Granville Community Calendar

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

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.