Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes January 11, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 11, 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.

Visitors Present: Don Moxley, Greg Ream, Scott Walker, William Hanes, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Jean Hoyt, Ben Rader, Evelyn Frolking, Lindsay Moore, Amy Robe, Scott Miller, and Drew Bennett. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Old Business:

110 East Elm Street – Lemonade Fitness/Don Moxley - Application #09-149

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for approval of a Change of Use from Category “C”, Business and Professional Offices to Category “H”, Fitness Related Businesses.  

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

Discussion regarding Application #09-149:

Don Moxley, Wildwood Drive, stated that his business was previously located at 205 South Prospect Street and he recently moved it to 110 East Elm Street.  Mr. Moxley stated that the owner of 110 East Elm Street, Richard VanMeter, has more parking available off-site and that he is also renting two additional spaces from Mr. VanMeter that are rented from Park National Bank.  Mr. Moxley stated that he would estimate that approximately ½ of his business walks to his establishment.  Mr. Mitchell questioned up to how many parking spaces are required for Mr. Moxley’s business.  Ms. Terry explained that this is to be determined by the Planning commission.  Mr. Moxley stated that his business only has the capacity for two to four clients at one time and it runs like a professional office.  Mr. Moxley stated that of the six parking spaces rented from the bank – two are used by Granville Sentinel.  Ms. Terry clarified that there are sixteen parking spaces total that are allocated to Mr. VanMeter’s building and three office spaces totaling 1,620 square feet and four parking spaces for two apartments.  Ms. Terry stated that there are a total of nine spaces currently allocated on this property for the existing uses and six more are available off-site.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they need to require a number that Lemonade Fitness should use and they don’t want to assume that they should be allocated all of the remaining spaces if they don’t have to.  Mr. Moxley explained that his business is by appointment that operates like an accounting office or dental office and they have two to three people at a time - maximum.  He stated that at the time he set up the business at 205 South Prospect, “fitness related business” wasn’t in the Code.  He went on to say that he is the only employee at Lemonade Fitness, unless someone else works in his place and he has a significant amount of walk in business.  Mr. Buriss asked the typical hours of operation.  Mr. Moxley stated 6:30 am – 9:00 am they are busy and then its quiet from 12:00 – 4:00 and then a bit busier from 5:00 – 8:00 PM.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked when the bulk of his business is there and Mr. Moxley stated that it is the busiest in the early morning hours.  Mr. Ryan stated that this application is for approximately 500 square feet – for a fitness center and it was clarified that if the business were to expand – it would require Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Moxley stated that the rest of the building is rented.  Mr. Johnson questioned what is the arrangement for renewing the lease on the parking spaces with Park National Bank and he stated that a lot of this is reliant on the continued ability to rent from them.  Ms. Terry stated that this is negotiated annually and she stated that the bank has rented these spaces to Mr. VanMeter for a number of years.  Ms. Terry stated that the three businesses that make up the 1,620 square feet are made up of Northwest Mutual, Granville Sentinel, and Padgett Business Services.  Mr. Johnson asked the typical appointment time.  Mr. Moxley stated that they typically schedule for an hour appointment that is forty-five minutes long so there is no overlap.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if he is hearing that Mr. Moxley seldom needs more than two spaces.  Mr. Moxley stated that two spaces take up most of their demand.  Mr. Ryan asked the number of spaces designated at 205 South Prospect Street.  Mr. Moxley stated that they had access to Tim Tyler’s driveway, but they rarely used it because most parking was on the street.  Ms. Terry explained that the number of spaces required for the business when it was located at 205 South Prospect Street is not denoted in that approval.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated she recalls that they were able to show three parking spaces.  Mr. Moxley stated that the most amount of people he could service at his business at the same time is four and he has had this happen a half dozen times in the past two years.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would recommend three parking spaces for 110 East Elm Street.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-149 stipulating that three parking spaces are required for this use. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 New Business: 

122 North Mulberry Street – Denison University/Scott Walker - Application #09-152

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of landscaping to replace the Cinema House structure, which is proposed for demolition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Ben Rader, Paul Jakob, Jean Hoyt, and Scott Walker. 

