Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 10, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Vice Chair) acted as Chair and called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Tim Ryan (Chair), Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting).

 

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

 

Also Present: John Noblick, Chuck Peterson, Rodger Kessler, Tim Klingler, Tim Riffle, Seth Patton, Tim Rollins, Jack Reynolds and Karl Schneider.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Mr. Mitchell requested to move Application #2012-183 and #2012-184 to the first and second items on the agenda due to a prior commitment for the applicant.  There were no objections to the request. 

 

New Business:

126 North Prospect Street – Kessler Sign Co. for First Federal Savings & Loan - Application #2012-183

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Rodger Kessler.

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, stated he is representing the applicant, First Federal, for replacement signage.  Mr. Kessler stated they are proposing a replacement sign because the current sign is worn out and falling apart.  He went on to say they would like to propose a new color, but essentially the same sign with the same branding used in their Newark office.  Mr. Kessler stated they are proposing raised lettering for the sign, which looks similar to other signage on Broadway.  Mr. Mitchell asked what lettering is being left off the freestanding signage.  Mr. Kessler stated ‘FDIC’ would be left off the new sign. 

Ms. Terry stated the freestanding signage would need a variance, if approved by the Planning Commission, because it is slightly larger than the existing sign with the proposed arch at the top.  Ms. Terry explained the original sign should have received a variance, but there is nothing in the file.  She stated a variance would bring the signage into compliance. 

 

Mr. Kessler stated the wall sign would have new letters that are painted plated aluminum and fastened to the building.  He stated this work cannot be done until the Spring.  Ms. Terry stated the signage would be spaced closer together than the existing lettering on the building.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is allowed to have up to one hundred (100) square feet of signage and they currently have forty-eight point five six (48.56) square feet of signage on the site.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-183:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials used for signage are consistent with other materials used in this district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded this was TRUE.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the signage is an appropriate size and style.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-183 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-183:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

126 North Prospect Street – Kessler Sign Co. for First Federal Savings & Loan - Application #2012-184

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

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

 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Rodger Kessler.

 

 

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler,

See Above for Discussion Under Application #2012-183.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-184:

 

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. Hawk stated TRUE, the request is specific and unique because there is a specific size being requested.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk. 

 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated the applicant would still have a reasonable return without the variance, but the proposed change to the signage resulting in the need for a variance is a nice update in appearance.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt. 

 

 (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.  Mr. Hawk stated FALSE, the size in width is exactly the same.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk. 

 

 (4)       Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was FALSE.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was FALSE.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission agrees they like and prefer the shape of the new sign with the proposed changed curve at the top, although the sign could be amended to meet the criteriaThe Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss that this criteria was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the applicant did not install or make the previous signage.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Burriss that this criteria was 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 it will not.

 

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 there were no special conditions.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-184:

 

a)            Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the district. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the existing signage is falling apart.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded this criteria is TRUE. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the signage is an appropriate size and style.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-184 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to fourteen (14) square feet on this zone lot in the Village Business District (VBD).    Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-184:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

200 North Mulberry Street – John Noblick for Denison University - Application #2012-178

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of an emergency stand-by generator and gravel and relocation of electric service meter and disconnect switch on the south side of the structure.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick. 

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, stated he is representing the applicant, Kappa Alpha Theta House at Denison University.  Mr. Noblick stated the electric meter needs to be relocated on the outside of the structure.  He stated a generator would also be installed and this has to be five feet (5’) from any window or door opening.  Ms. Terry stated staff has indicated the unit needs to be screened with landscaping.  Mr. Noblick stated they plan on installing boxwood hedges to screen the unit.  Mr. Hawk questioned code requirements for the installation of the generator.  Mr. Noblick stated they were using the manufacturer’s suggestions and this is part of the reason for changing the way the electric comes into the building.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there is an existing gas line to this area.  Mr. Noblick stated there is gas inside the building and they would use flex pipe through a crawl space.  He added there would not be any outside digging for gas line accessibility.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there are any neighbors close by.  Mr. Noblick stated no.  Ms. Terry indicated notifications regarding the application were sent out, but they did not receive any comments back from any recipients.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-178:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other similar requests approved in the district. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district.  He stated this improvement would maintain the historic structure. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the historic structure would be protected by a generator. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

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 #2012-178 as submitted with the condition that a boxwood hedge be planted, surrounding the generator and properly spaced to form a complete 100% opacity hedge to a height of thirty inches (30”) within four years.    Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-178:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

100 North Plum Street– Art Chonko for Denison University - Application #2012-179

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of an enclosed dumpster pad on the Northeast corner; a sidewalk on the west side of the property; mechanical vent at various locations on the buildings façade; and additional air conditioning condensers on the North side of the building as part of the interior renovations project. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle. 

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street, Granville, stated that during the renovation of Stone Hall they would like to install a centralized dumpster system to serve for trash and recycling.  Mr. Riffle stated this would be screened on the street side for heating units as well.  He explained they would relocate existing evergreen shrubs on the backside of the condensers.  Mr. Burriss asked for further explanation of the vents being added to the building wall.  Mr. Riffle stated the vents are for a high efficiency furnace.  He explained  the actual vent is one piece with intake and exhaust and they would be placed in various locations throughout the building.  Mr. Riffle presented an example on paper of what the vents would look like.  He stated some would be located on the north and south side of the structure and they are trying to find any color other than white so they are not noticed and camouflaged in.   Mr. Riffle stated they don’t want something that has to be painted because it could peel.  He went on to say there would also be bathroom exhaust fans installed.  Mr. Riffle stated they would like to use something nicer than what they are proposing today for the vents and they are willing to work with Ms. Terry on the final selection.  Mr. Mitchell asked the total number of vents.  Mr. Riffles stated fourteen (14).  Mr. Burriss stated some of the vents are proposed to be located within trim detail on the building and some are in the brick.  Mr. Riffle stated the exact location of the vents could vary once they get the project started.  He explained they would make every attempt to camouflage the venting within brick and trim – matching it to the same color.  Mr. Riffle asked the Planning Commission to approve this in concept and they can bring the final details to the Planning Office for final approval.  Mr. Hawk asked the finish on the bollards and gate.  Mr. Riffle stated the bollards would be painted and the gate is a composite material that would look like stained wood.  Mr. Mitchell stated Kendal is going through a similar type project and their venting cannot be located near windows.  He questioned if some modifications would have to be done.  He stated he would be comfortable with the Planning Department overseeing the final details of the project.  Mr. Hawk and Ms. Hoyt agreed.  Mr. Burriss agreed and added he would like to see the vents camouflaged as much as possible with the fenestration pattern maintained.  Mr. Riffle stated his goal is to make the vents disappear as much as possible and they would not want them showing up on the brick.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if there were any concerns with the sidewalks, which are also part of the application.  Mr. Burriss asked about the railing shown in example "c4."  Mr. Riffle stated the railing is a powder coated black pipe.  Mr. Burriss questioned if better quality railing has been used elsewhere on campus.  Mr. Riffle stated the proposed railing is consistent with the railings they have been installing on campus. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-179:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that vent structures should be camouflaged as much as possible, but that otherwise this criteria is TRUE.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, this makes a historic structure more energy efficient.   Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the livability of the structure is improved.   Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

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 #2012-179 as presented with the condition that the applicant submit for final aesthetic approvals and alignment of the vents on each floor, along with their color, and that these approvals be by Village Staff so as to minimize the impact of the modernization of the building.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-179:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

204 North Mulberry Street– Art Chonko for Denison University - Application #2012-180

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of a mulch/gravel path, steps, and seating areas at the labyrinth and corner of the property.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle. 

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street, explained there would be two seating areas.  One would be at the corner of College and Mulberry Streets and the other is near the labyrinth.  Mr. Riffle stated they would like to add some stone to the corner area along with a Denison seal.  Ms. Terry later noted the seal was not part of the original application, so this would have to be noted on the approval.  Mr. Riffle explained he recently came across the seal and decided to include it in the project.  He stated the seal would be flush with grade.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the neighbors were notified of this hearing.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the benches would be wooden.  Mr. Riffle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed width of the pathway.  Mr. Riffle stated three foot (3’) wide.  Ms. Hoyt stated there is an existing pathway in place.  Mr. Riffle stated this is the pathway they are attempting to enhance to make this area less muddy.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-180:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed project is consistent with similar landscaping projects approved in the district. Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

b)            Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the pedestrian character of the area is improved.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality is improved with the added pedestrian walkway.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-180 with the addition of the installation of a six foot (6') diameter Denison seal flush to grade at the seating area located at the corner of North Mulberry and College Streets.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-180:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

334 East Broadway– Art Chonko for Denison University - Application #2012-182

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

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Tim Riffle. 

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, 135 Thresher Street, stated they are requesting signage at the College Town House be replaced with a slightly bigger sign.  Ms. Terry stated the proposed signage is compliant except for the bottom hanging portion of the sign.  The Planning Commission questioned if the hanging piece indicating the facility is available for community events could be added to the main portion of the sign.  Mr. Riffle stated they prefer to have this hanging below in case this would ever change.  Mr. Burriss stated he actually prefers this hanging below because it does not clutter the appearance of the sign.  Mr. Burriss stated he would like to see landscaping at the base of the sign. He stated other signage on Broadway has been required to have landscaping.  Mr. Riffle stated this would not be a problem.  Ms. Terry stated the signage would not have any ground lighting.  Mr. Riffle explained the signage would be in the same location as the original sign, but turned perpendicular to the roadway.  Mr. Hawk indicated he is for the approval of the sign overall, but he is not in favor of granting a variance for the signage hanging below.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-182:

 

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. Burriss stated TRUE, the College Town House is a unique community resource and he is in favor of the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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. Burriss stated TRUE, structure would be made available for community events.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated FALSE, the proposed signage is an improvement.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

(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.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE.

 

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the applicant was given the College Town House.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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, it will not.

