Scott Walker, Sam Sagaria, and Maggie Barno. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

200 and 300 Ebaugh Drive – Denison University - Application #2010-47

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for review and approval of two maintenance buildings measuring 500 square feet and 896 square feet. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Scott Walker. 

Discussion:

Scott Walker, Denison University, stated that two structures will be built behind Bancroft House and they will also be requesting to remove a roadway and building with a separate application for demolition.  Mr. Walker indicated that soccer and lacrosse equipment will be stored in one building and mower equipment and a golf cart in the other.  Ms. Terry indicated that these buildings require Conditional Use approval from BZBA, so Planning Commission approval is contingent upon the BZBA approval. 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the application conforms with setback requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the building behind Rose House would have any landscaping.  Mr. Walker stated no and that there was a garage there several years ago and the new structure will be located really close to that location.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-47 with the condition that the applicant receive Conditional Use approval from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

125 East Broadway – Maggie Barno  - Application #2010-48

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 5.33 square foot window sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Maggie Barno. 

Discussion:

Maggie Barno, 125 East Broadway, Granville Area Chamber of Commerce, stated that she is representing the Chamber and they would like to place a 5.33 square foot window sign on the building.  She stated that the sign would have the Chamber’s logo and will say ‘Granville Rec District’ because they will be sharing space at 125 East Broadway.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the application meets all of the requirements.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant would need a Variance due to the size of the window sign because it is two percent over the maximum percentage of window allowed to be covered by a window sign.

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-48: 

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 that the building is unique and therefore the signage is unique.  Mr. Burriss stated that the store front is particularly narrow.  

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that this does not apply. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is not substantial at a 2% increase.  

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

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements were compromised by granting a 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 and that this was an existing building. 

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, it will not.  

  1. 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 were no special conditions or requirements.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-48: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other signage approved in the same zoning district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed materials and the use of materials are in keeping with the historical district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant represents a community service organization. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-48 with a Variance to allow an increase to 17%, above the 15% requirements, and to approve the sign as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

226 South Mulberry Street – Forrest Blake  - Application #2010-49

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear second story addition, removal of a third story dormer and reroof of entire structure to asphalt shingles. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Forrest Blake. 

Discussion:

Forrest Blake, 226 South Mulberry Street, stated that he would like to add a second story on to the home.  He stated that the existing house was built in 1920 and he wants to build up from what was added in 1980.  Mr. Blake stated that aluminum siding was put on the house and he would like to take the house back to wood lap siding to match what was original to the home.  Mr. Blake clarified that he will match the wood siding on the porch for the addition, and perhaps in the future address whether or not he will be replacing aluminum siding and taking the entire structure back to all wood.  Mr. Blake stated that the wood trim will match the trim on the front porch and that most of the windows on the home are currently vinyl and he is requesting to change this to all wood windows.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has provided two different asphalt shingles.  Mr. Blake explained that the shingles he likes (Colonial Berkshire) are $1000 more and he doesn’t yet know if he will install these or regular three dimensional (Owens Corning Estate Gray) shingles.  Mr. Mitchell questioned why the applicant had to get a Variance for side yard set back because the first floor of the home should be grandfathered.  Ms. Terry explained that because the applicant is building up he has to meet the current setbacks and he would be increasing the non-conformity by building the second story.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is maintaining the same downspouts.  Mr. Blake stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant will be rebuilding the chimney.  Mr. Blake stated that the chimney currently has a cement coating and is badly deteriorating.  He stated that they plan to replace it using brick.  He also stated that the existing metal chimney will be completely removed from the structure.  Law Director Crites indicated that the two samples of shingles Colonial Berkshire and Estate Gray Owens Corning should be incorporated as Exhibits submitted by the applicant.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-49: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are other structures in the same district with the same types of proposed materials.

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 proposing restoring to the structure with the original materials that was on the structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 improvements will protect and enhance this structure where past generations once lived.

e)      Proposed Materials: The applicant is proposing the following materials:

     a.  Siding:  The siding will match the original wood lap siding;

     b.  Trim:  The trim will match the original trim, identical to the first floor front windows, as indicated in the photographs submitted with the application;

     c.  Windows

          1.   Wood exterior, double hung windows with no grids;

          2.  2 awning style windows on the second story;

     d.  Gutters & Downspouts:  To match the existing;

     e.  Roof:  Asphalt shingles in either Owens Corning Duration Shingles or Owens Corning Berkshire Collection;

     f.  Lighting:  2 new Coach lights on either side of the patio doors;

    g.  Soffits:  3/8" cedar plywood in two pieces at the eaves, with a 2" strip vent down the middle, with solid boards at the rakes; and

    h.  Chimney:  reconstruct with brick.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-49 with the stipulation that the roof shingles shall be per on Exhibit “A” or Exhibit “B.” Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

119 ½ Prospect Street – Barbara Franks - Application #2010-50

Village Business District (VBD-B&E) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for approval of a Change of Use from Category “B”, Specialty Shops and Category "E", Retail Shops to Category "D", Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a Mexican restaurant occupying 400 square feet of space on the first floor. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Barbara Franks, Chris Avery, Sam Sagaria, Dan Rogers, and Brice Corder. 

Discussion:

Brice Corder, 210 East Maple Street, stated that he is a designer and creative consultant for Barbara Franks and they would like to change the current zoning to allow for a Mexican Restaurant with a slogan of “Fiesta of Food on the Go.”  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Terry if the application meets all of the requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the request is a reduction from Retail to Restaurant classification and it does meet all of the parking requirements.  She indicated that the applicant has provided an interior layout depicting where the approximate 400 square foot restaurant will be located.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Corder can explain the access into the proposed restaurant.  Mr. Corder stated that currently in the front of the building there are two doors that serve Footloose and Granville Lighting and these two businesses share a common foyer.  He stated that TD’s Café will replace Granville Lighting.  He stated that when Footloose is closed, they will close off the clothing area so people can walk into TD’s Café.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is an exterior back entrance.  Mr. Corder indicated that in the back they have a door that accesses OS Mercantile, which is an accessory structure to Footloose.  Mr. Corder indicated that this door can also be used as an emergency exit.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant will be changing walls/partitions on the inside of the building.  Mr. Corder stated no and that the part that they are proposing to use for the restaurant has an existing kitchen.  Mr. Corder stated that they will be going to the Health Department for the proper approvals after the Change of Use process.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the proposed business is going to be primarily carryout.  Mr. Corder stated yes and there will be several stools with counter space available for people to sit and eat/wait for their order.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the primary entrance is off the street in the front of the building.  Mr. Corder stated yes and that this is really the only entrance.  Mr. Ryan asked if patrons will also enter Footloose through the same entrance.  Mr. Burriss asked if patrons will be able to go up the steps just off of the vestibule.  Mr. Corder stated that they will have a chain set up to close this area off when the Footloose business is not open.  Mr. Burriss asked if merchandise will be sold in the vestibule area.  Mr. Corder stated that they can’t put fixtures in that area because there are four doors.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the door for the porch, vestibule, and the restaurant are all workable doors.  Ms. Franks stated yes, but there are some doors that won’t be used and closed off – specifically for the chiropractor and some for Footloose.  Mr. Burriss stated that if you close the French doors that enter Footloose, and the stairs are blocked, then the only access is to the new restaurant.  Ms. Franks stated that this is correct.  Mr. Corder stated that another reason they call this the common area or foyer is because it is the area that is important to maintain traffic flow.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there will be any chairs in the foyer and she questioned where patrons will wait if there are a lot of customers at one time.  Mr. Corder stated that there is 126 square feet in the waiting area in the foyer and they assume patrons will wait there.  Mr. Corder stated that they want people in and out.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the foyer is being considered as part of the restaurant and if not – should it be considered.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the Planning Commission is looking for some clarification on this.  Mr. Burriss questioned if a carryout business would have to have access to a restroom.  Ms. Franks indicated that a health inspector she met with has indicated that restroom access isn’t necessary.  She went on to say that there is a handicap bathroom in the accessory structure, as well as a small restroom in the lower level of the house but one would have to go through the kitchen area to get to it.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the health department will allow travel through the kitchen.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he believed there would have to be restroom accessibility required by the Health Department.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the cooking equipment that the applicant is proposing, there would have to be a hood/ventilation system.  He asked where the applicant is proposing to locate the exhaust fan for the hood.  Ms. Franks stated that this hasn’t yet been established.  Mr. Rogers later stated that their plan is to bring the duct work up through the middle of the kitchen through the second floor to vent it out the roof.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there would be any venting in the driveway next to Dr. Avery. Ms. Franks stated no.  Mr. Johnson questioned the address for the foyer/vestibule and is it part of 119 ½ South Prospect Street.  Ms. Franks stated that this area has a mixed use and is shared with 119 ½ and 121 South Prospect Street.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is determining if the square footage of the common area is actually part of the square footage of the restaurant.  Ms. Franks stated that the foyer provides access to more than one business.  Ms. Franks stated that she would rather not reduce any parking requirements on the square footage of her retail business by adding the foyer square footage to the restaurant square footage.  Mr. Burriss asked if Footloose displays merchandise in the foyer, then during the hours when Footloose is closed would that merchandise be removed from the foyer.  Ms. Franks stated no.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any thought given to reactivating the second front door as an entrance to the restaurant.  Mr. Corder stated no because they want to enhance the retail business as well by encouraging people to shop and eat.  Ms. Terry indicated that the foyer has a shared use for access to retail and the restaurant and there may be some flow over.  She went on to say that this is not uncommon for these types of properties.  Law Director Crites agreed.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is similar to the situation at Whit’s Custard and the Soup Loft with two uses in one building.  Mr. Mitchell questioned the process if the applicant receives a Change of Use for a restaurant and later decides that they want to go back to a retail classification.  Ms. Terry indicated that this would require an application from the Planning Commission for a Change of Use.  She went on to say that the grand-fathered parking that exists now would have to come into conformity with the code as it is today.  Mr. Corder questioned if this would only be for the 400 square feet.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Franks acknowledged that she was aware that this is the case.