Discussion regarding Application #09-152:

Scott Walker, PO Box F, Granville, stated that if the demolition of Cinema House is approved they would like to make landscape improvements to the property and they have no plans to build another structure in its place.  Mr. Walker explained that there are

currently a row of evergreen cedars to the east where there is an open spot and on the west line they would like to plant a line of ornamental pear trees.  Mr. Walker stated that the caliper of the pear trees is 2 – 2 ½ inches and they want to align them with 118 and 122 North Mulberry Street.  Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, asked if Denison University had a landscape architect draw up the plans.  Mr. Walker stated that he has fourteen years experience in architecture and he drew up the plans for Denison.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Denison University owns the property at 118 North Mulberry Street.  Mr. Walker stated yes.  Mr. Walker also stated that there are existing mature plantings on the property that they have no plans to disturb, but the foundation plantings would be removed.  Mr. Rader asked if Denison has plans to rebuild on this property.  Mr. Walker stated no and they will move in topsoil and bring the foundation up to proper grade to match the surrounding area.  He stated that they may make the grade a little lower in center so no water is shed on adjacent properties.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the downspouts are tied into something now.  Mr. Walker stated that he is not sure, but he would imagine it is tied into the storm sewer because the roof on the structure is flat for the most part.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing a row of pear trees and removal of the building to create what they hope to be a positive green space.  Mr. Burriss stated that he sees this plan as screening green space from the street.  Mr. Burriss went on to say that he understands trying to maintain the line and the facades on the building, but the pear tree line doesn’t exist anywhere else on the property.  Mr. Walker stated that there is a section of the Code that speaks to “continuing the building lines” and they were attempting to achieve this but they would be willing to open this up if the Planning Commission so wishes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this feels like a missing piece of a garden that was previously there to him and it visually blocks the green space.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is asking the question to open discussion.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there should be any additional plantings at 136 North Mulberry Street so that the green space is treated consistently and ties in so it doesn’t seem segmented.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the number of trees Mr. Walker intends on planting.  Mr. Burriss suggested four trees with three on one side and adding another on the other side.  Ben Rader questioned if Mr. Burriss is saying what the trees would screen.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels that the proposal is a continuous screen that feels segmented.  Mr. Rader asked if he feels it should be made to be more open?  Mr. Burriss stated that it could be done in a way to create layering so there is still a row of four trees along the property line.  Mr. Rader stated that there has been some discussion of a parking lot being placed in this area.  Mr. Walker stated that they have no intention and this would not be favorable with neighbors and not cost effective.  Mr. Burriss asked who maintains the lawn.  Mr. Walker stated Denison University and 136 North Mulberry is whomever they hire to do maintenance.  He later stated that the property located at 118 North Mulberry Street is maintained by Denison.  Paul Jakob, 115 West College Street, stated that he is concerned about two things - one of which is foot traffic from Mulberry Street through Locust Place.  He stated that although he is concerned about foot traffic, he is not in favor of having a fence installed.  Mr. Jakob stated that another concern would be the gathering of students on the property.  He asked if there is any intention to put benches or anything such as a picnic area in the lawn.  Mr. Walker stated that they have no intention to use this lot for any activities and they do not plan on having a fence.  Mr. Burriss stated that on the eastern side of the property the shrubs could turn the corner and be placed along the eastern border as well.  Mr. Walker stated that they are open to this.  Mr. Burriss stated that the shrub placement could discourage some of the foot traffic.  Jean Hoyt, 117 Locust Place, stated that she owns the property to the east of the Cinema House property.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she has very little lawn in the rear and to the north and she does get a considerable amount of foot traffic.  She stated that her concern is that people will walk more dogs through using her lawn as a better connection to downtown from that area.  Ms. Hoyt indicated that she would be in agreement with some landscaping to discourage foot traffic.  She stated that she wouldn’t want anything that would deter visibility, as the proposed landscaping will be a better view for her than looking at the back of the old building that is scheduled for demolition. 

Mr. Burriss presented ‘Exhibit A’ with the discussed landscaping changes.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-152: 

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 existing plantings are being expanded. 

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 upgrading the landscaping plan, the historical character of the entire Village is upgraded.   

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 adding green plants. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the lot is being returned to its natural existence.  

e)      Landscape Plan:  The applicant is proposing ornamental pear trees and additional cedar shrubs.   

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-152 with the following conditions: 

-That the proposed five ornamental pear trees along Mulberry Street be changed to four trees with one of the pear trees being placed at 136 Mulberry Street; and

-The distance between the centerlines of the pear trees be equal;

 -And additional cedar shrubs along the rear and eastern border of the property be installed as indicated in Exhibit ‘A’.