 

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 landscaping should be placed around the signposts and should maintain a height of sixteen to eighteen inches (16”-18”). 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-182:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the new signage is more appropriate.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the signage is historically appropriate.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-182 with a variance to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a freestanding sign from twelve (12) square feet to thirteen (13) square feet in the Village Business District for this zoned lot; and with the condition that the applicant install evergreen landscaping around the posts of the signage to reach and maintain a height of sixteen to eighteen (16”-18”) inches.  Seconded by Mr. Burris. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-182:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (no), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Northeast Corner of Columbus and Weaver Road – Jackson Reynolds, II c/o Smith & Hale, LLC on behalf of Raccoon Creek, LLC c/o Metropolitan Partners - Application #2012-185

The request is for rezoning of the property from General Business District (GB) and Conservation District (C-1) under the Granville Township Zoning Code to Village Gateway (VGD) in the Village of Granville.  The 35+/- acre property is currently undergoing annexation into the Village of the Granville from Granville Township. 

 

Tom Mitchell recused himself from discussion and voting on Application

#2012-185 at 8:05 P.M. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Burriss swore in Alison Terry, Tim Rollins, Jack Reynolds.  Mr. Burriss acted as Chair of the meeting. 

 

Discussion:

Jack Reynolds, 35 West Broadway, Columbus

Tim Rollins, 35 North 4th Street, Columbus, Metropolitan Partners

 

Jack Reynolds stated the annexation request has been approved by the Licking County Commissioners and has been forwarded to the Village Council.  He explained they also have an annexation agreement with Village Council which was enacted in August of this year. Mr. Reynolds explained the property is currently zoned in Granville Township as ‘General Business’ and has a 'C-1' classification for Conservation District.  Mr. Reynolds stated they are requesting annexation to the Village with a zoning classification of ‘Village Gateway District’ on all of the thirty-three (33) acres they own.  Mr. Reynolds stated in the past they did rezoning and the site development information at the same time.  He explained they are not this far along in the process this time and are only ready to go through the rezoning process with Village Council.  Mr. Reynolds stated a development plan would come to the Village at a later time and right now they just want to get the right market so they can utilize the property commercially.  Mr. Reynolds indicated they are willing to discuss a portion of the 'C-1' classification being conserved in its natural state.  He indicated there is also a portion of the property that is considered to be in the Floodway Hazard Overlay District and the Village zoning code requirements would be followed.  Mr. Reynolds indicated his clients would like to have a discussion with Village Staff and Council regarding the use of the flood and conservation area and potential uses for retention ponds, parking, pathways, etc.  Mr. Reynolds stated there are more development standards associated with the Village Gateway District than with the current Township zoning requirements.  He indicated there would be architectural components associated with this new zoning classification and Metropolitan Partners has a reputation for doing a wonderful job.  He stated this is evident in the Shurtz building on South Main Street.   Mr. Reynolds stated the property in question is also a significant gateway into the community and they feel the Village Gateway District zoning standards are most appropriate. 

 

Ms. Terry stated her staff report indicates there is a new Comprehensive Plan in effect for the Village of Granville.  She stated the area in question does have existing utilities in the form of a twelve-inch (12”) water line and a twelve-inch (12') sewer line.  Both the Utility Director and Water Treatment Plant Superintendent have indicated that these lines have plenty of capacity to serve additional development in the area.  She stated this line is currently extended to the Kendal community which is located on SR 16.  Ms. Terry stated staff would also recommend that a traffic/street study be done, but they feel this would be most appropriate at the time of development plan review.  Ms. Terry stated with the current ‘General Business’ zoning requirement in the Township there is a 50% lot coverage requirement.  She stated the ‘Village Gateway District’ zoning classification would require a 60% lot coverage requirement.  Ms. Terry stated her staff report indicates portions of the land in question ought to be protected and preserved, such as the wetlands and woodlands.  Ms. Terry stated the developer would want to capitalize on the commercial parcel, and this could still be done, while also focusing on preservation.  Ms. Terry stated the Village could use this as an opportunity to enhance a gateway into the community and they also have much stricter architectural controls than the Township is allowed to have.  Ms. Terry stated there would not be any public roadways going in the area and the hookup for utilities is already there.  Ms. Terry stated there are no known issues with public health, safety, and general welfare, as confirmed in a letter from Chief Hussey.  Ms. Terry stated staffs main concern is the preservation of the natural area to the north and keeping the trees preserved. 

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Hoyt questioned if there is the potential for the developer to raise the area by having dirt brought in.  Ms. Terry stated no, the floodway cannot be impacted at all.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the capacity for water and sewer was taken into consideration with the recent development being done at Kendal.  Ms. Terry stated yes and capacity is sufficient for their project, as well as any development on the thirty-three (33) acres in question.  Mr. Hawk stated the land in the corner, south of Weaver Drive and north of SR 16, recently had monumental flooding and there could be potential challenges for the developer.  Mr. Reynolds acknowledged this.  Ms. Terry stated the developer also owns land across the roadway and there is a sub station and pizza shop in this area as well.  Ms. Terry stated there have been discussions regarding annexation across the roadway, but this is not included in the request at this time.  Mr. Burriss asked if there needs to be discussion to seek clarification of the flood plain development area and how this can be utilized by the applicant.  Ms. Terry stated staff could come up with some language if the Planning Commission is in agreement.  She explained there is a natural break at a diagonal and it is possible the developer could use some of the flood plain area for overflow parking as one option.  Mr. Hawk stated he is seeing from the submittal that the developable part of land is the big field.  Ms. Terry agreed and stated this is not a big area considering the size of the entire parcel boundary.  Mr. Hawk stated he wouldn’t want it to be dense.  Mr. Burriss clarified their approval tonight would be a recommendation to Village Council.  He stated there would still be much more discussion regarding the site with the Planning Commission and Council before something is actually built on the site. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following factors in the review of the application:

a.         Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.  The proposed zoning amendment from General Business District (GB) and Conservation District (C-1) in Granville Township to Village Gateway District (VGD) in the Village is appropriate for this area for a number of reasons: 

1.         The Township and Village zoning classifications are both commercial classifications, which allow for similar permitted and conditional uses;

2.         The portion of the parcel which is currently zoned Conservation District (C-1) in the Township is located within the floodplain/floodway.  A modification of the zoning from Conservation District (C-1) to Village Gateway District (VGD) will not impact the conservation area, as it is still regulated under Chapter 1177, Flood Hazard Overlay District.

3.         The properties surrounding this parcel are all zoned General Business District (GB) and Conservation District (C-1) within the Township, and therefore the proposed zoning would be consistent;

4.         The recently adopted Joint Comprehensive Plan outlines the following regarding this property:

a.         Land Use Planning: This property is identified as both "Neighborhood Commercial" and "Village Open Space" along the raccoon creek corridor within the floodway/100 year floodplain area.

1)         "Neighborhood Commercial:  Neighborhood commercial areas are used predominately for the sale of products and services to the local community.  Such areas are comprised of smaller office, retail, and service establishments that are oriented toward serving residents' day-to-day needs (such as groceries, dry cleaning, coffee, books, or haircuts).  Most commercial uses in Granville are neighborhood in scale.  They area often abutted by residential, agricultural or other contrasting uses.  These areas may include some non-commercial uses too small to be separated."

2)         "Open Space:  This land use category can be used to designate public or private lands where no development other than that specifically designated for passive recreation and/or retention in a natural state is desired.  This land use category may include ecological preserves and public lands acquired specifically for open space uses.  It may also include private lands held to maintain natural features within clustered conservation developments where a percentage of open space is set aside or where a conservation easement has been granted.  The purpose of this designation is to identify areas that contain intact natural resources and to protect the viability of those resources, including ground and surface water protection, flood control, wetland habitat preservation and aesthetic quality control of the community.  These areas may include forested areas, steep slopes, lakes and ponds, riparian corridors, wellhead protection areas, and areas where the encroachment of development would compromise these natural resource values."  This area is also located within the Western Planning Area. 

3)         "Western Planning Area: …This area is the primary western gateway into the community.  If there is in-fill development in this area, it should be of a more rural character.  Specific areas have been targeted for the conservation design concept as new residential development is proposed.  Open space should be actively pursued for preservation in the areas identified in the Future Land Use Plan (see Plate 3, Future Land Use Plan)".  The Comprehensive Plan also discusses the need to "Delineate and Enhance Gateways".

4)         "Delineate and Enhance Gateways:  Gateways, which can be viewed as the front door into a community, provide the first impressions of that community.  Development of attractive entrances into the Village should include landscaping and lighting with appropriate signage.  New signs, which are low to the ground and unobtrusive, should be encouraged.  These signs could be part of an overall uniform signage theme for the Village.  Street lighting similar to the Downtown could also be considered along major corridors as the area develops, which could help tie the community together visually.  Incorporation of the bike path into a design theme might also be useful."

b.         Policy and Strategy Recommendations:

1)         "Natural Resources/ Conservation Policy and Strategy Recommendations:  Conservation easements or zoning setbacks along streams and creeks should be pursued to protect the area's surface water quality and the riparian corridors.  A recommendation would be to put the easements or setbacks at a minimum of the 100-year floodplain". 

2)         "Transportation/Mobility/Gateway Policy and Strategy Recommendations:  Gateways are very important to enhancing the entrance into a community; gateways should be at entrances to Granville Village and Granville Township along the scenic byways, too.  These are the recommendations for the Granville area's gateways:

a)         Work aggressively to enhance gateway entrances to the Village.  These standards should include requirements for landscaping, signage, lighting and glare, and property maintenance.

b)         A unique gateway sign should be constructed in targeted areas identified as entrances to the community.  Gateways to the Village and Township, linkages to existing and planned developments, recreational trails, and way finding markers may all be tied together with consistent signage design.

