Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 28, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Brian Miller, Eleanor Cohen, Jack Reynolds, Tim Rollins, and Mr. and Mrs. James Browder. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Public Hearing:

1919 Lancaster Road/Mill District – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2010-87

Application #2010-87, submitted by Metropolitan Partners, for certain real properties located along Lancaster Road (South Main Street) in Granville Township, including 1919 Lancaster Road and adjacent properties owner by Mill District, LLC and 1919 Lancaster Road, LLC.  The request is for a zoning amendment to rezone the property from General Business District (GB) within the Granville Township zoning regulations to Village Gateway District (VGD) within the Village of Granville zoning regulations.  The property is currently in the annexation process and will be reviewed for annexation to the Village by the Village Council in June and July of 2010.  (Any person wishing to testify regarding this application will be permitted to do so.) 

Discussion:

Jack Reynolds, representing Metropolitan Partners, stated that they have been working with the Village for over two years on this proposal.  He stated that the property in question is currently zoned ‘General Business’ in Granville Township.  Mr. Reynolds stated that the applicant had worked for a long period of time with the Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Village Council to draft the lengthy pre-annexation agreement that is before the Planning Commission.  He stated that the prior to submitting the zoning amendment request, the applicant thoroughly reviewed both the Suburban Business District (SBD) and Village Gateway District (VGD) classifications.  Mr. Reynolds explained that the applicant felt that the best zoning classification for this property was the Village Gateway District, because this zoning classification was recently adopted by the Village Council to address this gateway area specifically.  He went on to say that the recommendation tonight would only include the zoning district and they would be coming back to the Planning Commission for approval of the site plan in terms of final layout, storm water retention, architectural elevations, etc.  Mr. Reynolds stated that the storage unit buildings and another house on River Road will be removed and replaced with buildings as shown on the Site Plan.  Mr. Reynolds stated that in terms of the Comprehensive Plan for the community, they feel their proposed uses are certainly compatible.  Mr. Reynolds indicated that the Village is looking for this area to be a gateway into the community and if people weren’t aware of the high quality of work done by Metropolitan Partners in previous projects, he would be happy to provide some pictures and additional information. 

Tim Ryan clarified that the Planning Commission is only reviewing the zoning classification in their recommendation to Village Council.   He stated that the site plan and architecture would come before the Planning Commission at a later time.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the applicant has done a tremendous job in the preparation of their materials related to this zoning amendment and that he appreciates all of the work done by those involved, including work done in the past with the Village Planner, Village Administrator and Village Council.    

Jack Burriss stated that the applicant will come back to the Planning Commission with the details for the proposed structures and he feels that the applicant did a good job presenting all of the information required for their recommendation on the zoning classification. 

Mr. Johnson indicated that he has read through all of the materials and his concerns had been addressed with this application. He indicated that he had some additional questions that will relate to the future development plan review, which is not a part of what the Planning Commission is considering this evening. 

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, questioned what would become of the other buildings on River Road, the coffee shop and various restaurants, once this land is annexed to the Village.  Ms. Terry stated that the buildings she is referring to are not a part of this annexation and will remain within the Township.  She explained that this annexation includes the Shurtz building and a small building adjacent to this, as well as the storage buildings.  

Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that she received a phone call from ODOT District 5 and they are requesting a meeting on July 19th to get a better understanding of what the Village is considering for this area.  She stated that they expect feedback from ODOT District 5 and Village Council will receive this information prior to deciding the zoning classification for this land.  Ms. Terry also noted that no one appeared to speak regarding the zoning for the proposed annexed land at the previous Planning Commission public hearing.  She also stated that the public hearing scheduled for June 14 was tabled, prior to any discussion, because there was not a quorum present.  

