Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes May 9, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 9, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Councilmember O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant to Planning Department, Debi Walker, Assistant Law Director, Michael King.

Also Present: Barb Franks, Sharon Sellito, Lawrence and Judith Howland, Mark Alexandrunas, Joseph Galano, James Hale, Gill Miller, Mary Jane McDonald, Chris Avery, Sam Sagaria, and Eric Rosenberg.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-7 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of an amended two-story addition to an

existing garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Joseph Galano, Eric Rosenberg, James Hale, Gill Miller, and Mary Jane McDonald. 

 

Mr. Burriss motioned to remove Application #2011-7 AMENDED from the table. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, stated that the location of the ac unit for the garage was added as requested.  Planner Terry indicated what items had been submitted in relation to the Planning Commission’s request for additional information.  Mr. Johnson inquired about the existing trees.  Mr. Galano indicated that not a single branch would need to be pruned for the addition.  He indicated that there are a few low branches that may need to be pruned, but he’s not sure whose property the tree is located on.  Mr. Johnson questioned the water surface run off issues that a neighbor is concerned about.  Mr. Galano stated that there is not a percolation issue and he does not want there to be any ponding on his property.  Mr. Galano stated that international code doesn’t allow ponding.  He indicated that he has been doing this type of work (creating building plans) for a long time and he is aware of certain code restrictions that one must adhere to. Mr. Ryan indicated that there has been some previous discussion with issues surrounding massing and he suggested that the house discussion take place before the garage discussion.  Mr. Rosenberg indicated that the original concerns over massing were addressed. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to postpone the consideration of Application #2011-7 AMENDED until after discussion of the applicant’s other application for a garage.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

The Planning Commission later came back to hold further discussion regarding Application #2011-7 AMENDED.   

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there were any changes made to the plans regarding the neighbors concerns with the west windows.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that all of the massing has been addressed considerably, but they have not had any additional conversations with the neighbors.  Mr. Burriss asked the applicant to discuss the windows in the dormers and where the pointed top was derived from.  Mr. Galano explained that these would be custom made from Hudon Harriss and they are fixed, not operable, windows.  Furthermore, he stated that one cannot see out of them, and they are only for light.  Mr. Johnson asked what the smaller window at the landing would look like.  Mr. Galano stated that he is proposing an antique stained glass that is opaque and it will have a glass storm window on top to protect its integrity.  He stated that he is proposing a colorful window that you can’t really see out of.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the antique window will match the other windows on the structure.  Mr. Galano stated that the other windows are custom windows for light with clear glass.  Mr. Johnson asked the neighbors of Mr. Galano’s if they were aware of the height of the windows.  Mr. Hale indicated that they didn’t know that the proposed windows are to be six foot four inches (6’4”) from where people would stand on the inside of the structure.  Gill Miller stated that there aren’t any other two-story garages located on their block.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the height of the proposed structure is 21 feet and this was reduced down from the original 31-foot high structure that was proposed.  He also stated that there are other garages that are taller in the Village.  Ms. Miller stated that there are not garages that tall located on this block.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that this is a tough decision, and these are friends of his that are objecting to the application, but there is also nothing about this project that he can find to object to.  Mr. Hawk stated that he agrees with Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Mitchell went on to say that he appreciates the effort that the owner (Mr. Galano) has put into dealing with Planning Commission concerns. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the architectural criteria.  Mr. Ryan questioned how adding a second story to the garage contributes to the historical character and is improving and upgrading the district.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees that by adding a garage, there isn’t a static design for the community.  He added that the proposal for a garage by the applicant is interesting and it is a pleasing and unique garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed garage contributes to the character of the Village and that is the history of circa 2011.  Mr. Hawk stated that the existing garage is mundane.  Mr. Johnson agreed that there has been a great deal of effort to make the structure look fitting, but he added that he has some concern as to which structure would be viewed as the house.  Mr. Galano stated that he could address this concern.  He stated that the garage is ten feet (10’) from the back property line and one hundred and seventy five feet (175’) from the street.  Mr. Galano stated that the proposed garage has a smaller footprint.  Mr. Ryan stated that it strikes him that it appears as if there are two houses on the lot.  Mr. Galano stated that the garage is smaller than other garages in the Village.  He presented an example of other garages in the district.  Mr. Johnson stated that he didn’t vote on that particular garage that Mr. Galano is referring to.

