Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes August 23, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 23, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).  Steven Hawk was sworn in as a member of the Planning Commission prior to Roll Call.

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Hugh Price, Michael and Patti Urbatis, Bill and Lindi Mihalovich.

 

Swearing in of Planning Commission Member:

Mayor Melissa Hartfield was present to swear in Steven Hawk to the Granville Planning Commission. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

110 East Elm Street A – Air Repair Heating & Cooling - Application #2010-123

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a tenant panel sign on South Main

Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Mihalovich.

 

Discussion:

Bill Mihalovich, 3740 Gale Road, Granville, stated that he would like to replace the signage that was used by Padgett Business Services.  Ms. Terry explained that a Variance is required because the sign is located within the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if the size of the old signage was in excess.  Ms. Terry stated yes and a variance was required.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant has any intention of putting a border on the sign. Mr. Mitchell stated that the use of borders on signage has been encouraged in the past.  Mr. Mihalovich indicated that he would be willing to paint a border around the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-123:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the TCOD District would be considered a special circumstance.       

 

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

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance. The Planning Commission agreed FALSE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that without proper signage the business would not be viable in this location.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the variance is not substantial.

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission agreed TRUE. 

 

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

 

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 #2010-123:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is similar to other signage 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 proposed improvements in signage are an improvement to the entire district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Hawk 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 concluded yes.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-123 as submitted with the condition that there be a two-inch royal blue border around the perimeter of the sign and with a variance to increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 37.64 square feet to allow for a freestanding tenant panel sign on South Main Street and East Elm Street. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

110 East Elm Street A – Air Repair Heating & Cooling - Application #2010-124

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a tenant panel sign on East Elm

Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Bill Mihalovich.

 

Discussion:

Bill Mihalovich, stated that he would be willing to place the same blue border on the sign.  The Planning Commission indicated that they increased the square footage on the last sign on South Main Street so a variance is not required.

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-124:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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 proposed improvements in signage are improvements to the entire district.

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.

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 #2010-124 as submitted with the condition that there be a two-inch royal blue border around the perimeter of the sign, and he noted that a variance is not required at this time. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

238 East Broadway – Hugh Price - Application #2010-125

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Hugh Price.

 

Discussion:

Hugh Price, 2356 Vista Court, Newark, stated that he is there to request a change to the current sign and the dimensions will not change.  He stated that he would be changing ‘Donna Brooks and Associates’ to ‘Hugh Price and Associates.’  Mr. Price stated that he would also like the signage to identify the property as a real estate office.  He went on to explain that he would be refacing the current sign and it will have the same shape with no changes other than the lettering.  Mr. Ryan clarified if the applicant will be adding additional language to the sign.  Mr. Price stated yes he would be adding ‘The Granville Home Finding Center’ and putting his website on the sign.  He stated that he would also note on the sign that this location is the Granville office.  Mr. Ryan questioned the Planning Commission member’s if they felt that the proposed signage indicates that Mr. Price's business is the only place one could come to in Granville for this type of service.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks the wording proposed by Mr. Price is clever.  Mr. Hawk stated that he is not bothered by any of the proposed language by Mr. Price.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the applicant feels that the proposed changes on the signage will clarify things for visitors.  Mr. Price stated yes.

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Planning Commission has the authority to control what verbiage goes on the sign.  Ms. Terry stated that there isn’t anything in the Code to regulate what can be put on a sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the signage is being changed and the application is treated as though this is a brand new sign.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he is a little confused about what the sign will look like.  Mr. Price stated that he would be reducing the size of ‘Hugh Price and Associates’ and ‘HER’ will stay the same.  He went on to explain that the size of the phone number will be smaller and he will put ‘Granville Office’ underneath the phone number.  Mr. Price indicated that the two symbols and ‘238’ would not change.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the sign would continue to have uplighting.  Mr. Price stated that he would like the uplighting to remain as is.  He indicated that he is aware that the former owner of the property had requested a change to the signage that would require a variance and that if he received the Variance the lighting on the signage could be changed by the Planning Commission.  He questioned if the Planning Commission was able to change the lighting on the signage since his application does not require a variance.  Mr. Price added that the size of the signage is currently compliant to the Code standards.  He stated that he would prefer to keep the uplighting on all night long.  Mr. Ryan explained that since this is a new application before the Planning Commission they are able to address the signage as a whole.  He added that he does not feel that the lighting needs to be on all night long. 

Mr. Price stated that he is responsible for paying the electric bill.  Mr. Johnson explained that the Planning Commission has been asking that lighting be turned off somewhere around 10:00 PM – 11:00 PM and be placed on a timer.  He stated that they are trying to be sensitive to light pollution.  Mr. Johnson agreed that this is a cleanup process and some signs with lighting are not currently in compliance.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he too would like to see the applicant agree to turning the lighting off at 10:00 PM and he is in agreement with Mr. Johnson.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission required that Mr. Brooks limit the hours the sign was lit when he wanted to add to the signage.  He stated that Mr. Brooks later withdrew the application.  Mr. Price stated that Mr. Brook's application required a variance and his does not and he would agree to disagree with Mr. Ryan on this because he thinks the need for a variance makes the application more substantial.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission set the same conditions with other businesses in the area such as, Goumas, Petali Teas, and Noir.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the Planning Commission has allowed for provisions for the uplighting to be turned back on at 6:00 AM - 7:30 AM in the morning.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has not limited lighting in the morning hours.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it would help Mr. Price if the lighting was allowed to be turned back on at 6:00 AM.  Mr. Price stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-125:

 

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

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed improvements in signage are an improvement to the entire district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson 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 concluded yes.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-125 as proposed per Exhibit "A" with the lettering in Exhibit "B" with the condition that the applicant turn off the uplighting on the signage from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

238 East Broadway – Hugh Price - Application #09-55 AMENDED

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

The applicant previously received approval for the removal of the existing wood louvered shutters and replacement with polycarbonate louvered shutters on the front, back and eastern side of the home.  The applicant is requesting an amendment to the original approval which would not require the applicant to replace the shutters.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Hugh Price.

 

Discussion:

Hugh Price, stated that he does not want to put the shutters that were previously on the house back on as requested by the Planning Commission to the former owner of the property.  Mr. Price stated that he has had many compliments on the building’s current appearance without the shutters.  He also stated that he has looked at other Greek Revivals in the Village and not all of them have shutters on them.  Mr. Price stated that he is committed to being a good steward of the property.  Mr. Hawk stated that he would support the idea that one sees more architectural detail when the building is not being masked by the previous shutters.  Mr. Mitchell asked how long the house has had shutters.  Ms. Terry stated she was unsure.  Mr. Price stated that the charm and character of the building is noticeable without the shutters.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #09-55 AMENDED:

 

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 proposal by the applicant to not put the shutters back on the home would be more compatible with the period of the building.

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 restoration would be restored to a Greek Revival look.

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 improvements.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the building would be enhanced and past generations occupied the structure.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #09-55, AMENDED, as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-123: Air Repair Heating & Cooling; 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 1187, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-123 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-123. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2010-124: Air Repair Heating & Cooling; 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, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-124 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-124. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2010-125: Hugh Price; 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 #2010-125 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-125.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #09-55 AMENDED: Hugh Price; 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 #09-55 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-55 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Commission Member:

Mr. Mitchell moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the August 23, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the August 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  Mr. Hawk abstained.    

 

Adjournment:  7:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

September 13, 2010

September 27, 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.