Mr. Burriss recommended approval of Application #2010-87 to the Village Council.  Mr. Johnson seconded. Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

New Business:

122 North Pearl Street – James Browder - Application #2010-91

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following wood window

replacements:               

1)         Replacing wood double hung windows with vinyl double hung white windows with interior grilles on the upper portion of the window only, and only for the second floor windows on the south and west elevations;                

2)         Replacing wood double hung windows with vinyl double hung white windows with interior grilles on the upper portion of the window only, and for the first and second floor windows on the north elevation; and                    

3)         Replacing a wood casement window with vinyl double slide white window with interior grilles on both sides of the slider, for the first floor window on the back of the house. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Browder. 

Discussion:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated that he would like to replace the windows located between his home and the 124 North Pearl Street residence.  He stated that he chose windows that would match the grids that currently exist.  Mr. Browder stated that the bay window is not architecturally appealing and would be removed at some point in the future.  He went on to say that he had considered wood windows, but they were cost prohibitive.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant was proposing any screens for the second floor windows.  Mr. Browder stated that these windows would have full screens.  Mr. Ryan stated that they have approved vinyl windows in the past.  Mr. Browder clarified that he would like to revise the application because they are not going to do the wood casement window with the sliders and he would like to remove this item from the approval.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-91:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that similar windows have been approved in both new and old structures, which is stylistically compatible.  All members concurred. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that we've contributed to the upgrading of the house which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the vitality of a house therefore it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are identical to other windows on the house therefore it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members concurred.

e)         Materials:  The applicant is proposing replacement of wood double hung windows on the second floor of the south and west side of the home and on the first and second floor of the north side of the home with vinyl windows.    

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-91, as submitted, removing the casement window from the approval.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

201 North Pearl Street – Jeff Mullett - Application #2010-91

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a wood, sixteen (16) panel garage door with a similar style steel, sixteen (16) panel garage door which faces College Street.

 Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Jeff Mullett. 

Discussion:

Jeff Mullett, 201 North Pearl Street, stated that he wishes to replace the garage door and he would like it to match the other garage door on the side of the home which faces Pearl Street.  He stated that they didn’t install the other garage door.  Mr. Johnson asked for the plans for the windows above the door.  Mr. Mullett stated that they will remain as is and they will use a spring for the installation.  Mr. Johnson asked if the door would be painted to match the trim around the windows.  Mr. Mullett stated yes.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-91:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other replacement garage doors.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it's a replica of the previous door which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the improvement of the structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by restoring the garage door it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members concurred. 

e)         Materials: The applicant is proposing the replacement of a wood, sixteen (16) panel garage door with a similar style steel, sixteen (16) panel garage door which faces College Street. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-91 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage/Dana Landrum  - Application #2010-43 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum.

 Discussion:

Dana Landrum, 221 East Broadway, stated that the antique store will be vacant in two weeks and she would like to go through the process for a change of use.  Ms. Landrum explained that the first third of the building would be used to sell goods and the other part would be used for indoor seating.  She stated that all of the baking would be done in the existing bakery building.  Ms. Landrum stated that all of the proposed signage would echo the existing freestanding museum signage.  Mr. Ryan clarified that the application before them tonight is just for the wall signage and not the Change of Use.  Mr. Ryan asked if the proposed sign meets all of the requirements.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the space above the door seems much narrower than what could support a two-foot high bakery sign.  Ms. Landrum stated that the proposed sign would be smaller than what was there previously and smaller than the existing temporary banner sign.  Ms. Landrum thanked Ms. Terry for all of her help regarding the signage for the property.  Ms. Terry clarified that the other signage, two (2) wall signs, on the submitted information is not yet being considered and the applicant will apply for this at a later time.  Mr. Ryan asked the material used to construct the sign.  Ms. Landrum stated vinyl.  Mr. Johnson asked why the application is considered to be amended.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant originally submitted signage that mimicked the ‘Antiques’ signage, which was a wooden black and gold sign. She astated that the Antiques business would be closing soon and so she suggested that Ms. Landrum consider matching the signage associated with the Robbins Hunter Museum so all of the signage has the same font, style, and color.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-43 AMENDED:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is consistent and compatible with other signage that has been approved in this district.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it contributes to the improvement and upgrading.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is historically accurate when compared to other signs that would have been used in the past.  All members concurred.  

