Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes August 9, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 9, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Don DeSapri, Cindy Brennaman, Mary Paumier, Chris O’Neill, and Becky Wagner.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

527 Newark-Granville Road – RE/MAX Consultant Group - Application #2010-89 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a 5.24 square foot tenant panel sign to be located on the existing freestanding sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mary

Paumier and Chris O’Neill. 

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-89:

Chris O’Neill, 6650 Walnut Street, New Albany, stated that he is representing the REMAX Consultant Group located at 527 Newark-Granville Road.  Mary Paumier, 11 Brecon Circle, stated that she is also representing RE/MAX Consultant Group.  Mr. O’Neill stated that they are back before the Planning Commission because they were asked by the Planning Commission to submit a material other than corrugated plastic.  He indicated that the amended application shows the material as aluminum instead.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Johnson indicated that he would have some concerns over the way the applicant is proposing to attach the sign, with screws, to the existing sign.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sign would be affixed so the border is in front of it.  Ms. Paumier stated that the submitted drawing looks as though the sign would be inset, but it is not and it’s actually a flat surface.  Mr. O’Neill stated that the sign would be screwed to the front edge of the existing sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the sign would be lit.  Ms. Paumier stated no and the sign is only replacing exactly what is there with a different name.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he has concerns over the way the way the sign is going to be mounted.  He asked if there is any recessed lettering behind the proposed sign.  Ms. Terry explained that the sign has sandblasted lettering behind it and there is currently a plastic sign in place on top of the sandblasted lettering.  Mr. Ryan asked if the plastic sign would be removed.  Ms. Paumier stated yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson questioned if there could be a more appropriate way to fasten the signage to the existing sandblasted sign.  Mr. O’Neill stated that they would use vinyl stickers on the surface of the screws to cover them.  Ms. Terry provided an example of what is under the existing signage.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the sign overall (top sign and bottom sign) will meet the maximum amount of colors allowed in the Code.  Ms. Terry stated that the Code allows up to three colors and the signage will have red, royal blue, and light blue, as the Planning Commission has indicated that they do not consider white to be a color. 

 

Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-89:

 

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 signage is consistent with other signage 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 signage is historically consistent with other historical signage in the Village.   

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 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 #2010-89, AMENDED, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

New Business:

222 South Main Street – Becky Wagner/Village Pet Market - Application #2010-118

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6) square foot sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Becky Wagner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-118:

Becky Wagner, Pinehurst Drive, stated that she would be using chalk paint on the bottom portion of the sign so that she can use chalk on the sign.  Mr. Ryan asked the proposed location of the sidewalk sign.  Ms. Wagner stated that she talked to Ms. Terry about placing the sign in between the sidewalk and the curb in the yard.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is proposing placing the sign in the tree lawn between the sidewalk and the curb closer to the driveway.  She went on to say that staff’s only concern was that the sign be far enough away from the driveway so views from people turning in and out are not blocked.  Mr. Burriss asked about framing around the sign.  Ms. Wagner stated it would have a raised black border on the sign.  Ms. Terry explained that a variance is required due to the overall square footage allowed on the property because the sign is located within the TCOD.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-118:

 

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. Ryan stated that all of the businesses located on this street (within the TCOD) would experience similar issues regarding in the need for a variance. 

 

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.  Burriss stated that the current tenant has done much to approve the appearance of this building.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the business couldn’t get a reasonable return if they weren’t allowed to let people know about their business and its location.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission agreed that the requested 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 unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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 unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

c.         That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant did not build the structure or place the tree in the tree lawn. 

 

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 unanimously agreed 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.  

 

Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-118:

 

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 signage is consistent with 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. Burriss stated that the proposed font and graphics are consistent with what is historically appropriate.

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed font and graphics are consistent with what is historically appropriate.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-118 with the following variances:

 

1)         To permit a 12 square foot sidewalk sign within the TCOD; and

 

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on the TCOD lot to 18 square feet to permit the 12 square foot sidewalk sign and current 6 square foot freestanding sign

 

3)         To approve the application on the condition that the sign shall be placed per ‘Exhibit A’.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

222 South Main Street – Becky Wagner/Village Pet Market - Application #2010-119

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a one point fifty-eight (1.58) square foot window sign. 

 

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

Becky Wagner.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-119:

Becky Wagner, Pinehurst Drive, stated that she would like to place the window sign on the front door. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2010-119:

 

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. 

 

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 variance for the signage is appropriate and would allow the business to yield a reasonable return. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed false.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously 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 unanimously agreed FALSE.

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE because a variance is needed to place a sidewalk sign in the TCOD District. 

 

(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 unanimously agreed TRUE.

 

c.         That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-119:

 

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 signage 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 concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is historically appropriate for the district. 

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is historically appropriate for the district. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-119 with the following Variances:

 

1)                  To increase the maximum percentage of window area for window signs from 15% to 38% for a 1.58 square foot sign;

2)                  To permit the 1.58 square foot window sign within the TCOD; and

3)                  To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on the TCOD lot from 6 square feet to 19.58 square feet. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

133 South Main  Street – John and Sharon Ferguson - Application #2010-120

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new bay window on the first floor and the addition of wood shutters on the second floor windows all on the southern elevation of the home. 

 

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

Cindy Brennaman.

 

Discussion regarding Application #2010-120:

Cindy Brennamen, 36144 Township Road 72, Frazeysburg, Ohio, stated that she is there representing the contractor doing the proposed improvements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the shutters would match what is there now – wood.  Ms. Brennaman stated that if the current shutters were wood then they would likely be replaced with wood.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the window is a pre-manufactured window.  Ms. Brennaman indicated that she was unsure. 

Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed window is more historically appropriate than the current awning window in place.  He stated that he also thinks that there are a number of historical homes that have had bay windows added that are of a “slightly different architectural language” than the original and they still compliment the structure. 

Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has indicated that they may also propose a future phase to landscape the area.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is planning to do anything on each side of the bump outs (side elevations) of the bay window.  Ms. Brennaman stated that if the homeowner plans on anything additional - they would come back to the Planning Commission for approval.  Mr. Burriss asked if the bay window is a cantilever bay.  Ms. Brennaman indicated that she does not think that there will be foundation work under this window.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he recalled reading somewhere in the submitted information that the window is a cantilever bay window.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission needs to know what each side of the bay window will look like.  Ms. Terry stated that she had asked Ms. Ferguson, the homeowner, to provide this information.  The Planning Commission suggested that the sides of the bay window ought to duplicate the look of the front panels of the window.  Mr. Mitchell presented an example of the sides of the bay window in ‘Exhibit A.’

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-120:

 

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. Burriss stated that the proposed improvements are more historically appropriate than what is currently in place.  

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is replacing the existing window with one that is more of an  historically accurate element.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-120 as submitted with the stipulation that the sides of the bay window will duplicate the front of the addition per ‘Exhibit A’.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #2010-89 AMENDED: RE/MAX Consultant Group; 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 #2010-89, AMENDED, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-89 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2010-118: Becky Wagner/ Village Pet Market; 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 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-118 as submitted by the applicant with variances.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-118.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2010-119: Becky Wagner/ Village Pet Market; 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, Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-119 as submitted by the applicant with variances.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-119.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-120: John and Sharon Ferguson; 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-120 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-120.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the minutes for the July 26, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Burriss abstaining).

 

Adjournment:  7:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

August 23, 2010 (Mr. Burriss stated he is unable to attend this meeting.)

September 13. 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.