Granville Community Calendar

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

 

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.