Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes October 24, 2011

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 24, 2011

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe and Tom Mitchell. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker, Planning and Zoning Assistant.

Also Present: John Klauder, Maggie Sobataka, Jodi Melfi, Laura Hunt, Flo Hoffman, and Cynthia Cort.    

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

Corner of North Main and College Street – John Klauder Associates for Denison University- Application #2011-121

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a three (3’) foot high brick retaining wall.

 

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

 

Discussion:

John Klauder, 30 Old Farm Road, indicated he was approached by Denison University to do this project.  He stated they will step down the wall and make this area look very attractive.  Mr. Klauder presented an example of the proposed brick.  He stated it is not exactly the same, but is a very close match. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-121:

 

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 proposal is a continuance of what is already existing at the Denison University entrance and that makes this improvement stylistically compatible.   

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 materials are 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 #2011-121 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-121:

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

 

134 ½ East Broadway – Dr. Devin Savage - Application #2011-127

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Dr. Devin Savage.

 

Discussion:

Devin Savage, 134 ½ East Broadway, presented an example of the signage to be placed on the window glass.  Ms. Terry stated there is a variance on file for the previous projecting sign.  Jodi Melfi, graphic designer and designer of the sign, was present to answer any questions by the Planning Commission. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-127:

 

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. 

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 #2011-127 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-127:

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

 

134 ½ East Broadway – Dr. Devin Savage - Application #2011-128

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a projecting sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Dr. Devin Savage.

 

Discussion:

Devin Savage, 134 ½ East Broadway, was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated the required variance would allow all of the signage for Day y Noche, the Yoga Studio, and the dentistry business to be compliant.  Ms. Terry explained that the variance would be needed because the previous dental business had only received a variance for the projecting sign and with the window sign on the door as well it necessitated the variance for the total increase.  Mr. Ryan stated the proposed sign is blue and white.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is proposing to exceed the maximum height because fourteen feet is the maximum allowable height.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the proposed signage is seventeen feet.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked why the code indicated a maximum height to the top of the sign since this is a sign for a second story location.  He stated the signage is for a business on the second story and the guidelines are taking the height from the ground floor which seems silly. Ms. Terry stated that this point can be considered when they are reviewing sign code changes in the future. Mr. Ryan stated the guidelines are not clear and someone might infer that the Planning Commission is looking at a seventeen foot high sign, which is not the case. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2011-128:

 

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. Burriss stated that another and similar application with a projecting wall sign had been approved for this location, and that the Planning Commission felt this type of signage was appropriate due to the location of a second story business and the façade of the building.  He stated the Planning Commission would not want any detailing of the building covered up.  Mr. Ryan state the second sign on the door is also adding to the need for a variance and the applicant needs to also have a sign on their door to indicate the location of the entrance.   

 

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 that it would be difficult to identify the business without the signage.  Mr. Burriss stated the entry door sign and the projecting sign have consistent graphics.     
 

(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 was 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 TRUE. 

 

(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.

 

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 #2011-128:

 

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 signage is consistent 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. 

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 signage is consistent with historically accurate signage in the district.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-128 with the following conditions:

1)         To increase the maximum sign area square footage from 58.53 square feet to 61.733 square feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign;

2)         To increase the maximum number of projecting signs allowed for this zoned lot from one (1) to two (2) to allow for the installation of a second projecting sign; and

3)         To increase the maximum height of a projecting sign from fourteen (14) feet to seventeen (17) feet to allow for the installation of a projecting sign.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-128:

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

 

Old Business:

113 North Prospect Street – Gallery M- Application #2010-60

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

The request is for a time extension for the relocation of a sandwich board sidewalk sign at

the northwest corner of North Prospect and East Broadway. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Marilyn Sobataka, Pinehurst Drive, indicated the sidewalk signage in this location has significantly benefited her business.  The Planning Commission indicated that Ms. Sobataka had indicated at a previous meeting that she was going to look at some alternatives signage in this area.  Mr. Burriss stated there used to be a sign with an arrow for businesses on South Prospect Street that was located on the second floor.  He asked if there is anything in the regulations about someone putting their sign on another building.  Ms. Terry stated of course a business owner would need to have permission from the property owner, but this would also be considered an off premise sign, which is not currently permitted. 

 

Mr. Ryan asked if there have been any complaints made about the sandwich board sign for Gallery M.  Ms. Terry stated no.  She indicated the Village received a letter in support of the sidewalk sign. Ms. Sobataka explained her investigation into alternative signage was currently only in the concept stage. She stated she was looking into something that is different for the Village that is not sandwich board signage.  Ms. Sobataka indicated she could take her proposed planter concept and make it singular on this corner of the town if this is desired by the Planning Commission.  She went on to say that the current location of the sidewalk sign is where a trash can used to be, and she tries not to place it in an inconvenient location for walking traffic. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-60:

 

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

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

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality of the business is contributed to with the proposed sidewalk signage. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-60 with a time stipulation of twelve months for relocation of the sidewalk sandwich board sign. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2010-60:

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

 

115 East Broadway – Granville Historical Society - Application #2011-64 AMENDED

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

The request is for architectural review and approval to modify some of the previously approved finishes and detailing on the exterior of the building, and to modify the western

door entry.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Laura Hunt, Flo Hoffman,

and Cynthia Cort .