Dr. Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated that he applauds Mr. Corder’s creativity, but he does have some reservations and some questions regarding the application.  He provided a copy of his concerns to the Village Planner.  Dr. Sagaria questioned where will people park?  He stated that he has one way for ingress and egress into his driveway.  He asked what will keep anyone from parking in the driveway and preventing him from ingress and egress to his property?  He stated that he knows this will worsen because there are problems now.  Dr. Sagaria asked who will be responsible for added trash because he regularly finds trash on his property.  He stated that he has been told that the source of trash is from Elm’s Pizza and Subway and just recently he found a stick of Land of Lake’s butter in his driveway and he doesn’t believe this is from Elm’s or Subway.  Dr. Sagaria asked how traffic will be controlled in the neighborhood?  He stated that the shared driveway is shared in use, maintenance, and decision making.  He went on to explain that he has two to three parking spaces in front of his garage and he has been told he has to back out of his driveway and he will continue to do this.  Dr. Sagaria asked what will keep the restaurant from migrating into the barn/accessory structure?  He asked what will keep the restaurant from obtaining a liquor license?  Dr. Sagaria stated that on these and other issues he is alone and has been told this is a civil matter.  Dr. Sagaria stated that all of the above issues will impact the neighbors and neighborhood in a negative way.  He went on to say that Granville needs business and he is not opposed to businesses in Granville, but this proposal is a negative fit for the neighborhood.  Dr. Sagaria stated that he would request that the Planning Commission set guidelines in place to protect the neighborhood and he is strongly opposed to the proposal and he encourages the Planning Commission to vote against the Change of Use.  Law Director Crites suggested that perhaps some of Dr. Sagaria’s concerns could be addressed by the applicant.  Mr. Corder stated that parking will be where people in Granville park now.  He stated that Granville is a pedestrian town and it is their hope that people will walk to their establishment much as they do when going to Whit’s.  Mr. Corder stated that regarding the parking of the driveway - this is up to the homeowner’s to contact the Granville Police Department to have offenders ticketed.  He added that they don’t want people to park in the driveway.  Mr. Corder stated that regarding added trash on the property, he will see to it that they do the best they can to keep it neat and picked up.  He went on to say that weeks ago they had a horrible wind that blew trash all over and he worked to pick up trash himself.  Mr. Corder stated that the driveway is a shared access driveway.  He also stated that liquor has not ever been discussed and they aren’t encouraging anyone sitting out at the barn to eat, but they will encourage shopping in the barn.  

Dr. Chris Avery, 127 South Prospect Street, asked for clarification regarding the rear door for entering and exiting.  Ms. Franks stated that they don’t have enough parking in the back and there will not be any parking in the rear.  She stated that they will encourage, through their signage, for people to enter the establishment through the front door.  She indicated that they are not proposing any signage on the rear door of the business.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Corder has already indicated that the only access to the restaurant is at the front of the building.  Ms. Franks stated that their rear entrance will be much like Crosswalk Cards & Gifts rear entrance.  She stated that there will not be signage, but there may from time to time be patrons who enter the business through the back door.  Dr. Avery stated that in general he is not against the proposed business in the front structure and he is pro-business.  He stated that he is worried about traffic flow, trash, and the restaurant trying to migrate to the rear accessory structure.  He indicated that he wouldn’t want to see tables and seating available in the barn.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she believed she saw a table and umbrella at the barn.  Ms. Franks stated that this has been there for some time and it is where the employees eat lunch.  

Dr. Sam Sagaria stated that he is still very concerned about the migration of the restaurant business to the barn.  

Law Director Crites clarified that the Planning Commission is looking at an application regarding a Change of Use for approximately 400 square foot in the front structure and they shouldn’t discuss or pre-judge any potential subject matter that could come before them by way of an application in the future.  

Mr. Burriss stated that according to the floor plan there is storage behind the refrigerator where a double door is located.  He asked if this is where they are proposing that restaurant supplies be delivered.  He also asked if they have an idea of the frequency of deliveries.  Ms. Franks stated that she will be doing the majority of the deliveries and they do not anticipate any huge trucks except when they have the initial equipment delivered.  Mr. Burriss questioned the proposed location of trash receptacles.  He stated that the Planning Commission has required that applicant’s screen their trash dumpsters.  Ms. Franks stated that she anticipates very little trash and she recycles whenever possible.  Mr. Rogers later stated that they will make available any needed trash containers to keep the property clean and tidy.  Ms. Franks stated that they would be using the existing totes for trash.  Mr. Mitchell questioned that any changes to the exterior of the structure concerning trash or exhaust would come before the Planning Commission for approval.  Law Director Crites confirmed that exterior modifications to the structure would require Planning Commission approval.  

Councilmember O’Keefe believed that there are Health Department code regulations for trash.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are also guidelines on how grease is handled. 

Mr. Mitchell noted that he is relying on the testimony given stating that any proposed exhaust in the future will be located on the roof of the structure.  Mr. Rogers stated that the Health Department has stated that this is the only location for the exhaust.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like a point of clarification on the floor plan regarding the space labeled Footloose and the door that enters the restaurant.  Ms. Franks stated that this area will be closed off, but it still has a door that is blocked by clothing merchandise.

Mr. Burriss asked if a car is parked in the shared driveway and the owner is not cooperative with removing it and it needs to be towed - whose expense is it?  Ms. Terry stated that this would be on private property and it would be considered a civil matter that does not involve the Village.  Mr. Rogers stated that they encourage the driveways to remain open at all times.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed hours of operation for the restaurant.  Ms. Franks stated that they will be open from 11:00 AM – 7:00 PM everyday.  She indicated that they may stay open later on Friday, Saturdays, and summertime.  Mr. Burriss asked the hours of operation for Footloose.  Ms. Franks stated that their signage says 11:00 AM – 5:00 PM, but they have been staying open longer lately and may be open seven days a week.  Mr. Burriss asked how many people will staff the restaurant.  Ms. Franks stated she guessed that two people would staff the restaurant.  Mr. Burriss asked that if a pedestrian comes in to purchase a taco where do they propose that they eat it and can one eat it inside?  Ms. Franks stated that it will be take out much like Whit’s and there will be also be some stools at a counter.  She stated that they aren’t going to have tables and chairs, but if someone wants to get something to eat they can sit down anywhere and eat it.  Mr. Burriss stated that if a patron is getting carryout will they be allowed and encouraged to go through the rear door to go to OS Mercantile.  Ms. Franks agreed.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the applicant would need to come back for architectural approval for trash receptacles and outdoor venting. 

Law Director Crites read aloud the Code language pertaining to Change of Use requests and he stated that he has not seen conditions set on Change of Use approvals.  He later stated that the code is clear in this case that conditions on the approval cannot be set by the Planning Commission.  

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he is uncomfortable with misleading statements as to the back door entrance. 

Mr. Johnson stated that Category D speaks to approval can be “in conjunction with” and the list can be “mutually exclusive.”   Law Director Crites indicated that the list of suggested Categories under “D” is not mutually exclusive.

