Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes December 12, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 12, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, and Tim Ryan.

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker; Assistant to Planning Department

Also Present: Kevin Reiner, Lisa Englefield, Hilah Williams, and Art Chonko

 

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

121 South Main Street – John & Maria Bishop, submitted by Kevin Reiner,  Application #2011-145

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of French doors

and the relocation of an existing window.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kevin Reiner

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 121 South Main Street, indicated that he was designing the interior of this home, but needed to make some exterior changes to improve the interior flow.  This application proposed the removal of the existing sliding door to be replaced with a French door and move the existing window.  The intent was to recycle the window and sashes to maintain the historical feel.  He indicated that he hoped to install a Colby & Colby true divided light, all wood French door, but a clad door could be purchased. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the doors would be true French door or just French door styled door with an astragal through the transom and would there be trim. He also asked the type of hardware that would be used.  Mr. Reiner indicated that the door would be a true French door with astragal, but the door had not been ordered yet.  There would be a two inch architectural element frame.  Mr. Reiner indicated that the hardware would be an almond-shaped knob of oil rubbed bronze to maintain the historical look.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-145:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes that the project was consistent with other projects approved in the area.

 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes that the proposed architectural changes were more historically accurate than the existing structure and thereby contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the French door was more historically appropriate than the existing door.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-145 as presented with the trim details as marked on Exhibit A.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-145: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

113 East Elm Street – Elms Pizza Parlor- Application #2011-149

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Lisa Englefield_. 

 

Discussion:

Planner Terry advised the Commission that a variance was needed for this sign as this request exceeds the maximum number of signs permitted by Code. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked is when the existing “Pizza” was on did that not indicate that the restaurant was open.  Ms. Englefield indicated that the inside of the restaurant was so dark that additional signage was needed to let people know when they were open.  The “Open” sign would be in addition to the “Pizza” sign.  Ms. Englefield indicated that Elms would be willing to remove the wooden letter wall “Elms Pizza” sign from the building.

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign was consistent with other structures, but not all structures, in the district.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as putting the second neon sign in the other window would bring balance to the façade and be compatible with the historic nature of that building. 

 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the existing “Pizza” sign has been there for many years and the two signs will be an enhancement more than just the single sign.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-149:

 

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 due to the location of the business and the existing building materials. 

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE as the applicant had a current business in that location and the new sign could help improve business. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Two Planning Commission members agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial, while Mr. Hawk felt is was 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.  Mr. Ryan stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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 agreed FALSE as the property owner purchased the property prior to the Code.

 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed that this application required a variance.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE and was not an unreasonable request.

 

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 indicated that the applicant would be required to remove the wooden letter “Elms Pizza” wall sign.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-149 with the variance to increase the maximum number of signs from four to five and to require the removal of the wooden “Elms Pizza” wall sign.  Second by Mr. Hawk.    Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-149:  Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

113 East Elm Street – Elms Pizza Parlor- Application #2011-150

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Lisa Englefield. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Ryan asked if the sign would be framed with cedar and placed in the location of the existing “Elms Pizza” wooden wall letters.  He also asked what color the trim would be painted.  Ms. Englefield indicated that the sign would be trimmed in cedar and painted either white or green.  It would replace the wooden “Elms Pizza” wall sign.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the top of the frame would be aligned consistent with the other windows.  Ms. Englefield indicated that the intent was to make it consistent.  The Commission advised that the hours of operation sign may need to be lowered to accommodate this new sign.  Ms. Englefield agreed.

 

a)   Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village

      District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is consistent with other signs      

      in the district and will have the appearance of a permanent sign.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the

      Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as framing the sign will

      make the sign similar to existing building architecture and maintain the historic

      character of the district. 

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the residence thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as this business has been a presence in the community for the past 27 years.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-150:

 

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 as the applicant had a current business in that location for 27 years and the sign will help tell a story.

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE as the applicant had a current business in that location and the new sign could help improve business. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial as they are removing one sign and replacing it with another.

 

 

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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 agreed FALSE as the property owner purchased the property prior to the Code.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the code requirements.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE as this signage is being installed to help promote business. 

 

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 specified that the sign would have to be framed in cedar, painted green, and change annually to reflect the number of years in business.  The wooden letter “Elms Pizza” wall sign would also need to be removed.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-150 with the variance to increase the maximum number of signs from five to six, frame the sign in cedar, paint green to match other trim and permission to change the sign annually to reflect the number of years in business.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-150:  Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no).  Motion failed 2-1.  The application will be tabled until the January 9, 2012 meeting.

 

115 East Elm Street – Darlene and Paul Queen, Jr. on behalf of Subway- Application #2011-151

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

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

 

As the applicant did not appear, Mr. Hawk moved to table the application until later in the meeting as the applicant was not in attendance or to the January 9, 2012 meeting, if the applicant does not arrive.  Second by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 3-0.  (The applicant did not attend the meeting.  Application #2011-151 was tabled to the January 9, 2012 meeting.

 

204 West Broadway – Denison University- Application #2011-152

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a back-up generator to be located behind the Ace Morgan Theatre to service both Monomoy House and Monomoy Annex.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Art Chonko. 

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, representing Denison University, advised the Commission that the University wanted to install a generator to service Monomoy House and the Annex.  The generator would be installed next to an existing electrical unit between the buildings.  The unit would be hidden from any street views, but could be seen from an adjoining parking lot.  The unit being purchased will have sound enclosure included with the unit.

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village

      District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is consistent with other

      structures approved previously in the district.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the generator will help preserve the historic structure from weather and electrical events.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it will help preserve and contribute to the livability of the structure.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it will protect and enhance a major Village historical structure.  

 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-152 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-152: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-145: Kevin Reiner for John and Maria Bishop; 121 South Main  Street; 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 #2011-145 as indicated.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-145. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-149: Elms Pizza Parlor; 113 East Elm Street; Neon 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 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-149 as indicated.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-149. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes),.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-152: Denison University; 204 West Broadway; Installation of a Generator

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 #2011-152 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-152. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the December 12, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for November 28, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from November 28, 2011 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

Adjournment:  8:26 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 9, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

GPC Minutes November 28, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 28, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept.

Also Present: Kraig and Michele Koester, Frank and Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini, April Kale, Tim and Kathy Klingler, Park Shai, Tom LeFevre, and Bob Stern.

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

338 West Elm Street – Frank and Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini Application #2011-136

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a stationary standby generator on

the east side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Frank OBrien-Bernini. 

 

Discussion:

Frank OBrien-Bernini, 338 West Elm Street, indicated he would like to install the generator on the east side of the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is any landscaping  proposed around the generator.  Mr. OBrien-Bernini stated there is existing landscaping to hide from the neighbors.  He stated the pine trees located in this area are about four foot (4’) tall.  He also indicated his house sits higher than the neighbors home.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any information submitted on the estimated sound decibels of the unit.  Mr. OBrien-Bernini stated the decibels are .63 when running.     

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-101:

 

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 application for a generator is consistent with other requests for a generator.

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 existing landscaping is consistent with other materials used in this 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-136 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-136:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-137

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a window sign.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated that he is a proposing signage for a new business on Westgate Drive.  He explained the purpose of the business is home décor and open two days a week - Thursday and Saturday.  Mr. Koester stated it is their intent to be off the retail location in a warehouse district setting.  Mr. Koester stated the business is set up as a destination type shopping and they will use heavy advertising to make the place known because there is not a lot of retail shopping on Westgate Drive.  Ms. Terry stated the 2.25 square foot size of the sign is permitted without a variance, but a variance is needed for window signs that are not permitted within the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed sign code changes the Planning Commission recently recommended to Council would eliminate the need for a variance in this particular case.  Ms. Terry stated clarified that if there was not a Transportation Corridor Overlay District, then this particular variance would not be needed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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 FALSE. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-137 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-137:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-138

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated that the proposed wall sign would identify the building for their business.  Ms. Terry stated a variance is required due to the TCOD requirements.  She stated the proposed size of the sign is allowed and the applicant needs a variance to increase to the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 6 square feet to 24.75 square feet within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Mr. Ryan asked the applicant which sign he considers to be more important – the freestanding sign or the building sign.  Mr. Koester stated he may doubt he is at the right location if he chooses one over the other.  Mr. Ryan stated he asks this questions specifically because of the accumulation of the square footage.  Mr. Koester stated there is existing signage on the buildings located in this area today.  He stated for instance, Leader Printing has at least six signs.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant’s proposed signage is much smaller in comparison to some of the existing signage on Westgate Drive.  Mr. Johnson asked if in the next application the applicant would be seeking variance beyond the TCOD requirements.  Ms. Terry stated this is correct.  Mr. Johnson stated the Planning Commission needs to be consistent, but it is true they do not agree with the TCOD requirements within the sign code.  He stated they have not taken on the underlying zoning district zoning code to see if they make sense and they have only addressed the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if directional lighting is proposed.  Mr. Koester stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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. Johnson stated the TCOD requirements are restrictive allowing for the need for a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed sign is not an inappropriate scale to the structure it is being placed on.         

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated the use of the building – retail – has to have identification to mark the location of the business. 

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage would not alter the character of the neighborhood.

 

(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.  The Planning Commission 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-138 with the following variances:

  1. 1.                  To allow for a wall sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);
  2. 2.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 6 square feet to 24.75 square feet in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-138:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-139

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig and Michele

Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated the proposed freestanding sign is ten foot (10’) high and one-sided.

Mr. Hawk asked if there are any setback requirements from the road.  Ms. Terry stated no, and the sign has to be located outside of the right of way.  Mr. Burriss stated given the area the sign is proposed for - it is not inappropriate for signage that already exists in this area.  He added the proposed signage is more discreet then some of the existing signage in this area and the sign offers style and detailing.  Ms. Terry clarified there is landscaping proposed for the base of the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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. Burris stated the building is distant from traveled routes and another building blocks part of the structure which is unique to this structure. 

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated the structure will house retail and needs appropriate signage.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated for the underlining zoning district, the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Hawk, and Mr. Burriss agreed.

 (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.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements and unique location of the structure requiring signage.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-139 with the following variances:

 

  1. 1.                  To increase the maximum allowable square footage of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Community Service District (CSD) from thirty-eight (38) square feet to sixty-four point seven five (64.75) square feet total;
  2. 2.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Community Service District (CSD) from twenty-four (24) square feet to forty (40) square feet;
  3. 3.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay District (TCOD) from twenty-four-point-seven-five (24.75) square feet to sixty-four-point-seven-five (64.75) square feet.  (Which is a combined total of all signs requested for this property under GPC Applications #2011-139.);
  4. 4.                  To increase the maximum size of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay Corridor District (TCOD) from eighteen (18) square  feet to forty (40) square feet; 
  5. 5.                  To increase the maximum height of the freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay Corridor District (TCOD) from six (6’) feet to ten (10’) feet.  

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-139:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

203 North Mulberry Street –Chad Pepper/Greek Key Services - Application #2011-140

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a window replacements.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Mr. Reymenn.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Reymenn, Marysville, Ohio was present to address any questions.  He stated Mr. Pepper was unable to attend the meeting.  Mr. Reymenn confirmed they would be replacing the existing windows with Jeldwyn windows. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-140:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated new windows would preserve the existing historical structure.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-140 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-140:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

129 Westgate Drive – Granville Fitness/April Kale- Application #2011-142

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a parking plan for proposed recreational space.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Park Shai, and April Kale. 

 

Discussion:

April Kale, 129 Westgate, stated she would like to defer any questions to Park Shai, realtor.  Ms. Terry explained this matter is before he Planning Commission because the zoning code says recreational uses are to be set by the Planning Commission and they are not determined by the code or the Planner.  She stated she asked Ms. Kale to submit information so the Planning Commission had an idea on how many people could be using the property at one time.  Mr. Johnson questioned if ‘recreational use’ is defined as ‘fitness.’  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Kale stated fourteen (14) people is the maximum number of people that would be at the facility at one time.  She explained fourteen people wouldn’t be there all day, but rather in blocks of time.  Ms. Terry stated the other fitness use approved by the Planning Commission was for Lemonade Fitness in which the Planning Commission determined 540 square feet required having 3 parking spaces.  Mr.   Ryan questioned how many spaces are currently in place.  Mr. Shai stated ten, but he estimates they are able to add up to five more. 

 

Mr. Johnson asked if it is the goal of the business to increase in size.  Ms. Kale stated she wouldn’t want more space.  The Planning Commission determined the surface area is sufficient for 14 parking spaces.  Mr. Shai indicated in ‘Exhibit A’ where they could place four to five additional parking spaces.  Ms. Terry reminded the applicant that gravel cannot be placed within ten feet (10’) of any property line. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-142 on the condition that the parking be set per ‘Exhibit A’ with fourteen (14) parking spaces.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-142:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Work Session:

Tim and Kathy Klingler were present to discuss the potential purchase of the Bancroft House located on Park National Bank property on Elm Street.  Mr. Klingler stated he would like to have feedback from the Planning Commission on whether or not plans for a carriage house are acceptable.  Ms. Terry indicated variances have been applied for by the Klingler’s to the BZBA.  She stated the non-conforming status has lost its current status.  Mr. Klingler stated the house is on the historic register.  Mr. Johnson suggested looking at the grading and drainage issues in this area, although he feels any issues can be remedied.  The Planning Commission indicated they did not have immediate concerns with Mr. Klingler’s proposal.  Mr. Burriss stated Mr. Klingler has always built what was approved by the Planning Commission for similar projects in years past.   

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-136: Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini/Frank Bernini; 338 West Elm Street; 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 #2011-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-136. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-137: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-137. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-138: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-138 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-138. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-139: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-139 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-139. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-140: Denison University; 203 North Mulberry; 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 #2011-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-140. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-142: April Kale/Granville Fitness; 149 Westgate Drive; 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 1183, Offstreet Parking and Loading, Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-142. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the November 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for October 24, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October 24, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for November 14, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from November 14, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Hawk abstained.)

 

Motion to approve 2012 Meeting Dates:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the 2012 Planning Commission meeting dates proposed by the Planning Department.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 12, 2011

Monday, January 9, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

GPC Minutes November 14, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 14, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk.

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

Also Present: Dwight Davidson

 

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

 

New Business:

115 West Broadway – United Church of Granville- Application #2011-131

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Deb Walker, and Dwight Davidson.

 

Discussion:

Dwight Davidson, United Church of Granville, indicated the lettering and size of the signage remain the same as what was previously in place.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant revised the lettering on the sign face, but the actual sign remains the same.  She explained that when the wording on the sign is changed a new permit is required.  Ms. Terry stated the signage is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) and if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the sign variances would be required as indicated in the Staff Report.  Mr. Davidson stated the signage does not have any lighting on it.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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. Burris stated the conditions applicable are also applicable to other structures in that same district, for instance, other church signs.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage is also located within the TCOD and they are in the process of making changes to the sign code related to the TCOD.        

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated the property where the signage is located is at a church.     

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated this is an existing sign which has already been in place for some time.   

 

(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.  Mr. Johnson stated the signage currently exists in this location and only the wording is being changed.   

 

(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 FALSE. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed the granting of the variance is the most common sense solution.   

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated the TCOD requirements are the one of the main reasons for the variances. 

 

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 #2011-131:

 

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 application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the same zoning 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 signage is consistent with other signage in the same zoning 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 the manner this is being projected is consistent with physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-131 with the following provisions for variances:

1)         To allow for a wall sign that is twenty (20) square feet in the Village Square District (VSD);

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six (6) square feet to twenty (20) square feet in the TCOD;

3)         To allow for a changeable copy sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD); 

4)         To allow for a wall sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-131:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

115 West Broadway – United Church of Granville- Application #2011-132

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of the face of a freestanding sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Deb Walker, and Dwight Davidson. 

 

Discussion:

Dwight Davidson, United Church of Granville, indicated the sign is the same as what was previously in place, but with the wording changed.  Ms. Terry noted the freestanding sign is for the church, but the sign is not located in the Village Square District (VSD), but rather in the Village Residential District (VRD).  She stated the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) requirements still apply, and therefore, variances are still necessary if the signage is approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss indicated he would be in support of approval of the application if the applicant would be willing to add landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign.  Mr. Davidson stated this would not be a problem. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-132:

 

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. Johnson stated this is a church in a residential district and the signage needs differ from other properties.  Mr. Ryan stated this is an application for an existing sign and the only change is in the wording. 

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated this is an annex building for the church. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Mr. Johnson stated the character from what has been is not being altered because there was already signage in this location. 

 

(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 FALSE. 

 (6)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimous agreed TRUE. 

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 #2011-132:

 

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 application is consistent with other signage requests approved in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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 the presented signage is historically appropriate.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-132 with the following variances and condition:

1)         To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 7 square feet to 25.25 square feet in the Village Residential District (VRD);

2)         To allow for a freestanding sign in the Village Residential District (VRD) and the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);

3)         To increase the maximum allowable size of a freestanding sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) from 18 square feet to 25.25 square feet; 

4)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 6 square feet to 25.25 square feet in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);

5)         To require landscaping at the base of the freestanding sign and submit the landscaping design to the Village for staff approval. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-132:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-131: United Church of Granville; 115 West Broadway; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-131 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-131. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-132: United Church of Granville; 115 West Broadway; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-132 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-132. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Steven Hawk and Tom Mitchell from the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011 (Melanie Schott indicated she is unable to attend this meeting.)

 

GPC Minutes October 24, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 24, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, and Jeremy Johnson.

Members Absent: Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe and Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker, Planning and Zoning Assistant.

Also Present: John Klauder, Maggie Sobataka, Jodi Melfi, Laura Hunt, Flo Hoffman, and Cynthia Cort.    

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Corner of North Main and College Street – John Klauder Associates for Denison University- Application #2011-121

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a three (3’) foot high brick retaining wall.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and John Klauder. 

 

Discussion:

John Klauder, 30 Old Farm Road, indicated he was approached by Denison University to do this project.  He stated they will step down the wall and make this area look very attractive.  Mr. Klauder presented an example of the proposed brick.  He stated it is not exactly the same, but is a very close match. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-121:

 

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 proposal is a continuance of what is already existing at the Denison University entrance and that makes this improvement stylistically compatible.   

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 materials are consistent with other materials used in this 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-121 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-121:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

134 ½ East Broadway – Dr. Devin Savage - Application #2011-127

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Dr. Devin Savage.

 

Discussion:

Devin Savage, 134 ½ East Broadway, presented an example of the signage to be placed on the window glass.  Ms. Terry stated there is a variance on file for the previous projecting sign.  Jodi Melfi, graphic designer and designer of the sign, was present to answer any questions by the Planning Commission. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-127:

 

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. 

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-127 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-127:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

134 ½ East Broadway – Dr. Devin Savage - Application #2011-128

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Dr. Devin Savage.

 

Discussion:

Devin Savage, 134 ½ East Broadway, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated the required variance would allow all of the signage for Day y Noche, the Yoga Studio, and the dentistry business to be compliant.  Ms. Terry explained that the variance would be needed because the previous dental business had only received a variance for the projecting sign and with the window sign on the door as well it necessitated the variance for the total increase.  Mr. Ryan stated the proposed sign is blue and white.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is proposing to exceed the maximum height because fourteen feet is the maximum allowable height.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the proposed signage is seventeen feet.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked why the code indicated a maximum height to the top of the sign since this is a sign for a second story location.  He stated the signage is for a business on the second story and the guidelines are taking the height from the ground floor which seems silly. Ms. Terry stated that this point can be considered when they are reviewing sign code changes in the future. Mr. Ryan stated the guidelines are not clear and someone might infer that the Planning Commission is looking at a seventeen foot high sign, which is not the case. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-128:

 

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. Burriss stated that another and similar application with a projecting wall sign had been approved for this location, and that the Planning Commission felt this type of signage was appropriate due to the location of a second story business and the façade of the building.  He stated the Planning Commission would not want any detailing of the building covered up.  Mr. Ryan state the second sign on the door is also adding to the need for a variance and the applicant needs to also have a sign on their door to indicate the location of the entrance.   

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that it would be difficult to identify the business without the signage.  Mr. Burriss stated the entry door sign and the projecting sign have consistent graphics.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Mr. Johnson stated the character was not being altered because there was already signage in this location. 

 

 

(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.  The Planning Commission agreed the granting of the variance is the most common sense solution.   

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 #2011-128:

 

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. 

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 the signage is consistent with historically accurate signage in the district.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-128 with the following conditions:

1)         To increase the maximum sign area square footage from 58.53 square feet to 61.733 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign;

2)         To increase the maximum number of projecting signs allowed for this zoned lot from one (1) to two (2) to allow for the installation of a second projecting sign; and

3)         To increase the maximum height of a projecting sign from fourteen (14) feet to seventeen (17) feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-128:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

113 North Prospect Street – Gallery M- Application #2010-60

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

The request is for a time extension for the relocation of a sandwich board sidewalk sign at

the northwest corner of North Prospect and East Broadway. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Marilyn Sobataka.

 

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, Pinehurst Drive, indicated the sidewalk signage in this location has significantly benefited her business.  The Planning Commission indicated that Ms. Sobataka had indicated at a previous meeting that she was going to look at some alternatives signage in this area.  Mr. Burriss stated there used to be a sign with an arrow for businesses on South Prospect Street that was located on the second floor.  He asked if there is anything in the regulations about someone putting their sign on another building.  Ms. Terry stated of course a business owner would need to have permission from the property owner, but this would also be considered an off premise sign, which is not currently permitted. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any complaints made about the sandwich board sign for Gallery M.  Ms. Terry stated no.  She indicated the Village received a letter in support of the sidewalk sign. Ms. Sobataka explained her investigation into alternative signage was currently only in the concept stage. She stated she was looking into something that is different for the Village that is not sandwich board signage.  Ms. Sobataka indicated she could take her proposed planter concept and make it singular on this corner of the town if this is desired by the Planning Commission.  She went on to say that the current location of the sidewalk sign is where a trash can used to be, and she tries not to place it in an inconvenient location for walking traffic. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60:

 

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.    

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality of the business is contributed to with the proposed sidewalk 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 #2010-60 with a time stipulation of twelve months for relocation of the sidewalk sandwich board sign. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-60:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

115 East Broadway – Granville Historical Society - Application #2011-64 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to modify some of the previously approved finishes and detailing on the exterior of the building, and to modify the western

door entry.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Laura Hunt, Flo Hoffman,

and Cynthia Cort .

 

Mr. Johnson recused himself from Application #2011-64 at 8:00 PM. 

 

Discussion:

Laura Hunt indicated she has been working as the architect on this project.  She stated they have some proposed changes, specifically to the exterior finish details.  Ms. Hunt explained the previously approved plan had stone corners that they would like to replace with quoins made of an EIFS material, and that they have studied various groove patterns and created a horizontal line to break up all three facades.  Ms. Hunt stated they would like to add a small roof over the west entry door, and lentils over each window.  She stated they are also changing the color of the exterior. Mr. Hawk questioned if “value engineering” is the reason for the proposed changes.  Ms. Hunt stated yes, and to break up the appearance of the facade.  Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed grout joint line.  He stated it seems arbitrary as to where it is being placed and it seems to indicate a floor line.  He went on to say that he is bothered by the way this line hits the corners because it does not line up with the corner quoins.  Mr. Hawk agreed, but stated dropping it down would create a problem on the west elevation.  Ms. Hunt stated they did look at some other patterns; she later presented drawings illustrating several additional options.  Mr. Burris stated he admires the front entrance to this building.  He asked why two paired columns are presented for the rear instead of matching the front singular columns.  Ms. Hunt agreed single columns would be more appropriate.  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds the porch roof for the entry.  He explained he thinks the entrance to the original structure is strong and appropriate, and that the rear entrance should be tied into the identity of the building to match this.  Mr. Burriss stated he would like to look at options for the brackets supporting the little roof on the southern façade, because they don’t feel as detailed as the rest of the building.  Cynthia Cort stated the front entrance door is recessed approximately 18” and that they are unable to recess the rear door this much.  The Planning Commission discussed the use of blind windows versus real windows.  Mr. Burriss indicated it would be appropriate to add an additional blind window for symmetry above the entry on the western facade.  Ms. Cort agreed and stated they would need to have blind windows to reduce the cost and because of the interior use of the facility.  Mr. Burriss stated there are blind windows on the old Sensibilities buildings and these were encouraged by the Planning Commission to break up the façade.  Mr. Burriss stated that if one looks at the fenestration pattern on the front of the building – everything is balanced and symmetrical and he would like to see this continue on the back of the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated they could also use shutters to give the blind windows a stronger look.  The Planning Commission discussed the proposed EIFS (Exterior Insulated Finished Systems) design modifications.  Ms. Hunt presented various sketch studies of the exterior with alcoves.  She stated the alcoves would be the same material and color.  Mr. Burriss asked how the horizontal band would stand out.  Ms. Cort stated it would have an inch and a half reveal.  Mr. Burriss indicated that on the eastern elevation, under the fire escape, the trash cans and air handlers need to be screened. Discussion focused on using a fence or screening design that replicated the hand railing from the fire escape be incorporated in this area. Mr. Burriss stated the applicant needs to decide the location for any hose bibs.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-64 AMENDED:

 

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. 

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 made a motion to approve Application #2011-64 AMENDED with the following provisions:

The west exterior façade to be detailed per Exhibit "A" with the addition of two window ‘ghosts’ and a floor band as indicated, and the doorway on this elevation is to be detailed with single pilaster’s on either side of the door; and the south façade be detailed as indicated in Exhibit "B" to include a floor band, and the extension of both shed roofs to accommodate new support brackets; and the exterior elevation east side be detailed per Exhibit "C" to include a floor band and fencing to screen air conditioning units and other objects.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-64 AMENDED:

Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Johnson returned to the meeting at 8:15 PM.

 

Other Business:

Zoning Code Revisions - to amend various sign code provisions outlined in Section 1189, Table 1189b. 

 

Public Comments:  None. 

 

Planner Terry stated the Planning Commission is focusing on the TCOD requirements at this time.  She explained the district that allows for the most signage is the downtown Village Business District and this is because its based on linear frontage.  Ms. Terry presented a chart with all of the revisions previously discussed by the Planning Commission.  She stated the TCOD section has been removed and all parts that are impacted by the removal of the TCOD section have been addressed.  Ms. Terry stated this recommendation would be subject to approval by Council.  Mr. Burriss stated he is all in favor of simplification and clarification of the sign code. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion for recommendation of the TCOD sign code changes to Village Council and to recommend they approve the changes that were made consistent with the September 26, 2011 draft.  Seconded by Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-121: John Klauder Associates; Main/College Street; 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 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-121 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-121. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-127: Dr. Devin Savage; 134 ½ East Broadway; 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 #2011-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-127. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-128: Dr. Devin Savage; 134 ½ East Broadway; 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 #2011-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-128. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-60 AMENDED: Gallery M/Marilyn Sobataka; 113 North Prospect Street; 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 #2010-60 (AMENDED) as submitted with the added stipulation that the time extension be for a period of one year.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-64 AMENDED: Granville Historical Society; 115 East Broadway; 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 #2011-64 (AMENDED) as amended with provisions illustrated in Exhibits A, B, and C.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-64 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell from the October 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 26, 2011:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from September 26, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Hawk abstained.)

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011

GPC Minutes September 26, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 26, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Jeremy Johnson, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  Mr. Hawk and Councilmember O’Keefe. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Michael King; Asst. Law Director King; Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

Also Present:  Sabato Sagaria, Kent Jaquith, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers, Brian Miller, Brice Corder, Cynthia Feidler, Sam Rogers.   

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria- Application #2011-116

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a six (6’) foot

wood privacy fence to be located along the rear and side property lines, and installation

of a metal bollard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Sabato Sagaria, Dan Rogers, Cynthia Feidler, Brice Corder, and later Barbara Franks.  

 

Discussion: 

Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated the fence would have a finished look on both sides.  He indicated he would like to leave the fence unfinished.  Mr. Johnson asked if the fence would have any type of gate.  Mr. Sagaria indicated he is not proposing a gate, but he later changed his mind and added up to three potential gates to his application.  Mr. Mitchell noted the proposed fence doesn’t go between the two garages.  Mr. Sagaria stated it wouldn’t make sense for the fence to go between the two garages so he had it stop and start again at each end.  Mr. Sagaria stated his goal is to have the fence be located from the front of the back lot to the back front end of the neighbor’s garage.  He also stated the fence would be located entirely on his property.  Mr. Mitchell asked the reason for the metal bollard not being incorporated into the fence.  Mr. Sagaria stated he could make the bollard blend in with the fence if that is what the Planning Commission would like.  Mr. Sagaria stated the bollard would prevent people from destroying the fence.  He indicated he is proposing a round cylinder that is seven inches (7”) in diameter.  Ms. Terry stated the application indicates the bollard would be four foot (4’) high and the fence would be six foot (6’) high.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he is having difficulty picturing the bollard and the fence together.  He questioned if the fence starts after the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated yes.  He asked if the fence is abutting the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated no and it is maybe six inches (6”) away from the proposed bollard.  He indicated he would change this if the Planning Commission wished.  Mr. Johnson stated he believed a gate would be prohibitive to construct with the location of the proposed bollard.  He stated a gate could be attached to the first post.  Mr. Sagaria stated that if he needs to attach the fence to the bollard he would.  Mr. Burriss asked the reason for the gap between the fence and why it starts and stops again.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be willing to take the fence back to the garage.  He went on to say that if the fence were to be straight it would come two feet into his driveway and take away from any maneuverability.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be willing to angle the fence if need be and he would be willing to add fence in the corner of the garage on the west side so the fence goes over and across.  Mr. Mitchell stated a bollard does not seem appropriate to him for a residential area.  Mr. Sagaria stated he is willing to go with another recommendation, but he doesn’t want people to damage the fence.  He suggested he could encase the bollard in lumber.  Mr. Burriss asked the distance between the corner of the concrete curb and the proposed bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated his guess is 102-105 inches.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be any consideration in moving the bollard back.  He stated this is a tight dimension for a vehicle and if a gate is added it is even tighter.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would be opposed to moving the bollard back.  Mr. Mitchell asked how Mr. Sagaria turns a car around.  Mr. Sagaria stated he pulls in and backs up to the north to exit the driveway.  He clarified the curb doesn’t go all the way to the driveway to prevent him from turning around.