 

Mr. Johnson recused himself from Application #2011-64 at 8:00 PM. 

 

Discussion:

Laura Hunt indicated she has been working as the architect on this project.  She stated they have some proposed changes, specifically to the exterior finish details.  Ms. Hunt explained the previously approved plan had stone corners that they would like to replace with quoins made of an EIFS material, and that they have studied various groove patterns and created a horizontal line to break up all three facades.  Ms. Hunt stated they would like to add a small roof over the west entry door, and lentils over each window.  She stated they are also changing the color of the exterior. Mr. Hawk questioned if “value engineering” is the reason for the proposed changes.  Ms. Hunt stated yes, and to break up the appearance of the facade.  Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed grout joint line.  He stated it seems arbitrary as to where it is being placed and it seems to indicate a floor line.  He went on to say that he is bothered by the way this line hits the corners because it does not line up with the corner quoins.  Mr. Hawk agreed, but stated dropping it down would create a problem on the west elevation.  Ms. Hunt stated they did look at some other patterns; she later presented drawings illustrating several additional options.  Mr. Burris stated he admires the front entrance to this building.  He asked why two paired columns are presented for the rear instead of matching the front singular columns.  Ms. Hunt agreed single columns would be more appropriate.  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds the porch roof for the entry.  He explained he thinks the entrance to the original structure is strong and appropriate, and that the rear entrance should be tied into the identity of the building to match this.  Mr. Burriss stated he would like to look at options for the brackets supporting the little roof on the southern façade, because they don’t feel as detailed as the rest of the building.  Cynthia Cort stated the front entrance door is recessed approximately 18” and that they are unable to recess the rear door this much.  The Planning Commission discussed the use of blind windows versus real windows.  Mr. Burriss indicated it would be appropriate to add an additional blind window for symmetry above the entry on the western facade.  Ms. Cort agreed and stated they would need to have blind windows to reduce the cost and because of the interior use of the facility.  Mr. Burriss stated there are blind windows on the old Sensibilities buildings and these were encouraged by the Planning Commission to break up the façade.  Mr. Burriss stated that if one looks at the fenestration pattern on the front of the building – everything is balanced and symmetrical and he would like to see this continue on the back of the structure.  Mr. Burriss stated they could also use shutters to give the blind windows a stronger look.  The Planning Commission discussed the proposed EIFS (Exterior Insulated Finished Systems) design modifications.  Ms. Hunt presented various sketch studies of the exterior with alcoves.  She stated the alcoves would be the same material and color.  Mr. Burriss asked how the horizontal band would stand out.  Ms. Cort stated it would have an inch and a half reveal.  Mr. Burriss indicated that on the eastern elevation, under the fire escape, the trash cans and air handlers need to be screened. Discussion focused on using a fence or screening design that replicated the hand railing from the fire escape be incorporated in this area. Mr. Burriss stated the applicant needs to decide the location for any hose bibs.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-64 AMENDED:

 

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. 

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-64 AMENDED with the following provisions:

The west exterior façade to be detailed per Exhibit "A" with the addition of two window ‘ghosts’ and a floor band as indicated, and the doorway on this elevation is to be detailed with single pilaster’s on either side of the door; and the south façade be detailed as indicated in Exhibit "B" to include a floor band, and the extension of both shed roofs to accommodate new support brackets; and the exterior elevation east side be detailed per Exhibit "C" to include a floor band and fencing to screen air conditioning units and other objects.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-64 AMENDED:

Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Johnson returned to the meeting at 8:15 PM.

 

Other Business:

Zoning Code Revisions - to amend various sign code provisions outlined in Section 1189, Table 1189b. 

 

Public Comments:  None. 

 

Planner Terry stated the Planning Commission is focusing on the TCOD requirements at this time.  She explained the district that allows for the most signage is the downtown Village Business District and this is because its based on linear frontage.  Ms. Terry presented a chart with all of the revisions previously discussed by the Planning Commission.  She stated the TCOD section has been removed and all parts that are impacted by the removal of the TCOD section have been addressed.  Ms. Terry stated this recommendation would be subject to approval by Council.  Mr. Burriss stated he is all in favor of simplification and clarification of the sign code. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion for recommendation of the TCOD sign code changes to Village Council and to recommend they approve the changes that were made consistent with the September 26, 2011 draft.  Seconded by Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0.  

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2011-121: John Klauder Associates; Main/College 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 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-121 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-121. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2011-127: Dr. Devin Savage; 134 ½ 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 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-127. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-128: Dr. Devin Savage; 134 ½ 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 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-128. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-60 AMENDED: Gallery M/Marilyn Sobataka; 113 North Prospect 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 #2010-60 (AMENDED) as submitted with the added stipulation that the time extension be for a period of one year.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-60 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2011-64 AMENDED: Granville Historical Society; 115 East 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 #2011-64 (AMENDED) as amended with provisions illustrated in Exhibits A, B, and C.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-64 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Johnson moved to excuse Tom Mitchell from the October 24, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 26, 2011:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from September 26, 2011.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Hawk abstained.)

 

Adjournment:  8:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Monday, December 12, 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.