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-50 for the Change of Use as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

119 ½ South Prospect Street – Barbara Franks - Application #2010-51

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) square foot freestanding tenant panel sign.  

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

Discussion:

Brice Corder, 210 East Maple Street, presented the plans for the proposed signage for TD’s Café.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the sign would require a Variance due to the proposed size.  Mr. Johnson clarified that the Variance for the sign would be heard by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss questioned why the proposed sign is so much bigger than the other business signage for the building.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked what the percentage of overage is for the sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the increase is from 12 to 16 square foot.  Mr. Corder stated that the reason for the size is so they can use their bicycle logo.  Ms. Franks stated that the sign does not have a border because they were trying to match the existing signage which also doesn’t have a border.  Ms. Franks also indicated that the freestanding sign has lighting.  After further review of the below AROD criteria, Ms. Terry noted that the Planning Commission has indicated that the applicant does not meet one of the AROD criteria needed to approve the application.  She stated that the Planning Commission can advise the applicant to revise their application.  Mr. Corder questioned which Criteria was not met.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign was not viewed to be stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Law Director Crites indicated that the Planning Commission would have to see if the application meets all of the AROD criteria in order to approve the application. 

He clarified that the Planning Commission would be weighing the criteria with Duncan’s Rules and it should be clarified that the Planning Commission did not tally their votes regarding the Variance criteria in order to render a decision.  He noted that the Planning Commission stopped review of the application after they determined that the applicant did not fit the first (stylistically compatible) AROD criteria. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-51: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Mitchell here are no other circumstances other than the applicant’s request to put a bicycle on the sign.  

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Johnson stated that the business could yield a reasonable return without the proposed size of the signage. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated that the signage represents a 1/3 increase of what is allowed for signage by 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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  

(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 TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated yes with a smaller sized sign. 

(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 agreed that it would not be an injustice.  Mr. Johnson stated that they are not inverting an injustice by 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 that special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. 

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.  

  1. 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 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-51: 

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 Planning Commission has requested in the past that tenant panel signs be the same size.  He did not feel that having one tenant sign larger than the existing sign.  Mr. Johnson stated that this is consistent with what he has encountered.  Mr. Mitchell 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 other than the proposed size, the graphics are good and it is a good-looking sign.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of a business is promoted and therefore contributes to the entire district’s vitality.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the examples of the graphics of the proposed sign is an example of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #2010-51. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

343 East Maple Street – Rebecca Collen - Application #2010-53

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6’) foot wood, dog ear style, fence along the western side yard and a four (4’) foot wood, picket fence along the rear yard.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Rebecca Collen, and Delores Collins. 

Discussion:

Rebecca Collen, 419 West Maple Street, indicated that the finished side of the fence will face her neighbors property.  The Planning Commission discussed the exact location of the fence.  Ms. Collen stated that the picket fence will be forty feet behind the corner of the home, and the six foot section will be located on the west side.  Ms. Collen stated that she will wait for one year to cure and seal the fence and then put a clear protective coating on it.  

Delores Collins, 347 East Maple Street, was present to find out the exact location of the proposed fence.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-53: 

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 proposal is stylistically compatible with similar requests in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is in keeping with the historical character of this structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is in keeping with a restoration of an earlier presentation of the graphics on this building. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-53.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

332 East College Street – Josh and Lauren Fisher - Application #2010-54

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of twenty (20) wood double hung, six pane windows with aluminum clad double hung, six panel windows in white.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Josh and Lauren Fisher. 

Discussion:

Lauren Fisher, 332 East College Street, stated that the windows will be very close in style to the windows located at 317 West Elm Street.  Mr. Burriss asked if the windows will have full screens.  Ms. Fisher stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the windows are replacement windows.  Ms. Fisher stated that they are considered to be pocket style new construction windows.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the windows will be trimmed out with wood.  Ms. Fisher stated yes.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-54: 

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 proposal is stylistically compatible with windows approved in this district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a historic restoration and upgrade to the property.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that with this proposal by the applicant the structure is protected and enhanced.

e)      Materials: Vinyl clad and wood windows. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-54 as presented.Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

113 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company  - Application #2010-55

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

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

1) Removal of wood sidelights on each side of the entry door and replacement with clear glass, beveled sidelights on each side;

2) Replacement of exterior light fixtures on each side of entry door with brass light fixtures; and

3) Addition of an electrical outlet on the south side of the stairs. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams. 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, Aaath Company, 109 North Prospect Street, stated that he would like to make some improvements to the door entrance.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant will still have wood on the bottom fourteen inches and glass would go above.  Mr. Burriss added that the sidelights look like they are an after thought and the top trim is not consistent with other trim on the building.  He stated that the top of the door trim and top of the side light trim is not the same and the Planning Commission prefers something that is consistent with the same detailing used throughout.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant will use the existing door.  Mr. Adams stated yes.  Mr. Burriss noted that the side lights are greater and longer than the glass area in the existing door.  Mr. Adams stated that the glass will begin fourteen inches from the bottom and the proposed pattern in the sidelights is consistent with the pattern in the door.  He went on to say that he tried to get this to match as close as possible to the door.  Mr. Burriss asked what will be applied under the glass side light.  Mr. Adams stated a flat board similar to what was used at 109 North Prospect Street.  Mr. Burriss asked if the trim material around the glass is going to be done to match the stain on the door.  Mr. Adams stated that they don’t like any of the colors, except the natural color of the wood, but they may paint it a pastel greenish white.  Mr. Burriss indicated that it wasn’t clear where the applicant is proposing the lights to be located.  Mr. Adams stated that they will be at the very top, maybe up two to three inches from where the existing lights are located.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on the top of the side lights and will it be consistent with the glazing in the door.  Mr. Adams stated that he would have to do the math to see the exact location of the sidelights compared to the glass in the door.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it is clear that the Planning Commission is in need of some additional information by the applicant in order to approve the application.  He went on to say that it would be nice to have a sketch that describes to them what the applicant is doing.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated that there are some details that he feels can be done to make this a better improvement.  He stated that if the sidelights were to be installed properly, it can make it architecturally appropriate, but a few inches another way could be an architectural mess.  He also stated that the applicant doesn’t have to provide an architecturally prepared drawing, but it just needs to be a drawing done to scale.   

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2010-37. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-47: Scott Walker/Denison University; Maintenance Buildings

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 gives their approval of Application #2010-47 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-47.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-48: Maggie Barno/GACC; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-48 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-48.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-49: Forrest Blake; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-49 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-49.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-50: Barbara Franks; Change of Use

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 #2010-50 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-50.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

Application #2010-53: Rebecca Collen; Fence

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1147, Height , Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-53 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-53.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-54: Josh and Lauren Fisher; Window Replacement

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 #2010-54 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-54.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the March 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  Mr. Burriss abstained because he was not at the meeting. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the April 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  Mr. Johnson abstained because he was not at the meeting.  

Adjournment:  9:45 PM

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

Next meetings:

May 10, 2010

May 24, 2010 (Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she cannot attend this meeting.)

Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Councilmember O’Keefe and Jeremy Johnson.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Ramond Bonner, Ken Rittenhouse, Roger Kessler, William Hanes, Russ Adams, Mark Schillig, Xue Gao, Doug Hooper, Sue Renner, Fred Abraham, and Bill Wilken. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

New Business:

462 South Main Street – New Phase Auto Detailing - Application #2010-28

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for approval of a sandwich board sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ramond Bonner.

Discussion:

Ramond Bonner, 5282 Fairmount Road, Newark, stated that he is the owner of the business and he would like to place a sandwich board sign at the corner of the building so people know what type of business exists there.  Mr. Bonner stated that he already has a wall sign for the business.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign will direct people once they get into the Ross Granville Market complex.  She indicated that a Variance is required because sandwich board signs are not allowed in this zoning district.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if this could be considered a directional sign.  Ms. Terry stated that this is an actual sandwich board sign that will be removed each night.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it will be at the corner of the parking space indicated in the drawing.  Mr. Ramond clarified that there are yellow painted lines so no one parks in the proposed area. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-28 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the location of the business does not have direct street frontage and the business does not have a direct and easy way to get to it, therefore, this is a unique proposal for this particular location.  Mr. Mitchell & Mr. Ryan agreed. 

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant already exists in this location and his business could be hurt by people not being able to find it easily.  Mr. Burriss & Mr. Ryan concurred.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the variance is not substantial. 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he did not feel that the neighborhood would be substantially altered.   

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

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

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a 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 – not a result from the actions of the applicant. 

