Granville Community Calendar

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.)

 

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.