 

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, stated he thinks the fence is a fabulous idea and they are “pro fence.”  Mr. Rogers stated the proposed bollard is six inches (6”) in diameter and he asked if the size of the fence post would be 4x4.  Mr. Ryan stated the application states the posts would be 6x6.  Mr. Rogers asked how deep the posts would be required to be in the ground.  Village Planner Terry stated the applicant is required to have the posts thirty-two inches (32”) in the ground.  Mr. Rogers stated the issue with this situation has always been the property line and this line is a major issue because “it is crimping to such a degree that I cannot finish the barn.”  He went on to explain that it wasn’t Mr. Sagaria’s doing for the location of the garage, but it was previous owners that built the building so close that it hangs over his building.  Mr. Rogers stated the water comes off the south roof so fast that it comes on the north wall of his barn and the barn almost fell down due to this.  Mr. Rogers stated this water issue has not been solved and the eaves are hanging over the property line.  Ms. Franks presented pictures to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked how this information is related to the fence.  Mr. Rogers stated this is relevant because you cannot access the area between the two accessory buildings without walking on both properties.  He stated that the location of the fence could pose a problem for long term maintenance.  Mr. Rogers stated a gate is a good idea for full access.  Mr. Sagaria stated he disagreed with Mr. Rogers about accessibility to the back of his garage.  Mr. Ryan stated the application has been amended to extend the fence in this rear area.  Mr. Rogers indicated he wants to ensure the proposed fence will not restrict access to his property or access to perform maintenance related issues.  He stated he has invested $250,000 in the barn and he wants to make sure he can maintain this structure.  Mr. Sagaria stated he is not suggesting Mr. Rogers won’t have access to his own property.  Mr. Rogers stated he wanted to cut the corner of his building because of accessibility issues that currently exist.  He stated the bollard addition means there will be a “full on box to get in there.”  Mr. Ryan asked why Mr. Sagaria would like the bollard placed in this particular location.  Mr. Sagaria stated the bollard would protect his fence.  Mr. Rogers suggested the bollard could be made out of metal, rather than concrete.  He stated a gate could be hung from the bollard post. 

 

Barbara Franks was sworn in by Mr. Ryan.  She stated the fence is a great idea.  Ms. Franks stated there were some things handed down by a judge regarding a court ordered professional survey and an order of no trespassing.  She stated Mr. Sagaria or his workers are not allowed to walk on her property and the holes for the posts must be completely dug on Mr. Sagaria’s property.  Ms. Franks stated Mr. Sagaria’s home is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District and the Planning Commission should consider if the proposed fence and bollard design are historical.  She stated bollards were not considered in 1894 when her house was built or 1910 when Mr. Sagaria’s house was built.  Ms. Franks asked for the Planner to read aloud the fence permit definition and criteria.  Ms. Franks stated she would also like to request that she be allowed to place a gate or start her fence at the area where the bollard is located.  The Planning Commission indicated they cannot give permission for Mr. Sagaria to allow Ms. Franks the use of any portion of the fence on his property.  Ms. Terry read aloud Section 1135.01, 47, Fence (definition) of the code.  She also indicated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the AROD criteria for this application.  Mr. Ryan reminded the parties that the Planning Commission cannot get involved in any personal issues regarding a court order.  He stated this is a civil matter and the Planning Commission is only charged with approval/denial of the aesthetics of the fence and if all of the setback requirements have been met.   

 

Cynthia Feidler stated the driveway is narrow for both parties and she has stopped using her driveway because of damage that occurred to her car twice.  Ms. Feidler stated they have one way in and out and the neighboring property has two ways to come and go on their property.  She indicated she has been harassed by the neighbor.  Law Director King reminded all parties that the only matter before the Planning Commission is the application for a fence.  He stated any other issues are considered to be civil matters between the two neighbors.  

 

Mr. Sagaria stated a survey of the property has been completed.  He read aloud an excerpt from the survey referring to lots 181, 182, 187, and 188.  Mr. Sagaria stated there is a pin in the front portion of the lot and a pin in the back.  Ms. Franks stated a judge has indicated that a middle pin has to be set and the survey Mr. Sagaria is referring to has only the four corners pinned.  Law Director King stated this information is not relevant to the Planning Commission in rendering a decision on the proposed fence.  Mr. Rogers stated Mr. Sagaria would have to be north of the property line for the installation of the foundations for the fence.  Ms. Franks stated this area is used for her ingress and egress and she wants to make sure the Planning Commission isn’t granting Mr. Sagaria permission to block her.  Mr. Mitchell reiterated that defining where the corner lot is - is a civil matter.  Ms. Terry stated there would be an inspection of the post holes and they do not inspect their location in relation to the property lines.  Mr. Johnson later clarified that the Village Planner only checks the depth of the post holes.  Ms. Franks stated that in theory Mr. Sagaria would be given permission to build a fence on her property.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if this were the case, Mr. Sagaria would be liable.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant is allowed to have a six foot (6’) high fence in the rear.  Ms. Franks stated she would like to make a suggestion that if Mr. Sagaria is building a privacy fence he should turn off his cameras.  Mr. Ryan asked for all comments to be directed to the Planning Commission and for only comments relevant to the installation of the fence be made.  Mr. Rogers asked if the Planning Commission has firmed up where the west point of the fence will end.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission has asked Mr. Sagaria to terminate the fence at his garage and he agreed.  He stated on the west side the fence would turn back to the building.  Mr. Rogers suggested a gate be installed.  Mr. Sagaria stated he had no plans for a gate, but he later changed and amended Exhibits A, B, and C to show the possibility for three gates to be installed.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on the two different styles of fence presented in the application.  Mr. Sagaria stated the fence would resemble the fencing shown on the bottom (second) picture.  Mr. Rogers asked if there could be one point of attachment for two fences in case he decides to install a fence.  He stated this would make the most sense, rather than having two or three poles in the same location.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission doesn’t have an application for a fence before them for Mr. Roger’s property.  He stated they cannot consider the approval of a fence without an application.  Mr. Johnson agreed the Planning Commission cannot grant Mr. Rogers attachment rights to Mr. Sagaria’s proposed fence.  Mr. Rogers commented the police would be contacted if the fence is built on his property.  Law Director King indicated to Mr. Rogers that this would be a civil matter, not a police matter, and that the property owner's would need to go through an attorney for a restraining order if they determine that the fence is located on their property.  Law Director King indicated that it is not a zoning related issue or a police issue, it's a civil issue.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Sagaria if he would consider the fence post being used to “house” the bollard.  Mr. Sagaria stated that if this is a sticking point he would make the bollard look like a fence post.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission is charged with considering the architectural character of the neighborhood and there are some aesthetic concerns with the bollard as presented.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Johnson stated the digging of the post hole location will have to be decided amongst the neighbors and they may have to be eighteen inches away from the property line to not have any portion of the fence on the neighboring property.  He reiterated this is between the two neighboring properties and not up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burris indicated he would like to see a sealant on the proposed fence.  He stated the presented plan for a natural fence doesn’t seem like the “correct vocabulary.”  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is a major architectural element on the property.  Ms. Franks questioned how the fence would be painted without the applicant or his worker’s going on her property.  Mr. Sagaria stated the fence would be prepainted on both sides.  He also indicated that with future paint jobs he would take down the fence, paint it, and put it back up.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if the bollard function is incorporated into the fence post it should be similar in style to the balance of the other fence posts.  Mr. Sagaria agreed. 

 

Mr. Ryan indicated the Planning Commission has to be in agreement to each of the criteria.  Mr. Johnson stated with the incorporated bollard disguised, he can agree to the AROD criteria.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss agreed.

 

Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if he would agree to cap each of the fence posts as depicted in the bottom drawing.  Mr. Sagaria agreed.   Mr. Sagaria also agreed he has amended his application to request up to three, four foot swinging inward gates.  Mr. Burriss clarified he is unsure the gate on the side can be four foot wide.  The Planning Commission requested the fence panels to be of equal length.  Mr. Sagaria agreed.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-116:

 

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 application is consistent with other fences with the amendments to finish the fence.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the proposed changes to finish the fence, the fence is appropriate. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality is achieved by enhancing the property.    

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 #2011-116 with the following conditions:

1)         That the fencing installation is to adhere to remarks per Exhibit ‘A’;

2)         Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ depict the installation of three (3) gates, with the gate on     west property line to be 4 foot-wide and each gate is to be an in swinging gate;

3)         Exhibit ‘C’ (bottom - second drawing style) is the approved style for the fence;

4)         The bollard function to be incorporated into the fence post similar in style to the             balance of the fence posts; 

5)         All surfaces of the fence are to be painted or stained; and

6)         Each panel of fencing located on the south property line will be of equal length
Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-116:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria- Application #2011-116

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items

1)         New concrete steps with railings at the front of the structure

2)         Pergola to be located in the rear yard; and

3)         Replacement windows on the northern and southern side of the home

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Michael Sabato Sagaria. 

 

Discussion:

Sabato Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated the existing front steps do not go with the house and they are dangerous in the wintertime.  Cynthia Feidler agreed.  Mr. Sagaria distributed a design of a porch in German Village with the continuation of railings.  He stated a design such as this is more fitting for his home.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing to paint the front steps.  Mr. Sagaria stated no.  Mr. Burriss stated he is aware of one home in the Village where the stone steps were turned over and were able to be reused.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he would prefer to see the stone steps stay in place, but he is only one vote.  Mr. Sagaria was unsure on the type of steps he would like to use or the exact location for the railings.  The Planning Commission also discussed the location of the windows, as this was not depicted on a drawing for the application.  Mr. Sagaria agreed to get additional information to the Planning Commission on the steps, railings, and windows.  He asked to table this portion of the application.  Mr. Sagaria stated he would like to move forward with consideration for the pergola.  Mr. Johnson asked the type of wood Mr. Sagaria would like to use for the pergola.  Mr. Sagaria stated pressure treated lumber that would be painted in one year. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-116 (only for the pergola) other portions of application were tabled until a later meeting:

 

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 pergola is consistent with structures approved in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated a pergola is architecturally appropriate for this 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 a pergola is an appropriate architectural element of our historic past.    

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-117 only regarding the pergola and to table the part of the application referring to approval for the replacement of steps and windows, and with the following conditions:

1)         The construction of the pergola would be with pressure treated lumber; and

2)         Pergola will be finished in white at the appropriate time. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-116:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

951 Burg Street – Kent & Tammy Jaquith - Application #2011-118

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) (standards apply due to the size of the proposed structure)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of an addition on the front and eastern side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kent Jaquith. 

 

Discussion:

Kent Jaquith, 951 Burg Street, stated that he is before the Planning Commission for approval of an addition.  Mr. Mitchell asked what is the Planning Commission oversight for this project.  Ms. Terry explained the AROD criteria applies, but only as it relates to the addition because the addition is more than 20% of the gross livable area of the existing structure.  She indicated the rest of the home can be resided without Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Jaquith stated you cannot really see the home from Burg Street.  Ms. Terry stated the application meets all of the setback and height requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked for a description of the proposed siding.  Mr. Jaquith stated they are contemplating using board and batten with cedar or Hardie-plank.  He stated he is leaning towards the use of cedar.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lantern lights would be used.  Mr. Jaquith stated this has been changed to be can lights only.  Mr. Jaquith explained the addition would come out a total of sixteen feet and allow for a foyer, bathroom, and closets.  He stated the board and batten would be broken up with the use of cedar plank and stone.  Mr. Johnson asked if the entire foundation would be split face block.  Mr. Jaquith stated yes, except for a small stone area on the front of the home.  Mr. Jaquith stated the porch would have a standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Johnson questioned if this could be interfaced due to water tightness.  Mr. Jaquith stated that there is also a change to his submitted application for the windows.  He stated the windows are currently shown as double hung windows, but this is not feasible for the closet.  He stated these windows would be shortened to look like the small windows on the drawing.  Mr. Johnson asked if Mr. Jaquith is proposing a casement style window for all of the windows.  Mr. Jaquith stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant did not have to clarify if he would use the standing seam metal roof and the Planning Commission could approve the metal roof or a shingle roof.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-118:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the addition is consistent with other approvals for additions in the same 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 addition is a benefit to the existing home. 

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. Burris stated the proposed detailing on the materials used are more historically correct than what is existing on the home.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-118 per exhibits ‘A’ and

B.’  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-118:  Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Other Business:

Note: This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of this proposed Zoning Code revision.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend various Sign Code provisions outlined in Section 1189, Table 1189b.  

 

Discussion:

No one spoke in regards to the public hearing. 

Ms. Terry stated the language in red is per the Planning Commission comments at the last meeting.  She asked for clarification from the Planning Commission regarding freestanding signs in the PCD (Planned Commercial District).  Ms. Terry reviewed the changes the Planning Commission recommended at the work session that all signs in this zoning district should be ground mounted.  She stated the signage for Arby’s and Bob Evans are ground mounted.  Ms. Terry asked if the Planning Commission wants to take this language out or leave it up to the applicant for the option to apply for either ground mounted or freestanding.  Mr. Ryan agreed this area (PCD) may change once the highway changes are made.  Mr. Mitchell stated he feels comfortable with the decision recommended at the last meeting.  Mr. Burriss stated he would not feel comfortable with a twelve foot high sign being applied for in this zoning district.  Ms. Terry indicated she has some additional information that could be helpful for the Planning Commission regarding signage in this zoning district.  The Planning Commission asked for Ms. Terry to present this information before they make a final decision on signage recommendations to the TCOD. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to table the sign recommendations and hold a second public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-116: Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect Street; Fence

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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-116 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-116. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-117: Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect Street; Porch

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 #2011-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-117. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-118: Kent and Tammy Jaquith ; 951 Burg Street; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-118 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-118. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on September 26, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 12, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from September 12, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:35 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, October 24, 2011

Monday, November 14, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011

GPC Minutes September 12, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 12, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Michael King; Asst. Law Director King

Also Present:  Michael Duffey and David Bussan. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey- Application #2011-111

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval the conversion of a gravel driveway to concrete.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael Duffey. 

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, indicated he is also representing his neighbor Mary Thurlow-Collen.  Mr. Duffey stated the driveway is a shared driveway with Ms. Thurlow-Collen.  He explained that there is already a concrete apron in front of the garage.  Ms. Terry stated the total proposed lot coverage is 44%, and the applicant is they allowed up to 50% lot coverage.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is not required to meet rear yard setbacks for the driveway, as it is below a three (3) foot height and therefore does not have to meet the yard requirements.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-111:

 

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 application is consistent with other driveway requests approved in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-111 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-111:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

329 West Elm Street – Mary Thurlow-Collen/Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2011-112

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval for the conversion of a shared gravel

driveway to concrete.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael Duffey. 

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, stated that he has been asked to represent Mary Thurlow-Collen in this application.  He stated that there has been no objection to the request.  Ms. Terry stated that the lot coverage requirements have been met for this application as well.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-112:

 

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.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-102 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-112:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

420 East Broadway – David Bussan- Application #2011-113

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a relocation of an existing wood fence on the former west property line to a new west property line.    

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and David Bussan.

 

Discussion:

David Bussan, 420 East Broadway, indicated he would like to move a fence because he purchased a triangular piece of land from the school district.  He explained the fence is currently on the west boundary.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the new and relocated fencing would match the existing fence.  Mr. Bussan stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-113:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is consistent with other projects approved in the same zoning district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.    

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the vitality of the structure, the vitality of the entire district is enhanced.   

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 #2011-113 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-113:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Work Session:

Zoning Code Changes: TCOD Requirements pertaining to Signage:

Ms. Terry explained the current TCOD requirements allow for a six square foot sign in almost all Village Districts.  She stated Village Council wants to minimize the variances being requested due to the TCOD code requirements and eliminate conflicts.  Ms. Terry indicated the entire sign code will be looked at, and they will begin with small changes to particular areas, by first streamlining the TCOD.  Ms. Terry stated that often several variances are needed for approval of signage within the TCOD.  She went on to say that most jurisdictions wouldn’t approve an application that required up to six variances.  Ms. Terry gave a brief history of how she believed the TCOD was created.  She stated it appeared in the code in 1992 and allowed up to 24 square foot per side for a freestanding sign, and then this changed to six square feet total in 1995.  Ms. Terry believed the TCOD code language had something to do with recommendations by the Licking County Planning Department for collector streets, preserving scenic corridors, and natural areas and these standards were applied to various municipalities throughout Licking County.  Ms. Terry suggested eliminating the TCOD language in the code.  She discussed how this would impact various districts, such as the Village Square District, Community Service District, and Village Residential District.  The Planning Commission noted some of the concerns could be addressed through the AROD standards.  They agreed that eliminating TCOD requirements would alleviate the need for multiple variance requests.  Ms. Terry indicated there would be a public hearing for the proposed TCOD changes.       

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

1)         Application #2011-111: Michael and Wendy Duffey; 335 West Elm Street;         Driveway

            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 #2011- 111 as submitted by the applicant.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-111.           Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

            Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan   (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

2)         Application #2011-112: Mary Thurlow-Collen/Michael and Wendy Duffey;         329 West Elm Street; Driveway

            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 #2011- 112 as submitted by the applicant.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-112.           Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

            Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan   (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

3)         Application #2011-113: David Bussan; 420 East Broadway; Fence

            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, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their             approval of Application #2011-113 as submitted by the applicant.

 

            Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-113.           Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

            Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan   (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for August 22, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from August 22, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Burriss recused himself from voting because he did not attend the meeting.) 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 26, 2011 (Mr. Hawk indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

Monday, October 24, 2011

GPC Minutes August 22, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 22, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Jeremy Johnson, and Tom Mitchell.

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss. 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept; Michael Crites; Law Director

Also Present: Eric Rosenberg, Elizabeth Moss, Bob Ramsey, Joseph Galano, Mary Morales-Rivera, Doug Feller, Bob Brooks, Mark Mauter, Don DeSapri, Marion Ackerman, and Liz Price.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

395 North Pearl Street – Eric and Susan Rosenberg- Application #2011-101

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a deck, walkway and exterior stairs.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Eric Rosenberg, Joseph Galano, Doug Feller, and Bob Ramsey.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, indicated he had an addition put on his home a few years back which required Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Rosenberg stated he would like to put an exterior second floor staircase in so he can access this part of the home easier because he spends a lot of time in this area.  He further stated that staff was   concerned about water runoff because the lot is very steep.  He also stated there was some discussion on whether these changes extend onto the private drive area.  Mr. Rosenberg stated three of the neighbors that use this driveway are present to address any concerns and he does not feel the private driveway is a problem.  He stated all of the deeds give the property owners the right to ingress and egress on the driveway.  Mr. Rosenberg stated Law Director Crites was consulted about the private drive and the exterior modifications being proposed do not encroach on this area or cause disruption.  Mr. Mitchell asked what the height is from the corner above the roadway.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that the drop-off needs to be excavated.  Joseph Galano stated he helped with the drawings and he believes the drop-off is high enough that the homeowner may want a handrail.  Mr. Galano stated the code says the optimum requirement for a handrail is anything more than thirty inches (30”).  Mr. Galano indicated that he believed the modifications encroach maybe five (5’) to seven (7’) feet onto the private drive setbacks.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if any type of written approval should be obtained from the neighbors utilizing the driveway.   Law Director Crites indicated that this is diminimous with this application. [He added staff is investigating that one of the conditions for approval is an easement by future applicants.]  Law Director Crites stated this would not be a condition of approval for this particular application.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant would be submitting for three variances from the BZBA.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the purpose of the area that jets out.  Mr. Rosenberg explained this would allow them to have access to the front of their house.  Mr. Johnson asked the neighbors who were present at the meeting if they were ok with the application.  There was no objection by any neighbors.   Mr. Johnson questioned if the TREK wood would match the existing home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the decking would be gray TREK and it is paintable.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he is unsure if he will paint it or leave it gray.  He stated that if he does paint it it would match the exiting home and be painted white.  He later indicated that the wood lattice and spindles would either be left natural or painted white.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-101:

 

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 application is consistent with other decks and walkways 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. Johnson stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the walkway allows the home to be accessed easier.

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 #2011-101 on the condition that the applicant receives three variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-101:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

401 North Pearl Street – Doug Feller- Application #2011-102

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story addition on the south side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Eric Rosenberg, Doug Feller, Joseph Galano, and Bob Ramsey.

 

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 401 North Pearl Street, indicated he is representing the homeowner, Doug Feller.  He later indicated he may purchase this home for a family member.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the addition he is proposing is very similar to what was done to his home in 2008.  He stated the current home does not have garage space and is very small.  Furthermore, Mr. Rosenberg stated the retaining wall cuts through his property at 395 North Pearl Street and he would be providing an easement to allow for the retaining wall.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the stucco would match the existing stucco on the home.  He stated that the Village had raised concerns about the easement and water run off from the new roof.  He stated the easement has been addressed and they plan to address water run off by installing the gutters for the new addition underground.  Mr. Rosenberg indicated the gutters would go under the new driveway and daylight over the hill.  He added that this is similar to how Denison University does their gutters.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that after review by the Village, they found this method to be an acceptable solution.  It was clarified that Terry Hopkins and Alison Terry reviewed gutter & downspouts with the applicant.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that most of the water that comes from the hill comes from Denison.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the downspouts on the existing home would be picked up with the new underground down spouting.  Mr. Rosenberg stated no and the Village was not requiring this.  Ms. Walker stated that staff would require that the easement be submitted prior to the release of the zoning permit.  She also indicated the front yard setback that is proposed requires a variance.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is any issue with massing.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant is well under the 20% maximum building lot coverage requirement.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the style of the windows.  He stated that the drawings depict several different styles.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that some of the windows on the existing home are six over one and some are one over one.  He stated that they would like to remove the insert to make all of the windows match one over one style.  He added that this is the same style of windows in the neighborhood.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he would do six over one window lights if this is what the Planning Commission prefers, but he prefers the look of one over one window lights.  Mr. Johnson asked if the door would have divided lights.  Mr. Rosenberg stated no.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the application should be amended to state that all of the windows and doors in the home would be one over one window lights.  Mr. Rosenberg had a sample of the proposed roof shingle.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the new shingles would match the existing shingles already on the home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.  He also questioned if the fascia and soffits on the addition would match the existing home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the cut sheet for the garage door submitted with the application does not show any windows.  Mr. Rosenberg indicated that this is a mistake on the application and it should be amended to have four windows across the top.  He stated this is the same door he has on his home, but bigger.  He apologized for printing the wrong cut sheet.  Mr. Johnson clarified the size of the garage door.  Mr. Galano stated the door would be seven foot (7’) by sixteen foot (16’).  Mr. Hawk indicated the application should be amended to note this size in the garage door.  Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any coach lights on the side of the garage door.  Mr.  Rosenberg indicated he may use two lights that he has on his home, but they are not included in this application.  Mr. Johnson asked the treatment for the retaining wall cap.  Mr. Galano stated the ledge would be capped off with a vine and cementitious coping at the top.  He indicated there is a wood fence near the retaining wall that would continue.  The Planning Commission reviewed the amendments made to the application after discussion with the applicant.  They indicated all windows and doors are to be one over one light windows and the size of the garage door is to be seven foot (7’) by sixteen foot (16’) with four windows across the top.  The Planning Commission indicated the applicant is to connect the down spouting under the new driveway to daylight over the hillside.  The day lighting of water will be east of the driveway.  The Planning Commission clarified the underground drainage would not run under the private drive.  The Planning Commission also stated that the applicant would need a variance from the BZBA for final approval of the zoning permit.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the AROD criteria regarding massing.  She explained the building massing in this district differs from the building massing code requirements in other districts in the Village. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-102:

 

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 proposed district is consistent with adjacent homes in the 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 home is being improved and so is the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the livability of the home is improved.   

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 #2011-102, as amended, with the condition that all windows and doors be one over one light windows; that the garage door be seven foot (7’) by sixteen foot (16’) with four windows across the top; that the downspouts run under the new driveway to daylight; that the applicant receive a front yard setback variance from the BZBA; and that an easement is submitted to the Village prior to the release of the zoning permit.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-102:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

(Law Director Crites exited the meeting at 7:45 PM.)

 

221 East Broadway – Marion Ackerman- Application #2011-103

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a handicapped ramp and sidewalk. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Marion Ackerman, and Don DeSapri.

 

Discussion:

Marion Ackerman, 221 East Broadway, indicated the existing handicap ramp goes through a building that they now rent out.  He stated they are proposing a new ramp that is ‘u’ shaped to gain enough length for wheelchair access.  Mr. Ackerman stated there are many surfaces that exist in this outside area such as stone to brick to concrete. He presented an example of a concrete paver stained to look like brick.  He also presented an example of a railing that they would like to use that was once located on the property.  Mr. Ackerman stated that a railing is not required for ADA standards, but they are proposing installing.  Ms. Walker stated the presented slope is designed to be 1 in 20 or greater and the design is nicely done. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-103:

 

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. 

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-103 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-103:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche - Application #2011-104

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, indicated she would like the sidewalk sign for advertising specials.  Mr. Johnson asked if the logo would be on the slate.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated the sidewalk sign logo would match the existing sign on the building.  The Planning Commission discussed if the signage required a variance.  It was decided that the proposed height of the sign could be lowered if the lower legs were slightly shortened, and this would remove the need for a variance.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the size of the sidewalk sign should have included a measurement including the lower legs of the sign.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant is allowed 5.18 square feet per side for the sidewalk signage.  Mr. Johnson asked the proposed location for the signage.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated the sidewalk sign would be in front of the door and between the first two tables.  Mr. Mitchell stated a variance is not required if the maximum size does not exceed 57.5 square feet.  Ms. Morales-Rivera indicated that the sign would be no more than three colors.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-104:

 

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 presented sidewalk sign is consistent with other sidewalk signs in the district.   

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

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 this business.

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 #2011-104 with the condition that the total area of all signs does not exceed 57.5 square feet and that the signage be taken indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-104:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

14 Westgate Drive – Bob Brooks - Application #2011-105

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a variance to increase the maximum size for a temporary real estate sign from eight (8) square feet to thirty-two (32) square feet.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, and Bob Brooks.

 

Discussion:

Bob Brooks, 14 Westgate Drive, indicated the signage he would like to display is related to the sale of the property and it would be a temporary sign.  He explained the current signage is not large enough and the property has been vacant for 2 ½ years.  Mr. Brooks stated the proposed signage is not illuminated.  Mr. Brooks stated the character of the neighborhood would not be altered and there would not be any detriment to neighbors with the proposed signage.  Mr. Brooks indicated the sign code changed after he purchased the property and he is unable to achieve his goal in selling the property without larger signage.  Mr. Brooks stated the signage would not impair light to adjacent properties.  Mr. Ryan recalled that temporary signage was approved for REMAX in this same location in years past.  Mr. Johnson asked the correlation with the size of the building and acreage.  Ms. Walker stated that the property is allowed to have an eight (8) foot square sign, and property over two acres is allowed a larger sign.  Mr. Brooks stated that his property is approximately 1.5 acres.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-105:

 

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 FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated the property is located on a four-lane highway and Village street.  He stated that the property has been for sale for over a year.

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated the request is for a temporary sign. 
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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).  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 FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant has noted that the sign code changed after he purchased the property.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated the applicant has already tried to sell the property with smaller signage and this did not work.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-105 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage for this zone lot from eight (8) square feet to thirty-two (32) square feet total.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-105:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

331 North Pearl Street – Elizabeth Moss - Application #2011-106

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear second-story addition.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Elizabeth Moss, and Mark Mauter.

 

Discussion:

Mark Mauter, indicated he is the contractor for the project.  He stated the addition would be compatible with the existing structure and their goal is to make this look like its always been there.  Mr. Mauter stated the homeowner would like to add an additional bedroom to the home.  He indicated the roof would have a 3/12 pitch.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the roof can have shingles on top of an ice and water guard.  Mr. Mauter stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of the downspouts.  Mr. Mauter showed him the location of the new downspouts on a drawing.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the brackets that are on the rest of the overhang would continue onto the addition.  Mr. Mauter agreed to continue this detailing on the addition.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant received a variance for the second story from the BZBA.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-106:

 

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 detailing presented is consistent with other additions in this 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 use of details are historical.

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-106 with the amendment to have the applicant add brackets to the north and south elevations for the overhang, to be consistent with the structure.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-106:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (abstain), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

128 East Broadway – Stephen Larsen- Application #2011-108

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, and Liz Price.