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

122 North Mulberry Street – Denison University/Scott Walker - Application #09-153

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a structural demolition permit for Cinema House. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Ben Rader, Paul Jakob, and Scott Walker. 

Discussion regarding Application #09-153:

Scott Walker, stated that the structure, Cinema House, was originally built as a sorority house in the 1960’s.  He stated that the items in the building were relocated this summer, and the structure has been vacant since the move.  Mr. Walker stated that they really do not have any need for the structure and it doesn’t contribute to the neighborhood with its current architectural style.  Paul Jakob questioned why if Cinema House is a relatively new building why does Denison feel that they will have no use for it in the future.  Mr. Walker stated that activities have been consolidated in the new facility at Cleveland Hall.  He also stated that the location of the Cinema House property is not directly contiguous with main campus and their intent is to pull the academic areas together.  Mr. Rader asked Mr. Walker when Denison will start the demolition.  Mr. Walker stated that depending on approval by Council they hope to begin sometime around the first week of March and he has a contractor lined up to do the work.  Mr. Walker stated that they are estimating that the demolition process would take approximately thirty days for the entire project.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Denison has any plans to reuse any of the materials.  Mr. Walker explained that Denison does have an agreement with the contractor that they will separate the material and recycle when possible.  Mr. Walker stated that it is difficult to re-use brick.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sidewalk located within the tree lawn would be removed.  Ms. Terry stated that this sidewalk is the Village’s responsibility.  Mr. Walker stated that they would like to take it up because it will serve no purpose.  Mr. Burris stated that this sidewalk would need to go.  Mr. Burriss asked if the two lattice screens that go with the gray house would be removed.  Mr. Walker stated that he would like to remove these.  Mr. Burriss agreed that they ought to be removed.  

Mr. Ryan noted that the Planning Commission did receive a letter from the Granville Historical Society stating that the building has no particular historical value. 

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

b)      The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Granville Historical Society has also stated that the structure is of 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 are 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Walker concurred that there are no additional structures proposed for this space.  

Mr. Mitchell made a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Application #09-153 to Village Council with the additional requirement that the current concrete walkway from the street to the sidewalk be removed. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

107 East Broadway – St. Luke’s Episcopal Church - Application #09-154

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a non-functioning chimney on the western side of the building and replacement of the fire escape on the southern side of the building. 

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

Discussion regarding Application #09-154:

William Hanes, 530 West Broadway, stated that there has been some construction at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church.  He stated that a photograph from 1910 shows that the chimney was not original to the structure.  He stated that they would like to remove the chimney because it is pulling away from the building and it also creates water problems.  Mr. Hanes stated that the existing fire escape is in very bad shape and they are not comfortable with people using it.  Mr. Burriss asked what is the proposed finish of the fire escape.  Mr. Hanes stated metal-steel and they are willing to paint it whatever the Planning Commission wishes.  Mr. Burriss recommended minimizing the appearance of the fire escape and feels white is the best solution.  Mr. Burriss agreed that there is significant evidence that the chimney is not original and the west elevation will improve in appearance if the chimney is removed.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-154: 

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 restoration of the appearance of the building is consistent. 

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 improvements are upgrading the historical character. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the authenticity of this significant architectural structure is vital in this district. 

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

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant is proposing removal of a non-functioning chimney on the western side of the building and replacement of the fire escape on the southern side of the building.  The fire escape will be constructed of metal.

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-156 with the condition that the new fire escape be painted white. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

125 East Broadway – GACC/David Getreu - Application #09-156

Village Business District-B (VBD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for approval of a Change of Use from Category “B”, Specialty Shops to Categories “B”, Specialty Shops and “C”, Business and Professional Offices, for 291 square feet of space.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Evelyn Frolking, Drew Bennett, and David Getreu. 

Discussion regarding Application #09-156:

David Getreu, stated that the Chamber of Commerce is requesting a Change of Use for property they would be leasing at 125 East Broadway.  He stated that they would like to sell items out of the space.  Mr. Ryan asked what type of items the Chamber will sell.  Mr. Getreu stated souvenirs and perhaps some other various chamber member’s items as well.  Ms. Terry explained that there can be more than one classified designation for a space and this property is currently designated as a retail shop and it is possible to apply for an expansion of keeping the Category ‘b’ while also adding the Category ‘c’, Professional Office.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the parking requirements are being reduced.  Ms. Terry stated that it depends on how the Planning Commission feels about the use of the 291 square foot space.  Mr. Getreu stated that only the back part would be used for Chamber office space.  