 

Mr. Rosenberg stated that if the garage is denied, they could always come back with a different proposal for an attached garage, making it one long continuous house.  He stated that this could cause more privacy concerns than what is being proposed.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission needs to stay in the confines of Section 1161.02 and identify how this structure improves the Village.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed home is over 2,000 square feet and the proposed garage is 864 square feet.  Assistant Law Director King indicated that not all of the Planning Commission has to agree with all of the criteria.  Mr. Rosenberg asked the protocol if the application is denied.  Ms. Terry stated that the application request could be appealed to Village Council.  She stated that anyone who spoke in regards to the application has the right to appeal the decision to Council.  Mr. Rosenberg questioned if the applicant can come back with “one big house plan.”  Ms. Terry stated that it is possible for the applicant to amend the application for the front structure, but it also depends on the extent of the proposed changes.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-7 AMENDED:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed garage is stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures in the district by its detail and shape.   

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant is proposing a garage that is an upgrade to the character of the district.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson disagreed.  Mr. Burriss did not comment.     

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced from the proposed application.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this property is enhanced by adding a significantly improved garage with art space.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-7 AMENDED, and revised, with the condition that the applicant address any and all water run off and ensure that it is prevented to affect the neighboring properties; that the small window in the right side elevation is to be a vintage stained glass; that the roof material is a forest green with black; that the soffits are with flat board Azec; and that the windows are Anderson windows.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

317 West Broadway – Joseph Galano - Application #2011-19

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a second story addition to an existing single family structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Joseph Galano, and Eric Rosenberg, Gill Miller, James Hale, and Mary Jane McDonald. 

 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, attorney for Mr. Galano, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan asked if the neighbors received a copy of the letter presented by Mr. Galano.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Mr. Ryan stated that the letter talks to the gutters, hvac, new construction impact on existing trees, hip roof, and cantilever dormers on the house.  Mr. Rosenberg agreed and stated that there were six items he addressed from the minutes.  Mr. Rosenberg added that the neighbors didn’t have opposition to the house, according to the minutes - only to the garage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the chimney height has been addressed.  Mr. Galano explained that he has not raised the height of the chimney.  He stated that there is a code provision – if the chimney is not a wood burning chimney - that requires the chimney to be modified.  Mr. Galano stated that he will address the chimney as a code issue and there is approximately eighteen inches (18”) of height up or down.  He added that the chimney height appears to be ok as it is today.  Mr. Johnson questioned if alternations to the chimney would cause problems with the setbacks.  Mr. Galano stated that he could use an ornamental terra cotta pipe unless Mr. Johnson is speaking to the variance issue of being within the ten foot setback.  Mr. Johnson stated that he is referring to the variance setback of ten feet.  Ms. Terry indicated that a chimney is allowed to encroach a certain distance. Mr. Galano stated that the chimney is not for a wood burning stove and he doesn’t believe that international code calls for him to have to raise it.  Mary Jane McDonald stated that Mr. Galano’s house is over her property line and his home is very close to her house.  Ms. McDonald added that she has a really dry basement and she wants to keep it that way.  Ms. McDonald stated that her home was built in 1835 and it is uncommon to have such a dry basement.  She stated that she doesn’t understand all of the issues that relate to water being drained on her property, and she is hopeful that the Planning Commission is aware of this and will make provisions to prevent water from being a problem for her property.  Gill Miller indicated that she would object to the comment made by Mr. Rosenberg that the neighbors didn’t object to the proposed home.  She stated that she did not comment on this.  Ms. Miller stated that the existing house may not be a model of any style but it still has history.  She added that she does object to the massive renovation to change the style of the home on West Broadway.  She stated that she is bothered that this home can be so substantially altered in the historical district. 

 

Mr. Galano stated that there is a water issue and the water is coming from his neighbor’s property to the west.  He stated that his property sits lower than the property to the west and he recently had flooding. 

 

Mr. Galano added that there is there is nothing architecturally significant about this house.  He stated that it has aluminum siding and his plans will enhance the streetscape.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that the neighbors don’t want the addition on the back of the garage and the applicant has met all of the code requirements in an attempt to satisfy all concerns.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is any evidence that the house does have historical significance.  Ms. Terry stated that they receive letters from the Historical Society regarding historical properties only when there is a request for a demolition permit. 