 

Discussion:

Liz Price, 128 East Broadway, indicated they would like to install a sidewalk sign.  Ms. Walker stated the sign would be a wood frame with cork background and there would be pictures of different menu items displayed on the board.  Mr. Hawk indicated the sign has been in place for some time and is still up without Planning Commission approval.  Ms. Walker stated the proposed signage could be considered to be a parallel with the Day y Noche sidewalk sign or Whit’s sign.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not like sandwich board signs, but he doesn’t have a problem with the proposal because every business has them.    Mr. Johnson questioned if the sign would be taken in during non-business hours. Ms. Price stated yes.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-108:

 

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 sandwich board sign is consistent with other sandwich board signs in the same zoning district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality is improved by the 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 #2011-108 as submitted with the condition that the signage is removed and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-108:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (no), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-101: Eric and Susan Rosenberg; 395 North Pearl Street; 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 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-101 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-101. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-102: Doug Feller; 401 North Pearl Street; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-102 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-102. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-103: Marion Ackerman; 221 East Broadway; 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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, & Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-103 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-103. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-104: Day y Noche; 134 East Broadway; 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-104 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-104. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-105: Bob Brooks; 14 Westgate Drive; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-105 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-105. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-106: Elizabeth Moss; 331 North Pearl Street; Addition

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, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-106 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-106. Seconded by Mr. Johnson

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (abstain), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2011-108: Stephen Larsen; 128 East Broadway; 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-108 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-108. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the August 22, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for August 8, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from August 8, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 12, 2011

Monday, September 26, 2011 (Mr. Hawk indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

GPC Minutes August 8, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 8, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None. 

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant; Steve Stilwell, Village Manager.

Also Present: Mike Davis, Michael Duffey, Richard Downs, and Bruce Cramer.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

537 Jones Road – Bryn Du Mansion- Application #2011-94

Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding sign located at the

southwestern corner of the property. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Bruce Cramer, and Mike Davis.

 

Discussion:

Mike Davis, Kessler Sign Company, indicated that he is representing the applicant.  He stated that they would like to place two signs at each end of the fencing along Newark-Granville Road because the property is not easy to find.  Mr. Cramer later indicated that the address is even more difficult to locate because it is not recognizable by some GPS systems.  Mr. Cramer stated that they would like to have lighting for the signage and it would be on the same timer as the fence lighting.  Ms. Terry went over the copy of information submitted for the proposed signage.  She explained that Mr. Cramer has also presented additional directional signage for the grounds and these would not be visible from the roadway.  Ms. Terry stated that both of the freestanding signs are proposed to be made of  the same type of material and both are two fee three and a half inches (2 ' 3 ½") by eight (8') feet, totaling eighteen point four (18.4) square feet.  She suggested shrinking the sign down to eighteen (18) square feet total to avoid the need for one of the variances.  Ms. Terry explained that the maximum height of the sign is allowed to be six foot (6’) and the applicant is proposing a five (5’) foot high sign.  Ms. Terry indicated that the property is a “tough area” when it comes to the layout.  She stated that cars traveling east cannot see one sign and cars traveling west cannot see one of the proposed signs.  Ms. Terry explained that there is an existing white sign on the utility pole at the intersection of Jones Road and Newark-Granville Road, but the applicant indicated that this is not visible or helpful for locating the property.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant has had the sign proposal reviewed by the Bryn Du Commission.  Mr. Cramer stated that MSI, which is who Keith Myers works for, designed the entire sign package for the property.  Ms. Terry stated that the additional signage proposed for the property may be considered incidental signage, especially if it cannot be seen from the right of way.  She indicated that she will have to analyze these signs and see how they fit in the code.  She also indicated that she would need the specific location for these signs to be able to determine this. 

 

Mr. Ryan indicated that the two signs submitted for approval tonight are exactly the same.  He questioned if the applicant would be willing to bring the size of the sign down .4 square feet, to 18 square feet, so the Planning Commission does not have to give an additional variance.  Mr. Davis indicated that this would not be a problem.  Mr. Ryan stated that a variance for the TCOD requirement from six (6) square foot to eighteen (18) square foot would still need to be addressed.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the Photoshop submittal was to scale.  Mr. Davis stated that they cannot Photoshop to scale, but he feels confident that the size is close to the proposed sign.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if the next application is for the same size of sign on the southeast corner.  Ms. Terry stated yes and the application they are currently reviewing is for the southwest corner.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the Planning Commission were to only grant one sign, which of the two is preferred.  He suggested that the preferred sign application ought to be reviewed and approved first just in case there are Planning Commission members unwilling to grant variances for two signs.  Ms. Terry stated that the second application would have an additional variance for allowing two freestanding signs.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to continue discussion of Application #2011-94 after discussion of Application #2011-95.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Continue Application #2011-94:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 6-0. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe questioned the reason for the second sign.  Mr. Cramer stated that when a car is coming from the west to the east it is difficult to see the sign.  Mr. Cramer stated that the signage is also hidden when it is located on each corner.  Mr. Hawk indicated that it is logical to him to have the two signs when one considers the size of the parcel of land that the mansion is located on.  Mr. Ryan questioned how this property could be so difficult for people to find.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission needed to check with Village Council prior to approving the signage, since the property is a Village owned property.  Mr. Davis stated that there were four pages of people that received notice about the signage and no one is at the meeting objecting to the signage.  He asked if approaching Council is necessary given that at least one hundred people have been contacted about this application and there has been no objection. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-94:

 

 

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.  Mr. Johnson indicated that the orientation of the existing fence makes it difficult to have a single sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that the angle of the signage is less intrusive than what could have been proposed.  Mr. Ryan stated that the parcel is large.  All other members concurred.

    

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the additional signage doesn’t “ring true.”  He questioned if two signs are actually needed.  Mr. Ryan stated that traffic coming to the property is both east and west bound.  Mr. Johnson stated that two signs are needed because of the orientation of the property.  He added that traffic cannot see the angled sign from the east and west.  Mr. Hawk stated that not all of the traffic would be able to see just one sign.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justified.  Mr. Johnson stated that this property has substantial road frontage and therefore the variance would not be 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).  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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Johnson agreed that traffic coming west and east need to be able to see the signage.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if two signs are required in this case.     

 

 

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 agreed that there were special conditions with having the lighting screened and the lighting turned off with a set timer already associated with the fence lighting. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-94 with the following conditions and variances:

 

1)         To increase the TCOD maximum requirement for all signs on any zoned lot from eighteen (18) square feet to thirty-six (36) square feet to allow for a freestanding sign; 

2)         To allow the maximum number of freestanding signs allowed in the PUD to be increased from one (1) to two (2);

3)         To require the lighting to be screened with landscaping;

4)         To require the sign lighting be placed on the same timer as the existing fence lighting.

5)         The lighting should be per ‘Exhibit A.’

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

537 Jones Road – Bryn Du Mansion- Application #2011-95

Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding sign located at the

southwestern corner of the property. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Bruce Cramer, and Mike Davis.

 

Discussion:

Mike Davis indicated that they would be willing to cut the size of the 18.4 square foot signage down to 18 square feet (as was done with the previous application.)  Mr. Cramer stated that the lighting is identical and it would be on the same circuit that the post lights are on.  Ms. Terry questioned what time this lighting goes off.  Mr. Cramer stated around 1:30 AM.  Ms. Terry explained that typically the Planning Commission has limited the hours for lighting by requesting that they be turned off by either 10:00 or 11:00 PM.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked why the fence lighting is left on this late.  Mr. Cramer indicated that some events at the Mansion do not end until at least midnight.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the neighbors have been notified and did the Planning Department hear back from anyone.  Ms. Terry stated that the neighbors had been contacted and they did not receive any calls from anyone.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-94:

 

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. Burriss indicated that the structure and land in this district is unique being a large structure with a large amount of land surrounding it. 

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is well known that the property is difficult to find.  He added that establishing appropriate signage for the property would be more beneficial to the district.  

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Ordinance states that eighteen square feet is permissible in a different section of the code regulating this signage.   

 

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage is appropriate with the scale of the property and existing fencing.   

 

 

(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.  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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Johnson stated that a six square foot sign for this property (allowed by the current TCOD Section of the code) would not be appropriate.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 agreed that there were special conditions per ‘Exhibit A’ and that the signage should be set with the same timer used for the post lighting on the fence, and the lighting should be screened with landscaping.

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-95 with the following conditions and variance:

 

1)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from six (6) square feet to eighteen (18) square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

2)         To require the lighting to be screened with landscaping;

3)         To require the sign lighting be placed on the same timer as the existing fence lighting.

4)         The lighting should be per ‘Exhibit A.’

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2011-96

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear two-story elevated deck and

installation of French doors on the rear elevation.     

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Richard Downs, and Michael Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, submitted a summary sheet of the project to the Planning Commission.  He stated that they would like to elevate the proposed deck that measures 12.9 feet x 12 feet. Mr. Duffey stated that the composition of the decking material would be walnut timber tech.  Mr. Duffey stated that due to the terrain of the lot their objective is to not obstruct the main floor view.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the air conditioning unit would be lowered.  Mr. Duffey stated that the air conditioning unit would move straight down and it is required to have four-foot clearance from the deck.  Mr. Burriss asked what the division for the French doors would be.  Mr. Duffey stated that he hasn’t made up his mind on this.  Mr. Mitchell explained that this would be something that the Planning Commission would need to review.  Mr. Duffey stated that he would agree to match the existing French door divisions of the basement doors on the new doors.  Ms. Terry stated that this application would require a variance from the BZBA from the western side yard setback.  Mr. Duffey indicated that his neighbors did not have any issues with his proposal. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-96:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is consistent with other projects approved in this zoning 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 detailing of the project is consistent with the style of the house.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that by contributing to the continuing livability of this structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the entire district.    

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 changes are stylistically compatible to the house and enhance the house.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-96 contingent upon the western side yard setback variance being granted by the BZBA and that the proposed new French doors match the style of the existing basement door.   Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-94: Bryn Du Mansion; 537 Jones Road; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-94 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-94. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Application #2011-95: Bryn Du Mansion; 537 Jones Road; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-95 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-95. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-96: Michael and Wendy Duffey; 335 West Elm Street; 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 #2011-96 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-96. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 25, 2011:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from July 25, 2011, as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Mitchell abstained.)

 

Other Matters:

Ms. Terry stated that there are some upcoming charter changes that will be on the November ballot.  She stated that one issue is to make the school appointed Planning Commission member an ex-officio representative.  She explained that the Planning Commission would still be made up of five members, but there would now be two ex-officio members who do not vote.

 

Ms. Terry introduced Manager Stilwell to the Planning Commission members.   

 

Ms. Terry stated that there was a hearing scheduled after the last Council meeting regarding the signage for Metropolitan Partners/Verizon.  She indicated that she was not present for the discussion at the Council meeting, but there was some interest by Council regarding looking into an appeal of the signage approvals.  Ms. Terry explained that ultimately it was determined that the Village Manager is the one to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission, and therefore an appeal, by Council at the August 5, 2011 meeting, was not filed regarding the signage.  Mr. Ryan questioned the objection and how this matter came up at the Council meeting.  Manager Stilwell stated that Council questioned how signage in excess of the zoning requirements was approved. Manager Stilwell explained that he does not yet have a pulse of the community and therefore, he wasn’t prepared to appeal the decision. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe stated that she was not at the special scheduled, August 5, 2011 Council hearing on Friday.  She indicated that she believed the Council was concerned that the sign was too large and concerned about the proposed placement on the roof.  She stated that she explained to Council that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter and decided that there was no other place to put signage. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if Council had a problem with the monument sign.  He stated that this signage is a reduction in size from the signage that is currently on the property.  Mr. Ryan asked how Council could discuss an appeal without having a full discussion of the matter that was reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Manager Stilwell stated that there is a limited amount of time to appeal an application.  He stated that in addition, this was a difficult set of circumstances, because no one on staff was able and/or available to address any of Council’s concerns at the regular Council meeting.  He explained that this had a “cascading effect” with the Clerk of Council being on vacation, and him being new and not familiar with the application.  Manager Stilwell stated that Council was trying to preserve their right to appeal the decision.  He added that there was not a quantitative value judgment related to the Planning Commission decision.  He stated that it is his responsibility to work with Council regarding the rules and it is possible that some of them are “draconian conservative.”  He added that this may be the case with the TCOD requirements, as staff has concluded that any approval would be difficult without a variance.  

 

Councilmember O’Keefe stated that some Council members indicated that there previously was a fight to keep the signage limited for Arby’s, Bob Evans and Ross' Granville Market conservative.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that a Councilmember asked the Law Director to provide a time frame of appeal and to advise Council.  Manager Stilwell stated that at that time a pulse was taken of the Council to see if they wanted an opportunity to discuss an appeal and preserve their right to appeal.  Manager Stilwell stated that forty-five minutes before the August 5, 2011 special hearing, it was determined that a Codified ordinance regarding the appeal process had been printed in error after review of the minutes. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked to have the approvals for Arby’s, Speedway, and Bob Evans sent to him.  Mr. Ryan stated that no one from Council contacted anyone on the Planning Commission to ask them about this application.  He added that he finds it bothersome that they looked into an appeal before discussing the matter. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that he had to recuse himself from discussion and voting on the Verizon application.  He added that when it comes to sign approvals, especially in the TCOD, the Planning Commission has to grant a variance more often than not.  He went on to say that Manager Stilwell mentioned the words “draconian conservative” and he stated that the Planning Commission has had to give variances because of this and make value judgments.  He stated that there is a lot of scrutiny of each sign application and much discussion. 

 

Ms. Terry explained that there was also a question by a Council member regarding the Planning Commission approval allowing for increasing the size of signage for any zoned lot in the TCOD.  She indicated that she worked with the Council member to explain that this language was specific to this application not to all properties within the TCOD.  She stated that she also explained that the Planning Commission is aware that they cannot change the zoning for the entire district, but simply just this parcel of land. 

 

Manager Stilwell stated that the Law Director also advised Council that they couldn’t discuss the signage for this application until they get to an appeal hearing, so they do not prejudice themselves when hearing the matter.  He explained that by definition they didn’t want to create a situation in the appeal process where they would be deliberating before they heard the evidence. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if any resident or the Village Manager can appeal decisions by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that anyone who testified as an interested party regarding the application could appeal the decision, or the Village Manager.  She also stated that an individual who felt that they were denied the right to speak can also appeal a decision by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission thanked Manager Stilwell and Ms. Terry for updating them regarding this matter.  Mr. Hawk indicated that he wouldn’t have known anything about a possible appeal had it not been for the Sentinel contacting him for a comment.   

 

Administrative Approval:

Ms. Terry stated she previously spoke with the Planning Commission regarding some applications that could be reviewed for administrative approval.  She indicated that she had a list of items that could be addressed.  The list included the following items: air conditioning unit placement, generator placement, driveway conversions, patio installation, step or stair conversions, some roof replacements and fencing.  Ms. Terry asked for feedback from the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission discussed that significant changes with roofs should not be handled administratively.  Ms. Terry agreed and stated that an example for administrative approval for a roof would be going from 3-tab asphalt shingles to dimensional asphalt shingles.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Ryan stated that if an application to change slate to asphalt shingles came in – this should go to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hawk suggested the approval of a consent agenda.  The Planning Commission agreed that professional staff could handle many approvals internally.  Manager Stilwell suggested that he work with staff on proposed text which could allow for administrative approvals.   

 

Adjournment:  7:55 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 6-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, August 22, 2011 (Mr. Burriss indicated that he will not be able to attend this meeting.)

Monday, September 12, 2011

GPC Minutes July 25, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 25, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None. 

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry.

Also Present: Tim Dobyns and Tom Linzell.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion and voting of Application #2011-89, Application #2011-90, and Application #2011-91 at 7:02 PM.

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-89

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Tom Linzell, and Tim Dobyns.

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture, representing the applicant Metropolitan Partners, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, stated that they would like to install a tenant panel sign where the existing freestanding monument sign is located.  Mr. Linzell explained that they would like the signage to match the style of the building.  He stated that the second tenant panel sign wording is yet to be determined.  Ms. Terry explained that the application would require multiple variances.  She stated that the signage requirements adopted for the Village Gateway District (VGD) was the same as the Suburban Business District (SBD) text.  She also explained that some of the required variances are a result of the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District) requirements and numerous variances have been granted in the past due to extreme nature of the TCOD requirements.  Ms. Terry stated that the text in this part of the code may need to be modified in the future for signage within the TCOD.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant needs to have a freestanding sign this large if they also are requesting a sign for the roof.  Mr. Ryan stated that he believes the presented size of the signage is too large.  Mr. Johnson asked why the signage for the VGD was not addressed when this area was rezoned for development.  Ms. Terry stated that the SBD text pertaining to signage was simply adopted for the VGD.  Mr. Linzell explained that they want the signage to fit with the building and the existing zoning requirements pertaining to signage would be too small when applied to this particular building.  Ms. Terry explained that the wall signage in the SBD is allowed to be 40 square feet and they do not specifically have a provision for roof signage so the sign was delegated (in a different application) under ‘projecting sign.’  She went on to say that the applicant is not presenting a typical projecting sign.  Mr. Ryan concurred that the TCOD language has always been overly restrictive when it comes to signage.  Mr. Ryan added that there is an existing sign already located at 1919 Lancaster Road and this freestanding sign was once located within the Township.  Mr. Linzell agreed that they want to utilize the existing sign with an added decorative cap on top.  Mr. Hawk indicated that one of the tenant panel signs is for Verizon and he asked if this would be a retail shop.  Mr. Linzell stated yes.  Mr. Hawk indicated that he shares his colleagues concerns and the presented signage is too large and it appears that the entrance to Granville is for Verizon.  Mr. Hawk stated that he could see having either the freestanding sign or the projecting roof sign, but not both.  Mr. Hawk also stated that the presented design for the freestanding signage is much better than what is currently at this location.  He added that the applicant is requesting a substantial variance.  Mr. Linzell stated that Verizon has indicated that they would need this signage in order to lease the space.  Mr. Ryan asked if the color requirements have been met for the signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the total square footage of the freestanding sign is an issue and would require a substantial variance.  Ms. Terry reviewed other signage in the area.  She stated that Ross' Granville Market has a sign that is 64 square feet per side and it is ten feet (10’) in height.  She went on to say that Ross' has another wall sign that is thirty-five (35) square feet and the Cherry Valley Office Complex sign is 41.41 square feet and is almost six (6’) feet high.  Ms. Terry indicated that the applicant’s sign is proposed to be a total of 54 square feet.  Ms. Terry also indicated that any changes that differ from the application for the tenant panels have to come back to the Planning Commission for approval.

 

Tim Dobyns, Metropolitan Partners, indicated that Metropolitan Partners is making the request for signage on the behalf of their tenant, Verizon.  He stated that Verizon has indicated that signage approval is required for them to finalize the lease agreement.  He stated that he is not sure if they have to have a monument sign and he questioned if the existing monument sign was part of the original annexation agreement and grandfathered in.  He stated that they realize that they need to come back for any updates to this sign.  Ms. Terry reviewed the annexation agreement and indicated that there is nothing in it that relates to the existing monument sign being grandfathered in.  Mr. Ryan questioned if corporate Verizon has stated that they need a particular size of signage.  Mr. Dobyns indicated that he only knows that they are sensitive to signage and he is unsure if this is from corporate or a franchisee.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels the freestanding signage is too big, especially when scalistically compared to other signage on this street.  Mr. Linzell questioned if the lighting that was previously approved for the building included the proposed ground lighting for the freestanding sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the lighting for the signage was not previously approved.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant would be agreeable to not approving the freestanding signage and approving only the roof signage.  Mr. Dobyns stated that they were assuming some variation of the freestanding sign would be allowed since it already exists on the property.  Mr. Linzell presented another drawing with a more simplified and smaller scaled version of the freestanding sign.  The Planning Commission unanimously preferred to look of this signage and labeled it as ‘Exhibit A.’ Ms. Terry indicated that the drawing depicts a freestanding sign that is shorter and a smaller version of the original proposal.  She stated that this example of the freestanding sign is much more in keeping with existing signage on the street, with a height of eight and a half (8 1/2') feet from the base, rather than the previously presented 12-foot high sign.  Ms. Terry indicated that the amended sign is 9’ by 6’ (54 square feet).  Mr. Burriss asked what would happen with the signage if there were to later be three tenants occupying the building.  Mr. Linzell indicated that they could fit three panels if they shifted the signage down.  Mr. Linzell also stated that at this time they anticipate two tenants, with Verizon occupying most of the structure.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the sign could be shrunk down more with the logo checkmark being moved to the side.  Mr. Ryan stated that moving the check mark would allow for a third tenant panel sign.  Mr. Linzell indicated that the signage depicted in ‘Exhibit A’ is virtually a new build sign, compared to using the existing signage that is already in place.  He questioned if the owner of the property would be in agreement to this change.  Mr. Hawk stated that the revised signage presented in ‘Exhibit A’ beats the alternative to losing the tenant panel sign.  Mr. Ryan agreed and stated that he would have a hard time approving the first sign that was presented. Mr. Hawk stated that he couldn’t support the first freestanding sign that was presented.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage in ‘Exhibit A’ is more consistent with the district.  Mr. Dobyns indicated that if ‘Exhibit A’ is what is preferred by the Planning Commission – they could live with this option.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Planning Commission generally requires there to be landscaping around any ground lighting for signs.  Ms. Terry indicated that the Planning Commission has required shielding, such as boxwoods, so the lighting does not impair passing traffic. 

 

Mr. Hawk indicated that the Planning Commission has previously required that the lighting be turned off at a particular time.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated that this is a less residential area, but there is also a “plethora of lighting proposed to be located in the parking lot.”  Mr. Johnson suggested that the lighting be turned off by 11:00 PM.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-89:

 

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.  Mr. Ryan indicated that this is a new zoning district with carried over sign language from the Suburban Business District.  Mr. Burriss stated that to some degree the property had an existing building with architectural elements that were not pleasing.  He added that the applicant has made substantial improvements to the property that pleases the Planning Commission.  He stated that the existing massing of the structure is unique to this property.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage compliments the proposed modifications to the structure.  Mr. Ryan added that the proposed sign is an improvement to the existing sign that is in place.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hawk agreed.     

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that without proper signage there would not be beneficial use of the property.    
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justified.  Mr. Johnson stated that what the Planning Commission is considering approving for signage is not substantial when compared to the Main Street Commerce Center.  The Planning Commission agreed that the TCOD requirements are too penalizing for business signage, thus requiring a variance.     

 

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission is trying for consistency by approving the requested variances. 

 

(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.  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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the owner of the property is applying for the signage, rather than the tenant. 

 

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 agreed that there are special conditions:  Landscaping for lighting and lighting turned off by 11:00 PM.     

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-89 with the following conditions:

1)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the Village Gateway District (VGD) from 77 square feet to 108 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

2)      To increase the maximum size in the Village Gateway District (VGD) for a freestanding sign along South Main Street from 40 square feet to 54 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

3)      To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the TCOD from 6 square feet to 108 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

4)       To increase the maximum size in the TCOD for a freestanding sign from 18 square feet to 54 square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

5)      To increase the maximum height in the TCOD for a freestanding sign from 6 feet to 8’6” feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign;

6)      Source of the lighting for the sign shall be screened with appropriate landscaping;

7)      That the lighting of the sign shall be limited to the hours of dusk to eleven (11:00 PM); and

8)      The approved sign shall be constructed per ‘Exhibit A.’

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-90

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a projecting sign on the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Tom Linzell, and Tim Dobyns. 

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture, representing the applicant Metropolitan Partners, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, stated that they would like to install a projecting sign on the building.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant would be increasing the total square footage of the signage to a 100 square foot sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if this signage is also a requirement made by Verizon.  Mr. Dobyns stated that they have asked them to request the signage before the Planning Commission this evening.  Mr. Burriss explained that the roof signage is the type of signage that the Planning Commission requested for the building design.  He indicated that he does have an issue with the presented height and size of the sign because it feels too big.  Mr. Ryan stated that he agreed.  Mr. Linzell stated that the tenant, Verizon, would be utilizing 2/3 to ¾ of the building and this is the reason for the difference in the size of the first sign compared to the second tenant wall sign.  Mr. Burriss stated that all of the tenant panels for Ross' Granville Market freestanding sign are the same size. 

 

He asked if the tenant would also be requesting signage for the windows or doors.  Mr.   Linzell stated that they are unsure and he questioned if approval is required for this type of signage.  Ms. Terry stated yes and neon signage must be artful in appearance.  Mr. Johnson stated that the height of the signage could be reduced and the Planning Commission was aware that signage for the structure would be on the roof.  Mr. Hawk stated that the presented size of the signage for the roof is contrary to what they envisioned for the building.  Mr. Linzell presented an amended drawing, which was labeled ‘Exhibit A’, showing an 80 square foot sign for the roof for Verizon.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he prefers the size of the Verizon sign in Exhibit A, but not the increased size of the unknown tenant sign for the second sign on the building.  He also questioned if there should be consistency in the style of graphics for both signs.  Mr. Ryan stated that this would be hard since they have approved other signs with logos in the past.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have also required the same font for signage on one building – for instance the signage located at 121-127 East Broadway.  Ms. Terry stated that if the applicant changes the font of the signage from what is presented they would need to come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment/revision.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would like to see the signage framed out.  Mr. Linzell stated that it is hard to see, but he did propose a two inch (2”) white border, but this could be increased to three inches (3”).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the border should be increased to three inches (3”) and this could be accomplished without increasing the total size of the sign.  Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be centered on the roof plane.  Mr. Linzell indicated that ‘Exhibit A’ does not show any move for the placement of sign on the roof and it would not be centered on the roof plane.  Mr. Linzell stated that overall height is impacted.  The Planning Commission indicated that the lighting for the signage should be turned off by 11:00 PM.  Mr. Hawk stated that this would be consistent with other lights for business signage.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-90:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss indicated that there is not another building within this district with a similar fashion and orientation of roof structure.  He stated that they are limited to placement for signage on the building due to wall space. 

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that this is a multi-commercial tenant building and the tenants need to be properly identified.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justified due to lack of an appropriate title (since the sign is not actually a projecting sign.)  Mr. Ryan indicated that the size of the signage is going from 108 square feet to 188 square feet.   

 

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated that with the variance the signage for this area would be consistent. 

 

(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.  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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 agreed that there are special conditions that include the addition of a three inch (3”) border for the sign and that the lighting for the sign be turned off by 11:00 PM nightly.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-90 with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zoned lot in the Village Gateway District from 108 square feet to 188.25 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign;

2)                  To increase the maximum size for a projecting sign in the Village Gateway District (VGD) from 10 square feet to 80.25 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign; and

3)                  That the proposed sign shall be per ‘Exhibit A.’

4)                  That the sign will have a 3” white border;

5)                  That the sign shall be turned off by eleven (11:00) PM.; and

6)                  That the sign will be no more than 14’ foot in total height.   

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-91

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign on the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Tom Linzell and Tim Dobyns.

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture representing the applicant Metropolitan Partners, 150 East Broad Street, Suite 100, Columbus, stated that they would like to install a wall sign on the building.  The Planning Commission agreed that they preferred the look and size of the sign from the picture that was submitted with the application.  The Planning Commission requested that the border of the sign be consistent with the other tenant sign for Verizon at three inches (3”).   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria for a Variance during their discussion of Application #2011-91:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the fenestration pattern of the building limits the available wall space for signage.  

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated that scalistically the sign is appropriate for the building and the tenants need signage to be successful.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial, but justifiably so.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the increase in square footage is going from 188 to 228.   

 

(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).  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.  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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 agreed that there are special conditions that include the addition of a three inch (3”) border for the sign and that the lighting for the sign be turned by 11:00 PM nightly.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-91 with the following conditions:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on any zone lot in the Village Gateway District (VGD) from 108 square feet to 188.25 square feet to 228.85 square feet to allow for the installation of a wall sign;

2)                  That the sign lighting will be turned off by eleven (11:00) PM; and

3)                  That the sign will have a 3” white border;

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

Other Business:

This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed Zoning Code revisions. 

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Permit & Application Fees, Exhibit A, to amend the various development and zoning related fees. 

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Terry presented the potential fee changes that were discussed by the Planning and Zoning Committee.

 

Appeal Hearing Fee:

Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning and Zoning Committee discussed the Planning Commission’s previous recommendation on increasing the appeal charge because of expenses incurred by the Village that are not covered with the existing $150 fee.  Ms. Terry explained that the Village currently charges $150 for appeals and she is aware of at least one situation where someone wanting to file an appeal changed their mind after they found out that there is a fee to do so.  Ms. Terry stated that the amount of the fee for an appeal hearing was not brought up at the Planning and Zoning meeting.  Ms. Terry reviewed the fees that the Village incurs when an appeal is filed.  She stated that they send notices and they have the cost of postage and advertising associated with the application.  She also stated that they typically hire a court reporter for the appeal hearing and this can be about $500-$600, depending on the length of the hearing, and they incur additional attorney costs that are not included in the law director retainer fee.  Mr. Ryan asked who could file an appeal.  Ms. Terry stated 1) the applicant; 2) anyone interested party who testifies before the Planning Commission regarding the application; 3) any person who requested the right to speak on an application but was denied the right to speak by the Planning Commission; and 4) the Village Manager could file an appeal.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that Council does not want to “shut the door” and make fees that discourage filing an appeal.  She added that they also need to be careful to cover all expenses.  Mr. Johnson stated that he feels that all costs incurred by the Village regarding the filing of an appeal ought to be covered by the person filing.  He suggested that the fee should be around $500 and this still wouldn’t cover all of the costs incurred when an appeal is filed.  The Planning Commission also discussed a fee of $300, but ultimately decided to recommend $500 to Village Council as an appropriate amount for filing an appeal.      