3)         Economic/Development Policy and Strategy Recommendations:

a)         Infrastructure/Public Services:  Development should be directed to those areas where the existing infrastructure can support the development; and the development should not exceed the ability of the Village, Township, or school system to provide essential services.

b)         Business Development:  The major purpose of new commercial development should be to provide space for businesses that primarily serve the needs of the local community rather than those of the regional and transient markets.  Encourage the establishment of mixed use (hamlet style) neighborhoods for parts of South Main Street (Lancaster Road), River Road, Weaver Drive, Cherry Valley Road (at the intersection with Newark-Granville Road), and South Galway Drive.  Mixed use neighborhood development and neighborhood and neighborhood commercial development shall also avoid strip shopping centers, malls, and freestanding retailers that typify urban sprawl."  All other policy and strategy recommendations will be reviewed at the time of development plan review and approval, as they relate to specific site planning issues.

Based on the information outlined above, Staff feels that the VGD zoning classification is consistent with the comprehensive plan and an appropriate category for this area.  Mr. Hawk stated he agrees with Staff that the Village Gateway District is the logical choice for the zoning of this site and the site is suited for this designation.   Ms. Hoyt reviewed the business choices for this zoning designation.  Mr. Burriss and Ms. Hoyt agreed with Mr. Hawk.  

 

b.         Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow. Traffic/Streets:  The applicant is not proposing any uses with the rezoning of the property therefore it is difficult to determine the impact on future traffic.  Staff feels that the appropriate time to determine the types of improvements which may be necessary for the development of this property should occur at the time of development plan review, when the buildings, parking and site plan are brought forward by the applicant.  The applicant would then be required to provide a Traffic Impact Study, per Chapter 1195, of the Village Zoning Code.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Village Staff and believes a traffic study would be appropriate at the time of development plan review. 

 

c.         Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.   Chief Hussey indicated the following in an email dated 12/3/2012:  "I have no fire safety or EMS concerns regarding this annexation.  We currently serve this property as part of Granville Township, and would continue to serve it as part of the Village in the future.  Therefore, there is no change in the provision of fire and EMS services to this property."   Chief Mason also indicated that he has no concerns with the public's health, safety or general welfare.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Village Staff that there are no concerns regarding health, safety, and general welfare.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed there were no public health, safety and general welfare concerns

 

d.         Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.

1)         Utilities

a)         Sanitary Sewer:  There is a 12-inch sanitary sewer line running along the northern edge of the property.  The Utilities Director, Joe Taylor, indicated that "the current capacity of the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) is 911,000 gallons per day.  The plant is currently averaging a total of 450,000 gallons per day.  The 12-inch line could handle an extended capacity of 437,000 gallons per day.  This particular line currently has a maximum daily usage of 63,000 gallons and a daily average usage of 21,000 gallons per day."  Therefore, the plant would have enough capacity to accommodate additional users at this location;

b)         Water:  The Water Superintendent, Larry Fruth, indicated the following in an email dated November 30, 2012:  "There is a 12" water main running from just south of the bike trail down Columbus Road and ending at the Owen's Corning Tech Center.  The property at the corner of Columbus Road and Weaver Drive would be served by this 12" water main.  Currently, the average maximum daily draw on this main is about 130,000 gallons.  This existing water main has the capacity to deliver 500,000 gallons a day or more to this area.  In my opinion, the existing water main has sufficient capacity for development of this property provided the expected water supply needs do not exceed this range.” 

Mr. Burriss stated Village Staff has indicated the utility lines are of sufficient size.  Mr. Hawk and Ms. Hoyt agreed.

                       

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend to the Village Council approval of Application #2012-185 with the ‘Village Gateway District’ classification, and with the condition that written clarification regarding the preservation of the floodway/floodplain area, generally denoted as 'C-1' on the Township Zoning Map, be provided to Village Staff prior to Council review.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-185:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Mitchell returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 P.M. and acted as Chair. 

 

Motion to Approve 2013 Planning Commission Hearing & Submittal Dates:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Planning Commission meeting and submittal dates for 2013.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-183: Kessler Sign Co./First Federal Savings & Loan; 126 North 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-183 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-183. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2012-184: Kessler Sign Co./First Federal Savings; 334 East Broadway; Exterior Modifications

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-184 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-184. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-178: John Noblick/Denison University; Kappa Alpha Theta House; Generator

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 #2012-178 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-178. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-179: Denison University; 100 North Plum 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 #2012-179 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-179. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-180: Denison University; 204 North Mulberry Street; Path Steps and Seating Area

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, and Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-180 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-180. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-182: Denison University; College Town House; 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-182 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-182. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #2012-185: Metropolitan Partners; Northeast corner of Columbus and Weaver Road; Rezoning Classification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1143, Amendments and Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-185 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-185. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Tim Ryan from the December 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 14, 2013

Monday, January 28, 2013

Monday, February 11, 2013

 

Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 13, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Jean Hoyt, Jack Burriss, and Doug Eklof (non-voting). 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Gerald Martin, Jamie Ciminello, Allison Owen, Bill Williams, and Jeff Kling.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

116 East Broadway – Blues & Brews Holdings, LLC/Gerald Martin - Application #2012-165

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of an emergency stand-by generator with concrete pad at the rear of the property. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Gerald Martin. 

 

Discussion:

Gerald Martin, 2276 Hankinson Road, explained the proposed generator is 100 GH generation.  Ms. Walker stated the generator location would be within the enclosed dumpster area that would be enlarged by two feet.  She stated this should not impede anything since the enlarged area is towards the west service doors.  Ms. Walker stated there would be gates to access the generator for service and a 9x20 feet long concrete slab would be poured.  Mr. Mitchell asked the approximate thickness of the concrete.  Mr. Martin explained the concrete would be between three to six inches (3”- 6”) thick and would match up with the concrete already poured for the grease pit.  Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Martin is proposing any bollards for protection of the unit.  Mr. Martin stated there are already bollards on the west side and he wouldn’t be opposed to placing them on the east side.  The Planning Commission suggested the bollards be installed if Mr. Martin wants to protect his investment.  Mr. Mitchell stated the bollards could be located within the fence if they are installed. 

 

 The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-165:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Ryan stated that the application is consistent with other generator requests approved in the district.  He added the generator would not be visible by being placed within a fenced area.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

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.  Mr. Hawk stated that business would benefit from being operational during power outages.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

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 #2012-165 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-165:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

102 East Broadway– Centenary United Methodist Church - Application #2012-166

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing three-tab asphalt shingle roofing and replacement with GAF Timberline dimensional asphaltic shingles in ‘Charcoal.’ 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Bill Williams, and Jeff Kling. 

 

Discussion:

 

Bill Williams, 2720 Airport Drive, Columbus was present to answer any questions.  Mr. Williams explained the church would like to replace the remainder of the roof with dimensional shingles.  He stated this is the last part in need of replacement. 

 

Jeff Kling, Trustee of Centenary United Methodist Church, was also present to address any questions or concerns by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission agreed the application is straight forward. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-166:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed shingle is consistent with shingles already located on the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

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.  Mr. Hawk stated a significant institution in the district is being protected.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-166 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-166:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

127 Mulberry Street – Ciminello Home Builders/Mary Jane Dennison - Application #2012-171

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a replacement detached accessory structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Jamie Ciminello.

 

Discussion:

Jamie Ciminello, 587 Alpine Circle, Heath, stated a shed located on this property was heavily damaged during a storm and they are attempting to replace the structure as close as possible to the original.  Ms. Walker stated a variance has been approved by the BZBA pending Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the structure would be the same finishes.  Mr. Ciminello stated the structure would be built with T111 and would be clay in color with green doors to match the house.  Mr. Ciminello stated the shakes would be replaced with weathered wood that matches as close as possible.  He went on to say the shed would be placed on a concrete slab because the pavers that were previously in place have been destroyed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-171:

 

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. Hawk stated a building is being replaced that was damaged by a storm.

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

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-171 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-171:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

128 East Broadway – Independent Hospitality, LLC - Application #2012-173

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a neon 'open" window sign.

 

Discussion:

 Ms. Walker stated the applicant has requested that the application be tabled because they are not able to attend the meeting.  She stated the applicant may decide to withdraw the application, as they are rethinking their entire sign package.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2012-173 as requested by the applicant.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-173:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-165: Blues and Brews Holdings; 116 East Broadway; Generator

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 #2012-165 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-165. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2012-166: Centenary United Methodist Church; 102 East Broadway; Exterior Modifications - Roofing

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 #2012-166 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-166. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-171: Ciminello Homes/Mary Jane Dennison; 127 South Mulberry Street; Detached Accessory Structure

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, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-171 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-171. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Members:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excusing Jack Burriss and Jean Hoyt from the November 13, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for October 22, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from October 22, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment:  7:15 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 26, 2012

Monday, December 10, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 22, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair), Tim Ryan (Chair), Jeremy Johnson (non-voting) and Doug Eklof (non-voting)

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant

 

Also Present: Stephen & Rita Baldwin and Ed & Donna Jenkins

 

Citizens Comments:  No one appeared to speak, Chair Ryan closed Citizens Comments.

 

New Business:

229 Summit Street – Stephen & Rita Baldwin - Application #2012-161

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing three-tab asphalt shingle roofing with replacement of Owens-Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles in “Driftwood.”

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Stephen and Rita Baldwin.

 

Discussion:

Mrs. Baldwin indicated that they intended to replace their existing tab shingles with three-tab dimensional shingles to help prevent mold and gain a consistent shingle look over the entirety of their home.  Mr. Baldwin provided a sample of the shingle they intend to use.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-161:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other roof requests and materials approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district and maintains the historic character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the new roof will maintain the vitality of the home and, therefore, maintain the vitality of the district is maintained.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposal is an improvement to the home and therefore enhances the areas physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-161 presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-161: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

327 North Pearl Street – Ed & Donna Jenkins - Application #2012-162

Suburban Residential District (SRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the following items:

 

1)                  Removal of the front porch, aluminum siding and soffits,

2)                  Addition of an Oriel window replacing interior grade French doors, and

3)                  Addition of curved wooden front steps, brackets on soffits and pent roofs over front and side doors.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker and Ed Jenkins. 