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 the applicant should put the proposed sign out when arriving to work and remove it at the end of the day when the business is closed.  Mr. Burriss indicated that this is consistent with other sandwich board signs approved by Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign meets the requirements for sandwich board signs that are permitted in other zoning districts.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-28 to allow for a sandwich board sign in the Community Service District (CSD) (which doesn’t currently allow sandwich board signs) as long as the sign is removed from the corner of the building at the close of business each day.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

317 East Maple Street – Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert  - Application #2010-30

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to remove an existing asphalt driveway and walkway and install new paver bricks on the driveway and to a stepping stone walkway in the same location as it exists currently. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ken Rittenhouse. 

Discussion:

Ken Rittenhouse, 218 North Prospect Street, stated that he is representing John Klauder Landscaping who will be doing the work at 317 East Maple Street.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated that they would be removing an existing driveway and placing new rectangle and square pavers down.  He stated that the new walkway would be sandstone.  Mr. Mitchell asked the size of the sandstone.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated 4”x 3”.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the area that the pavers will be placed is in the same location as the asphalt.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated yes and this is just a change in materials.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal seemed appropriate.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-30: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other projects approved in the same zoning district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed materials and the use of materials are in keeping with the historical district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by keeping the structure upgraded.

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

e)      Materials:  Pavers and Sandstone

f)       Plant Materials:  Witch-hazel, Little Henry, Variegated Lilly turf, Boxwoods, etc. (see staff report). 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-30 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

107 East Broadway – William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church  - Application #2010-33

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of wood shingles and replacement with Owens Corning Duration asphaltic shingles in Black Onyx.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, William Hanes and Doug Hooper. 

Discussion:

William Hanes, 530 West Broadway, stated that he is representing St. Luke’s Episcopal Church.  He stated that they are requesting the installation of asphalt shingles rather than replacing the wood shingles that are being removed.  He stated that they feel asphalt shingles is a better product that will add more life to the structure.  He also stated that they would receive a ‘Class A’ fire rating if they use asphalt shingles.  Mr. Hanes stated that the manufacturer of the wood shingles has indicated that they shouldn’t be applied to roof slopes less than 5/12 and their roof pitch is 4/12.  Mr. Hanes indicated that the church feels that the asphalt would be a much better solution overall and he added that Pilgrim Lutheran was given approval for asphalt shingles on their roof.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the alley next to the museum has a small roof with shingles.  Mr. Hanes stated that this is not what they will be using.  He went on to say that they will use an Owens Corning product.  Mr. Burriss commended St. Luke's for the financial undertaking to help preserve this structure.  He stated that the Planning Commission certainly encourages anything to lengthen the life of the building and keep it viable.  Doug Hooper, Marion, Ohio, stated that he is the contractor and they are trying to get ventilation to the roof using a cobra vent. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-33: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are other structures in the same district with similar shingles.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by improving one of the jewels of the Village’s historic district they are contributing to the historical character of the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by keeping up with the maintenance of the structure.

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 improvements will protect and enhance this structure where past generations once congregated.

e) Materials:  Owens Corning Asphalt Shingles in Black Onyx. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-33 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Mr. Mitchell then amended his motion to state that the cap should have shingles that are the same colored shingles - whether it is a conventional cap or cobra cap roof.Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote on Amendment: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. Roll Call Vote on Amended motion for Application #2010-33: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

118 South Main Street – William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church  - Application #2010-34

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review of the installation of a security keypad on the left side of the northern park entry doorway.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and William Hanes. 

Discussion:

William Hanes, 530 West Broadway, stated that he is representing St. Luke’s Episcopal Church.  Mr. Hanes stated that the security system is needed as a result of an incident in the parish hall a few months ago.  He stated that they now lock all the doors and there needs to be an easier way for staff and visitors to come to the building.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the keypad would mount.  Mr. Hanes stated that it will be applied to the brick and surface mounted.  He stated that it will be on the door that faces Opera House Park.  

Bill Wilken, Chairman of St. Luke’s Preservation Committee, indicated that there are several layers of brick and the installer had to work though the wood near the doorway for electric access. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-34: 

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 this proposal will ensure safety of the property.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvement.

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

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-34 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

121-127 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #09-157 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of awnings over each of the business frontages, a modification to the doorway located at 121 East Broadway, and fypon trim along the top of the front of the structure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler. 

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, Kessler Sign Company, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the amended version presented tonight is a big improvement to what was originally proposed.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Burriss concurred.  Ms. Terry asked about the trim piece at the top.  Mr. Kessler stated that this will be “L” shaped and a five inch (5”) cap painted the same color as the sign. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-157: 

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 amended proposal is more appropriate.  Mr. Mitchell agreed.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by enhancing the historical character of the building the entire district is upgraded.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal enhances the structure which past generations have used. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Amended Application #09-157 with the presented color sample of the awning as ‘Exhibit A’ with fypon trim at the top with a five inch (5”) reveal. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

121 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-35

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-eight and a half (38.5) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler. 

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, indicated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.

He presented ‘Exhibit A’ which is a high density polyurethane material as the sign and the proposed green lettering as ‘Exhibit B’.  Ms. Terry asked if the border will be a raised border like the proposed lettering.  Mr. Kessler stated that the green border and green lettering will be painted but the border will not be raised.  Mr. Burriss noted that some of the proposed signage for this building has three lights and some signs have two lights.  Mr. Kessler explained that they felt that this gives the building more balance because the signs with two lights are smaller.  Ms. Terry indicated that this application requires a Variance because the maximum size allowed for a wall sign is twenty-five square feet and the applicant is proposing thirty-eight & a half square feet.  Ms. Terry also explained that if the sign name were to change and the architectural style and color of the sign remains the same – this could be approved administratively with a sign permit.  Mr. Kessler indicated that the applicant is trying to fill an existing indentation in the brick with this signage to make the building more architecturally appealing and this is the reason for the Variance request.  Ms. Terry indicated that this application includes gooseneck lighting and she is not aware of any additional lighting requested by the applicant.  Mr.Burriss suggested that the applicant will want to have adequate lighting for when employees are leaving the building.  Mr. Kessler suggested that it may be appropriate to have all of the lighting off at midnight. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-35:

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is definitely an area for signage that is unique to this building.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan agreed. 

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Burriss stated that the building is clearly four separate units and it is reasonable for each tenant to be given their own sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that in the past this building has had signage for each of the tenants.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the variance is not substantial. 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is architecturally and historical correct for the building.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan agreed 

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the owner is not present to answer this.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss indicated that this is the best solution for this building due to the architecture of the building. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a 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 and that this was an existing building. 

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.  

  1. 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 were no special requirements or conditions. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-35: 

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 proposal is stylistically compatible with similar requests in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is in keeping with the historical character of this structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is in keeping with a restoration of an earlier presentation of the graphics on this building. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-35 with a Variance to increase the size of the sign to thirty-eight and one half (38.5) square feet with the condition that the lighting be turned off at 12:00 PM and that the color samples be as displayed in ‘Exhibit A’ and the lettering style and color as ‘Exhibit B.’ Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

123 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-36

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-three (33) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler.

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant is proposing increasing the allowable size of the size from 24.45 square feet to 33 square feet, so therefore a Variance is needed for the size.  She indicated that a second Variance is needed due to number of wall signs on the building. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-36: 

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 that the building is unique and therefore the signage is unique.

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Burriss stated that each tenant deserves their own signage in the building.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is not substantial.  

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

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the property owner probably did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction and he is bringing the building back to a more architecturally appropriate style. 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss noted that the proposed Variance for this building is the most appropriate architectural and historical method to deal with the signage. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a 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 and that this was an existing building. 

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.  

  1. 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 the lighting should be turned off at 12:00 PM. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-36: 

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 proposal is stylistically compatible. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is a restoration and upgrade to the property.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is a restoration of an original sign detailing on the structure. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-36 with a Variance to increase the allowable size of the sign from 24.45 square feet to 33 square feet with a contingency that the applicant turn off the lighting at midnight.  He added that the color of the signage should be per ‘Exhibit A’, and the lettering and color should be per ‘Exhibit B’, and that there be a Variance to allow two wall signs on the building. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

125 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-37

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a nineteen (19) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler. 

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-37: 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are architectural elements that are specific to this building. 

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Burriss stated that each tenant deserves their own signage in the building. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed signage is of consistent height with other signs already approved for this building 

(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. Burriss stated that the character of the building is enhanced by the Variance.  