Greg Ream, 125 East Broadway, stated that he is the property owner and they were  hoping the parking requirements will remain the same because the applicant really only wants to add a desk in the space.  He stated that they really don’t want to reduce what they already have.  Mr. Johnson asked the parking requirement now.  Ms. Terry stated that the parking is one per 150 square feet.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant would need two spaces for the Specialty Shops designation.  Mr. Johnson asked by adding the Office designation are they increasing the parking requirements.  Mr. Ryan stated no if he was only doing office space then only one space would be required.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the current parking is grandfathered in.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if an employee will be added.  Mr. Getreu stated that they only have one employee now.  Mr. Ryan asked if the space is currently vacant.  Mr. Ream acknowledged that the space is currently vacant.  Mr. Burriss agreed that this is a good solution and good location for the Granville Area Chamber of Commerce who has been in need of a space.    

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #09-156 as submitted by the applicant and establishing the use as Category ‘B’, Specialty Shops, and Category ‘C’, Business and Professional Offices.  

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

121-127 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #09-157

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a change to the awning structure and awning color across all four storefronts and the installation of a door at 121 East Broadway. 

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

 Discussion regarding Application #09-157:

Greg Ream, Victoria Drive, stated that he is the owner of the property.  Mr. Ream stated that he would like to place a new awning on the building.  He presented a sample of the awning material and he stated that any signage would be marked with white lettering and they would be removing the bump-outs.  Mr. Ream stated that the size and shape of the awning will be straight across.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is existing rectangle architecture on the building.  Mr. Ream stated that there is rectangular detailing, but the building is in very bad shape and really doesn’t need to stand out.  Mr. Burriss stated that the presented awning’s shape and presentation is inconsistent with other awnings in the Village that have a shallower slope.  Mr. Burriss stated that he was involved in helping to choose the awnings on Village Hall and they tried to mimic the same awnings on the north side.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does like the material and apron colors chosen by Mr. Ream, but the difference in the lower awning as opposed to the larger awning – the lower awning is more historically appropriate.  Mr. Burriss stated that he realizes that Mr. Ream is having to work with the existing structure.  Mr. Ream stated that he chose not to do smaller awnings, partly for some cost savings.  He stated that the biggest reason he chose to have the larger awnings is because the front of his building is a 1950’s added front that he does not feel is attractive in any way.  Mr. Ream stated that he truly felt that the cracks needed to be hidden and not have more exposure.  He also stated that the south side of the street has had problems with light and the snow won’t melt.  Mr. Ream stated that by raising the awnings, more light could get inside the building.  Mr. Ream stated that some of his rationale for choosing the awning that he chose was that the south side of the street needs to come alive.  He stated that he tried to think of other ways to make this happen, but painting was not an option because the building will not hold the paint.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked when the B Hammond awning was approved?  Mr. Ream believed it was in 2000 and Mr. Burriss concurred.  Mr. Burriss stated that he has regretted the approval of the B Hammond awning ever since it went up and this is why he  has said something now.  Mr. Burriss questioned if moving a smaller awning up would still be advantageous to achieve letting more light in the building.  Mr. Ryan asked if the current awnings track can be modified.  Mr. Ream stated no, but he will be able to remove the bump out without tearing out the entire frame.  Mr. Ream stated that at some point a new front was put on this building and he is unsure as to when this happened.  Mr. Johnson stated that he understands not wanting to put a lot of money into changing out the awning, but he does feel the proposed awning is imposing for the downtown.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Johnson feels the awning is more imposing because it’s just a black awning.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks it is out of character for the rest of downtown.  Mr. Ream stated that it is important to keep in mind that this side of the street has had a limited amount of foot traffic and there used to not be any awning on the building and it was a great improvement when the black awning went up.  Mr. Ream stated that he feels something needs to change on the south side of the street and it needs to be an area that stands out, but that doesn’t mean he wants it to be obnoxious.  He stated that he believes the south side of the street should differ from the north side of the street.  Mr. Burriss asked if Mr. Ream would consider not having an awning across the entire building.  Mr. Ream stated no because of weather conditions with ice and the building needs to be treated uniformally so maintenance doesn’t become an issue.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the awning will be massive and he likes variety and treating each space a little differently.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission tries to be consistent with other areas in the historic district and he feels the presented awning is very “strip center” with the presented height and mass.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is the only other building with awnings other than the Village Hall on the south side of the street.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a tenant set to use the building.  Mr. Ream stated that he is not able to disclose the possible tenant at this time.  Mr. Ream asked why a black awning of a strip mall is vernacular.  He went on to say that the awning is a tool used in strip centers to camouflage when there is no architectural detail in place.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is not a huge fan of a big huge awning, but he doesn’t see how this awning will detract from across the street.  Mr. Ream stated that there is are no windows on this building to highlight and it has a false front that is not attractive and its better to hide the building with an awning.  Mr. Burriss stated that Mr. Ream needs to carefully consider the proposed mass of the awning with the proposed material because it has a lot of stripes.  