 

Construction Inspection Fee:

Ms. Terry stated that municipalities generally require special inspections for commercial or industrial work involving utility work.  She stated that this is generally in terms of a deposit that would be refunded to the contractor if it were not entirely used.  Mr. Johnson stated that he has seen other municipalities require a contractor to hire an independent inspector, after being provided a list by that City, to provide these services prior to obtaining a permit.  Ms. Terry clarified that the percentage suggested in the fee chart is 6% of the total construction cost for utility inspections (i.e. water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm water improvements, roadways) and any remaining balance would go back to the contractor.  Mr. Johnson stated that any overdraft ought to also be billable by the Village.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend the proposed zoning fees be approved by Village Council, with the exception of the appeal charge being changed to $500 and the Construction Inspection fee rate to be 6% (with any remaining balance going back to the contractor and any overdraft billable.)  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Mitchell was not present to vote.  He indicated to Ms. Terry earlier in the meeting that he did not have any issues with the zoning fee recommendations as presented in his packet.) 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-89: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-89 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-89. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-90: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-90 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-90. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-91: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-91 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-91. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 11, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from July 11, 2011 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Johnson recused himself.)

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  (Mr. Mitchell had left the Planning Commission meeting during discussion under ‘New Business.’)    

 

Next meetings:

Monday, August 8, 2011 (Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that she cannot attend this meeting.)

Monday, August 22, 2011 (Mr. Ryan indicated that he may not be able to attend this meeting.)

GPC Minutes July 11, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 11, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Tom Mitchell, and Jack Burriss.

Members Absent:  Jeremy Johnson and Councilmember O’Keefe. 

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Deb Walker.

Also Present: Russell & Amy Hall, Mark Clapsadle, Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert, Erik Klemetti, Susan Glover, Steve Herb, Sara Lee, Mary Thurlow-Collen, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

331 Spellman Street – Russell & Amy Hall - Application #2011-76

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a of a new brick paver in the side and rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Russell & Amy Hall.

 

Russell Hall, 331 Spellman Street, stated that they would like to replace a deck with a brick patio.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell questioned what the pillars would look like.  Ms. Hall stated that the pillars would be built from the pavers and they would be a basic square.  Mr. Mitchell asked how high the pillars would be.  Ms. Walker stated thirty-eight (38”) inches.  Mr. Hawk asked why the drawing doesn’t show the pillars to be of equal distance.  Mr. Hall clarified that the seating wall would be between the pillars. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-76:

 

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 application is consistent with other similar applications 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 project is more uniform than the existing multi-leveled deck. 

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 because the livability of the home is enhanced. 

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 material is more appropriate than the multi-level wood decking currently in place.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-76 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

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

 

86 Fairview Avenue – Walter Palawsky & Denise Landman - Application #2011-67

Suburban Residential District B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story addition on the western side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated that he is representing the homeowners, as the architect for the project.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that they are looking at an extension of the current spaces to accommodate more of a family atmosphere.  He explained that there is the possibility of eliminating some of the bedroom to expand the closet and he would be using all of the materials originally used on the home.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that he designed the original home in 2004 and would reuse some of the windows being torn out. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that the height of the structure would require a variance from the BZBA because it's taller than the allowable 30 foot height requirement.  She went on to say that the file shows that a previous variance was given for the original height of the house, but since this is an addition – another variance is required.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is a basement.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes that there is a finished basement.  Mr. Burriss asked if the existing basement has fire egress windows.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that he would be eliminating the two windows on the west side, but the bedroom on the southeast corner would remain and there are egress windows in this location.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have a problem with the proposed building massing.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-77:

 

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 addition is similar to other approvals in the same 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 materials are 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 proposal. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that historically appropriate materials are proposed in a historically appropriate way.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-77 contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance for height from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

317 East Maple Street – Steve & Elizabeth Gaubert - Application #2011-78

Suburban Residential District B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a first floor rear addition, second story western side addition, shed roof dormers on the second story of the front elevations, new double hung windows and skylights in eastern side.  He stated that he would also be reworking some of the windows on the west side of the home.     

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mark Clapsadle.

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, indicated that he is representing the homeowner, as the architect for the plans.  Mr. Clapsadle stated that the expansion would include a much needed closet, bathroom, and more living space for the bedrooms with the added dormers.  Mr. Mitchell asked if all of the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the shed dormers are an equal distance from the roof on both ends.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss discussed the proposed location for the skylights.  Mr. Clapsadle explained that these were added to the plan for additional light, but they could eliminate one if need be.  Mr. Clapsadle explained that the skylights would be low in the room.  Mr. Mitchell asked if they would be using solar tubes.  Mr. Clapsadle stated no.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposed building massing.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-78:

 

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 project is consistent with other projects 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 addition has architectural details visible from the street that are appropriate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that approval of the application contributes to the vitality and livability of the home. 

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 #2011-78 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

425 North Granger Street – Erik Klemetti & Susan Glover - Application #2011-80

Suburban Residential District-B (SRB-B)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the demolition of a wooden garage with attached shed.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Erik Klemetti.

 

Discussion:

Erik Klemetti, 425 North Granger Street, stated that he would like to remove a deteriorating structure and replace it with a grassy area and a small shed.  Mr. Ryan asked if the shed would have a foundation.  Mr. Klemetti stated that it would be secured down, but not on a permanent foundation like concrete. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-80:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission concluded TRUE. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission concluded TRUE. 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighboring property or community in general.  The Planning Commission concluded TRUE.    

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  The Planning Commission concluded TRUE. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-80 to Village Council as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner- Application #2011-84

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a of a greenhouse addition on the rear of the accessory structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion: Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, stated that the proposed greenhouse would be made from a vintage greenhouse and reclaimed materials.  He went on to say that sandstone would be used for the foundation and the structure would have two new two-panel doors.  Mr. Reiner stated that the size of the structure would be 11.5 foot high at the ridge and 8.5 feet high at the eave.  Ms. Terry stated that this application would require variances from the BZBA for full approval.  Mr. Hawk questioned why approval for this came after approval was given for the accessory structure.  Mr. Reiner stated that this was because he was unsure if he wanted a pergola or a greenhouse.  Mr. Reiner also  stated that he has spoken with all of his neighbors and he didn’t receive any negative feedback.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant would be heating the greenhouse.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  He also stated that you couldn’t see the structure from the neighbor’s homes due to the existing hedges.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if the air conditioning unit is existing.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated three variances are required from the BZBA for lot coverage, east and west side variances, and the rear yard variance.  The Planning Commission indicated that they did not have any issues with the proposed building massing.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-84:

 

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 greenhouse is stylistically compatible.    

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that structure is compatible with the existing structures on the property.

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 from the proposed greenhouse.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-84 contingent upon the approval of the required variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

329 East College Street – Sara Lee and Mary Thurlow-Collen- Application #2011-87

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition above the second story. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry and Sara Lee.

 

Discussion: Sara Lee, 124 Cherry Street, stated she would like to add an addition above the existing second floor.  Ms. Terry indicated that a variance would be required to add a second story addition.  She further explained that the first floor is grandfathered and there is not any record of a variance in the file.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant needs an additional variance even if there was one on file because they are still building the structure up.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is trying to match the addition to the  existing exterior.  Ms. Lee stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed chimney in the plans is to code.  He indicated that the proposed chimney looks low and there are specific rules for the code on this and the applicant may want to look into this.  The Planning Commission did not indicate any problems with the proposed building massing for the addition.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-87:

 

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 addition is consistent with other additions in the same zoning 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 continuity of the 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 from the proposed addition.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-87 contingent on the applicant receiving the required variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-76: Russell & Amy Hall; 331 Spellman Street; Patio

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 approval of Application #2011-76 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-76. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-77: Walter Palawsky & Denise Landman; 86 Fairview Ave.; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-77 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-77. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-78: Steve and Elizabeth Gaubert; 317 East Maple Street; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-78 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-78. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-80: Erik Klemetti & Susan Glover; 425 North Granger Street; Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition and hereby recommends approval of Application #2011-80 to the Village Council as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-80. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-84: Kevin Reiner; 219 West Broadway; Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-84 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-84. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-87: Sara Lee and Mary Thurlow-Collen; 329 East College; Addition

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 #2011-87 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-87. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the absence of Jeremy Johnson from the July 11, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 27, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 27, 2011 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 25, 2011

Monday, August 8, 2011

GPC Minutes June 27, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 27, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Deb Walker.

Also Present: Dan Rogers, Barb Franks, Max Rogers, Christian Robertson, Jim Patin, Anne Aubourg, Josh Brader, Perry Watson, Mary Morales-Rivera, Ed and Donna Jenkins, Noah Brader, Laura Hunt, Cynthia Cort, Brian Miller, Sam Sagaria, and Flo Hoffman.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

115 East Broadway – Granville Historical Society - Application #2011-64

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story rear addition; and

review and approval of a Change of Use, as a similar use, to Category “F”: Clubs,

sororities, fraternities, lodges, and meeting places to allow for the two-story addition and

museum expansion.

 

Jeremy Johnson recused himself from hearing/voting on Application #2011-64 at 7:04

PM. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Flo Hoffman, Laura Hunt, and Anne Aubourg.

 

Laura Hunt, 88 Arden Place, Hebron, indicated that she is the project architect for the Granville Historical Society addition.  She stated that they came in for a work session with the Planning Commission and the applicant has attempted to implement the suggestions that were given to them.  Mr. Burriss stated that he appreciates the development and reflection shown in the plan from the work session discussions.  Mr. Burriss stated that he was surprised to see the fire escape, as this was not in the original plan.  Ms. Hunt stated that by building code there has to be two exits.  She stated that they originally looked at having another inside staircase for an exit, but this took up too much interior space – making the main level almost useless.  Mr. Burriss clarified if the fire escape would be located in the alley next to the park.  Ms. Hunt stated yes.  Mr. Burriss clarified that this is a pedestrian alley.  Ms. Hunt indicated that the roof shingles on the fire escape would match the roof shingles on the main structure.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there was any functional reason why the fire escape stairway couldn’t move further back on the eastern elevation towards the back parking lot.  Ms. Hunt stated that there was not a functional reason as to why the stairs couldn’t move further back.  Mr. Burriss stated that the overhang for the roof at the top of the stairs disturbs the gable roof line from the front of the structure.  He questioned if the stairs could move back about six feet.  Flo Hoffman stated that the archives storage room is located in the area where the emergency exit would be located and they have minimal space for the archives.  She questioned if the stairway would disturb the shelving.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the stairs could be moved in a way that could actually create additional wall space for the shelving.  Mr. Hawk asked what type of shelving they would be using for the archives.  Cynthia Cort stated that they would be using standard metal shelving.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the  door should line up with the window and this would improve the look of the side elevation.  Mr. Burriss stated that the presented location for the fire escape seems to interfere with the thought process for the look from the front of the building.  Ms. Hunt stated that she did not see a problem in lining up the door with the window.  Mr. Mitchell stated that overall the application looks good and the applicant did all of the suggestions that were previously discussed in the work session.  Mr. Burriss questioned the intention for the ground surface under the fire escape.  Ms. Cort stated that this would be concrete and they hope to locate the trashcans there.  Ms. Cort stated that they are unable to locate the trashcans inside of the building because of code, and the stairwell would be the next alternative location.   Mr. Burriss stated that this is a narrow pedestrian area and the applicant will want to keep trash from collecting in the stairwell area.  He asked what type of stairs is being proposed.  Ms. Hunt stated that they are considering see through metal.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant has any examples of the proposed railing.  Ms. Hunt stated no, but they could get this to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss questioned how the space between the canopy and the stairs would be handled with the overhang.  Ms. Hunt stated that there would be a space.  Mr. Burriss asked how icicles in the gap would be addressed.  Ms. Hunt explained that the roof will not have any vertical slope, but it will slope away from this area.  Mr. Burriss asked where the downspouts would be located.  Ms. Hunt stated that the drawing labeled June 15th shows the location of the downspouts.  Mr. Burriss also noted that by moving the door, this will allow the stone quoins to show up better at the corner.  There was no objection by the Planning Commission to building massing.  Ms. Terry indicated that no signage for the applicant has been presented for approval, even though it has been shown on the drawing.  Ms. Terry also stated that the applicant has received the required variances for parking and setbacks from the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals.  Ms. Terry explained that this application also has a Change of Use request because the current use is a grandfathered use which is not a permitted or a conditional use.  She also explained that the code requirements for a Change of Use approval has been changed by the Village Council, but is not yet in effect.  The Planning Commission had no objection to the Change of Use request to Category ‘F’ by the Granville Historical Society.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-64:

 

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 application is consistent with other applications 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 expansion of the Granville Historical Society is consistent.     

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district continues with the Historical Society by preserving the historical nature of Granville.    

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Historical Society has proposed a design for the expansion that protects and enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations have lived.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-64 with modifications to the east elevation per Exhibits ‘A’ and ‘B’ and that they found the Change of Use request to be similar to Category ‘F’.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

Jeremy Johnson rejoined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:28 PM. 

 

209 West Broadway – Robert Hill - Application #2011-67

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the conversion of a gravel driveway to concrete and a concrete patio addition in the rear yard.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Robert Hill.

 

Discussion:

Robert Hill, 209 West Broadway, thanked Alison Terry and Deb Walker for their help in his application request.  He stated that he already has an existing driveway back to the garage and he is not requesting additional width or length just a change in material.  He indicated that he would also like to add an additional cement pad in the back for a back yard patio.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant meets all of the setback requirements and lot coverage requirements. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-67:

 

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 driveway is consistent with other driveways in this 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 driveway appearance would be enhanced with a better presentation.  

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-67 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

230 East Broadway – Noah Brader - Application #2011-68

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Noah and Josh Brader.

 

Discussion:

Noah Brader, 230 East Broadway, indicated that he would like a freestanding sign for a family owned mortgage company he is opening in Granville at 230 East Broadway.  Mr. Brader stated that the posts would be wood and the actual sign would be made from high-density urethane.  He added that they are not proposing any landscaping or lighting.  Mr. Ryan questioned what would happen with the sign that is currently there (projecting sign).  Mr. Brader stated that this would stay and they didn’t want to hang their sign with the other signage.  Mr. Ryan asked if the setback requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant had considered wood instead of the high-density urethane.  Mr. Brader stated that they looked at wood, but the sign company (Columbus Sign Company) indicated that a wood sign would be more maintenance and would need to be painted yearly. 

 

Ms. Terry asked if the sign would be a matte or shiny finish.  Mr. Brader stated it would be a shiny finish.  Mr. Johnson asked if the sign would be two back-to-back signs.  Mr. Brader stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant considered having the posts further apart with the picture framing the sign with the post.  He further indicated that this would be similar to other signage on this side of the street.  Mr. Brader stated that this is a good suggestion.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has indicated that the sign would be one foot from the ground and this would not be very visible.  Mr. Mitchell stated that sixty inches to the top of the post seems more appropriate.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-68:

 

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 would be consistent with other signage in the same zoning 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 signage is appropriate with the recommended changes encouraged by the Planning Commission this evening. 

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 agreed if the proposed changes by the Planning Commission are done.    

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-68 with the modification according to Exhibit ‘A’ with the maximum height to be sixty inches (60”).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

327 North Pearl Street – Edward and Donna Jenkins - Application #2011-69

Suburban Residential District-B (SRB-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of a deck in the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Ed Jenkins.

 

Discussion:

Ed Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, indicated that he would like to install a rear deck.  Mr. Jenkins stated that they would like to put gothic style finials on the posts, as this matches the existing house.  Mr. Jenkins explained that the deck goes away from the house and it would meet the grade so it is not above ground.  Mr. Jenkins stated that the balusters will be stained white and medium gray to contrast with the house.  Mr. Ryan asked if the lot coverage requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the deck would be located within the corner boards of the house.  Mr. Jenkins stated yes.  He also stated that a previous owner directed water away from the house. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-69:

 

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 deck is similar to other decks 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 deck detailing is 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 deck encourages the utilization of exterior space.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-69 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche - Application #2011-30 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a change in the color of the umbrellas for orange to striped for the previously approved sidewalk café area. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, was present to address any questions by the Planning Commission. She indicated that she would like to change the umbrella that was originally proposed and the new umbrella would have stripes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed umbrella coordinated with the existing façade.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated that the umbrellas compliment the colors on the existing façade.  Mr. Burriss asked if the umbrellas will match the existing furniture.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated that the furniture is black.  Mr. Ryan asked if the umbrellas are all the same size.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated that there are four (4) umbrellas and they are all five foot (5’).  Mr. Morales-Rivera left the meeting to get one of the umbrellas to show to the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the submitted color of the umbrellas in the paperwork does not resemble the actual umbrella colors.  The Planning Commission discussed that they do not approve building colors, but they have approved the design of awnings for buildings and they have approved the design of furniture for outdoor cafes.  Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed umbrellas are not a permanent fixture.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed umbrellas are not the same style as other umbrellas in the district.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is ok with the stripes on the umbrellas.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would like to ensure that the color scheme for the building and the colors in the stripe do not detract from the look of the building.  After viewing the umbrella, the Planning Commission agreed that the stripe and colors would not detract from the look of the building.     

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-30 AMENDED:

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 they have approved multiple colored awnings in the past.    

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 from the proposed use of the umbrellas.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-30 AMENDED as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, Hawk, Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

121 South Prospect Street – Barb Franks & Dan Rogers - Application #2011-38

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a portion of the northwest corner of the structure to create a forty-five degree angle adjacent to the driveway area.  This application was previously tabled at the May 9, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Dan Rogers, Barb Franks (arrived later and was sworn in), Perry Watson, Max Rogers, and Sam Sagaria.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2011-38 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.   

 

Discussion:

Dan Rogers, 230 East Maple Street, stated that he would like to cut the corner of the primary structure for safety reasons.  He stated that previous testimony has been given regarding multiple accidents in his driveway.  Mr. Ryan asked what the plans are for the roof above the area where the corner would be taken off.  Mr. Rogers stated nothing would change.  He went on to say that nothing would be affected on the inside and the roofline would stay exactly as it is.  Mr. Ryan asked about the existing vent.  Mr. Rogers stated that the vent will stay as it is.  Mr. Ryan asked how the corner would be built back.  Mr. Rogers stated that he would be using the existing siding that is there.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the applicant would be cutting into the window.  Mr. Rogers stated no and the trim on the window would stay.  Mr. Johnson asked if the light would stay.  Mr. Rogers stated that the light is there for safety reasons.  He added that there have been numerous accidents and the presence of a bollard, as previously mentioned by the Planning Commission, would accomplish nothing. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that he sees the struggle in approving this application coming when they have to review and meet the AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District) criteria.  He stated that cutting off a portion of a historical structure in the historical district would be considered a demolition.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has not illustrated to the Planning Commission exactly what he would be doing.  He explained that they require other applicants to provide elevations or drawings showing exactly what the structure will look like.  He stated for instance, will the window remain as is and they need a drawing depicting this.  Mr. Rogers indicated that he feels as though he is being hassled, while other people “are rubber stamped for approval.”  Mr. Burriss stated that they are not asking more from him than what they require from any other applicant.  Mr. Rogers stated that he would be willing to come to a future meeting to provide more details to the Planning Commission. 

 

Dr. Perry Watson, 121 South Prospect Street, stated that he would like to provide testimony that his patients have been affected by this driveway and the hazard in getting through without causing damage to a car.  He read aloud a police report, prepared by officer Scott King, about an incident that happened several months ago to a patient.  He stated that he is at the meeting requesting better access and to represent his patients.  He stated that the current setup is not good. 

 

Max Rogers, stated that his wife, Kathy, is a patient of Dr. Watson’s.  He stated that she has a medical issue with her knee and he has had to park next to the door to allow her to crawl in the office because she cannot walk.  He stated that he once tried to get through the driveway and did $1,077 worth of damage to his car.  He stated that if the flower box was not there this wouldn’t be a problem.  He later indicated that if the corner of the building was altered, this might help with allowing cars to pass through easier. 

 

Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant has determined that cutting off the corner of the primary structure would fully solve the problem.  Mr. Rogers stated that it would help immensely and ease the problem drastically.  Mr. Ryan questioned that if sixteen inches were cut off, what would happen if this doesn’t completely solve the problem.  Mr. Rogers stated that cutting off sixteen inches at the corner of the structure would solve the problem to his satisfaction.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant would later request that additional inches be taken off.  Mr. Rogers stated no.  

 

Barb Franks, 230 East Maple Street, stated that this is a safety issue.  She stated that she is tired of seeing cars get destroyed in her driveway.  

 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated that the driveway has historically been used to allow the ingress/egress of a few cars a day and not 40-50 cars that the applicant would like to have pass through. 

 

He stated that there has been testimony from Dr. Avery and others that 40-50 cars have never utilized this driveway.  Mr. Sagaria stated that a car can make it through and the turning radius is fine.  He indicated that the flower boxes are there because the court indicated that he can place them in this location and they will remain there.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he has seen Mr. Rogers and Ms. Franks come and go without any incident on this driveway.  He also stated that the damage to Ms. Frank’s structure was there when he purchased his property.  He stated that there could have been incidents that occurred after he purchased his property, but he is not sure.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he is concerned with safety and the driveway as it is today helps to calm the speed.  He went on to say that there are three areas of safety:  entering and exiting onto South Prospect Street because there are children and pedestrians often present.  He stated that someone could get hit and in fact, Mr. Rogers has come close to hitting him several times.  Mr. Rogers denied that this was true.   Mr. Sagaria stated that a 2x4 flipped up and hit him when someone drove by.  He stated that the intent for the driveway is for a small number of vehicles per day and that “this is a case of deceit by the applicant.” 

 

Barb Franks indicated that she watches someone ruin their front fender once a week on this driveway.  She stated that there is no other issue here except safety.  She stated that the Planning Commission is “propagating this by allowing this.”  Ms. Franks abruptly left the Planning Commission meeting. 

 

Mr. Rogers stated that “speed is not the issue, deceit is not the issue, but safety is the issue.”  Mr. Rogers stated that he drives slowly in this area and still does damage to his vehicle. 

 

Sam Sagaria stated that he has witnessed Mr. Rogers and Ms. Franks drive through this area without incident. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission needs to be shown how Mr. Rogers wants to cut off the building and they need an elevation drawing depicting those changes.  He added that they need the dimensions, materials, color, details, etc. 

 

Mr. Rogers stated that he would get this information and come back to the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that this was the exact same meeting that they had the last time and it got tabled the last time.  He added that he sees no reason to table the application and he is prepared to vote on the application this evening.  He stated that it could be that there is just not reasonable access to this building.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is not sure that they need additional information.  Mr. Ryan added that he is not sure he could say TRUE/YES to most of the criteria they follow in Section 1161.02, such as "is this proposal stylistically compatible with other renovated structures in the district."  

 

Mr. Rogers stated that the other side of his structure has the corner altered.  Mr. Ryan stated that the structure was most likely built this way.  He questioned if this is a demolition to the structure.  Mr. Rogers argued that this is not a demolition and he requested to Table the application so he could get additional information to the Planning Commission.  

 

Mr. Hawk moved to Table Application #2011-38.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (no). 

Motion carried 3-2.   

 

121 South Prospect Street – Barb Franks & Dan Rogers - Application #2011-70

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with a standing seam metal roof in a bright red color. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Dan Rogers.

 

Discussion:

Dan Rogers, 230 East Maple Street, stated that the roof for the primary structure would be the same roof that is on the barn.   Mr. Ryan stated that the roof that was put on the barn was not what was approved by the Planning Commission.  He explained that there was a revision with the roof being built up and this differed from what was submitted with the application.  Mr. Rogers stated that he hand built this to take out the sag.  Mr. Ryan questioned how the standing seam would go on the roof for the primary structure and would all of the trim boards be the same.  Mr. Rogers stated that the cornering would be just like the barn with one piece wrapped on the edge.  Mr. Burriss stated that the roof structure on the house is more complicated and the house has gables and peaks that are not present on the barn.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission needs a simple drawing on how the roof will appear at the ridges of gables, valleys, trim, etc. He asked the applicant to give the Planning Commission a drawing to illustrate the details.  Mr. Rogers indicated that he would like this application tabled and he would get additional information to the Planning Commission.  He added that he does not feel that there is much he can add because he is proposing exactly what he has done on the barn.    

 

Mr. Burris made a motion to Table Application #2011-70.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-64: Granville Historical Society; 115 East Broadway; 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, Chapter 1163, Off-street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-64 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-64. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Johnson (abstain), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-67: Robert Hill; 209 West Broadway; New Concrete Drive and Patio Addition

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 #2011-64 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-67. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-68: Noah Brader; 230 East Broadway; Freestanding 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-68 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-68. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-69: Edward and Donna Jenkins; 327 North Pearl Street; Rear Patio

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-69 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-69. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Application #2011-39 AMENDED: Day Y Noche; 134 East Broadway; Sidewalk Café Modification

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 #2011-39 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-39 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 13, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from June 13, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Burriss abstained.   

 

Adjournment:  8:55 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 11, 2011 (Jeremy Johnson indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.) 

Monday, July 25, 2011

GPC Minutes June 13, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 13, 2011

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Jack Burris.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Also Present: David and Lynne Kishler, Art Chonko, Mary Morales-Rivera, Nick Schott, and Jordan Katz.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

900 North Loop – Denison University - Application #2011-56

Institutional District (ID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to Chamberlin Lodge,

to allow for new dormitory housing.

 

Jeremy Johnson recused himself from hearing/voting on Application #2011-56 at 7:04

PM. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko.

 

Art Chonko, P.O. Box F, indicated that they would like to renovate the old fraternity house for apartment style housing.  Ms. Terry stated that a part of the structure would be removed and then an addition would go on.  Mr. Mitchell noted that the Planning Commission doesn’t have any jurisdiction over what the building looks like.  Ms. Terry added that the proposed structure meets all setback requirements. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-56 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

Jeremy Johnson rejoined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:08 PM. 

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche - Application #2011-56

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:  Ms. Morales-Rivera was not present at the beginning of the meeting.  Her application was tabled and heard after Application #2011-56.  This was a change to the distributed agenda. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2011-52 because the applicant was not present.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2011-52 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, stated that she was present to address any questions by the Planning Commission. She indicated that she is presenting a light gray background with orange and purple lettering.  She indicated that the proposed size is 20 feet x 2 feet, for a total of 40 square feet, and this would be an increase in the maximum size allowed at 34.5 square feet.  Ms. Terry stated that previous signage on the building did not have a variance and it was the same size that Ms. Morales-Rivera is proposing.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the new sign would be placed in the same location as the Victoria’s signage.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated yes.  Furthermore, she indicated that she is not proposing any lighting for the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-52:

 

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  Mr. Ryan stated that the proposed sign would fit in the existing framework that exists for prior signage on the building.

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Johnson stated that it would be difficult to identify the business without the signage.   
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Mr. Ryan added that there would be no detriment caused from the proposed sign variance. 

 

(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.  Ms. Moralis stated that the property is leased.     

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed that the character of the building would be changed with a different size sign. 

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 #2011-56:

 

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 proposed signage is consistent with signage for other businesses in the vicinity. 

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 historical character is upgraded by the proposed signage.   

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 from the proposed signage.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposed materials are appropriate. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-56 as submitted with the requested variance to increase the maximum size of a wall sign from 34.5 square feet to 40 square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

Tom Mitchell recused himself from hearing/voting on Application #2011-59 at 7:20 PM because he is the applicant. 

 

303 South Main Street – Tom Mitchell - Application #2011-59

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)        Stone retaining wall along the northern and eastern front yards and southern side yard;

2)         New black iron fencing in the northern and eastern front yards;

3)        Replacing four (4) aluminum storm doors & windows with four (4) new wood storm doors & windows;

4)        Replacing 3-tab asphalt shingle roof with synthetic slate roof & copper flashings;

5)        New brick paver patio in the southern side yard;

6)         Replacing gravel driveway with new brick driveway; and

7)         Installing a new gas yard light in the northern front yard.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Tom Mitchell, 303 South Main Street, stated that it is his intent that this application will take care of all of the exterior modifications to be done to the house.  Mr. Johnson asked if the retaining wall would be dry stacked.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant would be cutting into the landscaping.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the person doing the work would excavate a little back from the sidewalk and the old gravel driveway is a base for the brick to go on top.  Mr. Johnson asked if the steps in the back would be the same as the steps in the front.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes and they would be a cut stone.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is proposing a synthetic slate for the roof.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-60:

 

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 materials and use of detail are stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been 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. Johnson stated that the applicant is proposing architectural detailing that is appropriate to 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. Johnson stated that the applicant is protecting the physical surroundings with the appropriate use of details. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-60 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Mr. Mitchell rejoined the Planning Commission meeting at 7:26 PM. 

 

327 West Elm Street – David and Lynne Kishler - Application #2011-60

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new wood white picket fence on

the eastern side of the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Lynne Kishler.

 

Discussion:

Lynne Kishler, 327 West Elm Street, indicated that the new fence would match the existing fencing on the other three sides.  She stated that they are proposing the same style fence and it would be finished on both sides.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the existing fence has the finished side towards the neighbors.  Ms. Kishler stated yes and this would continue with the new fence. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-60:

 

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. Ryan stated that the expansion matches an existing fence.  

