Granville Community Calendar

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.)  

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.