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the property owner probably did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction and he is bringing the building back to a more architecturally appropriate style. 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss noted that the proposed Variance for this building is the most appropriate architectural and historical method to deal with this situation. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a Variance.   

a.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and that this was an existing building.

b.         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.  

  1. 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 the lighting should be turned off at 12:00 PM. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-37: 

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. Burriss that the historical character of the village is enhanced and improved with this proposal.

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 made a motion to approve Application #2010-37 with a Variance to increase the allowable size of the sign from 17.25 square feet to 19 square feet with a contingency that the applicant turn off the lighting at 12:00 PM.  He added that the color of the signage should be per ‘Exhibit A’, and the lettering and color should be per ‘Exhibit B’, and that there be a Variance to allow a third wall sign on the building. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

127 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-38

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-eight and a half (38.5) square foot wall sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler.

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-38:

c.         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.  Mr. Burriss stated that there are architectural elements that are specific to this building.  

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Burriss stated that each tenant deserves their own signage in the building. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the Variance is not substantial.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the proposed signage is of consistent height with other signs already approved for this building.

(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. Burriss stated that the character of the building is enhanced by the Variance.  

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan noted that the property owner probably did purchase the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction and he is bringing the building back to a more architecturally appropriate style. 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss noted that the proposed Variance for this building is the most appropriate architectural and historical method to deal with this situation. 

(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 that they did not feel that the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirements was compromised by granting a 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 and that this was an existing building.

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. 

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 the lighting should be turned off at 12:00 PM. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-38: 

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 signage is stylistically compatible for the district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage contributes to the historical character of the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 #2010-38 with a Variance to increase the allowable size of the sign to 24.45 square feet with a contingency that the applicant turn off the lighting at 12:00 PM.  He added that the color of the signage should be per ‘Exhibit A’, and the lettering and color should be per ‘Exhibit B’, and that there be a Variance to allow for a fourth wall sign on the building. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

121-127 East Broadway – Greg Ream  - Application #2010-39

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of green awnings over each of the three rear entry doorways. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Roger Kessler.

Discussion:

Roger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated that he is representing the owner of the property, Greg Ream.  He indicated that they would like to place green aluminum awnings in the rear of the building and the color would match the signage - Color PMS 3435.  Mr. Burriss asked if the building will be painted tan.  Mr. Kessler stated yes.     

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-39: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that canopies of a similar presentation have been approved in this same district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the character is improved by the elevation of the awnings.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by proposal by the applicant.

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 #2010-39 with the condition that the building color will be per ‘Exhibit A’ and the awning color is green per ‘Exhibit B’ - PMS 3439. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

113 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company - Application #2010-40

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

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

1)  Replacement window, changing from a single pane 8-lite wood window to two double hung vinyl windows with interior grids; and

2)  Adding a granite seal to the front steps. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams. 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 109 North Prospect Street, was present to address any questions by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant on the completeness of their application.  He also asked the applicant if they would be installing new window screens.  Mr. Adams stated yes.   Mr. Burriss asked if Mr. Adams had an example of the granite sealing for the steps.  Mr. Adams presented an example of the granite sealing to the Planning Commission.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-40: 

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 improvements are stylistically compatible with other improvements in the same Village district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the architectural fenestration of the building it contributes to the character of the Village.

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 made a motion to approve Application #2010-40 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

111 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company - Application #2010-41

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a white storm door.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams. 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 111 North Prospect Street, stated that he would like to install a white storm door on the existing door.   The Planning Commission indicated that they thought it was a rear door and they do not prefer the look of the proposed door for the front of the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that he felt as though the proposed door feels too much like a security door and that other doors on the property are more architecturally appropriate.

The Planning Commission suggested a full view glass door would compete less with the other doors on the building.  Mr. Adams agreed.  The Planning Commission asked that the full view glass door be reviewed and approved by the Village Planner prior to installation.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-41: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that a clear view door has been approved in the same zoning 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 storm door will aid in the maintenance of the building.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the door.

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 #2010-41 with the condition that the applicant use a white full view glass storm door subject to final review and approval by the Village Planner. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

109 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams/Aaath Company - Application #2010-42

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of changing the front window sill to a sloped window sill. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Russ Adams.

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 109 North Prospect Street, stated that he would like to replace the window sill with a sloped window sill.  Mr. Mitchell asked how sloped the window sill would be.  Mr. Adams stated that the existing sill is very flat and collects debris and it will be sloped enough to get the rain water to run off.  Mr. Burriss asked if the window boxes will stay.  Mr. Adams believed that he would be coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of smaller window boxes.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-41: 

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 window sill is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village.

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. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposal.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the building will be protected by allowing water run-off. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-42 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-43

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot replacement wall sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum. 

Discussion:

Sue Renner, 4018 York Road, Pataskala, stated that she is representing Ms. Landrum who could not be here this evening.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the new sign will be two feet shorter than what was in place for the Counting House.  Mr. Ryan asked if the new sign will have a black background with gold lettering.  Mr. Mitchell asked the material of the letters.  Ms. Terry stated wood.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is any signage proposed to indicate that the building is a bakery.  Ms. Renner stated no that the applicant may come back with a request for a sandwich board sign.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sign should have a border.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Counting House sign did not have a border and this was previously approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that hopefully the applicant won’t be using the spacing of letters as indicated in the submitted drawing.  Mr. Ryan stated that essentially the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a sign that they have not seen.  The Planning Commission agreed that they would like to have a more detailed example & representation of what the sign would look like before they vote on the sign. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #2010-43 until the next meeting. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #3010-43 is Tabled. 

127 East Broadway – Mark Schillig/Xue Gao - Application #2010-45

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

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use for 1,900 square feet of space from Category “B”, Specialty Shops to Category “D”, Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a Chinese Restaurant. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mark Schillig and Xue Gao.  

Discussion:

Mark Schillig, Ohio Equities Realty, 605 South Front Street, Columbus, stated that he is representing the applicant, Mr. Xue Gao.  Xue Gao, 188 Commonwealth Way, Pataskala, was also present. 

Ms. Terry explained that the property is currently zoned VBD-B (Retail) and the applicant is requesting a change to VBD-D (Food, Drug, Beverage business.)  She stated that this is a reduction in the number of spaces required with one per 200 square feet for the VBD-D use.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if the requested Change of Use is for 127 which currently houses  Crosswalk Cards.  Ms. Terry stated yes and she stated that the application meets the parking requirements and it is a permitted use.  Mr. Burriss stated that he did some recent research on the building and this particular space was a restaurant at one time.  Ms. Terry stated that the parking requirement is reduced and it is grandfathered.  Mr. Gao indicated that the name of the restaurant would be ‘Dragon Village.’  Mr. Burriss asked where exhaust fans would be located.  Mr. Schillig indicated that the applicant has not yet started this process because they wanted to see if the Change of Use went through first.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is not something he asks that would have a factor that would change his support or lack of support for this application and he is only interested in this for neighbors and the district as a whole.  Ms. Terry clarified that if the Planning Commission was to approve the Change of Use and there were any exterior modifications made to the building for exhaust, dumpster, etc. it would need to come before the board for approval.  Mr. Burriss stated that with other restaurant applications in this district they have required screening of dumpsters and oil containers/grease traps.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes a restaurant will add to the vitality of the district by having it on this side of the street and it will be a greater balance and activity for the entire district. He indicated that he would be in favor of this proposed change of use for this specific location.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell indicated that they agree with Mr. Burriss.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-45 to establish the use as VBD-D for a Chinese Restaurant.  

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-28: New Phase Auto Detailing/Sandwich Board Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-28 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-28.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-30: Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert/Driveway and Walkway Replacement

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-30 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-30.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-33: William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church; Roof Replacement

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 #2010-33 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-33.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-34: William Hanes/St. Luke’s Church; Security Keypad

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 #2010-34 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-34.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #09-157 AMENDED: Greg Ream; Awnings, Doorway & Trim

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 #09-157 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-157.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-35: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-35 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-35.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-36: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-36 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-36.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-37: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-37 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-37.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-38: Greg Ream; Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-38 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-38.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-39: Greg Ream; Awnings

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 #2010-39 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-39.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-40: Russ Adams/Aaath Co.; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-40 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-40.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-41: Russ Adams/Aaath Co.; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-41 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-41.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-42: Russ Adams/Aaath Co.; Exterior Modifications

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 #2010-42 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-42.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-45: Mark Schillig/Xue Gao; Change of Use

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 1183, Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-45 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-45.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the March 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  

Approval of Absent Commission Member’s:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Jeremy Johnson from the Planning Commission meeting on April 12, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  9:35 PM

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

Next meetings:

April 26, 2010

May 10, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 22, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Michael King

Visitors Present: Art Chonko, Jim & Donna Brooks, Soc and Kris Goumas, and Cindy Brenaman. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

200 Livingston Drive – Art Chonko/Denison University  - Application #2010-25

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for review and approval of a new natatorium and entry hall addition to the existing athletic center.  The proposed additional square footage is 75,943 feet.  