Mr. Mitchell asked if the proposed door at 121 East Broadway will be the same height as the existing door if there are two separate tenants in this space.  Mr. Ream stated that the door will be the same framing and he later clarified that the new door will be a single door, while the existing door is a double door.  He went on to say that he will be providing all of the maintenance services for the entire building, such as snow removal.  He stated that he wants to ensure that there is consistency with all of the tenants and that there is a possibility of four separate businesses that could be located in the building.

Mr. Ream stated that if he could put a smaller awning in without spending a considerable amount of money and it would make the building look better overall, he would entertain the idea.  He said that he doesn’t see this as possible.  Mr. Burriss asked if Mr. Ream looked at carriage lamps between the different facades that would be something like the façade on the Taylor building – North Prospect Street.  He stated that the carriage lights could give the building some depth and he estimates that there are five spaces available to place a light.  Mr. Burriss stated that if he considers the entire presentation of the building, it might be an appropriate avenue to look at as well.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Burriss felt lighting would soften the big awning.  Mr. Burriss stated he is unsure of this.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked about the colors in the awning.  Mr. Ream stated that the colors of red, blue, green, and yellow are New England colors.  Mr. Burriss asked if the new door will be detailed with the identical hardware as the current double door.  Mr. Ream stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that this is a no win situation and adding the additional awning on down to the phone company building will be significant.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is not crazy about the mass of the awning, but he is not going to vote no on the application because the current owner of the building says it will be good for business.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the presented solution is better than an empty building and better than the current awning that covers up the building.  Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Mitchell and stated that he doesn’t like the way the two existing awnings look today and he feels that the south side of the street is different than the other side of the street.  Mr. Ryan stated that he agrees that there are some things that Mr. Ream can do to soften the look of the building and he hopes this will be considered.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the proposed doorway will be centered in the panel.  Mr. Ream stated that there will be sidelights on each side of the door and it will be centered.  

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposal is not stylistically incompatible with what is currently on the building.  Mr. Burriss stated that having a consistent awning is consistent with new, renovated and old structures in the district.  Mr. Johnson concurred with Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed doorway is compatible with renovated structures.  The rest of the Planning Commission members agreed regarding the proposed door installation.    

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes, the ADA door is an improvement and upgrade.  Mr. Burriss did not feel that the proposed awning is historically appropriate for this district.  Mr. Burriss stated that he felt that the massing and angle of the proposed awning is not consistent.  Mr. Mitchell stated that removing the bump out is an improvement and an upgrade to the structure.  Mr. Mitchell stated that awning offers consistency by replacing the awning over Crosswalk.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed awning would contribute to the upgrading of the historical character if the awning brings new business to the structure.  Mr. Ryan concurred with Mr. Mitchell & Mr. Johnson.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Ryan stated new business could potentially be brought into the district.  Mr. Burriss agreed removing the black awning would contribute to the vitality of the district.   

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed striped awning is more consistent and accurate with other historical awnings.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Johnson agreed. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #09-157 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (no), Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #09-149: Lemonade Fitness/Don Moxley

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 & Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-149 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-149.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

Application #09-152: Denison University

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-152 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-152.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #09-153: Denison University

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-153 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-153.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #09-154: St. Luke’s Episcopal Church

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-154 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-154.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #09-156: GACC/David Getreu

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 & Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-156 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-156.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #09-157: Greg Ream

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #09-157 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-157.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss (no), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1.

Approval of the Minutes:

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

Motion carried 4-0. 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

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

Next meetings:

January 25, 2010

February 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.