Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 10, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Ralph Baker, David Baker, Dr. Mark Alexandrunas, Maggie Sobataka, Travis Ketron, Russ Adams, Jason Spinks, Mary Jo Spinks, Olivia Haas, and John Cassell. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

Old Business:

113 North Prospect Street – Aaath Co./Russ Adams - Application #2010-55

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

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

1)         Removal of wood sidelights on each side of the entry door and replacement with clear glass, beveled sidelights on each side;

2)         Replacement of exterior light fixtures on each side of entry door with brass light fixtures; and

3)         Addition of an electrical outlet on the south side of the stairs. 

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

Discussion:

Mr. Burriss moved to remove Application #2010-55 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Russ Adams, Aaath Company, stated that he provided a drawing of what he would like to change regarding the side lights, as well as a paint chip of the color he would like to use.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the trim around the side lights will appear.  Mr. Adams stated that they didn’t plan to do anything different than what was used at 109 North Prospect.  He stated that they would use quarter round at each side light panel.  Mr. Burriss asked if the material that is proposed for over the door and above the side lights is the same as 109 North Prospect Street.  Mr. Adams stated that they will use the existing siding.  Mr. Burriss asked if the existing siding will carry on to the top of the sidelights.  Mr. Adams stated that there is a slightly indented ½ inch surface.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes that he is seeing that the top of the sidelights and windows are all going to be all one level continuous line.  Mr. Adams stated that this was proposed by the Planning Commission and he tried to adopt their idea.  Mr. Burriss asked how the lights are currently mounted on the door and he stated that the position of the light fixtures feels awkward.  Mr. Adams explained that the lights were chosen for this location because they didn’t want them to be covered up by the existing awning.  He went on to say that there is lighting within the awning and sign and he would consider not having the lights on the building.  He also stated that they chose to put lighting at this doorway because it is a new and different business.  Mr. Burriss stated that he appreciates all of these ideas, but he has some difficulty visualizing the proposed lighting and questioned whether it would be proportionate.  Mr. Burriss stated that the building without the proposed lighting would be architecturally appropriate considering their proposed height.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Adams explained that there will be an outlet at the bottom of the doorway.  Mr. Johnson asked if the sidelights and door will be replaced.  Mr. Adams stated that the existing door will be maintained and the side lights will be rebuilt.  Mr. Johnson stated asked if there will be some depth that will remain.  Mr. Adams stated that this will not change.  Mr. Johnson asked if a window sill will be created.  Mr. Adams stated the four and one half inches will change very little and there is quarter round in the front.  He went on to explain that the glass is about an inch and one half thick and it has two layers of protective glass around it.  He stated that the glass will sit on the existing lower fourteen inches and there will be a small piece of quarter round to set it back.  Mr. Adams stated that the glass will not quite be flush from the inside and it will be inset the same as the door on the outside.     

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-55: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is stylistically compatible with other structures in the Village without the proposed lighting.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed side lights are an appropriate detail for this district.

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

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is a historically appropriate enhancement. 

e)      Materials:  Clear glass beveled side lights. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-55 with the condition that the applicant not use the exterior lighting included in the application and the top of the sidelights and the top of the door lights are to be at the same elevation. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

319 Summit Street – Ralph Baker - Application #2010-56

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to replace the existing slate and shingle roof with Sierra Gray Oakridge asphaltic dimensional shingles.  

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

Discussion:

David Baker, 22 Blue Bonnet Drive, Heath, Ohio, stated that Ralph Baker is his father and he is representing him for this application.  Mr. Baker explained that two areas on the roof of the house already have shingles and there is slate on the other.  Mr. Baker stated that the porch roof is a flat rubber roof.  Mr. Ryan asked if the top of the roof that is flat will also be replaced.  Mr. Baker stated that they will also have rubber at the top of this area.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the ridges will be treated - shingled or metal.  The applicant and Mr. Mitchell believed after review of the application that the ridges would be shingled.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal will bring the primary and supplemental structures into conformity, which is preferable.  Mr. Johnson asked if there could be fascia depth issues where the old lathe meets the slate roof.  Mr. Baker stated that the roofer would be making this consistent.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-56: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with material with other new and renovated structures in the Village District.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed upgrades are consistent and makes the primary and supplemental structures consistent.  