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-60 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

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

 

660 West Broadway – Nick and Melanie Schott - Application #2011-62

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for review and approval of a lot split. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Nick Schott. 

 

Discussion:

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated that property he owns to the west of 660 West Broadway would provide access to the lot that is being split off in the rear.  He indicated that there is a driveway easement in place and he is installing a mound of dirt on the new lot split line where eleven foot pine trees would be planted for a barrier.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant had received the required variance to reduce the lot frontage.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant received a variance from the BZBA to reduce the required road frontage from sixty feet to zero.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the easement is in use today.  Mr. Schott stated that he recently worked with an attorney to prepare the easement.  Mr. Mitchell questioned accessibility to the lot owned by Amy Krajewski.  He asked why the easement goes up to this lot.  Ms. Terry stated that the lot owned by Ms. Krajewski is landlocked, but that there is access to the lot from Ms. Krajewski's lot in Wildwood, and this lot originally was part of the property located at 664 West Broadway, but it was later subdivided.  Mr. Schott stated that the easement goes this far to provide an optimal driveway location.  He added that the easement allows him more flexibility for the placement of the driveway, garage, and home location.  Mr. Schott stated that this was suggested by the survey company.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-62 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

 

 

 

229 Cherry Street – Jordan and Cecile Katz - Application #2011-63

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new roof and added gutters.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Jordan Katz.

 

Discussion:

Jordan Katz, 229 Cherry Street, indicated that he would like to install Owens Corning estate gray shingles.   He also stated that they would be adding gutters where there currently aren’t any around the porch.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-63:

 

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 proposed roof is stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been 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. Johnson stated that the applicant is proposing an upgrade to 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-63 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-56: Day Y Noche; 134 East Broadway; Wall 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, Chapter 1147, Variances, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-56 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-56.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-57: Denison University; 900 North Loop; Building Addition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1167, Institutional District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-57 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-57. Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Johnson (abstain), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-59: Tom Mitchell; 303 South Main Street; Site Improvements

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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-59 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-59.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (abstain), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-60: David and Lynne Kishler; 327 Elm Street; Fence

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, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications., and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-60 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-60.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-62: Nick and Melanie Schott; 660 West Broadway; Lot Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval, and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-62 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-62.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-63: Jordan and Cecile Katz; Street; 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 #2011-63 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-63.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 6, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from June 6, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. Mr. Hawk abstained.   

 

Motion to approve absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Mitchell moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting on June 13, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 27, 2011

Monday, July 11, 2011 (Jeremy Johnson indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)  

GPC Minutes June 6, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 6, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Michael King.

Also Present: Bryon Reed, Brian Miller, Herach Naarian, Jane Wilken, Richard Crawford, and David Johnson.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

200 North Mulberry Street – Denison University - Application #2011-44

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a concrete walk

and steps with stone pavers from the southern entrance to the College Street sidewalk.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Jane Wilken, 474 Glyn Tawel Drive, stated that she is representing Denison University for the proposed changes noted in the application.  Ms. Wilken stated that the proposal for a new sidewalk is in character with the rest of the architecture on the home.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the proposed walkway material is slippery.  Ms. Wilken stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-44:

 

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 changes with the sidewalk are consistent with other sidewalks in the Village. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

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 from the proposed change.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposed materials are appropriate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-44 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

384 East Broadway – Terra Nova Partners - Application #2011-46

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new single family structure on

Lot 1. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Herach Nazarian, David Johnson, and Bryon Reed.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Terra Nova Partners, stated that they are submitting their plans for approval for the two structures located where the parking lot is next to the Granville Inn.  He stated that the work session with the Planning Commission was very beneficial to them and they were able to modify some of the elevations and receive feedback on architectural detailing.  Mr. Reed stated that they are moving both homes up because of the driveway and in return they hope to save all of the pine trees between them and the York Apartments in the rear.  Mr. Reed indicated that once they surveyed the property they became aware that there is much more right of way than what was originally anticipated.  He stated that they only needed 38 feet and this would align them with the Granville Inn.  Mr. Reed stated that they originally applied for 55 feet for the right of way.  Ms. Terry stated that she and staff took measurements of the height for adjacent properties – Granger Street apartments, the school administration building, College Townhouse apartments, and the Granville Inn.  She indicated that they did not take measurements for the single family homes across the street because she didn’t think they would be taller than the measurements that were taken.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant did modify the proposed height of their structures to meet code requirements.  She added that this height is much more appropriate to the rest of the house and this was a modification from the original staff report.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant originally had proposed a seven foot (7’) vinyl fence, which they reduced to six feet (6’) to meet code requirements.  Furthermore, she stated that the proposed trellis at nine foot (9’) was removed because of it being within the side yard setback.  Mr. Johnson questioned the calculation for the height measurement to get an average.  Ms. Terry noted a mistake in the staff report, and indicated that the height can be within 10% overage and the applicant would still meet the code requirements.  She recalculated the average height of structures in the area.   

 

Mr. Burriss stated that the slope and gables are consistent to the house and other structures in the area.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that he doesn’t think that this structure would be appropriate with a lower roof and the architectural details are appropriate elements for Granville.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the look of the home would be less attractive with any roof other than what was proposed by the applicant.  Mr. Ryan stated that the height is appropriate when you consider the distance of the College Townhouse and the massing of nearby structures.  Mr. Ryan noted that one of the buildings used in the calculation to determine height is the administration building across the street and it has a flat roof – unlike any other structure in the area.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated that “this building has the least amount of  characteristics of any other structures in the Village.”  Mr. Burriss complimented the applicant on the thoroughness and professionalism of their proposal.  He thanked them for working with the Planning Commission in prior work sessions to ultimately achieve a nice addition to the Village.  Mr. Burriss questioned that if on rear elevation the gable detailing could be repeated so that the window would appear twice in the same elevation.  He stated that the second floor has an architectural element that could be made stronger.  Mr. Reed stated that the area Mr. Burriss is referring to would be used for storage purposes and there was purposefully no window due to storage.  He added that not many people would  be able to see back in this area.  Herach Nazarian stated that they could do trim in this area to make it look like shutters that are closed.  Mr. Mitchell suggested a louver similar to the other louver used on the home.  The Planning Commission and Mr. Reed and Mr. Nazarian agreed to place a louver on the rear elevation to the right of the window.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspouts would be day lighted.  Mr. Nazarian stated that they would be hard piped.  Mr. Burriss stated that the massing for these structures is appropriate.  The Planning Commission agreed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-46:

 

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 structure is stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals.

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 applicant is proposing a design with a high level of architectural detailing and appropriateness of design presentation.     

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 from the proposal by the applicant.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this area will be filled in with architectural appropriate housing which is an example of how past generations lived. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-46 with the condition that the applicant add a louver to the rear elevation second story that is similar to other louvers to be placed on the house. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

384 East Broadway – Terra Nova Partners - Application #2011-47

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new single family structure on

Lot 2. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, David Johnson, Herach Nazarian, and Bryon Reed.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Terra Nova Partners, was available to address any concerns of the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission discussed that they would also like to see the same louver detailing on the south elevation that they requested for the Lot 1 home.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the location of the windows on the third floor is a unable attic.  Mr. Nazarian stated that this would just be used for insulation.  The Planning Commission clarified that the sidewalk would be from Granger Street to the front entrance.  Ms. Terry verified that this was true.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is room for two cars to go in/out at the same time.  Mr. Reed stated that that the driveway width will only allow for one car to ingress/egress at the same time.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-47:

 

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 change is stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been 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 applicant is proposing a design with a high level of architectural detailing.

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 from the proposal in the core business district.

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 #2011-47 with the condition that the applicant place a louver similar to the louver design in Application #2011-46 in the rear elevation second story.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

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

 

223 South Main Street – Richard Crawford - Application #2011-48

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Roof:  Remove 3-tab asphalt shingles and replace with dimensional asphaltic shingles; and

2)         Windows:  Remove existing windows and replace with vinyl windows   

 

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

 

Discussion:

Richard Crawford, 223 South Main Street, stated that the improvements he is proposing at this property show little impact on the environmental and visual impact on the home.  He stated that is would like to do replacement vinyl windows in the existing wood frame.  Mr. Crawford stated that the shingle he is proposing is more historically in keeping with the district.  He stated that he would like to reroof the existing original structure – simple gable and not the other elevations that cannot be seen from the street.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that Mr. Crawford is saying that he is not going to reroof the entire structure.  Mr. Crawford stated that was correct, and he would reroof the original structure up to the valleys where the gable in the back connects and he would reroof the porches.  Mr. Crawford indicated that 3 tab asphalt shingles are currently on the roof.  Mr. Crawford indicated that he would prefer to install the black stone slate shingle provided as an example in the Planning Commission packets.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wasn’t clear on the options Mr. Crawford is presenting for the picture window.  He stated that the Planning Commission would need to see an example of the window Mr. Crawford would like to install.  Mr. Crawford explained that he is unsure at this time so he is not proposing any changes to this window.  The Planning Commission explained that Mr. Crawford could amend his application and come back if he finds a particular window that he would like to install.  Otherwise, the Planning Commission made it clear that they would be approving a plain glass window for the picture window.  Mr. Crawford asked for some flexibility on the options for the transom window above the picture window.  He indicated that he would come back to the Planning Commission with the specific window.  He stated that he may request to put stained glass or something else in this area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-48:

 

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 changes are stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals in this Village district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district and livability is enhanced from the proposed changes.

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 recommend approval of Application #2011-48 with the condition that the applicant’s windows on the south elevation be plain glass; that vinyl window sashes be in white; and that the roofing material be black stone slate shingles.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-44: Denison University; 200 North Mulberry Street; 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 #2011-44 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-44. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-46 AMENDED: Terra Nova Partners; 384 East Broadway; 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 1187 Height Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-46 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-46.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-47 AMENDED: Terra Nova Partners; 384 East Broadway; Exterior Modification

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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-47 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-47. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-48: Richard Crawford; South Main Street; 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 #2011-48 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-48. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 9, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from May 9, 2011 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Mitchell moved to excuse Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on June 6, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:03 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 13, 2011

Monday, June 27, 2011

Monday, July 11, 2011 (Jeremy Johnson indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)  

GPC Minutes May 9, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 9, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jeremy Johnson, Tim Ryan, Tom Mitchell, Steven Hawk, and Jack Burriss.

Members Absent:  Councilmember O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant to Planning Department, Debi Walker, Assistant Law Director, Michael King.

Also Present: Barb Franks, Sharon Sellito, Lawrence and Judith Howland, Mark Alexandrunas, Joseph Galano, James Hale, Gill Miller, Mary Jane McDonald, Chris Avery, Sam Sagaria, and Eric Rosenberg.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-7 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an amended two-story addition to an

existing garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Joseph Galano, Eric Rosenberg, James Hale, Gill Miller, and Mary Jane McDonald. 

 

Mr. Burriss motioned to remove Application #2011-7 AMENDED from the table. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, stated that the location of the ac unit for the garage was added as requested.  Planner Terry indicated what items had been submitted in relation to the Planning Commission’s request for additional information.  Mr. Johnson inquired about the existing trees.  Mr. Galano indicated that not a single branch would need to be pruned for the addition.  He indicated that there are a few low branches that may need to be pruned, but he’s not sure whose property the tree is located on.  Mr. Johnson questioned the water surface run off issues that a neighbor is concerned about.  Mr. Galano stated that there is not a percolation issue and he does not want there to be any ponding on his property.  Mr. Galano stated that international code doesn’t allow ponding.  He indicated that he has been doing this type of work (creating building plans) for a long time and he is aware of certain code restrictions that one must adhere to. Mr. Ryan indicated that there has been some previous discussion with issues surrounding massing and he suggested that the house discussion take place before the garage discussion.  Mr. Rosenberg indicated that the original concerns over massing were addressed. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to postpone the consideration of Application #2011-7 AMENDED until after discussion of the applicant’s other application for a garage.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

The Planning Commission later came back to hold further discussion regarding Application #2011-7 AMENDED.   

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there were any changes made to the plans regarding the neighbors concerns with the west windows.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that all of the massing has been addressed considerably, but they have not had any additional conversations with the neighbors.  Mr. Burriss asked the applicant to discuss the windows in the dormers and where the pointed top was derived from.  Mr. Galano explained that these would be custom made from Hudon Harriss and they are fixed, not operable, windows.  Furthermore, he stated that one cannot see out of them, and they are only for light.  Mr. Johnson asked what the smaller window at the landing would look like.  Mr. Galano stated that he is proposing an antique stained glass that is opaque and it will have a glass storm window on top to protect its integrity.  He stated that he is proposing a colorful window that you can’t really see out of.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the antique window will match the other windows on the structure.  Mr. Galano stated that the other windows are custom windows for light with clear glass.  Mr. Johnson asked the neighbors of Mr. Galano’s if they were aware of the height of the windows.  Mr. Hale indicated that they didn’t know that the proposed windows are to be six foot four inches (6’4”) from where people would stand on the inside of the structure.  Gill Miller stated that there aren’t any other two-story garages located on their block.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the height of the proposed structure is 21 feet and this was reduced down from the original 31-foot high structure that was proposed.  He also stated that there are other garages that are taller in the Village.  Ms. Miller stated that there are not garages that tall located on this block.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that this is a tough decision, and these are friends of his that are objecting to the application, but there is also nothing about this project that he can find to object to.  Mr. Hawk stated that he agrees with Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Mitchell went on to say that he appreciates the effort that the owner (Mr. Galano) has put into dealing with Planning Commission concerns. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the architectural criteria.  Mr. Ryan questioned how adding a second story to the garage contributes to the historical character and is improving and upgrading the district.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees that by adding a garage, there isn’t a static design for the community.  He added that the proposal for a garage by the applicant is interesting and it is a pleasing and unique garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed garage contributes to the character of the Village and that is the history of circa 2011.  Mr. Hawk stated that the existing garage is mundane.  Mr. Johnson agreed that there has been a great deal of effort to make the structure look fitting, but he added that he has some concern as to which structure would be viewed as the house.  Mr. Galano stated that he could address this concern.  He stated that the garage is ten feet (10’) from the back property line and one hundred and seventy five feet (175’) from the street.  Mr. Galano stated that the proposed garage has a smaller footprint.  Mr. Ryan stated that it strikes him that it appears as if there are two houses on the lot.  Mr. Galano stated that the garage is smaller than other garages in the Village.  He presented an example of other garages in the district.  Mr. Johnson stated that he didn’t vote on that particular garage that Mr. Galano is referring to.

 

Mr. Rosenberg stated that if the garage is denied, they could always come back with a different proposal for an attached garage, making it one long continuous house.  He stated that this could cause more privacy concerns than what is being proposed.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission needs to stay in the confines of Section 1161.02 and identify how this structure improves the Village.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed home is over 2,000 square feet and the proposed garage is 864 square feet.  Assistant Law Director King indicated that not all of the Planning Commission has to agree with all of the criteria.  Mr. Rosenberg asked the protocol if the application is denied.  Ms. Terry stated that the application request could be appealed to Village Council.  She stated that anyone who spoke in regards to the application has the right to appeal the decision to Council.  Mr. Rosenberg questioned if the applicant can come back with “one big house plan.”  Ms. Terry stated that it is possible for the applicant to amend the application for the front structure, but it also depends on the extent of the proposed changes.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-7 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 proposed garage is stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures in the district by its detail and shape.   

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant is proposing a garage that is an upgrade to the character of the district.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson disagreed.  Mr. Burriss did not comment.     

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 from the proposed application.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this property is enhanced by adding a significantly improved garage with art space.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-7 AMENDED, and revised, with the condition that the applicant address any and all water run off and ensure that it is prevented to affect the neighboring properties; that the small window in the right side elevation is to be a vintage stained glass; that the roof material is a forest green with black; that the soffits are with flat board Azec; and that the windows are Anderson windows.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (yes), Burriss (no), Johnson (no), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-19

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a second story addition to an existing single family structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Joseph Galano, and Eric Rosenberg, Gill Miller, James Hale, and Mary Jane McDonald. 

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, attorney for Mr. Galano, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if the neighbors received a copy of the letter presented by Mr. Galano.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Ryan stated that the letter talks to the gutters, hvac, new construction impact on existing trees, hip roof, and cantilever dormers on the house.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed and stated that there were six items he addressed from the minutes.  Mr. Rosenberg added that the neighbors didn’t have opposition to the house, according to the minutes - only to the garage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the chimney height has been addressed.  Mr. Galano explained that he has not raised the height of the chimney.  He stated that there is a code provision – if the chimney is not a wood burning chimney - that requires the chimney to be modified.  Mr. Galano stated that he will address the chimney as a code issue and there is approximately eighteen inches (18”) of height up or down.  He added that the chimney height appears to be ok as it is today.  Mr. Johnson questioned if alternations to the chimney would cause problems with the setbacks.  Mr. Galano stated that he could use an ornamental terra cotta pipe unless Mr. Johnson is speaking to the variance issue of being within the ten foot setback.  Mr. Johnson stated that he is referring to the variance setback of ten feet.  Ms. Terry indicated that a chimney is allowed to encroach a certain distance. Mr. Galano stated that the chimney is not for a wood burning stove and he doesn’t believe that international code calls for him to have to raise it.  Mary Jane McDonald stated that Mr. Galano’s house is over her property line and his home is very close to her house.  Ms. McDonald added that she has a really dry basement and she wants to keep it that way.  Ms. McDonald stated that her home was built in 1835 and it is uncommon to have such a dry basement.  She stated that she doesn’t understand all of the issues that relate to water being drained on her property, and she is hopeful that the Planning Commission is aware of this and will make provisions to prevent water from being a problem for her property.  Gill Miller indicated that she would object to the comment made by Mr. Rosenberg that the neighbors didn’t object to the proposed home.  She stated that she did not comment on this.  Ms. Miller stated that the existing house may not be a model of any style but it still has history.  She added that she does object to the massive renovation to change the style of the home on West Broadway.  She stated that she is bothered that this home can be so substantially altered in the historical district. 

 

Mr. Galano stated that there is a water issue and the water is coming from his neighbor’s property to the west.  He stated that his property sits lower than the property to the west and he recently had flooding. 

 

Mr. Galano added that there is there is nothing architecturally significant about this house.  He stated that it has aluminum siding and his plans will enhance the streetscape.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the neighbors don’t want the addition on the back of the garage and the applicant has met all of the code requirements in an attempt to satisfy all concerns.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is any evidence that the house does have historical significance.  Ms. Terry stated that they receive letters from the Historical Society regarding historical properties only when there is a request for a demolition permit. 

 

Mr. Johnson stated that regarding water run off there is more impervious surface coverage proposed with the new plan.  Mr. Galano stated that this is incorrect because the proposed second floor has no more roof than the existing house and the bulk of the addition is on the second floor.  Mr. Johnson stated that there is still greater square footage with the new plans and the Planning Commission is charged with addressing where water goes and if it's adequate.  Mr. Galano indicated that if there were an issue he could pipe and put in tin for a drywell.  Mr. Burriss stated that he appreciates the letter that was written by Mr. Galano to address questions/concerns by the Planning Commission.  He stated that he is trying to consider if the proposed addition of this size is appropriate for the neighborhood.  He added that one of the things he feels is appealing about Granville is the variety in the sizes of homes and the styles.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does think the architect has been careful in choosing architectural elements that exist in the Village.  Mr. Galano stated that his current setback is farther back than the other homes on the block – with an additional twenty feet (20’).  He stated that the addition is setback from the house and even more so from the street.  Mr. Galano stated that the proposed hip roof appears to be receding away.  He also stated that the other houses on the block are much bigger than his.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that there have been many additions added to the homes on the block over the years.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed plan has a lot of architectural merit.  He stated that the applicant has designed a nice addition to the house with compatible massing and the overall plans look pretty good to him.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn’t think that the Village can remain static and they can’t keep someone from putting on an addition because it's unpopular.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees no reason to deny the application.  He also stated that the use of materials and attention to detail all look good to him.  Mr. Johnson stated that if the chimney were to be altered, than it would come back to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that if any changes are made it would need to come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-19:

 

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 proposed addition is stylistically compatible and consistent with other improvements in the district.   

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 applicant is proposing a historical character residence.  .   

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 from the proposed change.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that home renovations protect and enhance this particular property. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-19 as revised with the condition that the roof shingles are architectural dimensional shingles in forest green with black; that the soffit is flat board Azec; that Anderson vinyl clad outside – wood interior full divided light windows are used; and that the applicant will ensure that water does not exit the property to the west side neighbor.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk, Burriss (no), Johnson, Mitchell, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.  

 

New Business:

 

129 North Pearl Street – Lawrence & Judith Howland - Application #2011-36

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

The request is for an amended architectural review and approval of the replacement of a concrete walk and a concrete patio expansion along the southern property line. 

                       

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

 

Discussion:

Lawrence Howland, 129 North Pearl Street, stated that the sidewalk has already been torn out.  He stated that he purchased the property two years ago.  Mr. Howland stated that they began this work to replace an unsafe sidewalk and they decided to also create a sitting area.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant has been living in the home for two years with the unsafe sidewalk.  Mr. Howland stated yes, but the sidewalk has further deteriorated.  Mr. Hawk asked the applicants reason for installing a patio.  Mr. Lawrence stated that they wanted to create a sitting area.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is seeking a variance for lot coverage from the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant will be going before the BZBA on May 12th.  Ms. Terry explained that the application has to come into conformity with the setbacks and standards today when any change is made.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant will be removing landscaping.  Mr. Howland stated that they will remove some hydrangeas, small trees, and poison ivy.  He stated that they plan to add potted plants. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-36:

 

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 change is stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals.

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 applicant is proposing an upgrade to the historical character of 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 from the proposal by the applicant.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burris stated that the stamped concrete gives a more historical appearance. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-36 as presented with the condition that the applicant receives a variance for lot coverage from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

119 ½  South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers & Barb Franks - Application #2010-51 AMENDED

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

The request is for an amended architectural review and approval of a freestanding tenant panel sign.

 

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

Franks. 

 

Discussion:

Barb Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she would like to request approval of the tenant panel signage.  Mr. Mitchell asked why this is considered to be a revised application.  Ms. Terry explained that the previous sign submitted last year had a bicycle on it, and was square, and the Planning Commission had asked the applicant to make the sign more consistent with the other signage already located on this freestanding sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the variance is required because the total amount of signage is over the twelve square foot maximum.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the applicant were to remove the signage for ‘Granville Lighting,’ then a variance would not be needed.  He asked if the Granville Lighting business is still in existence.  Mr. Mitchell asked where Granville Lighting is located in the building.  Ms. Franks stated that the lighting fixtures are throughout Footloose.  She stated that they also do lighting repairs.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the signage was Photoshopped into the submitted picture.  Ms. Franks stated that Mr. Mitchell is looking at an actual picture of the sign because the sign is already done.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the signage looks larger than the other tenant panel signs.  Ms. Franks stated that it is not larger. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2010-51 AMENDED:

 

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.  Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant’s circumstances are similar to other circumstances where the Planning Commission has previously granted approval.  Mr. Ryan questioned if there is a special circumstance that exists for the applicant to receive the variance.  Mr. Franks stated that signage is needed for her businesses that exist in the building.  Ms. Franks stated that Footloose is throughout the building, the Chiropractor is on the side, Granville Lighting is throughout Footloose, and the tacos will be sold in the back of the building.        

 

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. Mitchell stated that the property is already getting a return and there is beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would not like to see more than four panels of signage for this property.  Mr. Johnson stated that in order for the applicant to get a reasonable return for the business, they need the signage. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Hawk stated that the signage is 33% more than what is allowed, so the variance is substantial.  Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Burriss stated that variance is substantial.  Mr. Mitchell disagreed.  Mr. Ryan did not comment.   

 

(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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign has less of an impact than the previously presented signage.     

 

(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 FALSE.  Ms. Franks indicated that this is a moot point.      

 

(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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.   

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant has put an additional business on the premises.    

 

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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 Architectural Review Overlay District Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-51 AMENDED:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that that the applicant’s sign is stylistically compatible 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 applicant is proposing signage that will upgrade 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. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-51 AMENDED with the variance to increase the size of a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to sixteen (16) square feet.  Mr. Ryan noted that some of the items in the criteria for the variance were not met and agreed to by all of the Planning Commission members.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk (no), Burriss, Mitchell, Johnson, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

121 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers & Barb Franks - Application #2011-38

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a portion of the northwest corner of the structure to create a forty-five degree angle adjacent to the driveway area. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Sam Sagaria, Chris Avery, and Barb Franks. 

 

Discussion:

Barb Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she would like to request approval to remove a 14"x14" corner of the existing building.  Mr. Ryan asked the reason why the applicant wants to remove this corner.  Ms. Franks stated that she has a neighbor that   puts a planter in the driveway and there have been eight accidents on the corner.  She stated that the fascia has been removed and there is a lot of damage to cars because there is not enough room to get between the building and the planter.  She stated that her neighbor has blocked the driveway and there is not enough room to access her business, so she has no choice but to cut off the corner of her building.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the roof would also come off.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is unfortunate that the applicant is looked at cutting off the building.  He questioned if it would even allow enough room to fix the problem the way she is explaining the project.  Mr. Ryan asked if the corner would be replaced with siding.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Ms. Franks also stated that she doesn’t want to cut off the corner of her building, and she is happy to hear any suggestions by the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there is physically enough clearance to get through there.  Ms. Franks stated that it is really a tough turn.  Mr. Johnson suggested the use of bollards along the base of the structure to keep vehicles from striking the building.  Ms. Franks stated that she didn’t think she could install these because they would take up even more room. 

 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated that he has owned the property at 117 South Prospect Street for the last three and a half years.  He stated that for the record, he would like it known that Dan Rogers has driven his large truck in and out of the driveway hundreds of times with room to spare.  He stated that he also has surveillance of this.  Mr. Sagaria stated that the driveway is a tiny driveway and is too narrow for the type of usage that the applicant seeks.  He also stated that the tiny driveway helps to slow down the traffic coming in/out.  Mr. Sagaria stated that the damage claimed by the applicant as evidence has been there for over three and a half years.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he is accused of blocking the driveway and the planters are there to protect his access to his rear parking spots.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he does not block the driveway.  He added that he is opposed to the proposal by the applicant and he strongly recommends vetoing their request.  Mr. Sagaria stated that the driveway is not intended for uses such as delivery trucks and the proposal is too vague and should be turned down due to too many unanswered questions.  He stated that this is a private driveway between two individuals and he is not willing to forgo his rights as a property owner to extend the usage of the driveway beyond what it was intended to be used for.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he has evidence that this driveway is wide enough. 

 

Chris Avery stated that he owns the house to the south.  He stated that his primary concern is increased traffic and it is a narrow driveway.  He added that the proposal by the applicant could encourage flow through traffic.  He questioned if a drive thru with tacos is a possibility.  Mr. Avery stated that he is concerned about anything that will increase round about traffic.  He added that there is also minimal parking available. 

 

Barb Franks stated that Judy LaVoy did business in her structure for 30 some years and Ms. LaVoy had 30-60 cars go through a day with her previous busines and they don’t have nearly that many cars go through there now.  She also stated that the driveway is not a private driveway, but rather a shared driveway that was part of the property originally.  Mr. Avery stated that his office was acquired in 1985 and he struck an agreement with Judy LaVoy to jointly resurface the driveway.  He stated that there were never sixty cars accessing this property daily.  Ms. Franks disagreed.  Mr. Burriss encouraged the applicant to investigate different alternatives.  He stated that there are also soft bollards without concrete in them.  Ms. Franks stated that she would like this addressed for safety reasons.  She stated that there has been $20,000+ damage to cars.  She stated that Dan Rogers truck can be included as one of the eight accidents.  Mr. Burriss suggested checking with Terry Hopkins regarding traffic control devices that could be an option.  Ms. Terry indicated that she would look into this with Mr. Hopkins.  Ms. Franks indicated that she would be willing to hear any suggestions and would agree to table the application to gather additional information.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table application #2011-38 as requested by the applicant.  Mr. Burriss seconded. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (no).   

Motion carried 3-2.   

 

121 East Broadway – Granville Dental - Application #2011-39

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of two (2) separate window signs. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Mark Alexandrunas, indicated that he would like to place one sign on the door and one on the window beside the door.  He added that the proposed signage is consistent with the Chamber of Commerce signage.  Mr. Ryan questioned the need for a variance.  Ms. Terry explained that this is required due to the overall signage on the entire structure.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-39:

 

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.

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.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2011-39:

 

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.  The Planning Commission agreed FALSE. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission agreed that the request for a variance was 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.  Each member of 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.   

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-39 with a variance to increase the maximum allowable signage from forty-one-point-two-five (41.25) square feet to forty-three-point-three-one (43.31) square feet to allow for the installation of the requested permanent window signage.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

141 East Broadway – Village of Granville - Application #2011-40

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of awning replacements on the front, side and rear of the structure.      

                       

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

 

Discussion:

Alison Terry, stated that the awnings are consistent with what the Planning Commission requested at the last work session.  Mr. Burriss asked the typical life of an awning. Ms. Terry stated that it just depends, but the last set lasted ten to eleven years. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-40:

 

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 Planning Commission has approved similar awnings 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 awnings are better than leaving the flat building alone.   