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

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated that he is the project manager for the proposed addition.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the application meets all of the requirements for the Granville Ordinances.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that the BZBA granted a Variance for the size of the parking spaces and a Variance for the drive aisle width.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and had no concerns.  She went on to say that Chief Hussey has asked Mr. Chonko to add an additional fire hydrant on Washington Drive.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has also met all of the Tree & Landscape requirements and they greatly exceed those requirements.  Ms. Terry added that the proposed addition fits well with the existing Mitchell Center and there is not any AROD criteria to review for this application.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-25 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

238 East Broadway – Jim Brooks  - Application #2010-26

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

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

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

Discussion:

Jim Brooks, 238 East Broadway, indicated that he owns the property at 238 East Broadway, and Goumas Candyland is an occupant of the downstairs.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant disagrees with the former ruling by the Planning Commission regarding a light with a timer on the proposed panel sign and he is submitting this new application.  Mr. Johnson asked if this application is approved - would the applicant have approval for two signs?  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Brooks could potentially put up both signs if the applicant uses the panel sign with a timer on the light.  Mr. Mitchell asked if having both signs added would conform to the Code requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the side porch is used for the calculations when configuring the store front signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes that the entire square footage of the front of the structure is used and 25% of the side area.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is called a “store front” and this fits into the whole general provisions section.  Ms. Terry stated the frontage of the business is 25.5 square feet and 38.25 is allowed for the proposed wall sign.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Brooks if he plans on putting up the sign panel.  Mr. Brooks stated no and he wouldn’t be here requesting a new sign if it weren’t for the stipulation that the Planning Commission put on the previous approval of turning the light off at a particular time.  Mr. Ryan asked if the wall sign will be lit?  Mr. Brooks stated no.  He added that he may look at adding some up lighting to shine on the house, but not particularly on the sign itself.  Mr. Johnson inquired on the applicant’s objection to the previous requirement for the lighting.  Mr. Brooks asked “why do you want me to turn it off?”  He stated that there is not a good reason to require that the lighting be turned off.  Mr. Brooks stated that he had a representative at the previous meeting and they unfortunately did not object to the lighting on the signage being turned off by 10:00 PM.  He stated that the sign is currently lit from dusk to dawn and he does not want this to change.

Donna Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that when the original sign was approved and they objected to the light being turned off at a certain time - the law director stated that there is nothing on the books that says that they can’t have the light on all night.  

Mr. Johnson stated that perhaps the Planning Commission would have considered a different solution regarding the lighting had the applicant voiced their objection.  Mr. Brooks stated that if he were to appeal the application it would have to go to Village Council.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission originally asked the applicant to come up with a better solution for the wall sign so that the architecture was not covered up and they came back with the panel sign that was the best solution.  It was clarified by Mr. Mitchell that the light timer stipulations were allowed to be put in place because the applicant received a Variance by the Planning Commission for the sign panel application.  Ms. Brooks stated that she knows of several signs that were approved in the last couple of years that do not have restrictions on the time that they can be turned on/off.  She indicated that the Village does not have an Ordinance that requires that the lights be turned off and she questions how the Planning Commission can make this ruling. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-26: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes, that the proposed signage is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village.  Mr. Johnson agreed that the sign is consistent with other signs that the Planning Commission has approved.  Mr. Ryan concurred with these statements. 

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 lack of color in the sign is historically correct and contributes to the improvement and the upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson concurred.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson concurred.

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 #2010-26 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Brooks if he would prefer that the panel sign be used instead of the wall sign.  Mr. Brooks stated yes, but he is not willing to take a chance that the application will get denied in the future and he doesn’t want to spend any further time or money on the signage for this property.  Mr. Brooks indicated that because the Planning Commission approved the panel sign with the condition, and if he were to request a change to the approval it would cost him $150.00 to appeal the matter to Village Council.  Ms. Terry indicated that the application could be voted on for Reconsideration, but Mr. Burriss is not present and they don’t have enough members present to vote for this since Mr. Ryan was not at the original meeting and is not able to vote. 

Mr. Johnson indicated that he is trying to find the best solution in this matter for everyone involved.  Councilmember O’Keefe clarified that the Planning Commission preferred the proposed panel sign over the wall sign above the door.  Mr. Johnson agreed. 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant could put up the hanging tenant panel sign and come back and ask for the light to be left on for an extended amount of time.  She asked if this could be on the next agenda?  Law Director King stated that this could be under ‘New Business’ on the next agenda, but the Planning Commission is unable to amend this application.  He stated that it would have to be “undone” through the same process.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant could choose to put the tenant panel sign up - turn the light off in preparation for the next meeting and then the Planning Commission could vote on an application without the lighting restriction.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this could be done without paying another fee.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  

Mr. Johnson stated that he is thinking Mr. Burriss would vote to turn the light off, rather than cover the architecture on the building.  Mr. Brooks stated that he doesn’t want to go through the process again, but he appreciates the Planning Commission trying to come up with a compromise.  Mr. Brooks again indicated that he is not willing to agree to turn the light off.  He went on to say that they are discussing the lighting for a sign and this is for an Ordinance that the Village doesn’t have in place.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the representative at the last meeting was able to say that they had a problem with the lighting condition, they could have avoided this situation.  Mr. Johnson stated that it is not the Planning Commission’s intention to make the applicant go through additional hoops.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he would like to move forward with approval for the wall sign only.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

139 West Maple Street – Carol Whitt & Linda Cole  - Application #2010-27

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a three-tab shingled roof and replacement with dimensional asphaltic shingles. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Cindy Breneman. 

Discussion:

Cindy Breneman, 36411 Township Road 72, Frazeysburg, Ohio stated that she is representing the contractor who is doing the roof replacement.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-27: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated the improvements are consistent with other renovated and old structures in the Village.

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 improvements improve the historical character and therefore, the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvement.

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-27 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-25: Art Chonko/Denison University/Addition

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, Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking & Loading, and Chapter 1193, Tree & Landscape Requirements and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-25 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-25.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-26: Jim Brooks/Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-26 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-26.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-27: Carol Whitt & Linda Cole/New Roof

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 #2010-27 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-27.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

Approval of Absent Commission Member’s:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on March 22, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  7:50 PM

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

Next meetings:

April 12, 2010 (Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she would not be able to attend this meeting.)

April 26, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes March 8, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 8, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Carolyn Blum. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Work Session:

110 East Broadway –  Carolyn Blum/First Presbyterian Church

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) 

Carolyn Blum, 110 East Broadway, indicated that she wanted to have a work session with  the Planning Commission to discuss installing downspouts on the church and this would be a different look from what is currently there.  Ms. Plum stated that the wood is rotted out.  Mr. Mitchell asked if they would be changing the natural material to EIFS siding on the steeple.  Mr. Burriss stated that the EIFS level of detailing is existing.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there would need to be approval for any additional downspouts, but the rest of the items Ms. Blum is discussing are considered to be general maintenance.  Ms. Blum stated that the brick on the church was covered with stucco and stone in the 1960’s.  Mr. Mitchell asked why they feel that they need additional downspouts.  Ms. Blum stated that they have been told by the architect that these are needed because of water damage.  Mr. Burriss stated that there has been some question as to whether or not the downspouts were replaced with a different size of gutter than what was previously in place.  He noted that the current downspouts are located in the middle of the building.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the slope of the gutters may have to be changed with the additional downspouts.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is access to the attic.  Ms. Blum stated yes.  Ms. Terry confirmed that the applicant would only need approval for additional downspouts.  She stated that if they do any maintenance, to please call and let the Village know the start date.   

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve the minutes for the February 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 3-0. (Tim Ryan abstained.) 

Adjournment:  7:20 PM

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

Next meetings:

March 22, 2010

April 12, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 22, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Tim Ryan.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Judy Gloshinski, Marilyn Goumas, John Noblick, Guy Michael, and

Fred Ashbaugh. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Old Business:

238 E. Broadway – Marilyn Goumas on behalf of Goumas Candyland - Application #09-135 AMENDED

Village Business District (VBD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a new tenant panel to be placed on the existing freestanding sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Marilyn Goumas. 

