Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes November 28, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 28, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept.

Also Present: Kraig and Michele Koester, Frank and Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini, April Kale, Tim and Kathy Klingler, Park Shai, Tom LeFevre, and Bob Stern.

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

338 West Elm Street – Frank and Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini Application #2011-136

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a stationary standby generator on

the east side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Frank OBrien-Bernini. 

 

Discussion:

Frank OBrien-Bernini, 338 West Elm Street, indicated he would like to install the generator on the east side of the home.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is any landscaping  proposed around the generator.  Mr. OBrien-Bernini stated there is existing landscaping to hide from the neighbors.  He stated the pine trees located in this area are about four foot (4’) tall.  He also indicated his house sits higher than the neighbors home.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any information submitted on the estimated sound decibels of the unit.  Mr. OBrien-Bernini stated the decibels are .63 when running.     

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-101:

 

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 for a generator is consistent with other requests for a generator.

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 existing landscaping is consistent with other materials used in this 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 #2011-136 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-136:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-137

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a window sign.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated that he is a proposing signage for a new business on Westgate Drive.  He explained the purpose of the business is home décor and open two days a week - Thursday and Saturday.  Mr. Koester stated it is their intent to be off the retail location in a warehouse district setting.  Mr. Koester stated the business is set up as a destination type shopping and they will use heavy advertising to make the place known because there is not a lot of retail shopping on Westgate Drive.  Ms. Terry stated the 2.25 square foot size of the sign is permitted without a variance, but a variance is needed for window signs that are not permitted within the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if the proposed sign code changes the Planning Commission recently recommended to Council would eliminate the need for a variance in this particular case.  Ms. Terry stated clarified that if there was not a Transportation Corridor Overlay District, then this particular variance would not be needed. 

 

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. 

 

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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 a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements.

 

(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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-137 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-137:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-138

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a wall sign.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated that the proposed wall sign would identify the building for their business.  Ms. Terry stated a variance is required due to the TCOD requirements.  She stated the proposed size of the sign is allowed and the applicant needs a variance to increase to the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 6 square feet to 24.75 square feet within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Mr. Ryan asked the applicant which sign he considers to be more important – the freestanding sign or the building sign.  Mr. Koester stated he may doubt he is at the right location if he chooses one over the other.  Mr. Ryan stated he asks this questions specifically because of the accumulation of the square footage.  Mr. Koester stated there is existing signage on the buildings located in this area today.  He stated for instance, Leader Printing has at least six signs.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant’s proposed signage is much smaller in comparison to some of the existing signage on Westgate Drive.  Mr. Johnson asked if in the next application the applicant would be seeking variance beyond the TCOD requirements.  Ms. Terry stated this is correct.  Mr. Johnson stated the Planning Commission needs to be consistent, but it is true they do not agree with the TCOD requirements within the sign code.  He stated they have not taken on the underlying zoning district zoning code to see if they make sense and they have only addressed the TCOD.  Mr. Johnson asked if directional lighting is proposed.  Mr. Koester stated no. 

 

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. Johnson stated the TCOD requirements are restrictive allowing for the need for a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed sign is not an inappropriate scale to the structure it is being placed on.         

 

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. Burriss stated the use of the building – retail – has to have identification to mark the location of the business. 

 (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. Burriss stated the signage would not alter the character of the neighborhood.

 

(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.  The Planning Commission agreed 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.  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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-138 with the following variances:

  1. 1.                  To allow for a wall sign in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD);
  2. 2.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot from 6 square feet to 24.75 square feet in the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-138:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

75 Westgate Drive – Kraig and Michele Koester- Application #2011-139

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a freestanding sign.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Kraig and Michele

Koester. 

 

Discussion:

Kraig Koester stated the proposed freestanding sign is ten foot (10’) high and one-sided.

Mr. Hawk asked if there are any setback requirements from the road.  Ms. Terry stated no, and the sign has to be located outside of the right of way.  Mr. Burriss stated given the area the sign is proposed for - it is not inappropriate for signage that already exists in this area.  He added the proposed signage is more discreet then some of the existing signage in this area and the sign offers style and detailing.  Ms. Terry clarified there is landscaping proposed for the base of the sign. 

 

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 building is distant from traveled routes and another building blocks part of the structure which is unique to this structure. 

 

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. Burriss stated the structure will house retail and needs appropriate signage.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Johnson stated for the underlining zoning district, the variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Hawk, and Mr. Burriss agreed.

 (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. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way.