 

Discussion

Mr. Jenkins advised the Commission that he determined the existing front porch was added in the 1940s.  He has not been able to determine if there was ever a front porch on this home.  He indicated that his renovations of the home have attempted to make the house compatible throughout as an example of Rural Carpenter Gothic.  He wants to remove the French doors as they are not compatible and install an oriel window to more accurately reflect the home’s period.  He indicated that he hopes to reuse the siding, but if he cannot he would replace the siding with Hardi-plank.

 

Mr. Burriss had several questions regarding various aspects of the design. 

 

  1. 1.                  Would a roof wall vent be placed on the rear of the home similar to the one located on the front of the home.  Mr. Jenkins indicated that it would not as he hoped to reroof the building in the future and install ridge vents.
  2. 2.                        Mr. Burriss asked if there were specific examples of the porch roof brackets and roof brackets.  He indicated that he would feel more comfortable with specific design details of these brackets.  Mr. Jenkins indicated that brackets would not be as detailed as the ones shown in the photos provided; they would have a more simple design.  Mr. Jenkins agreed to provide additional design details.
  3. 3.                  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Jenkins why he selected the diamond pane window design.  Mr. Jenkins indicated that he had spent a lot of time researching exampleS of the Carpenter Gothic style and preferred the diamond design pane.  The diamond design panes were often an upgrade to dress-up the detail of the front of homes.  He was not interested in pursuing any gingerbread type details as that would be too busy.
  4. 4.                  Mr. Burriss asked about the supports and details of the Oriel window.  Mr. Jenkins indicated that he preferred the “roundish” hidden support design of the window and the diamond pane design.  However, if it became cost prohibitive to use the diamond pane design, he would return to the Commission for an alternative approval.
  5. 5.                  Mr. Burriss asked what type of curve the railing would have.  Mr. Jenkins indicated that there were two standard railing styles, a curved and a box railing.  He intended to install the curved railing as it would be more appropriate to the home.
  6. 6.                  Mr. Burriss asked if the windows would be functional.  Mr. Jenkins indicated the center window would be stationary with the side windows being casement.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-162:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials and use of detail are stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the applicant is proposing architectural detailing that is appropriate to the district and more consistent with the architectural design of the home.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss indicated TRUE, the changes would bring greater vitality to the home thereby contributing to the vitality of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the applicant is protecting and enhancing the property through an intepretive restoration of the home with the appropriate use of details. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-162 with the condition that the applicant submit for staff approval a more specific design of the porch roof and roof brackets and any back-up style of window design.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2012-162:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2012-161: Stephen & Rita Baldwin, 229 Summit Street, Roof Replacement   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 Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-161 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-161. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-162: Ed & Donna Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, Site Improvements    Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-162 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-162. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll call vote: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 24, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from September 24, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0-1.  Mr. Hawk abstained. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for October 9, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from October 9, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0-1.  Mr. Mitchell abstained. 

 

Adjournment:  7:42pm

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Monday, November 26, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 9, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, and Jean Hoyt.

 

Members Absent: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Eleanor Cohen and Kelly Wengerd.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

335 West Elm Street – Wendy Duffey - Application #2012-157

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing three-tab shingle roofing and replacement with GAF Timberline Dimensional asphaltic shingles in ‘Weathered Wood’.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Kelly Wengerd. 

 

Discussion:

Kelly Wengerd, Muth & Co. Roofing, stated the new roofing material would not stand out or be an eye sore.  He stated he is proposing a fifty-year three-tab dimensional asphaltic shingle.  Mr. Wengerd presented an example of the Owens Corning shingle.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-157:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other roof replacements approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded this criteria is TRUE. 

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-157 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-157:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

331 East Broadway – Eleanor Cohen - Application #2012-158

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)     Replacement of siding on rear addition and garage.

2)     Replacement of service door on garage leading to garden; and

3)     Replacement handrail and railings on front porch.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Eleanor Cohen. 

 

Discussion:

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, stated that she would like to replace the railings on the front porch with painted treated wood.  Ms. Cohen stated the second thing they would be doing is the paneling on the back of the garage, which would be replaced with hardi-plank which would have a four-inch reveal.  Ms. Cohen explained this material would more closely match what is already on the house.  Ms. Cohen stated she would like to provide ingress and egress access for heavy lawn equipment by replacing an existing man door with a six foot by seven foot (6’x7’) overhead door.  She stated the door is located in the rear of her yard.  Ms. Cohen stated Hamilton Parker would be doing the steel door in a lighter color.  Ms. Cohen presented examples of the hardiplank she is proposing.  Ms. Hoyt stated the application was very well put together. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-158:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed railing and new siding material are more historically appropriate than what is currently in place.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the livability is improved due to the proposed maintenance being done to the structure.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

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

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-158 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-158:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-157: Wendy Duffey; 335 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 #2012-157 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-157. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-158: Eleanor Cohen; 331 East Broadway; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-158 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-158. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the October 9, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Endorsement of GPC/BZBA/Village Council Minutes from September 27, 2012:

Mr. Ryan and Ms. Hoyt agreed the minutes from September 27, 2012 joint meeting are a good summary.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the minutes are an indication of the items discussed at the meeting as topics of discussion.  They stated they didn’t have time to get into specific goals and objectives and there should be a follow-up meeting with discussion on these concepts.  The Planning Commission indicated certain topics were discussed regarding having the Planning Department give staff approval for some requests.  

 

Adjournment:  7:15 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, October 22, 2012

Monday, November 13, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 24, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent: Steven Hawk and Jean Hoyt.

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Mollie Prasher and Russ Adams.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

 

141 East Broadway – Village of Granville - Application #2012-143 (Amended)

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a new generator to be located in

the rear of the building, adjacent to the parking lot. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Mollie Prasher. 

 

Discussion:

Mollie Prasher, 141 East Broadway, indicated she is there to address any questions and she is representing the Village.  Mr. Mitchell asked the location of the bollards.  Ms. Prasher stated they would be within the six inch (6”) wide curb.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if they would become part of the curb.  Ms. Prasher stated yes and they would be concrete with a decorative bollard cover.  Mr. Burriss asked the distance between the bollards.  Ms. Prasher stated six feet (6’) and this would protect the generator and allow them to maneuver equipment.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the bollards are removable.  Ms. Prasher stated no.  Mr. Mitchell suggested the bollards should be removable, especially in case the generator has to be replaced.  Ms. Prasher stated they did not feel removable bollards would keep the unit safe.  She went on to explain the Village is able to do the permanent concrete bollards themselves and removable bollards would have to be installed by an outside vendor.       

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-143:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other approved project requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the safety to the Village office in this district is improved.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-143 (Amended) as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-143:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

New Business:

 

109 North Prospect Street – Russ Adams - Application #2012-137

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)                  The Replacement siding on the rear façade;

2)                  Replace and realign three (3) second floor windows on rear façade;

3)                  Replace one (1) third floor window on rear façade; and

4)                  Addition of shutters on all replacement windows on rear façade. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Russ Adams. 

 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 109 North Prospect Street, stated that he is the owner of the building.  He stated the improvements are a result of storm damage that occurred earlier this summer.    Mr. Adams stated the window in the center would be realigned to help with the symmetry if possible.  He presented an example of what this would look like.  Ms. Walker stated the proposal is a huge improvement.  Mr. Mitchell asked what would become of the window air conditioner.  Mr. Adams stated there are two window air conditioning units and one would be replaced with another smaller unit and one would go away.  Mr. Burriss questioned if a blind window could be installed to make the fenestration more symmetrical.  Mr. Adams stated the building is very old with “walls inside of walls inside of walls.”  Mr. Burriss explained there could be a fake window that is not an actual window with shutters that stay shut on the outside of the building.  He stated the siding is being replaced so this would be a good opportunity to consider a blind window.  Mr. Adams indicated he agrees a blind window would be an improvement and he has extra shutter hardware.  Mr. Burriss stated this would make the pattern look complete with the row of windows in the rear.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-137:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the restoration of the fenestration pattern and the improvement in proportions is an improvement. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the livability and vitality are improved.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-137 with the addition of a blind window on the south end of the west elevation, as shown on ‘Exhibit A’; and to allow the applicant to move or not move the window in the center per ‘Exhibit A’.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-137:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2012-143 (Amended): Village of Granville; 141 East Broadway; New Generator

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 #2012-143 (Amended) as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-143 (Amended).  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2012-137: Russ Adams; 109 North Prospect Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-137 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-137. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Steven Hawk and Jean Hoyt from the September 24, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for August 27, and September 10, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from August 27, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from September 10, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment:  7:35 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, October 9, 2012

Monday, October 22, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 10, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Doug Eklof (non-voting). 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Kevin Baker, Richard Crawford, Jane Jordan, Debi Hartfield, Bill Kirkpatrick, Tim Klingler, and Anna Nekola.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

223 South Main Street – Richard Crawford - Application #2012-140

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the conversion of a gravel driveway to an asphalt driveway.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Richard Crawford. 

 

Discussion:

Richard Crawford, 223 South Main Street, indicated he would like to change the existing gravel driveway to an asphalt or concrete driveway.  Mr. Crawford stated there has been an existing gravel driveway in this location for a number of years.  He stated when he first submitted his application his immediate concern was cost and he requested asphalt, but he has since gotten bids and found that concrete is not much more.  Mr. Crawford stated he is unsure which surface he would choose at this time, but it would be covered over the existing footprint as located on the plot plan.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the lot coverage requirements and drainage is located on the plan.  She stated there are no provisions for driveway setbacks in this zoning district.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village Maintenance Department has reviewed this application.  Ms. Walker stated no and they do not estimate there to be a drastic change in water flow.  Mr. Crawford stated his neighbor’s yard drain occasionally backs up.  He stated his project would be lessening the water provided to the neighbor’s drain and bring the water to the street.  Ms. Walker stated the neighbor, Jane Jordan, is present.  Mr. Crawford stated he believes the Village needs to address water backup from the storm water system in this area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-140:

 

a)            Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other driveway requests approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the driveway allows the home to be accessed easily. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-140 stipulating that either asphalt or concrete can be used for paving.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-140:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

327 West Maple Street – Debi Hartfield - Application #2012-141

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Change siding from all stucco to board and batten with stucco along the bottom elevation only;

2)         Change roofing from asphalt shingles to standing seam metal with ice guards;

3)         Change front door on northern elevation from all wood to a wood door with 9-lite grids;

4)         Install wood soffits and decorative corbels.

