GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 27, 2010
Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Law Director, Michael Crites.
Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Dennis Cauchon, Sharon Sellito, Steve Mershon, Mary Lee Van Meter, Richard Van Meter, Paul Jenks, Barbara Franks, John Compton, Wes Sargent, Lisa McKivergin, Eleanor Cohen, Ben Rader, Brian Miller, Bill York, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Tony Beckerley, Herach Nazarian, C. David Johnson, Bryon Reed, Georgia Denune, John Denune, David Goldblatt, John Ulmer, Ed Vance, C.B. Spencer, Ray Paprocki, Sherry Paprocki, Joel Richeiner, Gene Agan, Dena McKinley, Kirsten Pape, Sheryl Gardner, Robert Gardner, Cynthia Feidler.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
A Court Reporter was present to transcribe the hearing. A copy of the testimony and discussion during the hearing is included as a part of these minutes.
Application #2010-126, submitted by Terra Nova Partners, LLC. for the property located at 384 East Broadway. The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment within the Village Business District zoning classification which would expand the existing Conditional Use section "E. Single family residential." to read "E. Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses." If the proposed amendment is approved, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be permitted as Conditional Uses within the Village Business District (VBD). This property located at 384 East Broadway is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), however, the requested zoning amendment would affect all properties within the Village Business District (VBD) zoning category. Any person wishing to testify regarding this application will be permitted to do so.
Mr. Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive went through a power point presentation of the proposal. (A hard copy of the presentation was also submitted to Staff for the official record). Mr. Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill Road, also assisted in the applicant presentation. The applicants discussed their background and how their proposal was consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Sharon Sellito, 215 Cherry Street, stated that she doesn't agree with the zoning amendment. She thinks it will cause a parking problem for this area. She also thinks that the proposed structures are placed poorly on the submitted site plan. She thinks this property should be developed as a single family residence.
Mr. Bill York, 100 Pren Tal Way, stated that he owns the Granger Street Apartments adjacent to 384 East Broadway and that parking is a big concern to him. He thinks the Village needs a formula to determine that they meet a parking minimum on-site.
Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated she is a business owner and a property owner in the Village Business District. She feels that the existing parking lot should not be changed, that it should be kept for future parking. She stated that the Planning Commission and the Village Council have discussed the parking situation in this District numerous times and that it is a serious concern.
John Compton, 341 East Broadway, stated that he feels there is a shortage of parking in the downtown area.
Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, stated that the proposed project is not relevant to this zoning change. He further stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan is also not relevant, only the 1998 Comprehensive Plan is valid. He stated that he would love to see this property redeveloped into a single family house or a business. He stated that student housing was a major problem in the Village District in the past. He stated that the proposed language is too broad. He submitted a hard copy of his comments to the Staff for the official record.
Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, stated she is unclear what this proposal means and that there should be some clarification. She wants a tighter package presented rather than just an indication of apartments or condominiums.
Ed Vance, 233 East Broadway, stated that he agrees with most everything that has been said at this hearing. He stated that he thinks there should be zoning specifically for this property only.
Lisa McKivergin, 329 East College Street, stated that she is in support of this zoning request as a property owner in the Village Business District.
Discussion by the Planning Commission:
Mr. Hawk asked if there is an opportunity to rezone just a single property with these proposed regulations. Mr. Crites indicated that this was not an option. Mr. Crites went on to review the three options the Planning Commission has available to them when making a recommendation tot the Village Council. Mr. Mitchell indicated that he feels that a mixture of residential and business makes sense in the Village Business District. He does not feel that a first floor residential use makes sense in this District. Mr. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission could recommend adding additional language to this proposed text change to make it more palatable. Mr. Crites again indicated that the Planning Commission has an option to make a recommendation to the Council with modifications. Mr. Ryan discussed the issue of existing non-conforming structures in this District and how this text change would address some of those grandfathered properties. He stated that he also agrees with Mr. Mitchell's assessment regarding residential uses in combination with other business uses.
The Planning Commission reviewed the criteria pertaining to Application #2010-126 for a Zoning Amendment:
a) Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area. Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't feel that a multi-family use would be compatible and that it should be limited to the second floor.
b) Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow. Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't see any issues with access and traffic flow. Mr. Ryan stated that parking is a consideration for the zoning change.
c) Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels that having businesses on the first floor and residential on the second floor is better. Mr. Johnson stated that he doesn't think multi-family should be allowed wholesale and would agree with second floor residential.
d) Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule. Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn't feel that it would affect available services or general expansion plans.
Mr. Hawk made a motion that Application #2010-126 requesting an amendment to the zoning be recommended for approval to the Village Council. Seconded by Jack Burriss.
The Planning Commission discussed whether there should be an amendment to this motion to further limit two-family and multi-family residential to the second or third floors of buildings.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend the original motion adding the following language: to allow two-family or multi-family residential uses when the first floor is occupied by commercial. Seconded by Jack Burriss.
The Planning Commission further discussed whether this additional language was a fit when the entire Village Business District is considered, or does it make more sense in only some of the areas.
Roll Call Vote on motion to amend: Mitchell - yes, Burriss - no, Johnson- yes, Hawk - no, Ryan - no. Motion failed 2-3.
Mr. Mitchell made another motion to amend the original motion adding the following language: with the condition that for the core Business District from Main Street to Pearl Street, on the north and south sides of Broadway, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be allowed only on the upper floors when the first floor is occupied by commercial. Seconded by Jack Burriss.
