GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 14, 2011
Members Present: Jeremy Johnson, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).
Members Absent: Tim Ryan and Tom Mitchell.
Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant to Planning Department, Debi Walker.
Also Present: Maggie Sobataka and Steve Mershon.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
Note: These agenda items are open to the public and are public hearings. All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed Zoning Code revisions.
Acting as Chair:
Mr. Hawk made a motion to nominate Jack Burriss as Chair Pro Tem for the March 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion 3-0.
Maggie Sobataka, Gallery M, Prospect Street, Granville, was present to discuss signage for her business. Alison Terry stated that Maggie Sobataka had a projecting sign and sandwich board sign previously approved by the Planning Commission. She explained that the Planning Commission preferred that the sandwich board sign be placed in front of her business, rather than at the corner of Prospect and Broadway. She stated that Ms. Sobataka would like to know what she can do to attract people to her business on Prospect Street. Ms. Sobataka indicated that Alison Terry provided an excellent summary of her request to the Planning Commission. She went on to say that she doesn’t want to haul a sandwich board up and down the street to the corner, and she is seeking any additional ideas that the Planning Commission may have to direct people to all business establishments on Prospect Street. She clarified that she has had to put the sidewalk sign at the corner, especially during the street closure. She stated that the sandwich board signage located at the corner was very beneficial for letting people know her business was located on Prospect Street. Ms. Sobataka stated that she typically has her sandwich board sign located in the tree lawn, but it is not very visible. She stated that Russ Adams and Everest Gear signage block her signage. Ms. Sobataka indicated that her business is located in an obscure location. Ms. Terry stated that Ms. Sobataka’s business name is located in the directional kiosk signage. Ms. Sobataka stated that no one seems to use the kiosks. She questioned if a sign could be located on the existing trash can and she stated that she knows this could make a difference as to people finding them. Mr. Burriss stated that the building at the corner once had signage for a women’s clothing store on the building. He stated that this was put in place before they had a sign code. He stated that there was a sign on the building that discreetly indicated that a business was located in the downstairs. Mr. Burriss suggested that for the interim he thought that the Planning Commission could consider allowing a sandwich board sign at the corner. Ms. Sobataka stated that she will work with whatever the decision the Planning Commission makes. She suggested that there still needs to be a better solution put in place. Mr. Burriss agreed that this has been an issue discussed many times throughout the years. Ms. Sobataka agreed that placing her sidewalk sign at the corner would be advantageous for the interim, but she would like to see a permanent solution that benefits businesses on Prospect Street. The Planning Commission also discussed placing a planter at the corner of Prospect and Broadway with directional signage stating “More Shops and Restaurants This Way” and locate this on both sides of Prospect Street. Ms. Sobataka agreed to gather some additional ideas relating to a planter and get back to the Planning Commission.
Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Section 1159.02, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Section 1159.03, Performance or Development Standards; Section 1159.05, Procedure for Approval; Section 1159.06, Change of Use Category; and Section 1159.07, Appeals of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Village District.
Discussion: Alison Terry explained that the Planning Commission has two copies in front of them – one with revisions she has made and one with revisions suggested by Councilmember Steve Mershon. Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed changed have been reviewed by the BZBA. Ms. Terry stated no, that these changes came from meetings with the Planning and Zoning Committee. Councilmember Mershon explained that he knew he would have the opportunity to discuss his proposed changes at Council, but Ms. Terry suggested that it would be best to bring these revisions to the Planning Commission work session. Mr. Johnson asked if any further discussion took place relating to conditional uses, such as the recent request they had from Terra Nova Homes. Ms. Terry stated no and that the changes before the Planning Commission relate to submittal deadlines, change of use, appeal process, etc. Ms. Terry stated that she believes in the future it will be difficult to be competitive with potential businesses located outside of the Village Business District (VBD), especially if VBD businesses they have to wait a month for approval. Mr. Mershon stated that one argument he heard came from Dick VanMeter who owns and operates property on South Main Street. He stated that Mr. VanMeter stated that he loses a month and half of rent because he can’t move someone in his space quickly enough to start operating their business. He explained that this is due to the amount of time it takes for Change of Use approvals in the Village. Mr. Mershon stated that he created this language change in fairness to the Village Business District and to complete with the Village Gateway District. He stated that the changes he is proposing allow a business use with a lesser parking requirement to not need additional approval. Ms. Terry added that when the Village Gateway District is ready, they will not have the same types of restrictions, and they wanted to address these concerns now. She also stated that the Village Business District has more small, new business owners. Councilmember O’Keefe questioned what the Code says if one does not agree with the ruling by the Village Planner. Ms. Terry explained that the Granville Code permits the Village Manager to deal with this type of situation. She added that every permit is signed by the Village Manager. She also stated that any time she denies a permit, the applicant can appeal the decision to the BZBA. The Planning Commission suggested asking Tom Mitchell and Tim Ryan if they would like to hold an additional Work Session on this matter prior to the public hearing. Ms. Terry indicated that she would check with them.
Review of Proposed Zoning Permit & Application Fees, Exhibit A, to amend various development and zoning related fees.
Discussion: Ms. Terry indicated that the fees were reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Committee. She stated that there were not any proposed changes to Residential zoning fees, and they mainly focused on BZBA associated fees. Ms. Terry explained that the BZBA applications have a postage and advertising fee associated with them and this is because the BZBA notices used to be sent Certified Mail, but are now sent Certificate of Mailing, which is much less. She stated that the postage costs now are a lot less than they used to be when this language was first put in the Code. Mr. Johnson questioned what factors are driving the lowering of the Commercial Variance fee? He asked if this should be reduced or left as is. Ms. Terry indicated that this has been viewed as too high of an amount by area business owners and this change was attempting to be more accommodating of local business needs. Councilmember O’Keefe stated that lowering the Variance fee could encourage business. The Planning Commission discussed when the Commercial Variance fee was established. Ms. Terry stated that records indicate that this amount was changed in 2005. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hawk indicated that they felt that the AROD and Zoning costs ought to be representative of the staff time and resources needed to prepare the application – and based on “true costs.” Ms. Terry clarified that the current rate charged for right of way permits is $10.00, but there is one area in the code that states $20.00. She stated that this was a mistake. She explained that right of way permits allow the Village to know who is doing work in the right of way and who to contact if there is a problem. The Planning Commission discussed the Construction Inspection Fee. Mr. Johnson stated that this is common in other municipalities. He stated that the Village will just have to ensure that the person doing the inspection is knowledgeable and able to represent the Village with effectiveness.
Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members:
Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Tim Ryan from the March 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Motion carried 3-0.
Motion to Approve Minutes:
Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from the February 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 3-0.
Adjournment: 8:00 PM
Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk. Motion carried 3-0.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011