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

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed improvements will preserve the structures on the property.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-56 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Sobataka  - Application #2010-60

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

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

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

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, 15 Donald Ross Drive, stated that she would like to place the sign once used by the Needling Yarn on the sidewalk and it would have her business name painted on it.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sidewalk signage will be used to write what the current collection is.  Ms. Sobataka explained that the sidewalk sign will not be used daily, but more for special events.  Ms. Sobataka stated that by placing the sign in front of the store front it doesn’t serve as great a purpose as it would from down the street.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she was told by Village Staff that placing the signage at the corner is no longer permissible.  Ms. Sobataka stated that the top of the sidewalk sign will be identical to the wall sign.  Mr. Burriss expressed some concern over the placement of the sign because the sidewalk in that area is not very wide.  Ms. Sobataka stated that there are new concrete pads that were recently laid and she questioned if this would be an appropriate location to place the sign.  She suggested having the sign closer to the curb so it doesn’t block the sidewalk.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is consistent with other signage in this district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign’s character is in keeping with the historical character of the Village District.

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

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

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-60 with the condition that the applicant place the signage in accordance to the Village Staff Report and that the top of the sidewalk sign be as per Exhibit ‘A’ (picture submitted of the projecting sign for Gallery “M”.) Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Mr. Mitchell moved to amend the motion to add that the sidewalk sign shall only be displayed during business hours only. Mr. Burriss seconded. Roll Call Vote on Amended Motion: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Sobataka - Application #2010-61

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 6.45 square foot projecting sign. 

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

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, 15 Donald Ross Drive, stated that she will use the current mounting already in place on the building.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the current lighting will be used.  Mr. Johnson asked if this lighting will be on a timer.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she will use the existing lighting and it works by a switch on the inside of the building.  She stated that she would likely leave the light on if it is safe.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have typically restricted the lighting hours.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she really has no preference because she will have inside lights that will project down in the window and they will be just as attractive.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is volunteering to turn the lighting off.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they have restricted lighting in the past, but this has been only when a Variance is involved.  Ms. Sobataka indicated that she had no problem turning the lighting off from dawn until 10:00 PM.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-61: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other signage in the district. 

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

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

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

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-61 as presented with the condition that the outside lighting on the sign is turned off from 10:00 PM to Dawn.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

123 East Broadway – Mary Jo Spinks/Tickleberry Moon - Application #2010-36 AMENDED

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

The request is to amend Application #2010-36 for a wall sign.  The applicant is requesting that the sign font and colors be amended. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mary Jo Spinks, Olivia Haas, and Jason Spinks. 

Discussion:

Mary Jo Spinks, indicated that their business, Tickleberry Moon, will be moving from The Works to 125 East Broadway. She stated that they are before the Planning Commission to ask that the wall sign previously approved for the building be amended for the font and color.  Ms. Terry indicated that the owner of the building, Greg Ream, has stated that he would prefer that the border and background color be consistent with his other signage that was approved for the building.  She went on to say that he indicated in an email that if the Planning Commission wanted all of the other signage to have a cream background color – he wouldn’t be opposed, but he would not favor a stark white.  Olivia Haas, 125 East Broadway, stated that they have used the logo on the sign they are presenting for advertising and they can’t fit their logo on the sign already approved due to its size.  Ms. Haas stated that Mr. Ream does not want a glossy background and they are proposing a background with a matte finish. Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Ream has indicated he would change the background color of the signage to white.  Ms. Terry stated his email indicates that he would be opposed to a stark white background.  Ms. Spinks stated that Mr. Ream could not be at the meeting.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color of the signage was approved with overall approval for the improvements to the building and they have never approved more than three colors for a sign.  Ms. Spinks stated that from their standpoint, they came in with two sign colors that were already approved.  Ms. Haas stated that the approved signage doesn’t make their logo stand out or do anything for their branding.  She stated that they have a baby friendly business and hunter green and beige are not fitting for their business.  Ms. Spinks stated that they are trying to make the best color palette they could, given the colors that were previously approved.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if “Natural Modern Baby” is the logo and what has the Planning Commission done regarding the approval of logos on a sign in the past.  Mr. Burriss stated that they didn’t allow various banks or CVS drugstore use their entire logo because their signage islocated in the Architectural Review Overlay District.  Ms. Terry stated that Abe’s Body Shop has consistent colors with all of the signage on their property.  Ms. Haas stated that they advertise all over Licking County with this logo they are presenting.  She later indicated that they would be willing to shift to an off-white background and their main concern is legibility more than anything else.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission could have someone come in with six neon colors and they would have to consider the application.  He indicated that this is why there is a three color maximum in place.  Ms. Spinks stated that she understood, but two of the colors were chosen for them and they aren’t in their logo.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission can’t approve the signage if the owner of the building doesn’t want it.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have always held people to three colors for signage and he is not willing to deviate from this.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would consider the background color and border to be considered as an architectural element of the sign, but there are still more than three colors.  He also stated that he would consider a different font on the sign.  Mr. Ryan indicated that he would like for the signage to be consistent on the building.  Jason Spinks, 125 East Broadway, asked if it is correct that the Planning Commission wants a historical feeling with their signage so it is visually pleasing.  Mr. Burriss stated that this would be a “correct foundation assumption.”  He added that he doesn’t want the applicant’s signage to cause other business’s to say they weren’t treated fairly because they have also had lengthy discussions with other businesses requesting Variances for colors in the past.  Mr. Johnson inquired on the other signage for the building owned by Mr. Ream.  Ms. Terry explained that he would have to amend the other three applications to match what is changed, but he isn’t bound to do this.  Mr. Johnson stated that he feels that the other signage would have to be changed to have a cream background and he does see this as an architectural element.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has already approved a color palette for the building and the signage that was approved is consistent with that color palette.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color for the background of the signage was also being used on the building.  Ms. Terry stated that she and Mr. Ream did not have a conversation regarding him amending the other applications to have the other signage on the building changed to a cream background.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the applicant comes back with a plan and Mr. Ream is not willing to make the other signage the same on the building – they could still have an issue.  