Discussion regarding Application #09-135:

Marilyn Goumas, 238 East Broadway, indicated that she would like to add a tenant panel sign to the existing freestanding sign already in place.  Ms. Terry explained that Mr. Brooks (owner of the property at 238 East Broadway) previously attended a Planning Commission meeting to request a wall sign, and the Planning Commission supported a tenant panel sign rather than a sign that would cover up some of the architecture on the building.  Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Goumas if the tenant panel sign would be in lieu of a wall sign.  Ms. Goumas stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission previously endorsed this type of sign and the Planning Commission member’s agreed that they had no further issues with approving the application.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-135: 

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 signage is consistent with other signage 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 stated that by following the previous recommendations by the Planning Commission that were adhered to with this sign and it is an upgrade to the historical character. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the addition of the signage.

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

The Planning Commission reviewed the Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #09-135: 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is a unique situation because it is appropriate to have all of the signage located in one central place.      

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated that the variance is not substantial.

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant will benefit from the consolidated signage.   

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

(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. Johnson indicated that the intent of the Planning Commission is to limit the signage on the building.    

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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-135 AMENDED with the condition that any external ground lighting on the sign is turned off by 10:00 PM.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

New Business:

428 East College Street – Walter and Judy Gloshinski - Application #2010-14

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a gravel driveway, accessing Sunrise Street and located to the rear of the existing house. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Judy Gloshinski. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-14:

Judy Gloshinski, 428 East College Street, stated that she would like to install a gravel driveway.  Ms. Terry stated that, essentially, Ms. Gloshinski doesn’t have a driveway or a garage right now.  Ms. Gloshinski stated that digging out from the snow has been a challenge and she already has a driveway cut in place.  Ms. Gloshinski stated that they were previously approved for a garage that was never built and the approval (variances) came with the sale of the home.  Mr. Johnson asked if there was an application on file for the garage Variance.  Ms. Terry stated yes and it would be located right off the back of the house and be flush with the home.  She indicated that the applicant did get a variance for the garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposal for a driveway seems to be consistent with other driveways and garages in the neighborhood.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked when the property is sold does the variance carry over.  Ms. Terry stated yes.   Ms. Terry noted that the setback requirements for the proposed driveway have been met.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss questioned how the existing fence would be gated to enter the driveway.  Ms. Gloshinski stated that the gate could potentially swing onto the sidewalk.  Mr. Burriss questioned the sequence of how the applicant would easily access the driveway with the fence.  Mr. Johnson stated that he didn’t feel that the swinging gate going onto the sidewalk was a good option to approve.  Mr. Burriss indicated that this is a street that the school buses enter.  The Planning Commission ultimately suggested, and Ms. Gloshinski agreed, that the fencing should be altered to run along the driveway and the driveway should be located outside of the fence with one additional pedestrian gate added.  The outline of the driveway and fencing is available per Exhibit ‘A.’   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-14: 

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 driveway is consistent and compatible with other driveways 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 stated the proposed driveway has the potential to remove cars from the street and this is an upgrade to the historical character of the district. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the livability. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by removing cars from the street the physical surroundings in which past generations are enhanced. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-14 as amended in Exhibit “A.” Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

418 W. Broadway – John Noblick on behalf of Scott & Martha Keyes - Application #2010-16

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached garage, in place of the existing storage barn.  

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

Discussion regarding Application #2010-16:

John Noblick, Newark, indicated that he is the contractor for the proposed project. 

Mr. Burriss asked if Mr. Noblick had considered a garage door where the top panel was windows and this could match the other garage door and appear to be less industrial.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the door felt very commercial in its height and he is not opposed to the function of the door.  Mr. Noblick stated that they did look at this, but couldn’t get a door that would ideally match.  He stated that the owner preferred the look he is presenting.  Mr. Johnson asked if there will be modifications to the trees on the eastern property line.  Mr. Noblick stated that the trees on the east side will not be affected.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was consideration to the garage bay doors being switched.  Mr. Noblick stated that if the bays were switched the applicant would have difficulty entering the garage with the recreational vehicle because it is a full twenty-eight feet long and the applicant plans on backing the vehicle straight into the garage from the street.  Mr. Mitchell stated that a variance is required.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is on the next BZBA agenda for this variance.  Mr. Burriss complemented the applicant for the completeness of the application.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspouts would be in the back.  Mr. Noblick stated that they will be located where the best drainage would be for them and he is guessing they will be in the front.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed lighting in the eaves would be on an on/off switch.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any drainage inside the garage.  Mr. Noblick stated that they would be required to install floor drains.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the new structure is six inches higher than the structure proposed for demolition.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-16: 

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 structure is compatible with other structures 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 stated that the proposed structure is historically appropriate.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed structure.

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 structure is scalistically and stylistically appropriate to the house. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approval of Application #2010-16 with the following conditions:

1)      That the applicant receive the needed Variances from the BZBA

         a.   To reduce the eastern side yard setback from twelve (12’) feet to three feet four inches (3’4”);

         b.   To reduce the rear yard setback from fifteen (15’) feet to three feet four inches (3’4”)

         c.    To increase the maximum building lot coverage from twenty (20%) percent to twenty-six (26%)                 percent;

2)      That the applicant demolishes the existing detached structure. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

418 West Broadway – John Noblick on behalf of Scott & Martha Keyes - Application #2010-17

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for a recommendation to Village Council for the approval of the structural demolition of a storage barn.   

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

Discussion regarding Application #2010-17:

John Noblick, stated that the storage barn is not of any historical significance.  Mr. Mitchell noted an email from The Granville Historical Society confirming this.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked when the applicant plans to demolish the structure.  Ms. Terry provided a schedule of the proposed demolition and stated that it would occur within sixty days if approved by Village Council.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-17: 

a)      The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE

b)      The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.

c)      The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss added that they have received information from the Granville Historical Society stating that the structure is not historically significant.

d)      The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2010-17 to Village Council as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

211 South Prospect Street – Guy & Kristine Michael - Application #2010-20

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for a three-tab dimensional shingle roof. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Guy Michael. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-20:

Guy Michael, 211 South Prospect Street, stated that they are in need of a new roof on their home.  Mr. Michael stated that there used to be cedar shakes on one part of the roof and they intend to tear this off and put a gray dimensional shingle on top.  Mr. Mitchell asked the type of caps and valleys being used.  Mr. Michael stated that the shingles would overlap and there will be a vent ridge on top for adequate breathability.  Mr. Johnson asked if soffit vents would be used.  Mr. Michael stated yes and it will be soffits with white strips.  Mr. Mitchell asked if they are using vented soffits now.  Mr. Michael stated that they have vented gables.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-20: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this roof is consistent with other roofs approved in this district.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the style of the shingle is more appropriate to the style of the home than the shingle that is currently on there.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the livability of the structure.

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-20 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-135 (AMENDED): Jim Brooks

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 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-135 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-135 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

New Business:

Application #2010-14: Walter and Judy Gloshinski

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 #2010-14 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-14.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2010-16: John Noblick/Scott & Martha Keyes

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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-16 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-16.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2010-17: John Noblick/Scott & Martha Keyes

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-17 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-17.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-20: Guy & Kristine Michael

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 #2010-20 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-20.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes for the February 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

Motion carried 3-0.  

Approval of Absent Commission Member’s:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from the Planning Commission meeting on February 22, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Other Matters:

Ms. Terry distributed a draft version of the Granville Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Commission.  

Adjournment:  8:15 PM

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

Next meetings:

March 8, 2010

March 22, 2010

Planning Commission Minutes February 8, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 8, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors Present: Charlie Dutton, Don DeSapri, Ken and Katie Richards, Dana Landrum, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Jerry Miller, and Keith Wills. 

Swearing In of Tim Ryan:

Mr. Ryan was re-appointed to the Planning Commission by Village Council on January 20, 2010.  Assistant Law Director Michael King swore in Tim Ryan.  

Election of Planning Commission Chair:

Mr. Mitchell nominated Tim Ryan as Chair to the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

Tim Ryan was elected Chair to the Planning Commission. 

Election of Planning Commission Vice-Chair:

Mr. Burris nominated Mr. Mitchell as Vice Chair to the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0.