 

Mr. Johnson stated that regarding water run off there is more impervious surface coverage proposed with the new plan.  Mr. Galano stated that this is incorrect because the proposed second floor has no more roof than the existing house and the bulk of the addition is on the second floor.  Mr. Johnson stated that there is still greater square footage with the new plans and the Planning Commission is charged with addressing where water goes and if it's adequate.  Mr. Galano indicated that if there were an issue he could pipe and put in tin for a drywell.  Mr. Burriss stated that he appreciates the letter that was written by Mr. Galano to address questions/concerns by the Planning Commission.  He stated that he is trying to consider if the proposed addition of this size is appropriate for the neighborhood.  He added that one of the things he feels is appealing about Granville is the variety in the sizes of homes and the styles.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does think the architect has been careful in choosing architectural elements that exist in the Village.  Mr. Galano stated that his current setback is farther back than the other homes on the block – with an additional twenty feet (20’).  He stated that the addition is setback from the house and even more so from the street.  Mr. Galano stated that the proposed hip roof appears to be receding away.  He also stated that the other houses on the block are much bigger than his.  Mr. Rosenberg stated that there have been many additions added to the homes on the block over the years.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed plan has a lot of architectural merit.  He stated that the applicant has designed a nice addition to the house with compatible massing and the overall plans look pretty good to him.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn’t think that the Village can remain static and they can’t keep someone from putting on an addition because it's unpopular.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees no reason to deny the application.  He also stated that the use of materials and attention to detail all look good to him.  Mr. Johnson stated that if the chimney were to be altered, than it would come back to the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated that if any changes are made it would need to come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-19:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed addition is stylistically compatible and consistent with other improvements in the district.   

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant is proposing a historical character residence.  .   

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced from the proposed change.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that home renovations protect and enhance this particular property. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-19 as revised with the condition that the roof shingles are architectural dimensional shingles in forest green with black; that the soffit is flat board Azec; that Anderson vinyl clad outside – wood interior full divided light windows are used; and that the applicant will ensure that water does not exit the property to the west side neighbor.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

New Business:

 

129 North Pearl Street – Lawrence & Judith Howland - Application #2011-36

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

The request is for an amended architectural review and approval of the replacement of a concrete walk and a concrete patio expansion along the southern property line. 

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Lawrence Howland. 

 

Discussion:

Lawrence Howland, 129 North Pearl Street, stated that the sidewalk has already been torn out.  He stated that he purchased the property two years ago.  Mr. Howland stated that they began this work to replace an unsafe sidewalk and they decided to also create a sitting area.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant has been living in the home for two years with the unsafe sidewalk.  Mr. Howland stated yes, but the sidewalk has further deteriorated.  Mr. Hawk asked the applicants reason for installing a patio.  Mr. Lawrence stated that they wanted to create a sitting area.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is seeking a variance for lot coverage from the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant will be going before the BZBA on May 12th.  Ms. Terry explained that the application has to come into conformity with the setbacks and standards today when any change is made.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the applicant will be removing landscaping.  Mr. Howland stated that they will remove some hydrangeas, small trees, and poison ivy.  He stated that they plan to add potted plants. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-36:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed change is stylistically compatible and consistent with other approvals.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing an upgrade to the historical character of the Village.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced from the proposal by the applicant.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burris stated that the stamped concrete gives a more historical appearance. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2011-36 as presented with the condition that the applicant receives a variance for lot coverage from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

119 ½  South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers & Barb Franks - Application #2010-51 AMENDED

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Barb

Franks. 

 

Discussion:

Barb Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she would like to request approval of the tenant panel signage.  Mr. Mitchell asked why this is considered to be a revised application.  Ms. Terry explained that the previous sign submitted last year had a bicycle on it, and was square, and the Planning Commission had asked the applicant to make the sign more consistent with the other signage already located on this freestanding sign.  Ms. Terry stated that the variance is required because the total amount of signage is over the twelve square foot maximum.  Mr. Ryan stated that if the applicant were to remove the signage for ‘Granville Lighting,’ then a variance would not be needed.  He asked if the Granville Lighting business is still in existence.  Mr. Mitchell asked where Granville Lighting is located in the building.  Ms. Franks stated that the lighting fixtures are throughout Footloose.  She stated that they also do lighting repairs.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the signage was Photoshopped into the submitted picture.  Ms. Franks stated that Mr. Mitchell is looking at an actual picture of the sign because the sign is already done.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the signage looks larger than the other tenant panel signs.  Ms. Franks stated that it is not larger. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2010-51 AMENDED:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant’s circumstances are similar to other circumstances where the Planning Commission has previously granted approval.  Mr. Ryan questioned if there is a special circumstance that exists for the applicant to receive the variance.  Mr. Franks stated that signage is needed for her businesses that exist in the building.  Ms. Franks stated that Footloose is throughout the building, the Chiropractor is on the side, Granville Lighting is throughout Footloose, and the tacos will be sold in the back of the building.        

