Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes March 22, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 22, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

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

Visitors Present: Art Chonko, Jim & Donna Brooks, Soc and Kris Goumas, and Cindy Brenaman. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

200 Livingston Drive – Art Chonko/Denison University  - Application #2010-25

Institutional District (ID)

The request is for review and approval of a new natatorium and entry hall addition to the existing athletic center.  The proposed additional square footage is 75,943 feet.  

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

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated that he is the project manager for the proposed addition.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the application meets all of the requirements for the Granville Ordinances.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated that the BZBA granted a Variance for the size of the parking spaces and a Variance for the drive aisle width.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and had no concerns.  She went on to say that Chief Hussey has asked Mr. Chonko to add an additional fire hydrant on Washington Drive.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has also met all of the Tree & Landscape requirements and they greatly exceed those requirements.  Ms. Terry added that the proposed addition fits well with the existing Mitchell Center and there is not any AROD criteria to review for this application.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-25 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

238 East Broadway – Jim Brooks  - Application #2010-26

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

The request is architectural review and approval of a wall sign. 

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

Discussion:

Jim Brooks, 238 East Broadway, indicated that he owns the property at 238 East Broadway, and Goumas Candyland is an occupant of the downstairs.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant disagrees with the former ruling by the Planning Commission regarding a light with a timer on the proposed panel sign and he is submitting this new application.  Mr. Johnson asked if this application is approved - would the applicant have approval for two signs?  Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Brooks could potentially put up both signs if the applicant uses the panel sign with a timer on the light.  Mr. Mitchell asked if having both signs added would conform to the Code requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the side porch is used for the calculations when configuring the store front signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes that the entire square footage of the front of the structure is used and 25% of the side area.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is called a “store front” and this fits into the whole general provisions section.  Ms. Terry stated the frontage of the business is 25.5 square feet and 38.25 is allowed for the proposed wall sign.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Brooks if he plans on putting up the sign panel.  Mr. Brooks stated no and he wouldn’t be here requesting a new sign if it weren’t for the stipulation that the Planning Commission put on the previous approval of turning the light off at a particular time.  Mr. Ryan asked if the wall sign will be lit?  Mr. Brooks stated no.  He added that he may look at adding some up lighting to shine on the house, but not particularly on the sign itself.  Mr. Johnson inquired on the applicant’s objection to the previous requirement for the lighting.  Mr. Brooks asked “why do you want me to turn it off?”  He stated that there is not a good reason to require that the lighting be turned off.  Mr. Brooks stated that he had a representative at the previous meeting and they unfortunately did not object to the lighting on the signage being turned off by 10:00 PM.  He stated that the sign is currently lit from dusk to dawn and he does not want this to change.

Donna Brooks, 238 East Broadway, stated that when the original sign was approved and they objected to the light being turned off at a certain time - the law director stated that there is nothing on the books that says that they can’t have the light on all night.  

Mr. Johnson stated that perhaps the Planning Commission would have considered a different solution regarding the lighting had the applicant voiced their objection.  Mr. Brooks stated that if he were to appeal the application it would have to go to Village Council.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission originally asked the applicant to come up with a better solution for the wall sign so that the architecture was not covered up and they came back with the panel sign that was the best solution.  It was clarified by Mr. Mitchell that the light timer stipulations were allowed to be put in place because the applicant received a Variance by the Planning Commission for the sign panel application.  Ms. Brooks stated that she knows of several signs that were approved in the last couple of years that do not have restrictions on the time that they can be turned on/off.  She indicated that the Village does not have an Ordinance that requires that the lights be turned off and she questions how the Planning Commission can make this ruling. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-26: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes, that the proposed signage is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village.  Mr. Johnson agreed that the sign is consistent with other signs that the Planning Commission has approved.  Mr. Ryan concurred with these statements. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell

stated that the lack of color in the sign is historically correct and contributes to the improvement and the upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson concurred.

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

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

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-26 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Brooks if he would prefer that the panel sign be used instead of the wall sign.  Mr. Brooks stated yes, but he is not willing to take a chance that the application will get denied in the future and he doesn’t want to spend any further time or money on the signage for this property.  Mr. Brooks indicated that because the Planning Commission approved the panel sign with the condition, and if he were to request a change to the approval it would cost him $150.00 to appeal the matter to Village Council.  Ms. Terry indicated that the application could be voted on for Reconsideration, but Mr. Burriss is not present and they don’t have enough members present to vote for this since Mr. Ryan was not at the original meeting and is not able to vote. 

Mr. Johnson indicated that he is trying to find the best solution in this matter for everyone involved.  Councilmember O’Keefe clarified that the Planning Commission preferred the proposed panel sign over the wall sign above the door.  Mr. Johnson agreed. 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant could put up the hanging tenant panel sign and come back and ask for the light to be left on for an extended amount of time.  She asked if this could be on the next agenda?  Law Director King stated that this could be under ‘New Business’ on the next agenda, but the Planning Commission is unable to amend this application.  He stated that it would have to be “undone” through the same process.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant could choose to put the tenant panel sign up - turn the light off in preparation for the next meeting and then the Planning Commission could vote on an application without the lighting restriction.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this could be done without paying another fee.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  

Mr. Johnson stated that he is thinking Mr. Burriss would vote to turn the light off, rather than cover the architecture on the building.  Mr. Brooks stated that he doesn’t want to go through the process again, but he appreciates the Planning Commission trying to come up with a compromise.  Mr. Brooks again indicated that he is not willing to agree to turn the light off.  He went on to say that they are discussing the lighting for a sign and this is for an Ordinance that the Village doesn’t have in place.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the representative at the last meeting was able to say that they had a problem with the lighting condition, they could have avoided this situation.  Mr. Johnson stated that it is not the Planning Commission’s intention to make the applicant go through additional hoops.  Mr. Brooks indicated that he would like to move forward with approval for the wall sign only.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

139 West Maple Street – Carol Whitt & Linda Cole  - Application #2010-27

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a three-tab shingled roof and replacement with dimensional asphaltic shingles. 

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

Discussion:

Cindy Breneman, 36411 Township Road 72, Frazeysburg, Ohio stated that she is representing the contractor who is doing the roof replacement.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-27: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated the improvements are consistent with other renovated and old structures in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the improvements improve the historical character and therefore, the Village.

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

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

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-27 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-25: Art Chonko/Denison University/Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1169, Institutional District, Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking & Loading, and Chapter 1193, Tree & Landscape Requirements and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-25 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-25.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-26: Jim Brooks/Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-26 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-26.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-27: Carol Whitt & Linda Cole/New Roof

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-27 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-27.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

Approval of Absent Commission Member’s:

Mr. Johnson made a motion to excuse Jack Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on March 22, 2010.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  7:50 PM

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

Next meetings:

April 12, 2010 (Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she would not be able to attend this meeting.)

April 26, 2010

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.