Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes November 14, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 14, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, and Jeremy Johnson.

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell and Steven Hawk.

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant

Also Present: Dwight Davidson

 

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

115 West Broadway – United Church of Granville- Application #2011-131

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Deb Walker, and Dwight Davidson.

 

Discussion:

Dwight Davidson, United Church of Granville, indicated the lettering and size of the signage remain the same as what was previously in place.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant revised the lettering on the sign face, but the actual sign remains the same.  She explained that when the wording on the sign is changed a new permit is required.  Ms. Terry stated the signage is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) and if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the sign variances would be required as indicated in the Staff Report.  Mr. Davidson stated the signage does not have any lighting on it.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-131:

 

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.  Mr. Burris stated the conditions applicable are also applicable to other structures in that same district, for instance, other church signs.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage is also located within the TCOD and they are in the process of making changes to the sign code related to the TCOD.        

 

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. Ryan stated the property where the signage is located is at a church.     

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated this is an existing sign which has already been in place for some time.   

 

(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. Johnson stated the signage currently exists in this location and only the wording is being changed.   

 

(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. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed the granting of the variance is the most common sense solution.   

 

(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.  Mr. Ryan stated the TCOD requirements are the one of the main reasons for the variances. 

 

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 #2011-131:

 

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 application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the same zoning district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that signage is consistent with other signage in the same zoning 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. Burriss stated the manner this is being projected is consistent with physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-131 with the following provisions for variances:

1)         To allow for a wall sign that is twenty (20) square feet in the Village Square District (VSD);

2)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from six (6) square feet to twenty (20) square feet in the TCOD;

3)         To allow for a changeable copy sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD); 

4)         To allow for a wall sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-131:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

115 West Broadway – United Church of Granville- Application #2011-132

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of the face of a freestanding sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Deb Walker, and Dwight Davidson. 

 

Discussion:

Dwight Davidson, United Church of Granville, indicated the sign is the same as what was previously in place, but with the wording changed.  Ms. Terry noted the freestanding sign is for the church, but the sign is not located in the Village Square District (VSD), but rather in the Village Residential District (VRD).  She stated the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) requirements still apply, and therefore, variances are still necessary if the signage is approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss indicated he would be in support of approval of the application if the applicant would be willing to add landscaping around the base of the freestanding sign.  Mr. Davidson stated this would not be a problem. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-132:

 

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.  Mr. Johnson stated this is a church in a residential district and the signage needs differ from other properties.  Mr. Ryan stated this is an application for an existing sign and the only change is in the wording. 

 

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. Ryan stated this is an annex building for the church. 

 

(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. Johnson stated the character from what has been is not being altered because there was already signage in this location. 

 

(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. 

 (6)       Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimous agreed 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.  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 #2011-132:

 

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 application is consistent with other signage requests approved in this district.

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. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the presented signage is historically appropriate.    

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-132 with the following variances and condition:

1)         To increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 7 square feet to 25.25 square feet in the Village Residential District (VRD);

2)         To allow for a freestanding sign in the Village Residential District (VRD) and the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);

3)         To increase the maximum allowable size of a freestanding sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) from 18 square feet to 25.25 square feet; 

4)         To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 6 square feet to 25.25 square feet in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);

5)         To require landscaping at the base of the freestanding sign and submit the landscaping design to the Village for staff approval. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-132:  Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-131: United Church of Granville; 115 West 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, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-131 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-131. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2011-132: United Church of Granville; 115 West 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, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-132 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-132. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Steven Hawk and Tom Mitchell from the November 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 2011 (Melanie Schott indicated she is unable to 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.