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the property is already getting a return and there is beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he would not like to see more than four panels of signage for this property.  Mr. Johnson stated that in order for the applicant to get a reasonable return for the business, they need the signage. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. Mr. Hawk stated that the signage is 33% more than what is allowed, so the variance is substantial.  Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Burriss stated that variance is substantial.  Mr. Mitchell disagreed.  Mr. Ryan did not comment.   

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign has less of an impact than the previously presented signage.     

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Ms. Franks indicated that this is a moot point.      

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant has put an additional business on the premises.    

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Architectural Review Overlay District Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-51 AMENDED:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that that the applicant’s sign is stylistically compatible with other signage in the district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing signage that will upgrade the historical character. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-51 AMENDED with the variance to increase the size of a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to sixteen (16) square feet.  Mr. Ryan noted that some of the items in the criteria for the variance were not met and agreed to by all of the Planning Commission members.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

121 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers & Barb Franks - Application #2011-38

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a portion of the northwest corner of the structure to create a forty-five degree angle adjacent to the driveway area. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Sam Sagaria, Chris Avery, and Barb Franks. 

 

Discussion:

Barb Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated that she would like to request approval to remove a 14"x14" corner of the existing building.  Mr. Ryan asked the reason why the applicant wants to remove this corner.  Ms. Franks stated that she has a neighbor that   puts a planter in the driveway and there have been eight accidents on the corner.  She stated that the fascia has been removed and there is a lot of damage to cars because there is not enough room to get between the building and the planter.  She stated that her neighbor has blocked the driveway and there is not enough room to access her business, so she has no choice but to cut off the corner of her building.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the roof would also come off.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that it is unfortunate that the applicant is looked at cutting off the building.  He questioned if it would even allow enough room to fix the problem the way she is explaining the project.  Mr. Ryan asked if the corner would be replaced with siding.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Ms. Franks also stated that she doesn’t want to cut off the corner of her building, and she is happy to hear any suggestions by the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there is physically enough clearance to get through there.  Ms. Franks stated that it is really a tough turn.  Mr. Johnson suggested the use of bollards along the base of the structure to keep vehicles from striking the building.  Ms. Franks stated that she didn’t think she could install these because they would take up even more room. 

 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated that he has owned the property at 117 South Prospect Street for the last three and a half years.  He stated that for the record, he would like it known that Dan Rogers has driven his large truck in and out of the driveway hundreds of times with room to spare.  He stated that he also has surveillance of this.  Mr. Sagaria stated that the driveway is a tiny driveway and is too narrow for the type of usage that the applicant seeks.  He also stated that the tiny driveway helps to slow down the traffic coming in/out.  Mr. Sagaria stated that the damage claimed by the applicant as evidence has been there for over three and a half years.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he is accused of blocking the driveway and the planters are there to protect his access to his rear parking spots.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he does not block the driveway.  He added that he is opposed to the proposal by the applicant and he strongly recommends vetoing their request.  Mr. Sagaria stated that the driveway is not intended for uses such as delivery trucks and the proposal is too vague and should be turned down due to too many unanswered questions.  He stated that this is a private driveway between two individuals and he is not willing to forgo his rights as a property owner to extend the usage of the driveway beyond what it was intended to be used for.  Mr. Sagaria stated that he has evidence that this driveway is wide enough. 

 

Chris Avery stated that he owns the house to the south.  He stated that his primary concern is increased traffic and it is a narrow driveway.  He added that the proposal by the applicant could encourage flow through traffic.  He questioned if a drive thru with tacos is a possibility.  Mr. Avery stated that he is concerned about anything that will increase round about traffic.  He added that there is also minimal parking available. 