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 awnings.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the awnings are helpful in inclement weather for entering/exiting the Village Offices.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-40 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Other Business:

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Section 1159.02, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Section 1159.03, Performance or Development Standards; Section 1159.05, Procedure for Approval; Section 1159.06, Change of Use Category; and Section 1159.07, Appeals of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Village District.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Ryan asked what Council’s comments were to them removing the Change of Use section.  Ms. Terry stated that this version would be given to Council as the Planning Commission’s recommendation for code revisions.  Mr. Ryan asked if Councilmember O’Keefe had any comment on these changes.  Ms. Terry indicated that she had spoken with her earlier in the day and she didn’t mention anything regarding these changes.  Ms. Terry explained that staff decisions can be appealed to the BZBA.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is in favor of these changes because it “streamlines government.”  Ms. Terry stated that if a variance for parking is required – a variance would still need to be given by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA).  Mr. Hawk stated that these suggested changes remedy an unfair burden on downtown business.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission does not currently have any criteria to utilize when reviewing a Change of Use application, therefore he doesn't see the need for requiring a Change of Use through the Planning Commission.

 

 Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of the submitted zoning code changes to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Hawk, Johnson, Ryan.  5-0.                                       

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2011-7 AMENDED: Joseph Galano; 317 West Broadway; 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 1157, Accessory Uses and Structures, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-7 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-7 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Johnson (no), Burriss (no), Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Application #2011-19: Joseph Galano; 317 West Broadway; 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 #2011-19 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-19. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss (no), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

New Business:

Application #2011-36: Lawrence & Judith Howland; 129 North Pearl Street; Exterior Modification

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 #2011-36 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-36.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-51 AMENDED; Dan Rogers/Barb Franks; 119 ½ South Prospect Street; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161 Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-51 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-51 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk (no), Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Application #2011-39: Granville Dental; 121 East Broadway; 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-39 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-39.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-40: Village of Granville; 141 East Broadway; Awnings

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 #2011-40 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-40.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 25, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 25, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Adjournment:  9:12 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-2.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, May 23, 2011 (Tim Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

Monday, June 13, 2011

GPC Minutes April 24, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 25, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Law Director, Michael Crites.

Also Present: Todd and Robin Feil, Johne and Leigh Brennan, Dennis Cauchon, Biff Eschenbrenner, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Brice Corder, Chris Avery, Chip Blanchard, Mary Morales-Rivera, Brad and Amanda Schneider, Mike Adkins, Ann Hinkle, Steve Keeler, Mel and Lisa Bomprezzi, John Klauder, Tom Linzell, Jack Lucks, Karl Schneider, and Tim Dobyns.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Metropolitan Partners - Application #2011-28

Village Gateway District (VGD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications to the existing structure, driveway access modifications, parking lot modifications, and landscape plan approval. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Tom Linzell, Jack Lucks, Dennis Cauchon, and John Klauder. Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion and voting on Application #2011-28 and was seated in the audience at 7:03 PM. 

 

Discussion:

Tom Linzell, Meleca Architecture, 1919 Lancaster Road, stated that the applicant had originally proposed a barn red color for the structure, but after discussion with the Planning Commission, they went back to white siding, as well as white trim.  He stated that they also opened up the drive-through with accentuated wood timbers to give the structure a “farm building” feel.    Mr. Linzell stated that the roof would be a dark gray asphalt shingle in a diamond pattern with a red metal ridge cap.  He indicated that the ridge cap may change to a black color.  He explained that the landscape plan is enclosed, but it doesn’t show four additional trees that were recommended by Village Staff.  He stated that they would prefer small ornamental trees so that it would not block the view of the building from the street any more than was necessary.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant provided a sample board showing each of the proposed materials for the project.  She explained the right-of-way was required to be increased to a total of 37.5 feet from the centerline of South Main Street as a part of the annexation agreement for this property; therefore the proposed multi-use path could be moved further away from the roadway creating a fourteen foot offset.    She stated that the Tree and Landscape Commission reviewed the landscape plan and did not forward any comments.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the proposed trees are required in the Village Gateway District.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to see the four foot walk go up to the building.  Ms. Terry stated that she has indicated that the crossings should be clearly marked, especially where they tie into the handicap area.  Mr. Hawk questioned how many handicap spaces would be in place.  Mr. Linzell stated that there would be one handicap parking space, while there are twenty-four parking spaces total.  Mr. Burriss thanked the applicant for participating in the work session and working out certain details that ultimately resulted in a good looking structure before the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss asked why the base of the cupola, and roof of the cupola, aren’t the same colonial red as the ridge finish.  He stated that the Planning Commission originally requested the cupola detailing.   He also asked for discussion regarding the color of the doors and the tenant signage panels.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has done a nice job of articulating and detailing, but it would be advantageous to have the doors pop out a little more.  He added that he appreciates the diamond pattern shingle since the metal roof was not economically feasible.  Jack Lucks stated that they ran into problems with the proposed standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Hawk agreed that the proposed doors could pop out a little more.  He stated that, overall, he feels that the proposed structure turned out very nice.  Mr. Johnson asked if it is the applicant’s intent to discourage pedestrian traffic from utilizing the driveway access to get to the newly remodeled structure, but instead direct them to the five foot walkway further east.  Mr. Linzell stated that there was not any intent on deferring the pedestrian traffic.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks people would walk on the drive and the sidewalk might be best if it were moved further to the north to help alleviate this (later exhibited in Exhibit ‘A’.)  Mr. Johnson suggested that the handicap parking could be shifted to accommodate this.  Mr. Burriss asked the dimension from the edge of the driveway to the edge of the bike path.  Ms. Terry stated she measured between seven and eight feet at the southern end.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to have the trees on the other side of the pathway to provide separation between the multi use path and the roadway.  The Planning Commission discussed the removal of one of the proposed street trees.  Mr. Klauder agreed that this would allow for better site distance.  Mr. Lucks stated that he does not yet know who the tenants of the building will be.  He stated that he wouldn’t want the color of the tenant panel signs to be restrictive for certain logos.  He suggested a black background or a softened black with 10% green added for the entrance doorways.    He agreed that the signage color and doors could match.  Ms. Terry stated that the signage would come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval at a later date.  Mr. Burriss asked what type of hardware finish would be used.  Mr. Linzell stated that this was not known at this time, but he guessed a nickel finish because of the metal hoods on the lighting.  Mr. Burriss asked if the doors would have kick plates.  Mr. Linzell stated that they would consider kick plates if the Planning Commission prefers them.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the cupola should match the red ridge line.  Mr. Lucks stated that they were trying to keep the cupola from standing out too much because they thought that the Planning Commission preferred a more simplified look.  Mr. Ryan indicated that he is not a huge fan of the red cupola and preferred the look presented by the applicant.  The Planning Commission ultimately agreed to keep the cupola as presented by the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has always encouraged that the graphics and color of signage be consistent throughout the project.  He stated that he would prefer to see the doors match the signage in black or black/green.  Mr. Linzell stated that the actual door will be a factory finish color, but they would try to accommodate this request.  He stated that the barn doors and signage can be painted any color to match.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the door color be submitted to the Village Planner for final approval.  Mr. Johnson stated that his only concern was the flipping of the sidewalk.  Mr. Linzell indicated that they would be willing to make this change.  He asked if storm water plans have been submitted.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is not impacting the area enough to warrant additional storm water review.  She indicated that the applicant is lessoning the lot coverage, but it is possible that they may need sediment and erosion control fencing during site construction.  Mr. Johnson asked if the project will be reviewed by the Village Engineer.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, 935 River Road, stated that he would like to speak regarding application #2011-28.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the applicant had standing to speak if he isn’t an adjacent or contiguous property owner.  He asked Mr. Cauchon if he owns property near 1919 Lancaster Road.  Mr. Cauchon stated that he leases space in the building located at 935 River Road. 

 

Law Director Crites was asked if Mr. Cauchon had standing to speak regarding the application.  Mr. Crites read aloud Section 1141.05 Procedure for Decisions of the Planning Commission:

“(c)      The following persons may appear at hearings as parties to be hard in person or by attorney:

            (1)        The applicant;

(2)        The owner of property that is the subject of the application, if the owner is not the applicant or appellant;

(3)        The owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous to the property that is the subject of the application; and

(4)        Any other person who claims that a direct, present injury or prejudice to a personal or property right will occur if the application is approved or denied.” 

 

Mr. Ryan stated that upon hearing the provisions of Section 1141.05, he does not feel that Mr. Cauchon has standing to speak.  He asked the other Planning Commission member’s their thoughts and questioned if they should vote to determine whether Mr. Cauchon had standing.  Mr. Cauchon encouraged the Planning Commission to vote on this matter.  He stated that he can speak based on criteria (4) and it is also Ohio Law that he can speak in regards to this application and any other application before the Planning Commission.  He stated that he disagrees with Mr. Crites assessment that he does not have standing.  Mr. Crites clarified for the record that he did not state that Mr. Cauchon has or does not have standing regarding this application.  He stated that he is not taking a position and he is simply reading aloud the provisions of the Code related to this matter.  Law Director Crites stated that the decision to allow interested parties to speak on a matter is up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Johnson asked for Law Director Crites to read aloud Section 1141.05 again.  Law Director Crites indicated that the Planning Commission can make a determination on standing for Mr. Cauchon and they can do this by motion if they like.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion that based on Section 1141.05, the individual (Dennis Cauchon) petitioning the Planning Commission for standing regarding Application #2011-28 does not have standing to speak on this matter.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. 

 

Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (yes), Burriss (no), Johnson (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 2-2.   No action taken. 

 

Law Director Crites stated that in the past it has always been the position of the Village to defer to allowing a citizen to testify if there is a close call, such as this with a 2-2 vote by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Cauchon to keep his remarks related to matters pertaining to Application #2011-28. 

 

Dennis Cauchon stated that the building proposed by the applicant is attractive but the location of the multi use pathway in the plan is unwise, unsafe, and illegal.  He stated that this is a very important matter to him and that he has served on the Pathway Committee, Safe Routes to Schools, Walk to School Day, and Sunday Strolls.  Mr. Cauchon argued that the pathway should be located in the back of the property.  He stated that the Planning Commission needs to consider the whole five acres involved in this plan when reviewing the application.  He stated that the proposed pathway is a through route to Raccoon Valley Park and a lesser function is access to this site.  He stated that the Planning Commission should consider the risk of the proposed pathway location because there could be potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and cars going off the road ending in a “black swan event.”  He stated that recently two pedestrians were killed on pathways in Granville Township in areas that are considered to be dangerous for pedestrians.  He stated that the proposed location of the pathway for Application #2011-28 offers more frequent danger with hundreds of cars crossing the pathway.  He stated that the developer is trying to get volume across the parking lot.  Mr. Cauchon stated that the law requires the applicant to place the pathway in the rear of the property and he read aloud the Pathway Plan.  He stated that this states that the site plan “shall be designed to minimize conflict points.”  Mr. Cauchon stated that there would be three conflict points by locating the pathway in the front of the building and zero conflict points with locating the pathway in the rear of the building.  He encouraged the Planning Commission to view the plan in its totality.  He stated that the applicant is proposing three additional buildings to be built at a later time.  Mr. Cauchon stated that a lot of cars will be crossing the proposed pathway in this location and children will be vulnerable.  He stated that the pathway needs a loop with minimal conflicts.  Mr. Cauchon stated that the site plan has a twenty-five foot right-of-way for a road in the future, and there is a ten foot setback in addition.  Mr. Cauchon stated that there was also a twenty-foot utility easement in the plan.  He stated that the developer was reluctant to locate the pathway in the rear because this would make parking more difficult because the parking would be built in a flood zone.  He stated that this causes slope issues and makes it more expensive to place parking in the back.  He stated that it is less expensive to put a pathway in a flood zone.  Mr. Cauchon stated that the law requires that the Planning Commission “shall minimize conflicts.”  He stated that the Transportation Corridor Overlay District zoning law requires a maximum of three curb cuts and the annexation agreement allows up to four curb cuts.  He stated that with the pathway located in the rear of the structure there would be zero curb cuts.  Mr. Cauchon stated that placement of the pathway in the rear would be better functionally, legally, and would be safer.  He asked the Planning Commission to consider the location of the pathway as part of their review and approval of the application.   

 

Ms. Terry stated that the proposed location of the multi use pathway by the applicant is consistent with the adopted Village Pathway Plan and Village Gateway District zoning.  She stated that the Village Gateway District specifically states that sidewalks and pathways are required to be installed by the developer within the public right-of-way.  She stated that the Village Pathway Plan from 1994 is the only pathway plan that the Village has currently adopted.  She indicated that if the Planning Commission looks at locating the pathway in the rear of the property, then the developer would be required to apply for variances from numerous code provisions.  She explained that this is the only site in front of the Planning Commission and it is separate from the rear parcel.  Ms. Terry stated that the sanitary sewer will be located along the back of the property in the same location Mr. Cauchon would like the pathway to be built.  She indicated that municipalities typically do not locate paved surfaces directly over sanitary sewer lines due to the potential costs involved with any needed repairs to the lines.

 

Ms. Terry explained that the whole property would have three access points, and when compared to Ross' Granville Market which has only one access point, the vehicular traffic would be more widespread and dispersed resulting in less potential conflicts with pedestrians.  Ms. Terry stated that if the pathway were to be located in the back – and then a potential roadway gets constructed - the Village would be required to put in a temporary path until the pathway can be restored.  Ms. Terry stated that people using the pathway would have to access the pathway from the rear or side parking area.  She stated that the pathway in the rear would not be as well lit and would be in a secluded area, causing additional safety concerns.  She stated that there is also a private lake near the rear of the property and she fears that this would be a vulnerable area for children.  Mr. Ryan stated that children utilizing a pathway in the rear of the building would not be visible and this could be a safety concern.  He added that the path in the rear wouldn’t easily connect to Route 37.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the need arises could a pathway also be put in the rear of the property at a later time.  Ms. Terry stated they could not require the installation of two separate pathways by the developer.  She also stated that a pathway in the rear of the proposed structure would require variances from the current code requirements because the pathway would not be located along a public right-of-way.  Ms. Terry stated that most of the existing pathways in the Village are along roadways, except for the T.J. Evans Trail which was a "Rails to Trails" project. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there are other dangers to children if the pathway were to be located in the rear of the rear of the property.  Ms. Terry stated that there is a significant grade differential and this would require a retaining wall adjacent to the parking area.  She stated that there is also a tree row that would have to possibly be removed in order for the pathway to be located in that area.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed pathway in the front of the structure is approximately fourteen feet (14’) from the edge of the roadway. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-28:

 

Section 1173.03, Development Standards and Design Guidelines.

 

10)       Building Massing:

 

a.         Building massing shall be appropriate, including as related to surrounding setbacks, surrounding buildings, the spaces which are created by the building, and the scale.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed building massing is in better compliance with the other structures along South Main Street than the existing (Shurtz) building.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. 

b.         The appropriate architectural massing and scale shall be achieved by close adherence to the scale and proportioning systems of the traditional American styles.   Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission and the applicant had a work session to discuss the proposal to be submitted.  He stated that appropriate styles were decided at the work session.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed.

 

11)       Roof:

 

c.         Roof designs shall be reviewed as part of the building design review. The roof design shall be required to be consistent with the architectural style of the building. One-story structures shall not have the appearance of a flat roof, and parapet or mansard-style roofs are permitted. Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed building has a consistency of style including the roof. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed.  

 

17)       Use of Details:  Building and lighting details should be appropriate to the scale, overall design concept and style of the building and its environment.   Mr. Burriss stated that the full cut off lighting for the building is what was requested by the Planning Commission.  He indicated that the full cut off lighting with shielding on South Main Street is appropriate since there are two residential homes on the other side of the street.  The Planning Commission indicated that this type of lighting is required due to potential light pollution.  Mr. Burriss presented Exhibits A and B regarding lighting. 

 

18)       Landscaping and Pedestrian Environment Enhancement:

 

(c)        Traffic Requirements:  A traffic and parking plan shall be shown that details points of ingress and egress into the property, public and private drives, parking areas and pedestrian walkway areas. The plan shall be so designed to minimize conflict points between pedestrian and vehicular movement while maintaining ample and safe walkways and pathways.

The Commission shall not approve the plan unless they find the plan provides adequate ingress and egress and does not adversely impact traffic patterns nor increase traffic usage of municipal streets to the detriment of the safety and welfare of the public.  (Ord. 07-08. Passed 8-6-08.)   Mr. Hawk stated that he believes that the proposed access by the applicant is appropriate.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-28 with the following amendments:

(1)               That three (3) additional street trees be planted by the applicant, per Exhibit ‘A’;

(2)               That the site plan be changed per Exhibit ‘A’ by adding demarcation (striping or brick crosswalk pattern) on the asphalt in crosswalk areas;

(3)               That the sidewalk connection be moved closer to the north end access point per Exhibit ‘A’;

(4)               That the light fixtures for the outside pole lights be per Exhibit ‘B’ with foot lights to match and that they be submitted to Village staff for final approval; and

(5)               That the doors be per Exhibit ‘C’ and be painted black/green with the color to be submitted to Village staff for final approval. 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

(Mr. Mitchell returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 8:12 PM)

 

575 West Broadway – Todd and Robin Feil - Application #2010-151 AMENDED

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for amended architectural review and approval to modify the approved Hardie-

Plank siding and replace with vinyl siding on the entire structure. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Todd Feil. 

 

Discussion:

Todd Feil, 575 West Broadway, stated that due to unanticipated costs he would like to amend his original application and install vinyl siding instead of the proposed cement board.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant could be talked into wood siding.  Mr. Feil stated no.  Mr. Feil indicated that the trim around the windows and around the corners of the home would be white. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-151 AMENDED:

 

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 change is stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals.

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 applicant is proposing a change in siding to the previously approved application.   

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 from the proposed change.

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 siding is consistent with the existing siding on the home.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2010-151, AMENDED, as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, and Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

126 West Elm Street – Johne and Leigh Brennan - Application #2011-9 AMENDED

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

The request is for an amended architectural review and approval of the proposed fencing only.  The applicant is requesting a five (5’) foot height white lattice wood fence and a gate facing Elm Street with a picket style wood fence in the sides and rear that will have a weatherproofed seal coat. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Johne

Brennan. 

 

Discussion:

Johne Brennan, 126 West Elm Street, stated that he would like to request approval for a change to the fence that was approved two months ago.  He stated that Mr. Mitchell recommended keeping the existing archway and making the fence fit in more with it architecturally.  Mr. Brennan stated that they further utilized this design style and changed the remaining fence.  He indicated that this matches and is more in line with other fences in the Village.  Mr. Brennan stated that he is proposing more of a picket style fence in the side and rear yards.  Mr. Johnson asked if the fence would be clear sealed.  Mr. Brennan stated yes and the front will be painted white to match the house.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be using treated lumber.  Mr. Brennan stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the request seems like an improvement to him.  Mr. Burriss questioned the fence being painted and clear coated.  Mr. Hawk indicated that he is unsure how he feels about the five foot treated lumber.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is what they previously approved.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission doesn’t have a requirement on the finish; they just require that the fence be finished. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-9 AMENDED:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that that the applicant’s request for a fence is consistent with other fences approved in the same 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 applicant has proposed a fence that is visible from the street and this is an improvement. 

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 improvement.

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 of Application #2011-9 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss (no), Mitchell, Johnson, and Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.

 

434 East Broadway – Ann Hinkle - Application #2011-29

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of an asphalt driveway with a heated concrete driveway and some expansion of the driveway area. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Steve Keeler, and Ann Hinkle. 

 

Discussion:

Steve Keeler, 434 East Broadway, stated that the expansion of the driveway is located near the garage entrance and along the eastern side of the garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the application says that the proposed driveway would have the same footprint as the current driveway.  Mr. Johnson asked if the coverage is ok with the sidewalk and driveway coverage included.  Ms. Terry stated that the Suburban Residential District does not have a maximum impervious coverage requirement.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would excavate down to meet the sidewalk so there is an approach.  Mr. Keeler stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked how he applicant plans to deal with drainage.  Mr. Keeler stated that they would use French drains and a long apron along the front of the garage door.  He also stated that the French drain would slope to the east and be piped along the side of the property.  Mr. Keeler stated that the grade of the back yard slopes towards the west and shouldn’t encroach on the neighbor’s property. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-29:

 

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 Planning Commission has approved driveways with concrete material in the past. 

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 applicant is proposing an upgrade that keeps the historic nature of the home. 

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 improvement.

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 #2011-29 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, and Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche/Mary Morales-Rivera - Application #2011-30

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

The request is for architectural review of a sidewalk café area.   

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, stated that she is seeking permission for a sidewalk café with six square tables and twenty chairs.  Mr. Johnson asked the proposed color of the umbrellas.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated orange.  Mr. Ryan stated that the umbrellas are not allowed to have logos or names on them.  Ms. Terry indicated that measurements were taken and grids drawn to indicate where the café could be located on the public sidewalk area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-30:

 

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 Planning Commission has approved sidewalk cafes in the past. 

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 applicant is proposing a use that would allow outdoor activities 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 outdoor café.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this type of outdoor activity in this district has been encouraged in the past.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-15 to Village Council.

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

134 East Broadway – Day Y Noche/Mary Morales-Rivera - Application #2011-32

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a hood vent to be located on the northern rear elevation. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mary Morales-Rivera.

 

Discussion:

Mary Morales-Rivera, 134 East Broadway, stated that she would like to install a hood vent in the rear elevation of the building.  She referenced the enclosed cut sheet indicating the height from the ground.  Mr. Johnson stated that the cut sheets say that the unit is forty inches (40”) in diameter, while the picture indicates twenty-eight inches (28”).  Ms. Morales Rivera stated that the base is twenty eight inches (28”) and the fan is closer to forty inches (40”).  Mr. Ryan questioned if the fan is a flush louver with no protrusion as indicated on the application.  Ms. Morales-Rivera stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-32:

 

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 venting is consistent with other approvals 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 applicant is proposing to have a vent in the rear of the structure rather than on the visible frontage. 

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 hood vent.  He stated that the vitality of a business is enhanced by the proposal, therefore the vitality of the entire district is enhanced. 

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 of Application #2011-32 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

121 North Plum Street – Brad and Amanda Schneider - Application #2011-31

Suburban Residential District – B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a porch addition. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Brad Schneider, Amanda Schneider, and Mike Adkins. 

 

Discussion:

Amanda Schneider, 121 North Plum Street, stated that they are proposing to build a covered porch because of current dangers with icicle buildup and some damage to the patio and light fixtures.  Ms. Schneider stated that the home had a large front porch years ago.  She stated that the porch that they are presenting is consistent with a majority of the homes in the neighborhood.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home did have a wrap around porch at one time and this was removed to allow more interior lighting in the house.  Mr. Burriss stated that from the streetscape, the movement to add a porch back on to the home is appropriate.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the roof will come out five feet.  Ms. Schneider stated that the porch will stop at the front part of the home.  Mike Adkins indicated on a drawing that the porch would go three foot forward with an additional two feet.  He indicated that the gutters would come down on the short side of the house and they will be white.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the proposed porch will protrude further out from the existing bay window.  He also asked the proposed detail for the porch.  Mr. Adkins stated that there would be the same type of roof line at each end – larger hip and a smaller hip.  Mr. Adkins stated that the roof will wrap around to go in the front and will match the same 5/12 roof pitch in that particular area.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the applicant arrived at a 5/12 roof pitch.  Mr. Adkins stated that he needs to have at least a 5/12 roof pitch to install this type of metal roofing.  He added that the proposed roofing material would match the existing bay windows.  Mr. Burriss asked if the porch posts would have a base and cap.  Mr. Adkins stated that he would be using a composite sleeve to go over an existing four by four.  He stated that the proposed porch floor would be done in treks.  Mr. Adkins also reviewed the proposed rail system.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission works to enhance the style of the home and this is the reason for their review of the application.  Mr. Adkins stated that this particular home is a linear designed home with less innateness than some in the Village.  Mr. Johnson questioned where the downspout would come down.  Mr. Adkins stated the front left corner.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspout will come on to the new porch roof.  Mr. Adkins stated that the upper gutter will come down and by-pass the porch because the present downspout is after the porch.  Mr. Burriss asked for a description of what the detailing will look like where the roof hits the top of the porch.  He asked how much overhang there would be with the exposed fascia board.  Mr. Adkins stated that he would be using a 1x8 board for the fascia.  Mr. Burriss asked the location of the posts.  Mr. Adkins explained the location on the submitted drawing.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-31:

 

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 porch is consistent with other additions and renovations in the same zoning 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 applicant is the restoration of a porch is an important element to this home.

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 porch.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-18 as clarified during discussion of the application.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

128 East Broadway – Stephen Larsen/Bella - Application #2011-33

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk café area. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Biff Eschenbrenner.

 

Discussion:

Biff Eschenbrenner stated that the owner of the business, Steve Larsen, was unable to attend the meeting due to an emergency out of town.  He stated that they would like to use flowers as a divider for the sidewalk cafe.  Mr. Eschenbrenner indicated that he was aware that no advertising or names are allowed on the proposed umbrellas.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the application included the use of umbrellas.  Mr. Eschenbrenner stated that they are including them to be possibly used in the future.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed planters would need to be placed within the café area and not outside of these boundaries. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-32:

 

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 sidewalk café is consistent with other cafes in the same zoning 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 applicant is proposing to have a sidewalk café where similar sidewalk cafes currently exist.

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 sidewalk café.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-33 to Village Council.

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

119 ½ South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers and Barb Franks- Application #2011-35

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of two (2) separate hood vents to be located on the southern elevation and the western elevation. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Dan Rogers, and Barbara Franks.

 

Discussion:

Barb Franks indicated that the proposed location for the vent would be on the south side on the upstairs rear.  Mr. Ryan asked if the dimensions of the hood are per the cut sheet included with the application.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Ms. Franks stated that after hearing the former application for a vent that was flush mounted she would like to investigate if a flush mount vent is possible.  Dan Rogers indicated that a flush mount is not available.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant has checked with the Building Department to see if a structure is required to be around the vent.

 

Mr. Johnson questioned if the vent would protrude out enough into the roadway to get caught on delivery vehicles. 

 

Ms. Franks stated that the vent may have to move over per the Health Department.  Mr. Rogers explained that the vent is located on the south elevation with the intake on the south and the exhaust on the western rear.  The Planning Commission questioned what would happen to the window located near the proposed vent, especially if the vent moves further back.  Ms. Franks explained that she would keep the look of the window from the outside of the home.  Mr. Rogers indicated that the proposed vent could not go through the window.  Mr. Johnson stated that if the vent were to move there could be concerns over the shed roof and the vent sucking back in through the vent.  Ms. Franks indicated that they would put gutters in place to take care of this concern.  

After further discussion of the application with the Planning Commission, the applicant agreed to install the vent unit as originally proposed in the application.  Mr. Johnson asked how far the unit would protrude from the side of the home.  Mr. Rogers estimated eighteen inches (18”).  He added that the unit would be placed as closely to the building as possible.  Mr. Burriss asked what the screen would look like on the intake.  Ms. Franks stated that it would be metal mesh.  Mr. Burriss asked if the unit is galvanized steel or stainless steel.  Mr. Johnson stated that the staff report says aluminum.  Ms. Franks stated that the unit would be painted the same color as the house.  She stated that they have begun painting the house.  Mr. Burriss asked about the noise level of the exhaust fan.  Ms. Franks stated that the oriental restaurant has a much larger fan than what they are proposing.  She stated that the exhaust fan noise would be similar to other exhaust fans already located in the Village.  Mr. Rogers stated that the motor “mushrooms” inside the fan unit. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-25:

 

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 hood vent is consistent with other exhaust fans that have been approved.

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 applicant is proposing a hood vent that is necessary for the proposed use.  He stated that the applicant has attempted to screen the vent from the front view.  Mr. Ryan stated that the vent is consistent with other vent hoods in 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 hood vent.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the hood vent protects the home itself and keeps the home viable.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve of Application #2011-35 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Other Business:

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Section 1159.02, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Section 1159.03, Performance or Development Standards; Section 1159.05, Procedure for Approval; Section 1159.06, Change of Use Category; and Section 1159.07, Appeals of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Village District.

 

Discussion:  The Planning Commission discussed whether or not the Change of Use requirements are necessary.  They questioned if this text should be omitted when they send the recommendation to Village Council.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning and Zoning Committee met to review the proposed changes and agreed with Staff's recommendations related to revisions for Change of Use approval.  She also stated that Councilmember Mershon attending a Planning Commission work session and presented some changes highlighted in blue pertaining to Change of Use approvals.  Ms. Terry stated that when the Village Gateway District area is developed – applicants will be required to come in for administrative approval of an occupancy permit that could take two to three days to process.  She stated that currently a Change of Use review within the Downtown Business District areas takes approximately one month to go through the Planning Commission for approval and businesses in the Village Business District will be at a disadvantage when the Village Gateway District develops.  She added that there is not currently any criteria for the Planning Commission to review for a Change of Use application, unless a use for the property has never been established.  She stated that if an applicant does not meet the required parking requirements, than a variance is required from the BZBA.  Mr. Ryan agreed that often he feels as though applicants wait to come before the Planning Commission for a rubber stamp and he questions if this could be handled by Village Staff.  Ms. Terry stated that anyone who would disagree with a decision by the Village Planner has the right to appeal the matter to the BZBA.  Mr. Johnson agreed that the Change of Use requirements should be handled by staff.  He made a motion to remove information pertaining to Planning Commission approval for Change of Use from the Code.  Mr. Johnson’s motion was seconded and later withdrawn.  Law Director Crites advised that the law department could review the implications of removing Change of Use approvals from the Code for the Planning Commission and get back to them on their findings.  The Planning Commission asked Law Director Crites to further look into this request.   