Mr. Johnson made a motion to Table Application #2010-36 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

123 East Broadway – Mary Jo Spinks/Tickleberry Moon - Application #2010-63

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mary Jo Spinks, and Dr. Mark Alexandrunas. 

Discussion:

Mary Jo Spinks, stated that they are flexible with the placement of the sidewalk sign and they have a large sidewalk in front of their building.  Ms. Spinks stated that they will only have the sign out during business hours.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant is submitting five to six colors for the sidewalk sign, depending on whether or not the background color (white) is included.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed sign meets the size requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the sign is two foot (2’) by three foot (3’) and it does meet the sidewalk sign requirement.  However, she also stated that the maximum sign area for signage on the building would need a Variance, and a Variance is necessary because the proposed sign has more than three colors.  Mr. Ryan questioned if this is the only sidewalk sign allowed for the entire building if they approve it.  Ms. Terry explained that the Code only allows for one sidewalk sign per building, and there have been Variances granted in the past for more than one sidewalk sign for a building.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant will be proposing a window sign.  Ms. Terry stated that a window sign would require another Variance.  Ms. Spinks indicated that they would like to apply for a window sign at some point.  Mr. Spinks presented the sign that they are proposing to use on the sidewalk.  Mr. Mitchell suggested approving the presented sign as a temporary sign.  Ms. Terry indicated that temporary signs can be used for the opening of a new business and they are valid for ninety days.  Mr. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission were to approve a wall sign color palette, would the applicant consider painting the remaining area of the sign to be consistent with other signage.  Mr. Spinks stated that the sign cannot be painted because it is printed on.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has tried to approve consistency of graphics for businesses. 

Ms. Spinks stated that this is why they wanted a white background for the wall signage, so the signage was consistent.  She added that if they change the color they are altering their logo.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees that they have “tasteful ideas and creative people” before them and the Planning Commission rules are prohibiting them from having the signage they want.  He stated that he would like to bend over backwards to help them.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the applicant work out the color scheme with the owner of the building.  He stated that he would like to see a consistent look between the wall, window, and sidewalk signage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant had ever considered “Natural Modern Baby” being the same color as “Tickleberry.”  Mr. Spinks stated that with no offense, he is not sure this is the right question to ask of them.  He went on to say that they already have money invested in the existing brand and the signs are already made.  Mr. Spinks stated that from a business standpoint, the Planning Commission is asking them to spend extra dollars to replace a sign that is functional and aesthetically pleasing and he wouldn’t consider this being good for business in Granville. 

Dr. Mark Alexandrunas, 121 East Broadway, stated that he will be occupying the same building with his dental office and he is in favor of having a consistent look on the building with the same type of signage on the top.  Dr. Alexandrunas suggested having the signage at the top of the building be the same, and allowing for logos on the window and sidewalk sign.  He added that this is consistent with signage he has seen in New England.  Dr. Alexandrunas stated that you have to market your brand to market yourself. 

He also stated that he has plans to submit for a sidewalk sign.  The Planning Commission discussed Tabling the application.  Ms. Terry clarified that the Variance for the size of the sign would be to increase it 3.75 square feet over what is allowed, which is 41.25 square feet to 45 square feet.  Mr. Johnson stated that he doesn’t want to go so far as to ask the applicant to rebuild the sidewalk sign, but he has a different view point on the wall sign.  He went on to say that he is sympathetic to the need for a Variance for the number of colors because of business branding and the need for a logo to define the business. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-63: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUEMr. Johnson stated that the reason the Variance is needed is because the building has architectural elements that are too expensive to repair and the signage is being used to cover up the imperfections of the building.      