The proposed improvements are to the rear detached structure only.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Debi Hartfield. 

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated the proposal this evening is for the rear accessory structure on this property.  She stated the door had to be replaced in January because the previous door fell apart.  She indicated she had originally proposed to keep the existing door until it fell apart, but is now requesting approval for the wooden door installed in January.  Ms. Hartfield stated she was given approval for new windows and trim, but much of this work has not been completed within the two years allowed for approval.  She asked that this be reapproved by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Hartfield stated there are also lights to be located on each side of the garage door and at the doorway.  She asked for the lights to be reapproved by the Planning Commission since the original approval was two years ago.  Ms. Hartfield requested approval for a wooden Hemlock garage door and standing seam metal roof with ice breakers.  She stated the pitch more than meets the necessary grade requirements for the roof.  Ms. Hartfield explained the roof seams would be sixteen inches on center.  Ms. Hartfield requested approval for the siding on the accessory structure to be board and batten siding to be twelve inches on center.  She explained the wood strips would be an inch and a half by three quarters of an inch thick.  Ms. Hartfield explained the accessory structure was previously all stucco and she would like to repair the stucco below the working line.  She stated it doesn’t make sense to put the board and  batten siding below.  Ms. Hartfield also proposed decorative wooden corbels for the accessory structure - four on every elevation.  She went on to say she would put soffits in where the rafters are exposed.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant has done an amazing job at presenting details on this project.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the wooden batten strips would be beveled.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the structure would be painted.  Ms. Hartfield stated she would stain or paint if needed.  Mr. Mitchell asked what kind of plywood the applicant is using.  Ms. Hartfield stated she would use ½ inch 1x4x10.  She stated she would use a nicer quality if she can find it.  Ms. Hartfield stated she would paint or stain the finish of the wood if she is not pleased with the look.  She went on to say she would stain the garage doors.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission can only request the structure have a finish, but not specify the type of finish.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-141:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed detailing of the project is of a historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the livability is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is a restoration of building that could disappear due to the current condition.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-141 with the addition that the batten strips be beveled and be twelve inches on center.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-141:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

315 East Elm Street – Bill Kirkpatrick & Anna Nikola - Application #2012-142

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure to be located in the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Anna Nikola.

 

Discussion:

Anna Nikola, 315 East Elm Street, stated they would like to replace the shed, which is falling down.  She stated it is currently a plywood shed and the new shed would be 10’ x 12’ with a single window and have double doors without a transom.  Ms. Nikola stated the siding would be wood pine painted to match the house and the roof would be asphalt shingles.  Ms. Walker stated there would be a ground contact skid and the new structure would be in the same location as the old structure.  Ms. Nikola stated the new structure would be slightly larger with a different orientation.  Mr. Burriss stated this is certainly an improvement to what is currently in place.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant would need a variance from the BZBA.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-142:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed shed is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed detailing of the project is of a historical character. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the project is a shed.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-142 with the condition the applicant receive approval from the BZBA for a variance.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-142:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

141 East Broadway – Village of Granville - Application #2012-143

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new generator to be located in the rear of the building, adjacent to the parking lot. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker.

 

Discussion:

Deb Walker indicated the current generator in place failed during the last power outage and needs to be replaced.  She stated the old unit is located in the basement and the new generator would be located in the rear of the building.  Ms. Walker stated the Village would need to pour a concrete slab for the generator to sit on.  Ms. Walker stated the generator would be screened with an iron fence, but landscape screening is not possible due to the space.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is a comparison of the height of the unit compared to the height of the proposed fence.  Ms. Walker stated the existing fence is 32”- 34” inches high and should help screen the generator visually.  Councilmember Johnson questioned if a bollard is needed to protect a $22,000 generator.  Ms. Walker stated a solid metal post could be put in the parking lot.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a disconnect at the meter.  Councilmember Johnson stated there would be a disconnect switch at the panel.  Mr. Mitchell stated there would need to be eighteen inches (18”) of clearance in front of the panel.  Mr. Burriss agreed.  Councilmember Johnson stated this type of clearance is governed by AEP.  Ms. Walker questioned if they would lose a parking space by putting the Bollard in.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed some additional information needs to be gathered for this application.  Ms. Walker agreed to gather further information from AEP and find the location of the bollards.  She requested to table the application.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2012-143.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-143:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

110 East Elm Street – Legend Interior Construction, LLC - Application #2012-146

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding tenant panel sign to be located along East Elm Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Kevin Baker. 

 

Discussion:

Kevin Baker, 110 East Elm Street, stated he is requesting signage approval from the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant is well within the square footage allowed for this application.  The Planning Commission agreed this is a very straightforward application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-146:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage is required to recognize the location of the business and is vital for the business to succeed. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-146 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-146:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

110 East Elm Street – Legend Interior Construction, LLC - Application #2012-147

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 Deb Walker and Kevin Baker. 

 

Discussion:

Kevin Baker, 110 East Elm Street, stated that the signage would clarify their location in the building since there are multiple businesses located in this building.  Ms. Walker clarified there is existing signage on the door for Granville Sentinel, but it is barely visible.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-147:

 

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. Burriss stated TRUE, the business is located on the second floor and the entrance door is located on the first floor.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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. Burriss stated FALSE, the business cannot be found without location and directional signage.  Mr. Ryan stated this building houses multiple tenants.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

(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 this criteria was FALSE.     

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was FALSE.   

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was FALSE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was TRUE.   

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Ryan stated FALSE, the variance is needed because this is a second floor business with the entrance located on the first floor.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was 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 #2012-147:

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage is consistent with the neighborhood signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved with improved signage.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-147 with a variance for the maximum window area to increase from fifteen (15) square feet to thirty point seven (30.7) square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-147:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-140: Richard Crawford; 223 South Main Street; Driveway

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 #2012-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-140. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-141: Debi Hartfield; 327 West Maple Street; Exterior Modifications

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-141 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-141. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-142: Bill Kirkpatrick and Anna Nekola; 315 East Elm Street; Detached Accessory Structure

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, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-142. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-146: Legend Interior Construction, LLC; 110 East Elm 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-146 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-146. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-147: Legend Interior Construction, LLC; 110 East Elm 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-147. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment:  7:55 PM

Ms. Hoyt moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 24, 2012

Monday, October 9, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 27, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Members Responding to the Roll Call were: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Doug Eklof (non-voting). 

 

Staff Present:  Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Mark Clapsadle, Josh Whittington, Gillian Jones, Richard Liebson, Tim Klingler, Rodger Kessler, Paul Jacobs, Kristen Prahan, Mark Orten, Art Chonko, Ray Lynn, Michael Casey, Tim Dunham, Kevin Harvey, Lindsay Martin, and Bob Gardner. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

325 East Maple Street – Brian Davis - Application #2012-120

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a concrete driveway.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Brian Davis. 

 

Discussion:

Kevin Harvey, 1859 River Road, indicated he is representing the applicant, Brian Davis.  Ms. Walker stated there is not a current driveway in place.  She stated the applicant has received a variance to be closer than the required five foot (5’) setback.  Ms. Walker indicated all other criteria for this application has been met.  Mr. Harvey stated the driveway would be nine foot (9’) wide and go to the end of the house.  Ms. Walker stated a right-of-way permit has been filed and approved by the Service Director.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the coverage requirements have been met.  Ms. Walker stated yes.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-120:

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other driveway requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district and a muddy area is being replaced. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the vitality of the district is maintained.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the proposal is an improvement to the dead grass located in this area.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 with an approved variance by the BZBA.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-120:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

134 South Mulberry Street – Richard Liebson - Application #2012-122

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a generator on the north side of the home.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Richard Liebson. 

 

Discussion:

Richard Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street, stated that he would like to place a generator on the north side of the home.  Ms. Walker stated the generator would be very well concealed and not be an eye sore.  She stated all of the requirements for this application have been met.  Mr. Liebson clarified the generator is not already in place.  Ms. Hoyt stated the neighbor’s generator is located on the same side of the home and adjacent to the applicant’s proposed location, which is a plus.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-122:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the generator would not be viewable from the streetscape.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the livability is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the safety is improved and the structure is protected with the proposed generator.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-122 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-122:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

121 East Broadway – Granville Dental - Application #2012-125

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Michael Casey.

 

Discussion:

Micheal Casey, 4318 Brompton Court, New Albany, Ohio, indicated he is representing the applicant, Granville Dental.  He explained three versions of the sign in different colors has been presented because they would be using them seasonally for different specials.  Mr. Casey stated the signage would be taken in during non-business hours.  Ms. Walker stated variances would be necessary if the Planning Commission were to approve the application as it has been presented by the applicant.  She stated a variance to go from 43.31 square feet to 59 square feet, and a variance to increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs for this building.  Mr. Mitchell questioned which tenants utilizing this building already have sidewalk signage.  Ms. Walker stated the Chamber of Commerce and Tickleberry Moon.   Ms. Hoyt stated there is signage located on the windows that appears to have been taped.  She questioned if this signage would remain in the windows if the sidewalk sign is approved.  Mr. Casey stated the taped signage on the windows would be removed if the sidewalk sign is approved.  He went on to say the sidewalk sign would be used to promote quarterly specials that are on a seasonal basis. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-125:

 

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. Burriss stated TRUE, there is a sizeable amount of street frontage with multiple tenants, which is unique.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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 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. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental service (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, per the applicant. 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Burriss stated FALSE, a variance makes the most sense for this situation. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, other tenants have existing sandwich board signs.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission agreed the signage should be secured indoors during non-business hours.  They agreed the signage should be placed in conjunction with the existing sidewalk signage already located on this side of the street.  Mr. Hawk stated he would like the approval to be contingent upon the removal of the additional signage taped on the windows.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-125:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the sidewalk signage is consistent with similar sidewalk signage in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes,  sandwich board signage does appear in historical photographs of the Village.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-125 with the following variances:

1)                  For the total square footage for signage to be increased from 43.31 square feet to 59.31 square feet to allow for a sidewalk sign; and

2)                  to increase the number of sidewalk signs from 1 to 3;

and with the following conditions:

1)         the applicant must secure the signage indoors during non-business hours; and

2)         the existing taped signage on the windows must be removed; and

3)                  the location of the sidewalk signage should be consistent with other sidewalk signage already approved for the building. 

Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-125:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

319 Summit Street – Timothy and Jill Dunham - Application #2012-126

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:

1)                  Removal of one (1) exterior door and one (1) exterior window and replacement with two (2) windows on the east side; and

2)                  New windows on the east side; and

3)                  Removal of one (1) window and replacement with one (1) smaller window on the west side of the home.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Timothy Dunham.

 

Discussion:

Tim Dunham, 319 Summit Street, indicated he is submitting an application for some external modifications to his home.  Ms. Walker stated this is a very straight forward situation affecting the eastern façade of the home.  She stated a larger window on the western façade would be replaced with a slightly smaller window.  Mr. Dunham stated at some point he would like to remove the steps.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be an additional rear egress added.  Mr. Dunham stated there is an existing egress in place in the back.  Mr. Hawk asked if the other window would be more consistent with the existing windows.  Mr. Dunham stated the top of the windows would all line up.  Mr. Ryan asked if the trim would match the existing windows.  Mr. Dunham stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-126:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-126 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-126:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

14 Westgate Drive – Kessler Sign Co/Licking Memorial Hospital Urgent Care - Application #2012-127

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for approval of a freestanding sign to be located perpendicular to SR 16.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Ray Lynn, and Rodger Kessler. 

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, Kessler Sign Company, stated this structure would be turned into an urgent care center.  He presented examples of what the signage would look like and the placement of the signage.  Mr. Kessler stated it is vital to have good access and easy to find locations for all Urgent Care Centers.  He stated it is great to get this type of center in our immediate area.  Mr. Hawk asked if the signage would be illuminated.  Mr. Kessler stated the signage would be externally illuminated.  Mr. Hawk asked if there would be landscaping around the signage.  Mr. Kessler stated yes. 

 

Ray Lynn, Licking Memorial Hospital, was present to address any concerns.  Mr. Ryan questioned if this signage is for the sign facing the highway.  Mr. Lynn stated yes.  He explained their proposed operating hours would be 12-8, but they respectfully request for this signage to be lit from dusk to dawn to make the public aware of this location.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-127:

 

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. Hawk stated TRUE, the location is along a busy highway with high speed traffic.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, given the nature of the business (urgent care) it calls for additional signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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. Ryan stated this building has been empty for some time.  He questioned if signage could be the reason.  The Planning Commission agreed this was FALSE, given the nature of this business larger signage is required.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was FALSE, the 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.

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental service (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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 unanimously 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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  Mr. Hawk stated in the past they have required lighting for signage to be turned off by 10:00 P.M.  Mr. Mitchell stated this situation is different with it being an urgent care center.  He added it is important for the public to be aware of the location.  Mr. Ryan stated the building is located along the expressway and lighting it isn’t affecting residential homes or adjacent businesses.  The Planning Commission agreed some of the businesses in this area are open all night.  Ms. Hoyt indicated 10:00 P.M. is a reasonable time to turn off the lights.  Mr. Burriss stated leaving the lighting on would be consistent with commercial properties on the corner, so he is willing to consider dusk to dawn lighting for the signage.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hawk agreed.  The Planning Commission agreed the application included request for external lighting, so this did not need to be made part of the condition of approval. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-127 as submitted with the following variances:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of signage on this zoned lot from 58.4 square feet to 58.5 square feet; and

2)                  To allow for freestanding signage on this property to increase from 24 square feet to 24.5 square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-127:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

14 Westgate Drive – Kessler Sign Co/Licking Memorial Hospital Urgent Care - Application #2012-128

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for approval of a freestanding sign to be located perpendicular to SR 16.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Rodger Kessler, and Ray

Lynn. 

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, Kessler Sign Company, stated this would be the exact same sign requested for placement on Route 16.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be an objection to turning the lighting off for this sign at 10:00 P.M. since the business would be closed at that time.  Mr. Lynn stated there would not be any objection to turning the lighting off at 10:00 P.M.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-128:

 

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.   Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, the building is on a residential street and it faces the highway.  He stated the future shows an intersection in this area, which is peculiar with this particular piece of property.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, there would need to be signage of where the business is located off of Route 16.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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. Ryan stated TRUE, given the nature of the business it is important to make the public aware of the center’s exact location for emergency purposes.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

(2)    Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the variance is substantial in this case, but justified. 

(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.

(4)   Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental service (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the granting of the variance is the most common sense approach to this situation.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

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

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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

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.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-128 with the following variances:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage for a freestanding sign in the Community Service District on this zoned lot from 58.5 square feet to 117 square feet; and

2)                  To increase the maximum number of freestanding signs on this zoned lot from one (1) to two (2) total; and

3)                  The signage external lighting is to be turned off by 10:00 P.M each evening. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-128:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

120 Shepardson Court – Coppertree Homes/Josh and Robin Whittington - Application #2012-129

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a new two-story single family structure, driveway, and rear patio and rear retaining wall. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Josh Whittington, Bob Gardner, and Gillian Jones. 

 

Discussion:

Bob Gardner, Coppertree Homes, stating he is the contractor representing Josh and Robin Whittington.  Ms. Walker stated this is actually an application requiring administrative approval due to the zoning, but there is a part in the code that says all new structures require review by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the SRD requirements in the code.  She stated the applicant will be applying for a variance for a maximum building lot coverage increase from 20% to 21.7%.  Ms. Walker explained there is an existing variance on file that carries with the property for the height of the structure.  Mr. Hawk complimented the applicant on their submittal information.  He asked the reason for not extending the board and batten siding on the rear elevation.  Mr. Gardner stated this is just as an accent.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Gardner if the floor plan calls for a fireplace in the great room.  Mr. Gardner stated yes and it would be an internal gas fireplace with an external vent located between the double windows. 

 

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court, asked about the proposed nine foot (9’) retaining wall.  She stated she was under the impression the limit is six feet (6’).  Ms. Walker stated she looked into this and there is a footer that extends down three feet, so the wall at its peak would not be higher than six foot (6’).  Ms. Jones stated she has concerns with water run off from the installation of the retaining wall.  She stated she wants to ensure there wouldn’t be water run off on her driveway.  Mr. Gardner explained the plan is for the center of the wall to be higher and it would taper down with the landscaping. Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant is forbidden to put water from their property onto an adjacent property.  Ms. Jones stated she is there to ensure this doesn’t happen.  Ms. Jones stated she would like to speak to the applicant about an oak tree that “leans precariously over her property.”  She explained it was at one time marked to be removed, but the tree service felt removal would cause damage to her property.  Mr. Jones asked if there is any way to mitigate this problem.  Mr. Gardner stated they would certainly be willing to speak with Ms. Jones about this further and at this point they have not marked trees that would be removed.  She stated perhaps the tree just needs to be trimmed back.  Ms. Jones asked about light pollution.  Mr. Gardner stated they are proposing no flood lights and lights are to be located at each door.  Ms. Jones stated the previous owner used her driveway for access to the lot and she would like to ensure this doesn’t happen.  She stated she would work with the applicant if access is required.  Mr. Gardner stated he did not anticipate using Ms. Jones driveway.  He agreed to speak with her further after the meeting.  Mr. Gardner asked if an additional curb cut could be sought for a separate driveway from the shared roadway.  Ms. Walker stated there is an existing easement in place for the shared driveway and this could be reviewed, but she did not anticipate a problem with an additional curb cut off of Shepardson Drive.  Councilmember Johnson stated four homes in this area share the use of the driveway and there is an easement in place.   

 

Kristen Prahan, 467 West Broadway, asked what is the advantage for an additional  curb cut/driveway.  Mr. Gardner stated for privacy and personal preference.  Ms. Prahan stated the shared driveway “has been a bone of contention for many years and doesn’t belong to either of the four people living along the road.”  Ms. Hoyt asked if there is a plan or agreement in place for the maintenance of the road.  Ms. Prahan stated no, but there have been attempts to do this over the years.  The Planning Commission discussed who owned the road.  Ms. Walker stated the road is located on the applicant’s property, but there is an easement in place for the other properties to access their properties using the road.  Ms. Prahan stated it can be complicated to get four people to maintain the road when they don’t own it. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-129 with the condition the applicant receive the required variance from the BZBA for building lot coverage.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-129:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

120 East Elm Street – Tim Klingler - Application #2012-133

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a detached two-story accessory structure that measures twenty-two (22’) feet by thirty-four (34’) feet total.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Mark Clapsadle, and Tim Klingler.

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, stated the proposed structure would be a garage and they wanted something with rural flavor, New England feel, and historical look.  He explained there would be a   storage room above the garage.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is an easement in place for parking lot number 7.  Mr. Klingler stated yes. 

 

Ms. Walker stated they would be asking for a variance for the height of the accessory structure to be eight inches higher for the cupola only.  She went on to say the applicant has received a variance for setbacks.  Mr. Klingler explained the cupola and design.  Mr. Ryan asked if the cupola is higher than the house.  Mr. Klingler stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked about water and flooding that occasionally happens in this area.  Mr. Klingler stated they would create a swale around the building for water and there is a storm sewer and spur.  Mr. Klingler stated they would most likely use cedar shake shingles but it could also be shiplap siding.  Mark Clapsadle reviewed the siding plans with the Planning Commission.  Mr. Klingler stated he is leaning towards the use of the cedar shake shingles.  He stated it would be a bleached white cedar shingle. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-133:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the proposed project will contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-133 contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance for height from the BZBA.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-133:

Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

227 Sunrise Street – Dianne McDonald for John and Donna Lawrence - Application #2012-134

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure that measures eight (8’) feet by fourteen (14’) feet total. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Dianne McDonald.