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-28: Metropolitan Partners; 1919 Lancaster Road; 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 1173, Village Gateway District, and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-28 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-28.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (recuse), Johnson, Burriss, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2010-151 AMENDED: Todd and Robin Feil; 575 West Broadway; 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-151 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-151 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

Application #2011-9 AMENDED: Johne and Leigh Brennan; 126 West Elm Street; Exterior Modification

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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-9 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-9 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, (no), Ryan.  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application #2011-29: Ann Hinkle; 434 East Broadway; Driveway

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 1163, Suburban Residential District-B, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-29 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-29.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Mitchell, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-30: Day Y Noche/Mary Morales-Rivera; 134 East Broadway; Sidewalk Cafe

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  recommends approval of Application #2011-30 as submitted by the applicant, to the Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-30.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-32: Day Y Noche/Mary Morales-Rivera; 134 East Broadway; Exterior Modification

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 #2011-32 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-32.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-31: Brad and Amanda Schneider; 121 North Plum Street; Exterior Modification

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 1163, Suburban Residential District-B, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-31 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-31.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-33: Steve Larson/Bella; 128 East Broadway; Sidewalk Cafe

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 recommends approval of Application #2011-33 as submitted by the applicant, to the Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-33.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Hawk, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-35: Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks; 119 ½ South Prospect Street; 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 #2011-35 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-35.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for March 14, 2011

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the meeting minutes for the Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 11, 2011

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the meeting minutes for the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment:  10:05 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, May 9, 2011

Monday, May 23, 2011 (Tim Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

 

GPC Minutes April 11, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 11, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Michael King; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Deb Walker.

Also Present: Maggie Sobataka, Ben and Nadine Rader, John Noblick, John and Patty Ricket, Roger Kessler, Deborah Barber, Dena McKinley, Todd and Robin Feil, David Schnaidt, Lisa McKivergin, Tony Beckerly, Eric Rosenberg, Mary Jane McDonald, Gill Miller, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Stephanie Kuntz, Steve Larson, James Hale, Rod Haynes, and Suzanne Kennedy.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

113 North Prospect Street – Maggie Sobataka - Application #2010-60 AMENDED

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

The request is for review and approval to temporarily relocate the sidewalk sign to the northeast corner of Broadway and Prospect Street. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Maggie Sobataka.

 

Discussion:

Maggie Sobataka, 113 North Prospect Street, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that this matter was discussed during a work session at a previous Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Ryan stated that he would have concern that there could be other businesses on Prospect Streets that would like to move their sidewalk signage to the corner.  Ms. Sobataka stated that this would be a temporary relocation of the signage and she has some signage ideas for alleviating the problem that would encompass all stores.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign would be relocated for a six month period before the applicant proposes the new ideas.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she is still reviewing ideas and would like to have the sidewalk signage in place during the summer months.  She stated that when the road was previously closed and the sidewalk signage was moved she noticed an increase in foot traffic to her business.  She asked if the Planning Commission would be interested in her keeping track of this increase in numbers.  Mr. Ryan stated that although this would be interesting to know it would be hard to know if an increase in pedestrian traffic is due to something going on at the gallery or as a result of the sidewalk signage location.  Mr. Ryan asked if Ms. Sobataka has talked to other patrons on her street.  She stated yes and they didn’t have an opinion.  Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any complaints from Everest Gear.  Ms. Terry stated that she heard from them during the street closure.  Ms. Sobataka stated that Everest Gear has verbally expressed to her that business exposure is a problem due to signage.  Mr. Ryan stated that he will agree to vote yes on the application only because it is for a temporary period of time. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60 AMENDED:

 

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 change in the location of the signage is stylistically compatible.

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 applicant is proposing to change to the previously approved location for the signage, which is consistent with other similar signage in the same 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 from the business.

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 #2010-60 as AMENDED with the condition that the signage be removed from the corner location after a six-month period of time.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

122 East Broadway – Ben Rader - Application #2011-12

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

The request is architectural review and approval of a sidewalk café area.    

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Ben Rader

 

Discussion:

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, stated that the property in question is located at 122 East Broadway.  He stated that he would like to put in a sidewalk café area.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be any signage on the umbrellas.  Mr. Rader stated no.  Mr. Johnson asked about the extension of the café to the real-estate office area.  Mr. Rader stated that he owns the building where the extension of the café would go.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-12:

 

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 change in the proposed café is consistent with other cafes approved in the district and stylistically compatible.

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 applicant is proposing a café, which is consistent with other similar cafes in the same 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 cafe.

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 recommend approval of Application #2011-12 to Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

325 West Broadway – Mary Jane McDonald - Application #2011-13

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the change from a gravel driveway to an exposed aggregate concrete driveway. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and John Noblick. 

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, Newark, stated that the existing gravel driveway looks like exposed aggregate now and the proposed change really won’t look much different from what is currently in place.  Mr. Johnson asked if there will be excavation of what is there now.  Mr. Noblick stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-13:

 

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 driveway is consistent with other driveway approvals in the same 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 applicant is proposing an upgrade in material, which is more consistent 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 driveway improvement.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve of Application #2011-13.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

212 South Main Street – Patty Ricket/Curves - Application #2011-14

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

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use from Category “D”, Food, Drug and Beverage Business to Category “H”, Fitness Related Businesses. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Patty Ricket. 

 

Discussion:

Patty Ricket, 736 Beaver Road SE, Hebron, Ohio 43025, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed location of the business has more than sufficient parking.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the current location is in the Shurtz building.  Ms. Ricket stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked how many people she expects to frequent the business at one time.  Ms. Ricket stated that four people at once would be busy.  Mr. Ryan asked how many employees are employed by the business.  Mr. Ricket stated that it is a family operated business.  Mr. Johnson questioned if a particular number of parking spaces should be designated.  Mr. Burriss suggested five spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that the spaces wouldn’t have to be in a particular location on the property. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve of Application #2011-14 with the condition that five parking spaces be designated for the usage.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

212 South Main Street – Patty Ricket/Curves - Application #2011-15

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

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

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Patty Ricket. 

 

Discussion:

Patty Ricket, 736 Beaver Road SE, Hebron, Ohio 43025, indicated that she would like to place a sign up for her exercise business.  Ms. Terry explained that there were previous variances given at this location for the increase in signage.  Ms. Terry clarified that she originally thought an additional variance was required, but after further review a variance is not necessary.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the tenant panel sign would go in the existing sign on the property.  Ms. Ricket stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-15:

 

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 this 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 applicant is proposing appropriate graphics for this signage and 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. Johnson made a motion to approve of Application #2011-15.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

115 East Elm Street – Subway - Application #2011-17

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

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

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Rodger Kessler.

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, 173 Pinehurst Drive, presented an example of the awning color to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that the presented signage is more consistent with other signage in the Village.  Ms. Terry indicated that all of the requirements for the signage have been met.  Mr. Burriss clarified the number of colors for the signage.  Mr. Kessler explained that black is listed as a color, but this is a technicality because it won’t actually show up.  He stated that it will be used to make the white and yellow stand out better.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-17:

 

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 with the scalloped awning is consistent.

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 applicant is proposing a more consistent awning that matches other awnings in the same 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. Johnson made a motion to approve of Application #2011-17 with the condition that the awning has scalloped white trim detail to match the awnings for Elm’s Pizza and The Sport Shop.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

420 North Granger Street – Deborah Barber - Application #2011-18

Suburban Residential District – B (SRD-B)

The request is for review and approval of a detached accessory structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Deborah Barber. 

 

Discussion:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  She presented an example of what the accessory structure would look like and this was attached to the application as ‘Exhibit A.’  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the structure would be on a concrete slab.  Ms. Barber stated that they would be using concrete block for the foundation.  Ms. Terry stated that the application meets all of the requirements for lot size, setbacks, and lot coverage.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the applicant is proposing to do the same color on the accessory structure that is on the house.  Ms. Barber stated yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-18 with the stipulation that the structure be painted to match the existing home.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-7

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an amended two-story addition to an existing garage. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Eric Rosenberg, Gill Miller, James Hale, and Mary Jane McDonald. 

 

Application #2011-7 was previously tabled. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove Application #2011-7 from the table.  Second by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, and Applicant's Agent stated that he would like to comment on the issue of massing and the proposed architectural style of the home that was discussed at a previous Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that due to neighbor concerns new plans have been proposed, that reduce the size of the garage, remove the cupola, and install smaller windows for unnecessary intrusions.  He added that blue spruce screening was also added to the plans.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the massing concerns have been largely addressed by the applicant and his law partner recently met with the neighbors to review the new plans.  He stated that they did not have any objections to the greater lot coverage – provided that the structure didn’t have a second floor.  He stated that the project has been redesigned twice and that the redesign is architecturally complimentary in every way.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that some of the windows have been tailored with landscaping and stained glass.  He stated that there are massive houses already on the street and the proposed changes to the home at 317 West Broadway would correct the only eye sore on the street.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that regarding sustainability and viability, the proposed changes would match up with the streetscapes in the neighborhood and the design for the home is a real compliment to the neighborhood.  He requested approval of the modified plans.   

 

Mary Jane McDonald, 325 West Broadway, stated that she and her neighbors have two primary goals in this matter and that is to protect property in the historical district and maintain the character and privacy they all have in their back yards and gardens.  She stated that they are reasonable people and they want to be neighborly.  Ms. McDonald stated that they have almost complete privacy without the second story garage.  She added that no other homes in the neighborhood have two story garages.  Ms. McDonald stated that the history of the house is that Mr. Galano’s home actually sits on her lot line and some parts of the home are over the lot line.  She stated that her house was built in 1835 and there has not ever been any problem with accessing the home at 317 West Broadway because she always wanted to be a good neighbor.  Ms. McDonald stated that she was contacted by a realtor and lawyer about giving an easement for a strip of property on which the Galano house exists, and in the spirit of good "neighborness" she gave an easement to access the property at any time.  She added that the neighbors have been willing to compromise.  She stated that she never met Mr. Galano, but they did meet with his attorney.  Ms. McDonald stated that she and the neighbors continue to be concerned with the second story on the garage.  She stated that they found the second story on the house to be legitimate and there was a third proposal by the applicant for the house and garage, but there were no modifications for the garage to the intrusion to the back yard.  Ms. McDonald stated that the applicant is proposing a large addition and the various plans for the house have been a moving target.  Ms. McDonald stated that the back yard privacy is vital because they already share their front yard with the community for events such as the 4th of July, parades, bike races, picnics, etc.  Ms. McDonald encouraged the Planning Commission to not allow the construction of the garage at this time, or until after the house addition occurs, especially since the house is so much smaller than the proposed garage.  She added that she would hate to see the garage completed and the house left as is.  She also asked the Planning Commission to consider whether the architectural style for the garage is appropriate for the district.  Ms. McDonald asked for clarification on whether or not the second story of the accessory structure can be utilized for living space.  Ms. Terry clarified that the applicant can use the space for a work area and may have a bathroom, but it is not supposed to be used as a habitable living space.  She added that the second story of the accessory structure cannot be used as an apartment or for a separate single-family residence.   

 

James Hale, 337 West Broadway, stated that the second story garage would be intrusive to neighboring properties and he has concerns with the historical character of the home with the presented changes. 

 

Gill Miller, 337 West Broadway, questioned that once the structure has full plumbing what would keep it from being transferred into a full bathroom or kitchen.  Ms. Terry stated that if they were alerted that someone lived in the structure a cease and desist order would be issued because this is not permissible by Village Code.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the applicant is requesting a bathroom on the second floor of the accessory structure for his home office and there would not be a shower.  He added that the applicant does not have plans to use this area as a habitable living space.  

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the structures would require an occupancy permit.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She stated that if a shower and rough plumbing were installed this would be indicated on the building permit by the inspector.  She explained that the Village Planning Department signs off on plans submitted to the Licking County Building Code Department so they can ensure that there isn’t a change between when the permit is issued by the Village and when the permit is issued by the Building Code Department.  Ms. Terry added that in this case they also would include a copy of the permit saying that this can’t be used as a habitable space. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned that if the Planning Commission were to feel that this structure was not compatible to the house they should be having the discussion of the home first and then the accessory structure.  Law Director King indicated that the Planning Commission could vote to postpone discussion of Application #2011-7 until after the review of the second story addition to the main structure.   

 

Mr. Burriss indicated that there is a discrepancy with the half bath having a skylight above the bathroom.  Mr. Rosenberg was not sure and stated that if the Planning Commission were to pass the plans with a skylight, they would choose an approved style of skylight.  Mr. Johnson stated that the materials listed state “standard ogee gutters”, but the drawings do not appear to show these.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that Mr. Galano works in New York and Mr. Johnson is correct that the gutter location is not depicted in the drawings.  Ms. Terry explained that the list of materials was presented after the drawings were prepared.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is no indication of heating and cooling equipment and this is part of the Planning Commission’s evaluation.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he would imagine a heat pump would be used.  Ms. Terry stated that this information could be requested later.  Mr. Burris added that the HVAC unit would have to be screened.  Ms. McDonald stated that the garage drawing was unacceptable to the neighbors and there is also concern for the old and large trees.  She stated that there would be a disturbance to her lot.  Ms. McDonald also stated that Mr. Rosenberg is not the attorney that met with the neighbors on this matter.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he did not meet with the neighbors.  He stated that another option is for Mr. Galano to come back with a design that has everything attached to the front principal structure and it would then be a much longer structure.  He also stated that he agrees with the concern by the neighbors regarding not having the garage approved for building prior to the renovation of the primary structure.  Mr. Rosenberg reviewed the pictures that he submitted as exhibits.  He stated that there would more foliage in the summer months and the tree branches are all below the windows.  He added that he understands the desire for private space and they are talking about three windows to dozens that already exist on the property.  Gill Miller indicated that they haven’t seen any photographs that were submitted.  She stated that the garage plans are not consistent with the neighborhood and the rectangular long end of the structure is viewed from a different vantage point.  

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to postpone discussion and review of criteria for Application #2011-7 until after review of Application #2011-19.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

After discussion of Application #2011-19 and tabling of the application, the Planning Commission then tabled Application #2011-7 until further information is submitted.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #2011-7.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-19

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a second story addition to an existing single-family structure.   

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Eric Rosenberg, James Hale, Gill Miller, and Mary Jane McDonald.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 395 North Pearl Street, stated that he will address any questions that the Planning Commission may have.  Ms. McDonald stated that she and the neighbors didn’t have a significant problem with the number two proposal that was made for the house, except for it being on her property.  She stated that she would have concerns that construction would disturb her plantings.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that he would like to make the record clear that an easement was granted prior to the sale of the property regarding the location of Mr. Galano’s home.  He stated that it was nice of the neighbor to agree to the easement and there is no other intrusion by the proposed addition.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of the addition is on the east side of the home and most of the construction would not be on Ms. McDonald’s side.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant is planning to make any changes to the chimney.  Ms. Terry stated that the plans do not indicate any changes.  Mr. Ryan agreed that the chimney looked higher in the drawings.  Mr. Burriss provided some history of the house and stated that it was originally built for the daughter of the church minister as a playhouse.  He stated that sometime around 1936-1937 the house was used as a temporary sorority house and later as a chapter house for a fraternity.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be interested in some explanation from the author of the drawings as to where the inspiration for architectural elements came from and why he feels they are appropriate for the neighborhood.  He added that this type of information is considered when they approve structures in the AROD.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the integrity of the house is intact with a second floor added to it.  He added that the roofline is not inconsistent with Granville and most houses started small and became bigger in the Village with additions.  He stated that the drawings before the Planning Commission were an attempt to address concerns raised by the neighbors to be more in keeping with the neighborhood.  He stated that the cupola was taken off and the massing scaled down, with traditional garage doors added.  He stated that the rest of the home is an attempt to stay consistent with the neighborhood.  Mr. Burriss stated that as far as architectural elements, the original home has no brackets and in the new variation there are brackets.  He stated that the detailing on the brackets is much more Victorian in detail than what the original structure is.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would call the original structure a colonial revival style home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that with the integrity of the small scale home it is out of sync with the neighborhood and this new plan puts the home back in sync with the neighborhood and the street.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is opposition to removal of the brackets.  Mr. Burriss clarified that the brackets are appropriate to the new plan, just not an element in the existing home.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the brackets were incorporated to be consistent with the garage front.  He stated that similar brackets exist on Broadway and he doesn’t think it’s a “deal breaker” if the brackets need to be modified with the house.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is not opposition to the windows on the home and only the windows in the accessory structure.  Gill Miller stated that it was their understanding that there are not windows on the second story of the home facing to the west.  Ms. Terry verified that the plan does not call for windows on the second floor of the primary structure (rear).  Ms. McDonald asked about the brackets and their compatibility in the neighborhood.  She questioned if they are to be compatible with the original structure or the neighboring properties.  Mr. Ryan stated that they were referring the compatibility with the original structure, but the Planning Commission is charged with ensuring compatibility of any new structure with the rest of the neighborhood.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has lost the little house in the presented plan.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed that the existing home as is is little.  He stated that with the presented plans they would be losing a small home, but there is nothing in the code saying that you can’t make a house bigger when you buy a lot.  Ms. Miller asked about dormers on historic homes.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that there is a dormer on a home two doors down and they are all over Granville.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home two doors down has a projecting bay window.  Mr. Burriss went on to say that dormers do exist within the architectural vocabulary of Granville.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission views the house as being compatible with the historic district criteria.  Mr. Burriss suggested gathering additional information and having further discussion.  Mr. Burriss questioned how the hip roof came to be when the existing roof has a low gable.  Mr. Burriss stated that a hip roof is not necessarily a bad choice when one is wanting to reduce massing.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed and stated that the hip roof style was chosen specifically to reduce massing.  He also stated that it is difficult to make a roofline that fits within the code requirements.  He agreed that the hip roof is not the style of the existing house.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that essentially a whole new house would be built to fit in with the neighborhood.  He stated that there is no integrity left to the existing house.  Mr. Ryan stated that the existing house is overshadowed by every other house in the neighborhood as it exists today.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a feeling on his part that the house is wearing a hat that doesn’t fit as well as it could.  He suggested that the plans be further reviewed and additional information brought forward.  The Planning Commission agreed that they would like further information about the brackets, hip roof, downspouts, and HVAC equipment.  Mr. Ryan added that it would be beneficial and helpful for the architect to be present.  He asked if the owner of the home prefers not to be at the meeting.  Mr. Rosenberg explained that the homeowner, Joseph Galano, works in New York and he is often in Granville – just not typically on a Monday evening.  He stated that he would check Mr. Galano’s availability.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed that he could bring further information forward, but he would like to note that a change in the roofline, etc. will not solve the neighbor’s concerns.  Mr. Ryan asked if the house itself is acceptable for the neighbors as a two-story structure.  Ms. McDonald stated that the garage is the big problem and they want to emphasize that they would like the structure to be in keeping with the Village.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would like further explanation about the east elevation windows not lining up.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that these are the windows that are currently in place.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the sizing of the newly presented windows is appropriate in relation to the existing windows.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that they attempted to change the window size due to the neighbors.  Mr. Johnson questioned how the downspouts on the south and west elevation would daylight.  Mr. Burriss suggested checking with the building department on the appropriate height of the chimney.  Mr. Rosenberg asked if architecturally there were any concerns for the garage.  Mr. Burriss stated that essentially the two structures are married architecturally,  so the same architectural concerns for the house would apply.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that a total redesign would be required if the neighbors are saying that they want the side elevation to go straight up rather than having windows and a dormer.  Mr. Ryan stated that he does have concern over the west elevation of the garage because it would be the only two-story outbuilding on the block and building massing would be an issue. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant, Mr. Rosenberg, is requesting to table Application #2011-19 to gather additional information.  Mr. Rosenberg stated yes.   

 

Mr. Burris moved to table Application #2011-19.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

Roll Call Vote:  Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

384 East Broadway – Terra Nova Partners, LLC - Application #2011-20

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

The request is for review and approval of a lot split. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Herach Nazarian, and Bryon Reed.

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, stated that they had a great discussion with BZBA and the required variances were granted.  Mr. Reed submitted examples of lot splits in the Village for the record.  Ms. Terry explained that the lots were shown with conceptual house plans to show that the lot coverage and adequacy of yard space requirements can be met. She also stated that the Code does not have a minimum square footage requirement for houses constructed in the Village.  Mr. Reed stated that they will come back to present the house plans in a few weeks.  Mr. Burriss asked if an aerial view, showing the College Town House structure and other adjacent structures, could be provided to show the relationship of existing structures to proposed structures.  Ms. Terry stated that Staff would work with the applicant to get this information for the Planning Commission.  She also stated that there are pins located in the parking lot.  Ms. Terry explained that the BZBA variances didn’t specify access to the property.  Mr. Reed indicated that they are proposing access from Granger Street after discussions in work sessions.  Mr. Burriss stated that one concern he has that has nothing to do with the lot split is allowing a five foot space at the back edge of the property to allow for plantings.  Mr. Reed stated that this could be addressed with the survey. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve of Application #2011-20.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

125 West Elm Street – Christian and Stephanie Kuntz - Application #2011-21

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a porch addition, exterior remodeling and wrap around decks and railings. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Stephanie Kuntz, Rod Haynes and David Schnaidt.

 

Discussion:

Christian Kuntz, 125 West Elm Street, was present to address any concerns.  She stated that the contractor is Rod Haynes of Teeters Construction.  Mr. Ryan asked if the necessary requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She asked about the extension of the railing along the side property line, beyond where it currently exists, and stated that it would have to be ten feet away from this property line or a variance would be required.  Mr. Haynes stated that the railing would be ten feet away and would not wrap around the structure.  Mr. Burriss applauded efforts to fix up the exterior of the home. 

 

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, stated that he hadn’t had a chance to discuss the changes with Mr. or Mrs. Kuntz.  He stated that overall he is excited for the neighborhood and the proposed changes are a step in the right direction.  He stated that he did want to see how the plans would affect the west elevation and the concrete wall that they have looked at for the last fifteen years.  He stated that he is curious about materials on the wall and the proposed supports underneath the railing area. 

 

Rod Haynes, Teeters Construction, 735 Cross Pointe Road, Gahanna, stated that they would mount a cover on the drain tile.  He indicated that the top of the wall would be stucco and they would put a parge coat finish that continues over top of the block wall.  Mr. Haynes stated that that they would use the existing brackets to match the front.  Mr. Burriss asked about the style of shingles.  Mr. Haynes stated that they would be staggered ‘Cedar Impressions.’  Mr. Burriss asked if the porch columns would have trim around the edges or a base/cap.  Mr. Haynes stated they are proposing no trim.   

 

Mr. Haynes presented an example of the proposed railing to be used.  Mr. Johnson asked the color of the stucco.  Mr. Haynes stated that it would be a concrete gray natural finish.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the soffits would be left as is.  Mr. Haynes stated that they would be replaced in white vinyl.   Mr. Johnson asked if the spiral staircase would match the existing railing.  Mr. Haynes stated yes.  Mr. Burriss agreed that the proposal by the applicant is more architecturally consistent than what currently exists and he has no objection to the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-21:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other projects approved.  

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 applicant is proposing an upgrade to the existing elements on the home. 

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 applicant’s proposal.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the house would be maintained by the proposed improvements. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion recommend approval of Application #2011-21 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

128 East Broadway – Bella - Application #2011-23

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of two (2) window signs.

                       

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

 

Discussion:

Steve Larsen, Newark-Granville Road, stated that he is a commercial developer, and he is also a minimalist when it comes to signage.  He indicated that he thought the presented plan before the Planning Commission was the least invasive.  He also stated that their proposal is within the code requirements.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-23:

 

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 same 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 applicant is proposing an acceptable sign.  

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 by the applicant.

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 of Application #2011-23 as submitted by the applicant.   Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-60 AMENDED: Gallery M/Maggie Sobataka; 113 North Prospect Street; Sidewalk Sign Relocation

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 #2010-60 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

Application #2011-12: Ben Rader; 122 East Broadway; Sidewalk Cafe

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 recommends approval to the Village Council of Application #2011-12 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-12.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-13: Noblick/McDonald; 325 West Broadway; Driveway

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 Chapter 1176 Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-13 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-13.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-14: Patty Ricket; 212 South Main Street; Change of Use

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 1183, Parking and Loading Requirements, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-14 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-14.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-15: Patty Ricket; 212 South Main Street; 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 #2011-15 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-15.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-17: Subway; 115 Elm Street; Awning 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 1161 Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-17 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-17.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-18: Deborah Barber; 420 North Granger Street; Shed

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-18 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-18.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-20: Terra Nova Partners; 384 East Broadway; Lot Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval and Chapter 1159, Village District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-20 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-20.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-21: Christian and Stephanie Kuntz; 125 East Elm Street; Exterior Modification

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 #2011-21 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-21.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-23: Bella/Steve Larson; 125 East Broadway; 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-23 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-23.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to excuse absent Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk from the Planning Commission meeting on April 11, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Adjournment:  9:25 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, April 25, 2011

Monday, May 9, 2011

Monday, May 23, 2011 (Tim Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

GPC Minutes March 14, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 14, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jeremy Johnson, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent:  Tim Ryan and Tom Mitchell.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant to Planning Department, Debi Walker.

Also Present: Maggie Sobataka and Steve Mershon.

 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Other Business:

 

 

            Note: These agenda items are open to the public and are public hearings.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed Zoning Code revisions.

 

Acting as Chair:

Mr. Hawk made a motion to nominate Jack Burriss as Chair Pro Tem for the March 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion 3-0.

 

Work Session:

Maggie Sobataka, Gallery M, Prospect Street, Granville, was present to discuss signage for her business.  Alison Terry stated that Maggie Sobataka had a projecting sign and sandwich board sign previously approved by the Planning Commission.  She explained that the Planning Commission preferred that the sandwich board sign be placed in front of her business, rather than at the corner of Prospect and Broadway.  She stated that Ms. Sobataka would like to know what she can do to attract people to her business on Prospect Street.  Ms. Sobataka indicated that Alison Terry provided an excellent summary of her request to the Planning Commission.  She went on to say that she doesn’t want to haul a sandwich board up and down the street to the corner, and she is seeking any additional ideas that the Planning Commission may have to direct people to all business establishments on Prospect Street.  She clarified that she has had to put the sidewalk sign at the corner, especially during the street closure.  She stated that the sandwich board signage located at the corner was very beneficial for letting people know her business was located on Prospect Street.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she typically has her sandwich board sign located in the tree lawn, but it is not very visible.  She stated that Russ Adams and Everest Gear signage block her signage.  Ms. Sobataka indicated that her business is located in an obscure location.  Ms. Terry stated that Ms. Sobataka’s business name is located in the directional kiosk signage.  Ms. Sobataka stated that no one seems to use the kiosks.  She questioned if a sign could be located on the existing trash can and she stated that she knows this could make a difference as to people finding them.  Mr. Burriss stated that the building at the corner once had signage for a women’s clothing store on the building.  He stated that this was put in place before they had a sign code.  He stated that there was a sign on the building that discreetly indicated that a business was located in the downstairs.  Mr. Burriss suggested that for the interim he thought that the Planning Commission could consider allowing a sandwich board sign at the corner.  Ms. Sobataka stated that she will work with whatever the decision the Planning Commission makes.  She suggested that there still needs to be a better solution put in place.  Mr. Burriss agreed that this has been an issue discussed many times throughout the years.  Ms. Sobataka agreed that placing her sidewalk sign at the corner would be advantageous for the interim, but she would like to see a permanent solution that benefits businesses on Prospect Street.  The Planning Commission also discussed placing a planter at the corner of Prospect and Broadway with directional signage stating “More Shops and Restaurants This Way” and locate this on both sides of Prospect Street.  Ms. Sobataka agreed to gather some additional ideas relating to a planter and get back to the Planning Commission.

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Section 1159.02, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Section 1159.03, Performance or Development Standards; Section 1159.05, Procedure for Approval; Section 1159.06, Change of Use Category; and Section 1159.07, Appeals of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Village District.

 

Discussion: Alison Terry explained that the Planning Commission has two copies in front of them – one with revisions she has made and one with revisions suggested by Councilmember Steve Mershon.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed changed have been reviewed by the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated no, that these changes came from meetings with the Planning and Zoning Committee.  Councilmember Mershon explained that he knew he would have the opportunity to discuss his proposed changes at Council, but Ms. Terry suggested that it would be best to bring these revisions to the Planning Commission work session.  Mr. Johnson asked if any further discussion took place relating to conditional uses, such as the recent request they had from Terra Nova Homes.  Ms. Terry stated no and that the changes before the Planning Commission relate to submittal deadlines, change of use, appeal process, etc.  Ms. Terry stated that she believes in the future it will be difficult to be competitive with potential businesses located outside of the Village Business District (VBD), especially if VBD businesses they have to wait a month for approval.  Mr. Mershon stated that one argument he heard came from Dick VanMeter who owns and operates property on South Main Street.  He stated that Mr. VanMeter stated that he loses a month and half of rent because he can’t move someone in his space quickly enough to start operating their business.  He explained that this is due to the amount of time it takes for Change of Use approvals in the Village.  Mr. Mershon stated that he created this language change in fairness to the Village Business District and to complete with the Village Gateway District.  He stated that the changes he is proposing allow a business use with a lesser parking requirement to not need additional approval.  Ms. Terry added that when the Village Gateway District is ready, they will not have the same types of restrictions, and they wanted to address these concerns now.  She also stated that the Village Business District has more small, new business owners.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned what the Code says if one does not agree with the ruling by the Village Planner.  Ms. Terry explained that the Granville Code permits the Village Manager to deal with this type of situation.  She added that every permit is signed by the Village Manager.  She also stated that any time she denies a permit, the applicant can appeal the decision to the BZBA.  The Planning Commission suggested asking Tom Mitchell and Tim Ryan if they would like to hold an additional Work Session on this matter prior to the public hearing.  Ms. Terry indicated that she would check with them.   