Tom Mitchell was elected Vice Chair to the Planning Commission. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business

119 East Elm Street – Charlie Dutton - Application #2010-9

Village Business District (VBD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for approval of a Change of Use from Category “B”, Specialty Shops, to Category “E,” Retail Outlets.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Charlie Dutton. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-9:

Charlie Dutton, 179 Pine Village Drive, stated that he would like to place a sporting goods store at 119 East Elm Street in the rear of the structure.  Mr. Ryan questioned that the Code states that ‘Specialty Shops’ allow for sporting goods and they appear to be a permitted use.  Ms. Terry indicated that this may have been overlooked by staff and she recalled the designation just being for furniture and clothing.  Mr. King confirmed that the applicant would not need a Change of Use for a sporting goods store.  Ms. Terry apologized for overlooking this and stated that the Village would refund the money to Mr. Dutton.  Mr. Burriss stated that Mr. Dutton will have to come before the Planning Commission for any future signage for this business.  

1034 West Broadway – Ken and Katie Richards - Application #2010-11

Village Residential District (SRD-A) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the east side of the home.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Ken and Katie Richards. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-11:

Ken Richards, 1034 West Broadway, stated that their builder, Keith Wills, is going to attend the meeting, but is not yet present.  Ms. Terry indicated that most of what is being added on to the home will match the existing home.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there were any issues with the setbacks.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Johnson asked if the entire roof would be re-shingled.  Mrs. Richards stated that part of the roof will not be re-shingled and this part is relatively new.  Mr. Burriss stated that this house in particular has had a lot of work done to it and the owners should be complimented on the work that has been carried out and this proposed addition seems to be consistent with the quality of work previously done on the structure.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-11: 

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 addition is consistent with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District because of the detailing matching the original structure and proposed materials are stylistically compatible.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed work would upgrade the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

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 detailing is historic in nature and is an example of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. 

e)      Materials:  The applicant is proposing an addition to be constructed of the following materials:

a.   Roofing:  Fiberglass dimensional asphaltic shingles to match the existing roof;

b.   Gutters & downspouts:  to match existing, white vinyl;

c.   Corner Trim:  to match existing - vinyl;

d.   Window Trim:  to match existing - white vinyl;

e.   Siding:  to match existing, Certainteed dutch lap vinyl siding in Heritage Cream color;

f.    Stone Siding (along bottom):  manufactured, Dutch Quality Stone, "Sienna Cobbled Limestone";

g.   Vinyl Shutters:  to match existing, black; and

h.   Windows:  aluminum clad exterior with interior grilles. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-11 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

221 East Broadway – Gary and Dana Landrum - Application #2010-12

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for a Change of Use from ‘Specialty Shop,’ Category “B,” to ‘Food, Drug, and Beverage, Category “D.” 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum, Dan Rogers, and Don DeSapri. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-12:

Dana Landrum, Pataskala, stated that she has participated in the Granville Farmer’s Market for several years.  She went on to say that she participates in six different farmer's markets and caters for Denison University and the Robbins Hunter Museum.  Ms. Landrum stated that a bakery is needed in town and she has a large customer base in Granville.  Ms. Terry stated that with this particular Change of Use request, the parking requirements are reduced and there are two spaces required for this use, verses the three that were previously required.  Ms. Terry stated that all of the parking requirements have been met by the applicant.  Mr. Burriss asked if there will be any changes to the outside of the structure.  Ms. Landrum stated no.  Mr. Johnson asked where the designated parking spaces are located.  Ms. Terry stated that the parking spaces are grandfathered and they are located behind the building.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if patrons driving to the bakery would enter through the alley off of Elm Street.  Ms. Terry indicated that this is a possible entrance to the bakery.  Mr. Burriss asked if it is felt that the current dumpster situation is adequate.  Ms. Landrum stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if an external exhaust is required by the health department.  Mr. Burriss asked if any exterior modifications need to be made to the structure due to an exhaust system.  Ms. Landrum stated that Tom Castell, Licking County Health Department, has inspected the structure to give them ideas on where to place the equipment.  She stated that she will be using an electric convection oven and no additional venting is required.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked what type of baked goods will be at the bakery.  Ms. Landrum stated that she has enclosed a menu in their packets that includes items such as: breads, crackers, brownies, etc. and all of this will be made at the new bakery location.  Ms. Landrum went on to say that she has out grown her current space and expects to have an increased amount of sales for next year.  Ms. Landrum stated that she would be very glad to say she bakes in Granville.  Mr. Burriss noted the submitted floor plan and counter display - # 9 and he questioned if Ms. Landrum would be providing any tables and chairs for patrons.  Ms. Landrum stated that they would like to eventually place tables and chairs outside, but there will not be any inside.  Mr. Johnson questioned what type of deliveries Ms. Landrum expects to have.  Ms. Landrum stated that she does her buying on Monday’s because the shop will be closed and she will be the only delivery person for the business.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked  how many baked goods Ms. Landrum expects to do a day.  Ms. Landrum stated that it will depend on the day of the week, but she currently would take approximately forty brownies, a hundred loaves of bread, and various other items to the Saturday Farmer’s Market.  Ms. Landrum stated that her business will operate Tuesday – Friday from 8:00 am – 6:00 pm and Saturday from 8:00 am – 2:00 pm.  Mr. Ryan asked how Ms. Landrum will advertise her business.  Ms. Landrum indicated that she really won’t be advertising the business.  She stated that she will be replacing the Counting House sign and will also make a request for a sandwich board sign at a later time.  Ms. Landrum stated that she hopes to be open for business by May 1st.  

Dan Rogers, 121 South Prospect, stated that his business is the closest business to the proposed bakery and they are in favor of this unique business in town.  Mr. Rogers stated “the more the better.”  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-12 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

116 East Broadway – Village Brewing Company - Application #2010-13

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a projecting sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jerry Martin. 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-13:

Jerry Martin, 2276 Hankinson Road, owner of Village Brewing Company, indicated that he would like to install a projecting sign below the balcony.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is allowed larger signage than what is being requested but that the request does meet the requirements.  Mr. Ryan asked the reason for the sign.  Mr. Martin stated that there is currently only signage on the front of the balcony and the building is very nondescript.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Martin would be willing to put a frame around the sign.  Mr. Martin stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that if the applicant is willing to put a frame around the sign it would make it more consistent with other signage that the Planning Commission has approved and it would allow the sign to show up a little more.  Mr. Burriss stated that he thinks the proposed location is a good place for a sign, such as this, and a frame would make it feel like a “finished sign.”  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Martin if the proposed sign cuts the can lights in two.  Mr. Martin stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be any additional lights installed.  Mr. Martin stated no.  Mr. Mitchell suggested a 1x2 piece of wood – painted black – be used as a border around the proposed sign.  Mr. Burriss indicated that this would slightly increase the size of the sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the application will still meet all of the size requirements.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-13:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is compatible with other signage 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 stated that the simplicity of the presentation of the sign is consistent with the historical character of the Village. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the simplicity of the sign, the physical surroundings in which past generations lived are enhanced. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-13 with the condition that a black frame made with a diameter of 1x2 be applied to the perimeter of the sign.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business: 

Application #2010-11: Ken and Katie Richards

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-11 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-11.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-12: Gary and Dana Landrum

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 #2010-12 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-12.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-13: Village Brewing Company

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 Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-13 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-13.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Other Business:

Letter from Mark Clapsadle:

Councilmember O’Keefe acknowledged a letter received from Mark Clapsadle written to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry clarified that Mr. Clapsadle was requesting that applications be handled with consistency by the Planning Commission.  She stated that he was specifically referring to the application for Brian Davis, 317 East Maple Street, on the January 25, 2010 Planning Commission agenda.  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Clapsadle indicated that this applicant submitted very minimal information and drawings with his application for a detached garage.  She stated that Mr. Clapsadle stated that he charged his client (across the street at 324 East Maple Street) time for drawings and plans and he questioned if this was ever necessary after witnessing the Planning Commission’s approval of Mr. Davis’s application.  Mr. Ryan stated that in retrospect the Planning Commission should have tabled Mr. Davis’s application until additional detailed information could be provided.  He stated, however, that they did receive the information that they needed during the meeting by asking many questions of Mr. Davis and his builder.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the Planning Commission probably should have tabled Mr. Davis’s application.  He also stated that the proposed garage had a simple design which made it easier to review and add conditions of approval that would satisfy the code requirements.  He also requested that Ms. Terry respond to Mr. Clapsadle by letter letting him know that they acknowledge his concerns.  Mr. Ryan noted that Mr. Clapsadle did submit detailed drawings and information on behalf of his client and this is in part due to a complete renovation of the entire home that is being done in stages.    

Thank You to Chair/Vice Chair:

Mr. Burriss thanked Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell for their willingness to serve as Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes for the January 25, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 4-0. 

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

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

Next meetings:

February 22, 2010

March 8, 2010

Employee Payroll / Compensation

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

Go to My Pay Stub and login.