 

Discussion:

Dianne McDonald, 428 East College Street, indicated she is representing the property owner’s, John and Donna Lawrence.  She stated the existing building was wiped out by a tree.  Ms. McDonald stated the new structure would be a different color with a different roofing material measuring eight foot (8’) by fourteen foot (14’) with a forest green tin roof to match the existing house, and black shutters with flower boxes.  Ms. Walker stated a variance is needed for the side yard setback from twelve foot (12’) to six foot (6’).  Ms. McDonald stated the structure is going to be located where the previous structure was located.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this is a freestanding structure.  Ms. McDonald stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-134:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the proposed structure is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the accessory structure is appropriate and historical.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-134 with the condition the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA for the southern side yard setback.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-134:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

130 North Main Street – Tim Riffle/Denison University - Application #2012-135

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a second story window and infill with match siding on the north elevation of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated they wish to renovate the bathroom and take the existing window out.  He stated they would put in an exhaust vent and make the siding look better than the existing peeling paint.  Mr. Chonko stated the location of the window is between houses and not visible from the roadway.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if there would be a window in the bathroom at all.  Mr. Chonko stated no.  Ms. Hoyt questioned not having proper ventilation for the bathroom.  Mr. Burriss questioned the appearance from the outside of the structure with the removal of the window.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-135:

 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality of the structure. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-135 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-135:  Burriss (no), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

204 North Mulberry Street – Tim Riffle/Denison University - Application #2012-136

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a circular exterior concrete slab for a labyrinth.     

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Art Chonko, Mark Orten, and Paul Jacobs.

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated they have already poured the slab of concrete for the labyrinth.  He apologized for this being a late submittal.  Mr. Chonko stated it is a forty-two foot (42’) concrete circle to the left of the main entrance and the idea is for a labyrinth or a place of contemplation.  He stated a labyrinth goes back to ancient times and many people in town have indicated they would like to have this in place.  Mr. Chonko state Robert Ferry would put the pattern on the concrete and this would be a quiet place to go and walk the maize.  He explained the location is close to the open house and would lead to contemplation.  Mr. Chonko stated there would be a path with mulch path that would not be visible from the street.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the labyrinth would be open to the public.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would ever be groups playing music, chanting, etc. in this area. 

 

Mark Orten, Denison University, stated labyrinths have not been used this way in the past.  Mr. Chonko added it is intended to be for an individual experience as opposed to a group experience.  Ms. Hoyt asked about landscaping.  Mr. Chonko stated they would just plant grass for the landscaping.  He explained the design would be a polymer resin in a dark red and is supposed to hold up extremely well.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be benches.  Mr. Chonko stated they do not have plans for them at this point. 

 

Paul Jacobs, 115 East College Street, stated intoxicated students collect each week around his home at 2:00 A.M.  He asked how the University was going to keep students from congregating in this area.  Mr. Jacobs stated benches are an invitation for students to congregate.  Mr. Chonko stated he did not anticipate there being a problem and there would not be an easy way for students to get to this.  Mr. Orten stated they do not intend to have students congregating in this area, but it is meant for personal reflection and a quiet time.  He agreed he could work with Mr. Jacobs on alleviating noise in this area.  Mr. Chonko stated we live in a college town where there are benefits and some negatives.  He agreed they could address any situation where there is on going noise in the middle of the night.  Mr. Jacobs said he calls the University and they tell him to phone the police, but by the time the police get there the students have moved on. 

 

Lindsay Martin, student at Denison University, stated she lives one block away from open house and there is a patio with benches open to students fifteen feet (15’) away from the location of the labyrinth.  She stated in the three years she has lived at this location she has not witnessed students gathering on this patio.  She added the area is heavily patrolled by University police every twenty minutes.

 

Ms. Hoyt stated she would like to see some landscaping added, especially on the hillside where grass doesn’t grow.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated he would like to see a formal landscaping plan.  Mr. Orten stated it is there intent to make this area pleasing to the eye since it is meant for contemplation.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if additional shrubs could cause for an area to be secluded and not visible from the roadway, which could be dangerous.  Ms. Hoyt stated they may miss their opportunity if the landscaping is not addressed.  Mr. Chonko suggested the landscaping for noise pollution could be addressed if they find students are congregating in this area.  He stated they would ensure the grass is planted up to the edges and the area is pleasing to the eye.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-136:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the execution of the proposed materials and the process is similar to other materials used in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, there is historical precedence for a labyrinth.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality of the structure. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-136 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-136:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-120: Brian Davis; 325 East Maple Street; Concrete Driveway

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-120 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-120. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-122: Richard Liebson; 134 South Mulberry Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-122 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-122. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-125: 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 #2012-125 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-125. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-126: Timothy and Jill Dunham; 319 Summit 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 #2012-126 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-126. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-127: Licking Memorial Hospital; 14 Westgate Drive; Signage on SR 16

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, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-127. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-128: Licking Memorial Hospital; 14 Westgate Drive; Signage on Cherry Valley Road

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, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-128. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-129: Josh and Robin Whittington; 120 Shepardson Court; New Structure

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-129 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-129. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-133: Timothy and Cathy Klingler; 120 East Elm Street; New Accessory Structure

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, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-133 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-133. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-134: John and Donna Lawrence; 227 Sunrise Street; New Structure

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, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-134 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-134. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-135: Denison University; 130 North Main 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-135 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-135. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-136: Denison University; 204 North Mulberry 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-136. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 23, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from July 23, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  Mr. Hawk abstained. 

 

Adjournment:  9:15 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 10, 2012

Monday, September 24, 2012

GPC Minutes July 23, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 23, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Roll Call:  Those responding to the roll call were Mr. Eklof, Chairman Ryan, Mr. Burriss, Ms. Hoyt and Vice Chairman Mitchell.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof (Ex-officio, non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk. 

 

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

 

Also Present: Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria, John Noblick, Cynthia Cort, Mr. and Mrs. Art Sayre, Russ Adams, and Marilyn Goumas.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

117 South Prospect Street – Sam Sagaria - Application #2011-117( Amended)

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement front steps with concrete and the replacement of three (3) small windows on the north and west sides with two (2) larger windows. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Barbara Franks, and Sam Sagaria. 

 

Discussion:

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated the application was previously submitted and the Planning Commission asked him to table it to gather additional information.  Mr. Sagaria stated he tried to articulate the answers to the Planning Commission’s questions in the updated information he submitted.  He explained the front steps need to be replaced because of wintertime freezing and they become very slippery.  Mr. Mitchell suggested the applicant may be able to add another stone to help with safety since the existing stones have settled.  Mr. Sagaria stated he considered this option but he feels it would be safer in the long run to replace the steps.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant submitted an illustration showing the posts stopping at the last step.  She stated staff has recommended the posts continue to the ground instead of terminating at the bottom step.  Ms. Walker stated the proposed handrails would match existing handrails on the porch and the step, tread, and riser information is in staff packets.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification regarding the windows and their approximate location and size.  Ms. Walker stated a tree blocks these windows from being seen, so the illustration shown by staff shows the windows without the tree in place.  Mr. Sagaria stated the proposed windows would match other windows on the house.  Mr. Burriss asked if the windows would line up with windows on the second floor.  Mr. Sagaria stated he could ensure that they do line up.  Mr. Sagaria stated there are presently three windows and the replacement would reduce this to two windows.  Mr. Mitchell stated he prefers the look of the original stone steps and they have been in place for 100 years.  He stated something could be done with the steps to ensure safety.  Mr. Sagaria stated he understands and he would reuse the sandstone in the back for landscaping.  Mr. Burriss suggested the new concrete could be colored to match the sandstone.  Mr. Mitchell stated sometimes when you try to match the paint color of the concrete with the sandstone it can look worse than the unfinished concrete.  Ms. Hoyt stated stamped concrete has come a long way and could look very nice.  Mr. Burriss asked if the replacement windows would have trim and sills to match the existing windows.  Mr. Sagaria stated it is his goal to ensure they are identical. 

 

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, stated this is a very historical home and she thinks it would be a shame to remove the original stone steps. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-117 (Amended):

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application (steps and windows) are consistent with other similar requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.  

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are consistent with other materials used in this district and other windows on the existing home.  Mr. Ryan stated concrete has replaced sandstone, gravel, and cobblestone.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting body and he disagrees taking sandstone away and replacing with concrete is not an upgrade to the historical character.  Ms. Hoyt stated maintaining the original materials is preferred unless the condition makes it impossible for replacement.  Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Burriss and Mr. Ryan all stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.     

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability and safety is enhanced with the proposal.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the original steps were at one time safe and the house could have also had wooden steps when originally built.  Mr. Ryan stated the windows to be returned to what should have been in place years ago.  Mr. Ryan stated the steps will improve the exit/entrance for the house.  Mr. Mitchell stated concrete steps will enhance the ingress/egress in many peoples’ eyes.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2011-117 (Amended) with the condition the concrete be colored to match the existing sandstone and the proposed outside window be aligned (west) with the existing second story window.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-117 (Amended):  Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

New Business:

115 East Broadway – Cynthia Cort/Granville Historical Society Museum - Application #2012-110

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign on the front of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Cynthia Cort. 

