Granville Community Calendar

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.)

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.