 

Barb Franks stated that Judy LaVoy did business in her structure for 30 some years and Ms. LaVoy had 30-60 cars go through a day with her previous busines and they don’t have nearly that many cars go through there now.  She also stated that the driveway is not a private driveway, but rather a shared driveway that was part of the property originally.  Mr. Avery stated that his office was acquired in 1985 and he struck an agreement with Judy LaVoy to jointly resurface the driveway.  He stated that there were never sixty cars accessing this property daily.  Ms. Franks disagreed.  Mr. Burriss encouraged the applicant to investigate different alternatives.  He stated that there are also soft bollards without concrete in them.  Ms. Franks stated that she would like this addressed for safety reasons.  She stated that there has been $20,000+ damage to cars.  She stated that Dan Rogers truck can be included as one of the eight accidents.  Mr. Burriss suggested checking with Terry Hopkins regarding traffic control devices that could be an option.  Ms. Terry indicated that she would look into this with Mr. Hopkins.  Ms. Franks indicated that she would be willing to hear any suggestions and would agree to table the application to gather additional information.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table application #2011-38 as requested by the applicant.  Mr. Burriss seconded. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (no).   

Motion carried 3-2.   

 

121 East Broadway – Granville Dental - Application #2011-39

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of two (2) separate window signs. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Mark Alexandrunas. 

 

Discussion:

Mark Alexandrunas, indicated that he would like to place one sign on the door and one on the window beside the door.  He added that the proposed signage is consistent with the Chamber of Commerce signage.  Mr. Ryan questioned the need for a variance.  Ms. Terry explained that this is required due to the overall signage on the entire structure.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-39:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

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

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2011-39:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.           

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  The Planning Commission agreed FALSE. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission agreed that the request for a variance was not substantial.     

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.

 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-39 with a variance to increase the maximum allowable signage from forty-one-point-two-five (41.25) square feet to forty-three-point-three-one (43.31) square feet to allow for the installation of the requested permanent window signage.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

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

 

141 East Broadway – Village of Granville - Application #2011-40

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of awning replacements on the front, side and rear of the structure.      

                       

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Alison Terry, stated that the awnings are consistent with what the Planning Commission requested at the last work session.  Mr. Burriss asked the typical life of an awning. Ms. Terry stated that it just depends, but the last set lasted ten to eleven years. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-40:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission has approved similar awnings in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the awnings are better than leaving the flat building alone.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed awnings.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the awnings are helpful in inclement weather for entering/exiting the Village Offices.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-40 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Other Business:

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Section 1159.02, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Section 1159.03, Performance or Development Standards; Section 1159.05, Procedure for Approval; Section 1159.06, Change of Use Category; and Section 1159.07, Appeals of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to the Village District.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Ryan asked what Council’s comments were to them removing the Change of Use section.  Ms. Terry stated that this version would be given to Council as the Planning Commission’s recommendation for code revisions.  Mr. Ryan asked if Councilmember O’Keefe had any comment on these changes.  Ms. Terry indicated that she had spoken with her earlier in the day and she didn’t mention anything regarding these changes.  Ms. Terry explained that staff decisions can be appealed to the BZBA.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is in favor of these changes because it “streamlines government.”  Ms. Terry stated that if a variance for parking is required – a variance would still need to be given by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (BZBA).  Mr. Hawk stated that these suggested changes remedy an unfair burden on downtown business.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission does not currently have any criteria to utilize when reviewing a Change of Use application, therefore he doesn't see the need for requiring a Change of Use through the Planning Commission.

 

 Mr. Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of the submitted zoning code changes to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, Hawk, Johnson, Ryan.  5-0.                                       

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2011-7 AMENDED: Joseph Galano; 317 West Broadway; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, Accessory Uses and Structures, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-7 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-7 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-19: Joseph Galano; 317 West Broadway; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-19 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-19. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2011-36: Lawrence & Judith Howland; 129 North Pearl Street; Exterior Modification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-36 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-36.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2010-51 AMENDED; Dan Rogers/Barb Franks; 119 ½ South Prospect Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161 Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-51 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-51 AMENDED.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-39: Granville Dental; 121 East Broadway; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-39 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-39.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Application #2011-40: Village of Granville; 141 East Broadway; Awnings

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161 Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-40 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-40.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

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

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 25, 2011:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 25, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Adjournment:  9:12 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-2.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, May 23, 2011 (Tim Ryan indicated that he cannot attend this meeting.)

Monday, June 13, 2011

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.