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-43 AMENDED as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

221 East Broadway – Landrum Cottage/Dana Landrum - Application #2010-93

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dana Landrum. 

Discussion:

Dana Landrum, 221 East Broadway, stated that she would like the sidewalk sign in place to put daily specials on.  She indicated that the signage is consistent with other signage already on the property.  Mr. Ryan asked where the proposed location would be.  Ms. Landrum stated that she planned to locate the sandwich board sign where the present ‘Antiques’ sign is located.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing to just put the sign up during business hours.  Ms. Landrum stated yes.  Mr. Burriss added that he appreciated the architectural embellishment on the top of the signage, so that it is similar in style to other signage on the property, even though he is not a big fan of sandwich board signage. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-93:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated that it is consistent with other sandwich board signs that have been approved in this district.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is a graphically correct style which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All members concurred. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that by achieving an historically correct representation it protects and enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members concurred. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-93 with the condition that the signage will be placed outside during business hours only and that the sign not be placed any further north than the south edge of the Broadway sidewalk per Exhibit ‘A.’   Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

331 East Broadway – Gunton Corp./Charles & Eleanor Cohen - Application #2010-94

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following five (5) wood window replacements:

1)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad fixed picture window on the first floor, to the left of the front door, on the northern elevation;

2)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window with interior metal blinds on the first floor, to the right of the front door, on the northern elevation;

3)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window with interior metal blinds on the first floor, front corner, on the western elevation;

4)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window with interior metal blinds between the first and second floors, next to the stair landing, on the western elevation; and

5)         Replacing wood double hung window with aluminum clad double hung window on the first floor eastern elevation.

All windows will be recessed with aluminum cladding painted to match the existing exterior trim. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Erin Flynn. 

Discussion:

Erin Flynn, Gunton Corporation, stated that Eleanor Cohen, the homeowner, has selected wood windows with aluminum cladding with their exterior trim precision fit installation.  She explained that they do not take off interior trim due to the plastered walls and the edge of the windows will replicate the exterior trim that currently exists.  Mr. Burriss asked how much of the exterior trim will be removed.  Ms. Flynn stated that only what is attached to the window will be removed and not the sills.   Mr. Burriss asked if the picture window would have sidelights.  Ms. Flynn stated no.  Ms. Flynn explained that some of the windows on the west and front elevation would have an interior blind, and the front picture window would not have an interior blind.  She also stated that the blinds could be removed.  Mr. Burriss asked if the blinds could be pulled up.  Ms. Flynn stated yes.    

He asked for the dimension of the interior blinds.  Ms. Flynn stated that they are micro mini blinds - approximately ¾" width.  Mr. Johnson asked if the only window that will be a fixed window is the picture window and this is due to the size.  Ms. Flynn stated yes.  Ms. Flynn provided an example of how the aluminum trim will replicate the brick mold that currently exists.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-94:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are consistent with other windows that have been approved in the district.  All members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed windows are historically appropriate and they contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing vitality of the house it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new windows replace the original windows and eliminate the need for aluminum storm windows, which is preferred.   All members concurred. 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-94 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-91: James Browder; 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-91 as indicated in the motion. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-91.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-92: Jeff Mullett; 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 #2010-92 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-92.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 Application #2010-43 AMENDED: Landrum Cottage; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-43, AMENDED, as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for AMENDED Application #2010-43.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-93: Landrum Cottage; 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 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-93 as indicated in the motion. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-93.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2010-94: Charles & Eleanor Cohen; 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 #2010-94 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-94.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to Excuse Absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell from the June 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.   

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

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

Next meetings:

July 12, 2010

July 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.