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

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the business could still yield a return, but it is diminished if the applicant’s brand is not recognized.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there can be some beneficial use to the property if the variance is not granted.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated that the overage in square footage for signage is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson agreed.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ryan indicated that the requested number of colors for the sign from three to five or six colors would require a substantial Variance. 

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

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

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE, the owner of the building was aware of zoning restrictions, but the tenant may not have been aware.   

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the overage of the square footage of the sign could not be obviated through another method other than a Variance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the pre-existing sign cannot be shrunk and the tenant would have to spend money to rebrand the entire business.  Mr. Mitchell stated that that is not feasible.  

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission would be granting them justice by granting the applicant a Variance                                       

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.   Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant is not the owner of the building and the request for more than three colors is an action of the applicant.  Mr. Mitchell stated FALSE. 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.   

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-63: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign has more than three colors and although he thinks it is an attractive sign, he worries about any precedence set in approving the sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting board.  Mr. Mitchell stated that that the proposed signage looks nice and is stylistically compatible.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed signage is consistent with other signage in the Village.  

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed sign contributes to the historical character by adding a viable business.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by allowing that side of the street to become more viable and the sign allows for the business’s brand recognition.  Mr. Burriss did not agree.    Mr. Mitchell agreed with Mr. Johnson.

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

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-63 with a Variance for the sign coverage to increase from 41.25 square feet to 45 square feet and for a Variance for the number of colors to be increased from three to six colors, and that the sign must be removed during non-business hours. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1. 

121 East Broadway – Ketron Custom Builders - Application #2010-64

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

The request is for approval of a Change of Use from Category “B,” Retail, to Category “C,” Business and Professional Offices, specifically for a dental office and clinic. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Travis Ketron, and Dr. Mark Alexandrunas. 

Discussion:

Travis Ketron, 3611 Deeds Road, stated that they would like to change the space of what used to be B Hammonds to a Dental Office.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has met the parking requirements.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-64 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

204 East College Street – John Paolacci  - Application #2010-70

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

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

 Discussion:

John Paolacci, 204 East College Street, stated that he would like a 192 square foot patio in the rear of the property and this area is not visible from the road.  Mr. Paolacci provided an example of the 42 inch wood picket fence and he stated that he would like to let it age before they paint it.  He also presented an example of the proposed pavers.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the application meets all of the requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the landscaping is not required for review.  Mr. Burriss asked how the fence will connect to the house and what the relationship to the railing on the porch would be.  Mr. Paolacci stated that the fencing will be below the railing and he thinks it will blend in fine and they will equal the spacing on the wrap around porch.  He stated that the fence will be in line with railing and spindle posts on the porch.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing a gate because this is not indicated on the application.  Mr. Paolacci stated yes and it will be located in the middle of the fencing.  Mr. Burriss questioned the look of the fence next to the neighbor’s iron fence.  Mr. Paolacci stated that the white picket fence will not impede with Mr. Cassell’s fence.  John Cassell, 216 East College Street, the stated that previous neighbors put some wood scraps next to his property and then placed dirt on top of it which has now collapsed onto his property.  He stated that he is not objecting to what the applicant wishes to do, but he wants to ensure that nothing else will be placed on the wood scraps and dirt to make his fence lean any more.  He stated that he is trying to preserve his property.  Mr. Paolacci stated that he has assured Mr. Cassell that he won’t bring dirt up against the fence. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-70: 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence and patio is consistent with other patios and fences approved in the district.

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

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

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

e)      Materials: Paver Patio and wood picket fence. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-70 with the condition that the proposed gate blends in with the fence and is located in the middle, and the fence is to be painted white within one year, and the paver used is the same as presented by the applicant. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Mr. Mitchell amended his motion to add the following language: “The applicant agrees to avoid adding any additional soil to the eastern property line.” Second by Mr. Johnson.  Roll Call Vote on the Amended Motion: Mitchell, Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #2010-55: Aaath Co./Russ Adams; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-55 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-55.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

Application #2010-56: Ralph Baker; New Roof

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-56 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-56.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-60: Marilyn Sobataka; Sidewalk Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-60 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-61: Marilyn Sobataka; Projecting Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-61 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-61.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 Application #2010-63: Mary Jo Spinks/Tickleberry Moon; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-63 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-63.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss (no), Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-1. 

Application #2010-64: Ketron Custom Builders; Change of Use

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-64 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-64.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2010-70: John Paolacci; Patio/Fence

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-70 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-70.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Adjournment:  9:55 PM

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

Next meetings:

May 24, 2010 (Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she cannot attend this meeting.)(Mr. Ryan indicated that he will not be able to attend the May 24th meeting.)

June 14, 2010 

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.