 

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Permit & Application Fees, Exhibit A, to amend various development and zoning related fees.

 

Discussion: Ms. Terry indicated that the fees were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Committee.  She stated that there were not any proposed changes to Residential zoning fees, and they mainly focused on BZBA associated fees.  Ms. Terry explained that the BZBA applications have a postage and advertising fee associated with them and this is because the BZBA notices used to be sent Certified Mail, but are now sent Certificate of Mailing, which is much less.  She stated that the postage costs now are a lot less than they used to be when this language was first put in the Code.  Mr. Johnson questioned what factors are driving the lowering of the Commercial Variance fee?  He asked if this should be reduced or left as is.  Ms. Terry indicated that this has been viewed as too high of an amount by area business owners and this change was attempting to be more accommodating of local business needs.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that lowering the Variance fee could encourage business.  The Planning Commission discussed when the Commercial Variance fee was established.  Ms. Terry stated that records indicate that this amount was changed in 2005.  Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hawk indicated that they felt that the AROD and Zoning costs ought to be representative of the staff time and resources needed to prepare the application – and based on “true costs.”  Ms. Terry clarified that the current rate charged for right of way permits is $10.00, but there is one area in the code that states $20.00.  She stated that this was a mistake.  She explained that right of way permits allow the Village to know who is doing work in the right of way and who to contact if there is a problem.  The Planning Commission discussed the Construction Inspection Fee.  Mr. Johnson stated that this is common in other municipalities.  He stated that the Village will just have to ensure that the person doing the inspection is knowledgeable and able to represent the Village with effectiveness.      

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Tim Ryan from the March 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from the February 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, April 11, 2011

Monday, April 25, 2011

GPC Minutes February 28, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 28, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant to Planning Department, Debi Walker.

Also Present: Johne and Leigh Brennan, Chip Blanchard, Brian Miller, Ben Pickrell, Richard Downs, Jurgen Pape, Bryan Reed, Tim Rollins, Jack Lucks, Tom Linzell, Gill Miller, Mary Jane McDonald, James Hale, and Tyler Lucks.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under ‘Citizens’ Comments.’

 

New Business:

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-7

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a two-story addition to an existing garage. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Richard Downs, and Gill Miller.

 

Discussion:

The applicant was not present when Application #2011-7 was scheduled on the agenda to be heard.  Mr. Ryan asked Ms. Miller, whom was present to speak in regards to the application, if she minded waiting for the applicant to arrive so the Planning Commission could discuss the request.  Ms. Miller agreed. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to Table Application #2011-7.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Mr. Richard Downs arrived at 8:10, after Planning Commission consideration of Application #2011-8. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to remove Application #2011-7 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Discussion:

Richard Downs, 4147 Loudon Street, apologized to the Planning Commission for being late.  He indicated that he is representing the owner of the property, Mr. Joseph Galano.  He stated that Mr. Galano is moving here from New York and was unable to attend the meeting.  He stated that Mr. Galano purchased the property and then found that he needed additional living space because he was going to have to move his mother in with him due to her health.  He stated that Mr. Galano is an architect and wanted to create a working studio to facilitate his career as an architect and is proposing this addition for this studio.  Gill Miller, 337 West Broadway, stated that she lives two doors west of the applicant.  Ms. Miller stated that she has three points of concern regarding Application #2011-8.  She stated that the addition is in disproportion to the scale that is presented for the primary structure.  She stated that the primary structure is a simple one-story and the proposed addition is a two-story structure.  Ms. Miller stated that none of the out buildings on the block are one story with two-story accessory structures.  Ms. Miller stated that her second point is that the architectural style is not in any relationship to that of the property.  She stated that there are unrelated elements proposed for a house that is modest and a one-story vernacular home.  She went on to say that the addition appears to be larger than the primary house.  Ms. Miller stated that her third point is that the neighborhood has private back yards and all of the homes in this area “donate their front yards for the public.”  She stated that the back yard often becomes a private garden and the new two-story structure proposed by the applicant would peer down into private back yard spaces.  She stated she has concerns that the proposed palladian windows that are nine over one would look into West Elm Street private garden spaces.  Ms. Miller stated that she has no objection to the proposed use of the applicant’s addition, but they hope the Planning Commission will guide the applicant towards a compromise that is more in keeping with the block and neighborhood.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he “wishes he could be as eloquent as Gill Miller” in her explanation and he agrees with her comments.  He stated that the proposed 1,350 square feet for the garage is way out of proportion and it is a different style from the house.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the total square footage of the house.  Alison Terry stated that the footprint is 1,562 and the one story home has a full basement.  Mr. Downs stated that he will not weigh in on this until he is able to relay the neighbor concerns to Mr. Galano.  He stated that the neighbors and Mr. Galano can mutually address these concerns, since Mr. Galano did the design.  Mr. Downs stated that he does not live on this block and he doesn’t want to express a specific opinion.  He stated that the drawings can be deceiving when it comes to size and he stated that he understands the neighbor concerns, but he hopes that this is something that can be worked out and be mitigated.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this is the attitude that is correct and is appreciated by the commission.  Mr. Mitchell explained that a couple Ordinances apply to this situation, such as building massing.  He stated that, hopefully, the homeowner/architect can alter some of the characteristics that are being proposed and be more amendable to the concerns of the neighbors.  Mr. Downs stated that he is hopeful that the homeowner can be here for the next meeting.  He agreed that the application should be tabled until the next meeting.  He explained that the homeowner was designing the addition to try to avoid the need for any variances.  He also stated that he doesn’t necessarily think that a one-story principal structure and two-story accessory structure are incompatible.  Mr. Downs stated that the homeowner tried to be respectful of the zoning restrictions and it is possible that he may want to look at getting a variance for lot coverage to accomplish his goal.  He stated that the design before the Planning Commission was generated out of necessity, rather than a poor sense of judgment.  Mr. Hawk stated that he agrees with Ms. Miller’s comments and the home massing is significant.  Mr. Burriss stated that the articulation of the massing should also be taken into consideration.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2011-8.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

454 South Main Street – Granville Dance & Music Academy - Application #2011-8

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.

                       

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

 

Discussion:

Ben Pickrell, 454 South Main Street, Granville, stated that they would like to place a wall sign on the building.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that there is LED lighting available for this type of light which could be much more environment friendly.  Mr. Pickrell stated that he did not know this and he will look into this.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant meets all of the necessary requirements. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-8 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

126 West Elm Street – Johne and Leigh Brennan - Application #2011-9

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an in-ground swimming pool and a

privacy fence to be located in the rear yard. 

                       

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

 

Discussion:

Johne Brennan, 126 West Elm Street, was available to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if the trellis will be removed in the front left corner of the property.  Mr. Brennan stated yes.  Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that the application meets all of the requirements.  She stated that the fencing is required to be five foot high to prevent uncontrolled access to the swimming pool. 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the home is very pretty but he is not sure that the proposed style of fence is in keeping with the style of the house.  He asked if there was any chance the applicant would be willing to move the fence to the back so it is not so visible from the street.  Mr. Brennan asked where Mr. Mitchell recommends this relocation. 

 

Mr. Brennan stated that the reason for the proposed location of the fence is due to the existing archway, which they are planning to remove and the patio space directly behind.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the applicant could leave the existing fence and trellis and place the other control fence towards in the back corner of the house.  Mr. Brennan stated that this could be done, but then when they look out from their dining room window – they will see a fence and not their back yard.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he would prefer to not see the fencing at the front of the structure due to the aesthetic from the street.  Mr. Brennan stated that he will be looking out from the window more than a passerby will be looking at the fence.  He went on to say that if moving the fence is needed for approval of the project – he will move the fence, but he prefers to leave it as presented in the application. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated she hadn’t received any comments regarding this application.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the fence has to be opaque and if it could be a five-foot high fence that you can see through.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the fencing could be left in the location presented by the applicant, but have a four-foot high solid bottom and one foot high lattice top in the front location only.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned how sturdy a lattice fence would be.  Mr. Burriss stated that only the top of the fence would have lattice.  Mr. Burriss stated that he can appreciate what the applicant is saying about the view from his home.  He suggested moving the whole fence back and take out the existing lattice to open up that side of the home.  Mr. Hawk agreed that this would be a good compromise to give the fence some architectural style and he supports this, rather than having two fences.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there was any additional lighting proposed for the swimming pool.  Mr. Ryan noted that the application stated that there is not any additional lighting proposed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-9:

 

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 proposal is consistent if it has a sealed and finished fence.

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 applicant is proposing a historically appropriate fence with the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and agreed to by the applicant.

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 proposal of the applicant.

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

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve of Application #2011-9 with the condition that the applicant install a sealed fence and that the fence on the northeast and northwest have a one-foot lattice detail on the top 1/3 portion of the fence.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session

Terra Nova Partners to discuss a potential lot split of the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and has received conditional use approval for a single family residential structure. 

 

Discussion:

Bryon Reed stated that he wanted feedback from the Planning Commission regarding his proposal.  He stated that his partner on this project would be here, but he is out of town.  Mr. Reed stated that they are proposing to subdivide the single lot into two lots and this is in the Village Business District (VBD) already.  He indicated that they would not need any variances for the lots if they are split as in the proposal.  Ms. Terry indicated that the proposed driveway location on North Granger Street would require variances due to the Access Management Guidelines adopted in 2005.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the access point would be best off of Granger Street, rather than Broadway – even if this would require a variance.  He stated that a driveway in the front yard on Broadway is not preferred in his opinion.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Mitchell that he would prefer to see the driveway located off of Granger Street.  Mr. Reed agreed that they could certainly look at moving the driveway.  He stated that the reason the lots are this size is because it would require a variance for anything different.  Ms. Terry explained that the side yard setbacks are established by other properties on Granger Street and the front yard setbacks are set by the College Town House and Granville Inn.  Mr. Reed stated that they may consider requesting a variance to move the front yard setback up and be consistent with the school district offices on Granger Street, since these structures will be across the street.  He stated that neighbors have indicated that they would be ok with this proposal and moving the homes up would also allow for them to save a few trees in the rear yard.  Mr. Reed stated that the driveway location on Broadway would not require a variance.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Mitchell agreed that a variance for moving the driveway to Granger Street makes sense in this particular case.  They stated that taking the driveway off of Broadway and moving it to Granger Street would allow for more landscaping.  Mr. Reed questioned if anyone on the Planning Commission saw a huge problem with the proposed lot split overall.  He stated that the research they’ve done makes more sense to split the lot and build two single-family homes.  He added that this would be an attractive east side entrance on that end of town.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicants approached her about amending their conditional use application and it was staffs recommendation that this would be considered a more intense use of the property and require BZBA approval.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned the width of the access point for the driveways coming off of the Granger Street.  Mr. Reed stated that they would need twenty feet and this is another reason that they would like to move the homes up - for maneuverability.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does have some issues with the architectural elements for Granger Street elevation on the one proposed structure.  Mr. Burriss went on to say that he likes the windows, venting, and symmetry but the left side of the other house is more interesting.  He stated that perhaps more intense landscaping could be put in place so one isn’t walking along on Granger Street viewing a wall.  He suggested more detail, such as a bay window.  He also stated that the design feels a little more like New Albany, rather than Granville.  Mr. Reed stated that he has pictures that this is actually designed, to other structures in Granville.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would welcome seeing evidence towards that.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would not have any objections to a lot split.  Mr. Burriss stated that he has the most concerns with the architectural elements of the Granger Street elevation and he doesn’t have a problem with the Granger Street driveway.  Mr. Reed stated that the BZBA also discussed their preference to moving the driveway to Granger Street.  Mr. Reed stated that perhaps they could look at switching the elevations of the home – with the patio towards Granger Street, but this may require an additional variance. 

 

 

Work Session

(Tom Mitchell recused himself from the remainder of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:15 PM.)

 

Representatives from Metropolitan Partners were available to discuss renovations to the existing Shurtz Building.  The property is located at 1919 Lancaster Road and is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).

 

Discussion:

Tim Rollins, Metropolitan Partners, stated that they would like to do an updated look for the Shurtz building with new windows, roofing, cupola, and increased lighting.  He presented drawings of what the building might look like.  He indicated that they are going for a rural vernacular look.  Mr. Hawk later indicated that he is not comfortable with a rural vernacular look for the gateway into the Village.  Mr. Rollins explained that they looked at the design of the peripheral buildings, such as the rail station, mill, and lumberyard.  He stated that they certainly took the look of these structures into consideration.  He added that the future additional buildings they have planned for this area would have a different look, but would be encompassing of what they are presenting.  Mr. Rollins added that they were somewhat limited on choices for the Shurtz structure and they chose this type of look because they thought Village Council preferred it.  Tim Ryan indicated that he agrees with Steve Hawk and he too is not in favor of a “farm look” for this area. Mr. Hawk stated that he can understand why the applicant went in this direction if this was the advice of Village Council.  He added that he prefers the look of other nice projects that the applicant has done in the central Ohio area.  He stated that others may have preferred the presented look, but this is before he and some of the other Planning Commission member’s were on the board.  Jack Lucks indicated that this has been a four to five year project.  Mr. Rollins presented an earlier rendition of a drawing that was submitted for discussion regarding changes to the Shurtz building.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant intended to keep the drive-thru.  Mr. Rollins explained that this is in place to equip the structure with a non-food use drive-thru.  Village Planner, Alison Terry, stated that when the Village Gateway District was adopted, some additional language was added for “vernacular farmhouse” and “saltbox” type structures.  Mr. Hawk indicated he prefers the look of a saltbox. Councilmember O’Keefe recalled that Village Council had decided to leave the design elements up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated that Council struck some of the types of improvements that they suggested down.  Ms. Terry agreed that the architectural style was left up to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Lucks stated that this building was one of the uglier buildings in Granville.  Ms. Terry asked if it would make a difference to the Planning Commission if this proposed design had board and batten siding instead of horizontal siding.  Mr. Burriss stated that knowing what the applicant started with on this particular structure and knowing the guidance they received, he would compliment the proposal, but he would like to address some concerns.  He stated that he would encourage “more of a Granville out building vocabulary and nice rural agriculture vocabulary.”  Mr. Burriss described some older farmhouse looks in the Granville area.  He stated that he would prefer to see a standing seam metal roof to give the building an agricultural look and he could be ok with or without board and batten siding.  Mr. Lucks indicated that standing seam metal roofing was not an option due to cost.  Mr. Rollins presented a sample of the wide asphalt diamond shingle that they are proposing for the building.  The Planning Commission liked the look of the asphalt diamond shingle.  Mr. Lucks stated that asphalt shingles are widely used in Granville. Mr. Rollins stated that the proposed color of the building would be Nantucket Red, and the future outbuildings would be in white.  The Planning Commission discussed whether or not they preferred white over red.  Mr. Burriss suggested that perhaps the roof of the cupola could have metal and maybe the breezeway area.  He stated that if this was broken up with metal and asphalt shingles it would break up the building massing.  He also suggested a metal cap on the ridges.  Mr. Burriss asked what the gutters and downspouts would be.  Mr. Rollins stated half round downspouts and gutters are proposed.  Mr. Burriss suggested a combination of board and batten siding and lap siding.  Mr. Ryan agreed that he likes these suggestions given by Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Burriss questioned if there could be a compromise on the south elevation to have a set of barn doors, rather than a blank red wall.  The Planning Commission also reviewed the landscape design provided from John Klauder for the Shurtz building. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-8: Granville Dance & Music Academy; Wall 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-8 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-8. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-9: Johne and Leigh Brennan; Swimming Pool and Privacy Fence

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 Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1185, Swimming Pools and Special Provisions, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-9 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-9.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

 

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from the February 7, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

March 14, 2011

April 11, 2011

April 25, 2011

GPC Minutes February 7, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 7, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Debi Walker; Law Director Michael King. 

Also Present: Sharon Ferguson, Raymond Bonner, Kevin Ciferno, and Don DeSapri.

 

Swearing in of New Member’s:

Steven Hawk and Jeremy Johnson were sworn in by Law Director King.

 

Appointment of Chair to the Planning Commission:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to appoint Tim Ryan as Chair.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

On a vote by unanimous consent, Tim Ryan was again appointed as Chair to the Planning Commission. 

 

Appointment of Vice Chair to the Planning Commission:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to appoint Tom Mitchell as Vice Chair.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  On a vote by unanimous consent, Tom Mitchell was again appointed as Vice Chair to the Planning Commission. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizens’ Comments. 

 

New Business:

Motion to Amend the Agenda:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend the agenda to consider Application #2011-3 before Application #2010-2.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

133 South Main Street – John and Sharon Ferguson - Application #2011-3

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the rear addition of a one-and-a-half-story garage, mudroom and storage area, and a northern open porch addition.                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, Sharon Ferguson, and Don DeSapri.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Ferguson, 133 South Main Street, stated that she was there to represent the application as the property owner.  Mr. Burriss asked about the south elevation and the use of the proposed door.  He stated that the door for the garage looks to be a two lite door on the upper part, and he questioned why the door on the north elevation is a single lite for the upper part.  Ms. Ferguson stated that the door they are proposing to use in this location is an existing door on the interior of the home.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the door on the north elevation attached to the new porch would be used.  Ms. Ferguson explained that this door is already located in this area and they plan to reuse it.  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed addition is great and it’s nice to see the carport go away.  Ms. Ferguson stated that she has people stop to ask if the carport will be going away.  She went on to say that it was her intent to keep the architectural significance of the home in tact.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the applicant presented good plans and design.  He stated that the applicant is also correcting a standing issue with the grandfathered setback line, which is appreciated. 

 

Don DeSapri indicated that he appreciates the work done by the applicant to improve this property. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-3:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other projects that have been 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 proposed design is more historically appropriate than the existing carport.

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 plans.

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 recommend approval of Application #2011-3 contingent upon approval of the Demolition Permit (Application #2010-2) from Village Council. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

133 South Main Street – John and Sharon Ferguson - Application #2011-2

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the structural demolition of a carport.  Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry and Sharon Ferguson.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Ferguson, 133 South Main Street, was present to address any questions or concerns by the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-2:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that it will not.  

b)         The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that it will not.  

c)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the carport is of no  historical significance. 

d)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety, or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.   The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that it will not.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-2 as submitted to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

212 South Main Street – Kevin Ciferno, The Soup Loft - Application #2011-4

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

Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sandwich board sign to be located on South Main Street. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Kevin Ciferno.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Ciferno, Granger Street, asked if Mr. Williams (owner of the property) would decide to replace the wooden freestanding sign that is currently in place – would this be considered to be one application?  Ms. Terry stated that the initial signage could be considered as one sign, and then tenants who move in after this would submit for individual sign permits.  Mr. Johnson clarified that the proposed sidewalk signage doesn’t need a variance for the total square footage within the TCOD.  Ms. Terry stated that this is correct because a variance was previously granted for this property for the size of the sidewalk sign for the Village Baker, and this sign will replace that sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-4:

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that other similar sandwich board signs have been approved.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated by contributing to the vitality of a business within the district, they have contributed to the vitality of the entire district. 

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

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2011-4:

 

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 FALSE.     

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Each member of 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 TRUE.

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 the signage should only be allowed to be placed between the street and sidewalk during the hours of business operation. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-4 with the following variance and condition: 1) That the signage be increased from two (2) to three (3) sidewalk signs for the property; and 2) That the sidewalk sign must be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

462 South Main Street – New Phase Auto Detailing - Application #2010-28 AMENDED

Commercial Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) –

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sandwich board sign to be relocated to the South Main Street entrance.         

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Raymond Bonner.

 

Discussion:

Raymond Bonner, New Phase Auto Detailing, indicated that the signage was previously approved to be located in the parking lot.  Ms. Terry explained the options of where Mr. Bonner could place the signage – due to the location of the landlord’s property.  Mr. Mitchell clarified the exact location of the proposed ‘New Phase Auto Detailing’ sandwich board sign.  Mr. Bonner explained that one can enter his business at the rear door of Abe’s Automotive Center.  He explained that often people are not aware that there are multiple business located inside of Abe’s Automotive. 

 

Mr. Bonner presented two possible locations for the sidewalk signage in his application.  Mr. Mitchell stated that neither location that was presented will really allow patrons to know where the business is located.  Ms. Terry agreed and stated that the signage will just allow people to know that there is this business located in the back.  Mr. Burriss stated that it seems as though there is a consensus by the Planning Commission that they prefer the location of ‘Exhibit A – Location A.’  Mr. Bonner clarified if he would be allowed to modify the sign to indicate that his business is within Abe’s Automotive building.  Ms. Terry stated that this could be considered a minor modification if within the color palette.  She asked that the applicant provide a mock-up of the modification for her review. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-28 AMENDED:

 

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 FALSE.     

 

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 unanimously agreed TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed 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.  Each member of 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 TRUE.

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

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 the signage should be placed per Exhibit A in location A.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2010-28, AMENDED, with the condition that the signage be placed out only during business hours and that the signage be located per ‘Exhibit A’ – ‘Alternate Location A.’  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-2: John and Sarah Ferguson; Carport

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2011-2, as submitted by the applicant, to the Village Council.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-2.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-3: John and Sarah Ferguson; Addition

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 #2011-3 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-3.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2011-4: Kevin Ciferno; Sandwich Board 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 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1189, Signs, Chapter 1147, Variances, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-4 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-4.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-28 AMENDED: New Phase Auto Detailing; Sandwich Board 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-28 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-28 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from the January 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, February 28, 2011

Monday, March 7, 2011

 

GPC Minutes January 24, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 24, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry; Planning & Zoning Assistant, Debi Walker.

Also Present: John Noblick, Travis Ketron, Ann Borg, Flo Hoffman, Cynthia Cort, Jim Patin, and Ray Paumier.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

Tom Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has seen a lot of issues before them that relate to air conditioning units and some other “mundane” issues that he thinks could easily be resolved by the Village Planner administratively.  He questioned if it might be  legal for the Planning Commission to have the Village Planner approve such things?  He went on to say that these types of matters would not need to go on the agenda and there would be less work related to public notifications and paperwork.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Village Planner could discuss those matters that have been approved and rejected administratively with the Planning Commission at the meetings on a regular basis.  Mr. Burriss asked for Village Planner, Alison Terry’s, thoughts regarding this proposal by Mr. Mitchell.  Alison Terry stated that the Code, as it is currently written, doesn’t allow for these types of administrative approvals.  She suggested that the Planning Commission think about what types of parameters they would like to see for any administrative approvals.  She questioned, is it air conditioning units, fences, etc.?  Ms. Terry explained that there needs to be some idea of what the administrative approval would encompass.  She also stated that this proposal would be acceptable to staff, but the Code would need to be changed.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the approval of generators should be added to any list considered for administrative approval.  Mr. Ryan agreed that sometimes there are small things that need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and perhaps some administrative approvals are necessary.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated that the Planning and Zoning Committee is going to be meeting soon and that they could discuss the issue of administrative reviews at their upcoming meeting.    Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss agreed that the Village Planner should develop a list of items that she feels could be handled administratively and present this to the board.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting will be held on February 15th and this meeting is open to the public. 

 

Old Business:

 

223 East Elm Street – Keith and Courtney McWalter - Application #2010-181 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an air conditioning unit to be constructed adjacent to the new the two - story detached accessory structure.

                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, John Noblick.

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, indicated that the applicant would like to amend the application to include the location of the air conditioning unit.  He indicated that the unit would be located towards the rear of the property, facing the alley.  Mr. Noblick stated that the air conditioning unit would be shielded with bushes from the alley view.  The unit will already be screened on all other sides by a wall, a fence and the detached accessory structure.  Mr. Burriss suggested adding one additional boxwood for the screening of the unit.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-181 AMENDED:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other screenings of air conditioning units 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 applicant is proposing a good location for the air conditioning unit.

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 location of the air conditioning unit.

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 #2010-181 AMENDED, to include the new location for the air conditioning unit on the condition that the applicant add an additional boxwood bush for screening purposes to make a total of four boxwoods.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

329 North Granger Street – Ray and Katy Paumier - Application #2011-1

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of window replacements.

                       

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

Discussion:

Travis Ketron, 3611 Deeds Road, Granville, Ketron Custom Builders, stated that the applicant is flipping the kitchen and dining room around.  He stated that the existing window he would like to remove is too short.  Mr. Ketron stated that the applicant currently has vinyl clad windows and they are proposing replacing the windows with an aluminum clad exterior and wood interior window.  Mr. Burriss asked if the window will be an awning or casement style.  Mr. Ketron stated that they are proposing a casement window that will only open from one side.  Mr. Burriss asked if the window will be divided.  Mr. Ketron stated no, and the other windows in the home are double hung.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk and Mr. Johnson agreed that the proposal looked fine to them.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal reinforces the squareness of the house by raising the header and keeping styles consistent.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the new dining room header height of the windows will match those around the corner.  Mr. Ketron stated that they would keep with the existing part of the house and not match the addition so they create the same marginal reveal on the interior trim. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-1:

 

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 proposal is consistent with other requests for windows in the same zoning 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 applicant is completing a restoration on that side of the house. 

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 to the home. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the window being removed was not historically appropriate. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion recommend approval of Application #2011-1 as submitted.

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session:

Representatives from the Granville Historical Society were present to discuss an addition to the existing structure.  The property is located at 115 East Broadway, is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The applicant did not present a formal application for this project at this time.  Cynthia Cort, President of Granville Historical Society, stated that the addition to the museum would be built to the rear of the existing structure. She stated that when the Lifestyle Museum closed they acquired a lot of their artifacts and it is a tremendous archive of things from Granville.  Ms. Cort stated that they have been talking about a stucco finish because they can’t afford to do the addition all in stone.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he was pleased to see the windows added to the plans.  He stated that he does not like the look of the stone rounding the corner and then stopping at the door.  He stated that in this case the rear part of the structure will be seen by the public.  Ms. Cort suggested that they could do some landscaping in the back part of the building.   Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss’s comments.  Mr. Patin stated that they have been told by AEP that they would most likely need to add an additional pole for electric.  Ms. Cort indicated that they are not proposing to put a roof over the doors, as depicted in the drawing.  Ms. Cort questioned if the Planning Commission preferred the detailing at the gable.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he was unsure and wondered what solutions they have for venting heating/cooling.  Mr. Mitchell asked which plan the proposed addition aligns with.  Mr. Patin stated that they have two plans and one is on the east side and there were several concerns with the bank foundation being compromised.  He stated that they can move to the west, but this moves them into the Village Square property.  Ms. Cort stated that the museum as it sits today is eight feet over the line in the Village Square.  She stated that they have located a 1952 easement (Resolution) for this.  Mr. Mitchell asked the museum distance from the bank.  Mr. Patin stated the closest is 2.6 feet at the corner.  Mr. Mitchell asked the distance from the foundation to the bank and Mr. Patin stated six foot.  

Mr. Johnson stated that if the applicant is proposing a basement he would suggest moving the structure to the west.  He also indicated that water run off is another reason to move the structure to the west.  Mr. Patin stated that the east footprint allows them to keep the stone wall that currently exists, although it would have to be reset.  Mr. Johnson stated that he would be surprised if they could keep the stone wall in place during the construction of the project.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the building should maybe go up to the property line to avoid the undermining of the bank foundation.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed stucco would be an integral color.  Flo Hoffman stated that they were looking at having colored stucco.  Mr. Johnson suggested that the applicant may want to price synthetic stone because he believes that these costs often rival that of integral colored stucco.  Ms. Cort asked if the Planning Commission would prefer stucco or stone.  Mr. Burriss stated that he knows that with the Presbyterian Church there were three shades of stucco used and the color faded in the past ten years.  Mr. Burriss commended the work done so far and encouraged the applicants to not hesitate in requesting another work session.  He went on to say that he would prefer to see the addition look more like a normal building and not so industrial.  He stated that he likes the look of the windows and would even be in favor of fake windows when necessary.  Ms. Cort explained that having natural light with the archives is not good.  He added that he is not saying that he wouldn’t vote for approval of the application if the structure didn’t have additional windows.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Burriss’s comments and stated that he thinks windows would help ease the massing of the building.  Mr. Patin asked if the Planning Commission had any comments on the imbalance of windows on the west elevation.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Mitchell agreed that they would add more fake windows for balance and symmetry.  Ms. Terry stated that moving the structure more to the west could cause an issue with creating a blind corner for the alley.  She indicated that variances for setbacks and lot coverage would most likely be required with this application.  Mr. Mitchell suggested not being close enough to the bank that the structure requires underpinning.  He stated that this can be very costly.  The Planning Commission discussed the location of the trash cans.  Ms. Cort stated that they propose keeping them inside the double doors at the rear of the building.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if this would work if the museum allows events with food service.  The work session ended and the Granville Historical Society representatives indicated that they would review the comments and possibly return for another work session with the Planning Commission.       

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-181 AMENDED: Keith and Courtney McWalter; Accessory Structure

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 Business District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-181 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-181 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2011-1: Ray and Katy Paumier; Window Replacement

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 Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-1 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-1.  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 minutes from the January 3, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.   

Next meetings:

Monday, February 7, 2011

Monday, February 28, 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.