Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes November 22, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 22, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Steven Hawk, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair).

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

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Mackenzie Peterson, James Green, and Steve Mershon.

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

110 East Elm Street – Mackenzie Peterson - Application #2010-172

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a three point fifty five (3.55)

square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on East Elm Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mackenzie Peterson.

 

Discussion:

Mackenzie Peterson, 1479 West Quail Run Drive, Newark, Ohio 43055, stated that she is applying for signage for her psychology practice.  Ms. Terry indicated that there are no variances needed for this application and it meets all of the requirements. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-172:

 

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 applicant has provided signage that 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 signage is an upgrade to the historical character.

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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-172 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burris, Mitchell, Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

110 East Elm Street – Mackenzie Peterson - Application #2010-173

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a one point seventy-seven (1.77)

square foot wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mackenzie Peterson.

 

Discussion:

Mackenzie Peterson stated that she would like to place a wall sign under the existing Granville Sentinel sign.  Ms. Terry explained that Ms. Peterson’s sign would go under the border on the existing Granville Sentinel signage.  Ms. Peterson indicated that there would not be a border around her portion of the sign and the sign as a whole has a border already around it. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-173:

 

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 applicant has provided signage that 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 signage is an upgrade to the historical character.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-173 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burris, Mitchell, Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

221 North Pearl Street – James Green - Application #2010-174

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of square           wood

balusters, with original turned style balusters on the front porch.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and James Green.

 

Discussion:  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds the effort of Mr. Green in choosing the style of spindles for the porch.  He questioned if the applicant is adjusting the height of the porch from the ground and if so he may have to also adjust the height of the railing to conform to the Licking County Building Code.

 

James Green, 221 North Pearl Street, explained that the porch was sinking and he does not believe the height will adjust more than one inch.  Mr. Burriss stated that for safety reasons he believes a higher railing is required if the porch is thirty inches or higher from the ground.  He stated that this would have to be confirmed with the Licking County Building Department.  Ms. Terry explained that the height of the railing would be a building department issue, and the Planning Commission reviews the architectural detailing.  She stated that a copy of the zoning permit is sent to the Licking County Building Department.   Mr. Green questioned if he needed to get the building department involved if he is doing an exact replacement of what was already in place.  Ms. Terry stated that a significant amount of the porch has been removed from the structure and that the new structure may need to be inspected.  She stated that she would suggest checking with the building department to determine their code requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village oversees if an applicant is code compliant.  Ms. Terry stated that the building department receives a copy of the permit so they can determine if a permit is required for code compliance.  She also stated that all applicants are required to meet the building code requirements and they send the Village all of the copies of their approved permits.  Mr. Green asked that the record reflect that he did not take the whole porch down.  He stated that the posts were supporting the roof, which was not touched.  Mr. Burriss stated that the height of the porch from the ground may not be an issue, but he would encourage the applicant to check into this.  He explained that the Planning Commission is charged with ensuring health, safety and welfare and the railing height may or may not need to be addressed.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the existing columns are staying and a higher railing wouldn’t look appropriate with the remaining columns.  Mr. Green agreed and stated that a higher railing would look “horrible.”  He stated that he has put a lot of time, energy, and money into renovating the home and changing the height of the existing railing would undo everything he has done to date.  Mr. Green asked how the Planning Commission qualifies that enough of the porch has been taken down that it is now considered to be a new structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of the porch has been removed because the floor, railings, and spindles were gone.  Ms. Terry explained that the Licking County Building Department is different from the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission only does architectural review of how the applicant is modifying the structure.  She explained that the applicant could get an amendment to the application if the building department says that the railing has to be raised.  Mr. Burriss stated that the spacing of the spindles would also have building code specifications for safety reasons.  Mr. Green stated that he is aware of this.  Mr. Burriss asked if the spindles will go all the way down to the porch floor or will there be a lower rail?  Mr. Green stated that he expects to have a lower rail just like the original.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the existing spindles went down to the floor.  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds and supports what the applicant is doing, but he also wants to ensure the improvements are up to code.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it doesn’t look as though the porch is above the maximum height.  Mr. Green asked how he could obtain a copy of the building code.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Licking County Building Code department was in the process of updating and making changes to the building code.  He and Ms. Terry suggested calling them for an updated copy.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-174:

 

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 applicant has provided plans that preserve the historical character.   

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 structure is an upgrade to the historical character.

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. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-174 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Hawk, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

128 South Main Street – The Lakeholm Company - Application #2010-175

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

The request is for review and approval of a four point three seven five (4.375) square foot

freestanding tenant panel sign to replace the existing sign located on South Main Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Steve Mershon.

 

Discussion:

Steve Mershon, was present to address any questions/concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained that the original staff report indicated that a variance was necessary for this sign, however this was inaccurate and there is no variance required.  She indicated that the application meets all of the requirements and is proposed to be white, green, and black.  The Planning Commission agreed that the presented application was for a “nice looking sign.”   Mr. Mershon explained that there is an existing post already in place and he is proposing to shrink the height of the existing sign by approximately three inches.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there is not any lighting proposed for the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-175:

 

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 sign is of the appropriate historical character for the 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 signage.

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-175 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-172: Mackenzie Peterson; 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 #2010-172 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-172. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-173: Mackenzie Peterson; 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 #2010-173 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-173. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-174: James Green; 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 #2010-174 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-174. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-175: The Lakeholm Company; 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 #2010-175 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-175. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burris, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members’:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jeremy Johnson and Tim Ryan from the November 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

Adjournment:  7:40 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 13, 2010

Monday, January 3, 2011

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.