 

(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.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements and unique location of the structure requiring signage.

 

(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.  

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2011-139 with the following variances:

 

  1. 1.                  To increase the maximum allowable square footage of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Community Service District (CSD) from thirty-eight (38) square feet to sixty-four point seven five (64.75) square feet total;
  2. 2.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Community Service District (CSD) from twenty-four (24) square feet to forty (40) square feet;
  3. 3.                  To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay District (TCOD) from twenty-four-point-seven-five (24.75) square feet to sixty-four-point-seven-five (64.75) square feet.  (Which is a combined total of all signs requested for this property under GPC Applications #2011-139.);
  4. 4.                  To increase the maximum size of a freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay Corridor District (TCOD) from eighteen (18) square  feet to forty (40) square feet; 
  5. 5.                  To increase the maximum height of the freestanding sign on this zone lot in the Transportation Overlay Corridor District (TCOD) from six (6’) feet to ten (10’) feet.  

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-139:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

203 North Mulberry Street –Chad Pepper/Greek Key Services - Application #2011-140

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a window replacements.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Mr. Reymenn.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Reymenn, Marysville, Ohio was present to address any questions.  He stated Mr. Pepper was unable to attend the meeting.  Mr. Reymenn confirmed they would be replacing the existing windows with Jeldwyn windows. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-140:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated new windows would preserve the existing historical structure.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-140 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-140:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

129 Westgate Drive – Granville Fitness/April Kale- Application #2011-142

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of a parking plan for proposed recreational space.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Park Shai, and April Kale. 

 

Discussion:

April Kale, 129 Westgate, stated she would like to defer any questions to Park Shai, realtor.  Ms. Terry explained this matter is before he Planning Commission because the zoning code says recreational uses are to be set by the Planning Commission and they are not determined by the code or the Planner.  She stated she asked Ms. Kale to submit information so the Planning Commission had an idea on how many people could be using the property at one time.  Mr. Johnson questioned if ‘recreational use’ is defined as ‘fitness.’  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Kale stated fourteen (14) people is the maximum number of people that would be at the facility at one time.  She explained fourteen people wouldn’t be there all day, but rather in blocks of time.  Ms. Terry stated the other fitness use approved by the Planning Commission was for Lemonade Fitness in which the Planning Commission determined 540 square feet required having 3 parking spaces.  Mr.   Ryan questioned how many spaces are currently in place.  Mr. Shai stated ten, but he estimates they are able to add up to five more. 

 

Mr. Johnson asked if it is the goal of the business to increase in size.  Ms. Kale stated she wouldn’t want more space.  The Planning Commission determined the surface area is sufficient for 14 parking spaces.  Mr. Shai indicated in ‘Exhibit A’ where they could place four to five additional parking spaces.  Ms. Terry reminded the applicant that gravel cannot be placed within ten feet (10’) of any property line. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-142 on the condition that the parking be set per ‘Exhibit A’ with fourteen (14) parking spaces.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-142:

Hawk (yes), Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Work Session:

Tim and Kathy Klingler were present to discuss the potential purchase of the Bancroft House located on Park National Bank property on Elm Street.  Mr. Klingler stated he would like to have feedback from the Planning Commission on whether or not plans for a carriage house are acceptable.  Ms. Terry indicated variances have been applied for by the Klingler’s to the BZBA.  She stated the non-conforming status has lost its current status.  Mr. Klingler stated the house is on the historic register.  Mr. Johnson suggested looking at the grading and drainage issues in this area, although he feels any issues can be remedied.  The Planning Commission indicated they did not have immediate concerns with Mr. Klingler’s proposal.  Mr. Burriss stated Mr. Klingler has always built what was approved by the Planning Commission for similar projects in years past.   

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-136: Mary Rose OBrien-Bernini/Frank Bernini; 338 West Elm 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-136. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-137: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; 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 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-137. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Johnson (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-138: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; 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 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-138 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-138. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-139: Kraig and Michele Koester; 75 Westgate Drive; 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 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-139 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-139. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-140: Denison University; 203 North Mulberry; 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 #2011-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-140. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2011-142: April Kale/Granville Fitness; 149 Westgate Drive; 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 1183, Offstreet Parking and Loading, Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-142. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the November 28, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for October 24, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from October 24, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for November 14, 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from November 14, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Hawk abstained.)

 

Motion to approve 2012 Meeting Dates:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the 2012 Planning Commission meeting dates proposed by the Planning Department.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 12, 2011

Monday, January 9, 2012

Monday, January 23, 2012

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.