Roll Call vote on motion to amend: Mitchell - yes, Burriss - no, Johnson - yes, Hawk - no, Ryan - no. Motion failed 2-3.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to table Application #2010-126. Seconded by Jack Burriss.
Roll Call Vote on motion to table: Mitchell - yes, Burriss - yes, Johnson - yes, Hawk - yes, Ryan - yes. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-126 with the following stipulations:
221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-140 (Previously Tabled)
Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)
The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square wall sign.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Dana Landrum.
Mrs. Dana Landrum, 642 Chateaugay Drive, S.W., Pataskala, Ohio 43062 stated that she would like to propose a compromise regarding the concerns that the Planning Commission had over her request to have two additional signs on her building. She suggested that she do away with the ‘Landrum Cottage’ sign and just place a ‘Bistro’ sign where the former ‘Antique’ sign was located. She added that she would eliminate the sign over the door. Ms. Landrum stated that the Planner had suggested, based on the Planning Commission's discussion at the last hearing for her sign application, replacing the wall sign with a projecting sign, but she questions if this would be effective since she is so far set off from the street. Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant does have a sidewalk sign in place closer to the street. He went on to say that he prefers the look of a projecting sign. Mr. Johnson asked what would tell a customer to go to the Bistro versus the Bakery. He questioned if adding a ‘Bistro’ sign will solve the problem because people don’t know where the bistro is. Mr. Hawk stated that no retail is going on where the current signage is located, so why have a bakery sign located on the building? Ms. Landrum stated that she often gives patrons a tour of the bakery. Mr. Hawk asked if there is any retail going on in the bakery. Ms. Landrum stated no. Mr. Mitchell stated that he has the same question as Mr. Hawk on why there is a need to have a bakery sign on the building if there isn’t retail occurring there. Ms. Landrum explained that when she started the business the bakery was in this building and she had spent over $1,000 having the sign put up and she doesn’t want to take it down now. Ms. Landrum stated that two matching signs would look very nice back there. She explained that the idea to open the bistro came after she had already opened the bakery. Ms. Landrum stated that the Planning Commission suggested having a ‘Bakery' sign instead of what she proposed – ‘Landrum Cottage.’ Mr. Ryan stated that he feels as though there is a sign that would fit in better for the proposed location. Mr. Mitchell questioned why there was a second application for signage. Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is requesting that a second sign say ‘Landrum Cottage’ Mr. Hawk questioned if the ‘Bakery’ sign had already been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan stated yes. Mr. Johnson stated that the signage proposed by the applicant will cause additional confusion and he doesn’t see how this will eliminate any current confusion that exists with there being “a lot of signage on some little buildings.” Mr. Burriss stated that his thought in having a projecting sign with ‘Bistro’ on both sides and placed by the entrance door is that this would offer promotion and clarification for a business with one sign rather than two signs. He added that the vocabulary of the projecting wall sign hasn’t been used with Ms. Landrum’s business. He stated that projecting signage has been recommended by the Planning Commission for promoting other businesses in town. Mr. Burriss stated that when one goes past the proposed wall ‘Bistro’ sign they may not be sure which door is for the bistro. He explained that the projecting sign could have signage on both sides and would clearly indicate once someone goes back there which door is for the bistro. Mr. Burriss indicated that he had no problem if the signage said the words ‘Bistro’ and ‘Landrum Cottage.’ Mr. Burriss stated that he wants people to utilize Ms. Landrum’s business and go back there, but he doesn’t feel as though the proposed ‘Bistro’ wall sign on the building will clarify the usage. Ms. Landrum questioned if she would have to have a drawing made up and come back to the Planning Commission for approval for a projecting sign. Mr. Ryan stated that if the projecting sign matched the existing signage in terms of color and font – he would have no problem approving the sign this evening. Mr. Burriss stated that this applicant has spent a great deal of time and money on their existing signage and he would want to make sure that the bracket they choose for the projecting sign is historically appropriate. He suggested that this could be something that they ask the Village Planner to review before installation. Mr. Ryan stated that he is not able to approve the proposed wall sign because he feels that it will not fit the criteria that the Planning Commission uses for review. The remaining member’s of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Ryan. Ms. Landrum indicated that she would be willing to place a projecting sign on the building. The Planning Commission agreed that their review of the Criteria should pertain to Ms. Landrum’s change in signage to a projecting sign. Ms. Landrum also indicated that she would be withdrawing her second application (Application #2010-141) from the agenda because she will just need the one projecting sign.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-140 for a Projecting Sign:
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 projecting sign is consistent with other signage in the Village District and historically appropriate.
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 stated that the proposed projecting sign is historically appropriate for the district.
Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-140 with the following stipulations:
1) That the proposed sign should be a two-sided projecting hanging wall sign; and
2) That the graphics, color, and font be consistent with the approved sidewalk signage; and
3) That the sign say ‘Landrum Cottage Bistro’; and
4) That the bracket for the projecting sign be approved by the Village Planner prior to installation; and
5) That the location of the sign be in facing to the elevation to the north of the door in front of the historical bronze marker – facing East Broadway – (Per ‘Exhibit A’).
Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan. Motion carried 5-0.
221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-141
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.
Dana Landrum requested that the application (Application #2101-141) be Withdrawn.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Application #2010-140: Dana Landrum/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, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-140 as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-140.
Seconded by Mr. Hawk.
Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan. Motion carried 5-0.
Motion to Approve Minutes:
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5-0.
Adjournment: 9:25 PM
Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5-0.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Monday, November 14, 2010