 

Discussion:

Cynthia Cort, 1632 Newark-Granville Road, indicated the Historical Society has completed their renovation.  She stated the sign would go where the eagle in the gable was located.  Ms. Cort stated the sign would have the word “Museum” in the middle with the words “Granville Historical Society” surrounding it.  Ms. Cort presented an example of the colors in blue and brown.  She went on to say there would be an outside striped blue line around the wording.  Ms. Walker stated there is a clean slate on square footage requirements for this structure.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the old signage used on the building.  Ms. Cort stated there used to be a piece of white sheet metal with black and white lettering.  Mr. Burriss stated he appreciates the thoroughness of the application.  He asked why the proposed signage is different.  Ms. Cort explained they are going through a branding process and these signs would be more durable.  She stated the museum letterhead would reflect their new logo.  Mr. Burriss stated with this being a museum he likes the fact that the wording on the grand opening sign indicated the establishment date in 1885.  He questioned if this could have been incorporated in the proposed signage.  Ms. Cort stated their letterhead would have this, but they wanted the signage to be simpler.  She indicated they could possibly add this.  She explained they weren’t sure what to put up since the new building was built in 2012 and the old building dates back to 1885.  Mr. Burriss stated we are fortunate to have a building of this age in the Village and the date would add authenticity.  Ms. Cort stated this could be added.  Mr. Ryan stated he agrees this should be added especially if it is going to be incorporated in the branding.  Ms. Cort agreed to add “EST 1885” on the wall signage.  Mr. Burriss asked about the blue edge and if an additional line should be added.  Ms. Cort stated they hadn’t thought of adding an additional line and they didn’t want to create less space for lettering.  Mr. Burriss stated a line would help the sign stand out.  Ms. Walker suggested illustrating the added line on the artwork and for this to be submitted as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Burriss suggested this could be added if they can work something out with the printer and they could even make the signage slightly larger.  Ms. Cort agreed.  Mr. Burriss suggested the line should be outside the words “Granville Historical Society.”  Mr. Ryan asked if the sign was expanded to add the proposed line – is an additional variance required for any of the signage?  Ms. Walker stated no variance would be required for the presented signage even if the wall sign were enlarged a bit.   She indicated the sign would be three feet (3’) by four feet (4’) and would have beige, blue, and brown colors. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-110:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district for signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage allows the cultural institution to be accessed easily and the vitality is contributed to.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-110 with the addition of the “est 1885” being added to the graphics and if possible a line detail per Exhibit ‘A’ be added to the signage if found feasible by the Granville Historical Society with the final approval to be by Village Staff.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-110:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

115 East Broadway – Cynthia Cort/Granville Historical Society Museum - Application #2012-111

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign on the west side of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Cynthia Cort. 

 

Discussion:

Cynthia Cort, 1236 Newark-Granville Road, stated this signage would have the words “Hubert and Oese Robinson Research Center” on it and they cannot add the established date because it is already wordy.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign would be mounted flat against the building.  Ms. Cort stated yes – maybe an inch away.  Ms. Walker stated a variance would be necessary if the Planning Commission were to approve the sign since there is only one wall sign permitted per building. Ms. Cort stated there would be times when the museum is closed, but the research center is open so the additional side entrance and signage is important.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-111:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used for signage in this district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the sign is historically appropriate.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-111:

 

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. Burriss stated true, the location on the alley way and the dual entrances for this structure are unique and justify a variance.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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. Burriss stated true, the proposed variance is the benefit of the public since this is a research center open to the public.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 
 

(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.

 

(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.  Mr. Ryan stated true the museum did an addition knowing they would need a variance for additional signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  The Planning Commission agreed a variance is the most logical way to allow for the wall 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.   Mr. Burriss stated true if the variance is NOT granted the health, safety, and general welfare of the public could be affected.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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 Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-111 on the condition that the signage have an additional detailed line per ‘Exhibit A’ and the application be approved  with a variance for an additional wall sign from one (1) to two (2).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-111:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

115 East Broadway – Cynthia Cort/Granville Historical Society Museum - Application #2012-112

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign on the rear of the building.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Alison Terry and Cynthia Cort. 

 

Discussion:

Cynthia Cort stated this is a sign they had located at the train depot and they wanted to reuse it.  Ms. Terry stated they were not aware of the wording on the signage when this application was originally submitted.  Mr. Mitchell stated this appears to be artwork and not signage since there is not information on the sign he suggested the application be withdrawn.  Ms. Cort agreed and withdrew application #2012-12.

 

237 East College Street – James Day- Application #2012-113

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with GAF Timberline Dimensional asphaltic shingles in Williamsburg Slate color. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and James Day. 

 

Discussion:

Art Sayre, contractor for the roofing company Roof Tech, stated that he would replace the drip edge that is already in place.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be open valley.  Mr. Sayre stated it would be closed valley.  Ms. Hoyt stated this is a nice improvement for this property.  Mr. Sayre stated the proposed color for the roofing shingles is Williamsburg slate. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-113:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvement will upgrade the historical character. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-113 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-113:  Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas/Peter Coutsos/Goumas Candyland, LLC - Application #2012-114

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an awning sign on the front of the building.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Marilyn Goumas and Russ Adams.

 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 113 North Prospect Street, indicated he is the owner of the building and is leasing the property to Goumas Candyland.  He stated the awning would match his existing awning that is in black, but the Goumas awning would be a different color.  Mr. Mitchell stated there are multiple variances for the subsequent signage being requested.  Ms. Walker explained the sidewalk sign is double sided and would need a variance and the overall square footage requirements would also need a variance if the Planning Commission chose to approve both signs.  Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the presented fonts and red and white coloring.  Mr. Burriss stated the presented signage reminds him of awnings in downtown Granville when he was a child.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-114:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage is of an architectural historic nature for the Village to have awnings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved with the added business in this district.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the awning is an architectural element consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-114 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-114:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas/Peter Coutsos/Goumas Candyland, LLC - Application #2012-115

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a projecting sign on the front of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Marilyn Goumas and Russ Adams.

 

Discussion:

Russ Adams was present to address any questions.  Ms. Walker stated this is a twelve (12) square foot sign and ten (10) square foot per side is allowed.  Mr. Adams stated the applicant used this signage when they were located on the corner of East Broadway and North Pearl Street.  He added the signage on his business tends to block the candy store signage – so the larger size is needed.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission had discussion when they previously approved the same signage at the 238 East Broadway. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-115:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is of a historic nature.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved with the added business.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 #2012-115:

 

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. Ryan stated other lands and structures have the same predicament when advertising their businesses on Prospect Street, because they are not very visible from Broadway.  He stated the business may not be able to exist if it is not viewable from Broadway.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Ryan this criteria was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated they have attempted to have businesses located on Prospect Street.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Ryan this criteria was TRUE.
 

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial going from ten square foot to twelve square foot. 

 

(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 this criteria was FALSE.

 

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

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was 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 unanimously agreed this criteria was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was 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 unanimously agreed this criteria was 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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-115 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage for a projecting sign from ten (10) square feet to twelve (12) square feet to allow for a projecting sign on the eastern façade of the building”.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-115:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas/Peter Coutsos/Goumas Candyland, LLC - Application #2012-116

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign to be located in front of the building. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Marilyn Goumas and Russ

Adams. 

 

Discussion:

Marilyn Goumas indicated the size would be the same as the sandwich board they had at their previous location, but not as heavy.  She added the existing sign is badly worn.  Ms. Walker stated the location needs to be determined for the signage.  Ms. Goumas indicated the previous tenant had asked for permission to place the sidewalk sign at the corner of Broadway and Prospect.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission reluctantly allowed this for a period of time.  He added the previous tenant had less visible signage than what is being requested by the applicant.  He stated he would not be in favor of placement at the corner.  The other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage would have to be removed at the end of business daily.  Ms. Goumas agreed this would not be a problem. The Planning Commission suggested the signage be placed in the tree lawn.   Ms. Walker stated the variance is because the maximum total square footage allowed for this business is 33.75, while the applicant is requesting 41.81 total square feet of signage. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-116:

 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated the business is off of Broadway.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Ms. Hoyt this criteria was 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.  Mr. Ryan stated the applicant will be able to attract additional business with a sandwich board sign by advertising specials. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Ryan this criteria was TRUE.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell indicated the variance is substantial.  Ms. Hoyt stated the variance is minimally substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is justifiably 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.  Mr. Burriss stated this is False as long as the sandwich board sign is located in the location suggested by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Burriss this criteria was 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 this criteria was TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was 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 agreed this criteria was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed this criteria was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated this is true as long as the signage is located in the area suggested by the Planning Commission.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss this criteria was 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 special conditions to remove the signage at the close of business daily and for the signage to be located in the tree lawn area adjacent to the curb. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-116 with the condition the signage be removed at the end of business hours daily and the signage be located in the tree lawn area – adjacent to the curb; and a variance be granted allowing the total square footage to increase from 33.75 square feet to 41.81 square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-116:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

131 West Broadway – John Noblick for Russ and Melinda Bow - Application #2012-117

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for architectural review and approval of black iron handrails on the northern and western porches. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and John Noblick.

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, indicated he is representing the homeowner as their contractor.  He stated the applicant would like handrails added for protection from anyone falling off of the porch and sidewalk.  Ms. Walker explained they have been in contact with the Village Manager and Village Service Director because the proposed iron railings would be installed in the right of way.  She stated they did not have any issues with the proposal and signed off for approval.  Mr. Noblick stated some of the bricks will likely have to be relayed because of the installation.  He added the steps will also be reset.  Mr. Mitchell stated the proposed railing and location is not attractive and looks too in commercial for a residential neighborhood.  Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the look of the railing, but not the proposed location.  Mr. Burriss asked the finish on the railing.  Mr. Noblick stated it would be a black powder coat that is very durable.  Mr. Ryan asked if two railings on each side is what is being proposed.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  He asked for suggestions to change the look of the Planning Commission does not like what has been proposed.  Mr. Burriss stated he has been to gardens where there was a railing to cover the steps and not the entire walkway.  Mr. Burriss stated he would be ok with both railings if they ended at the stairway.  Ms. Hoyt stated she can see the handrail being located on both sides to be symmetrical.  Mr. Eklof suggested one step could be moved up to be adjacent to the other.  The Planning Commission suggested the applicant come back with another plan.  Mr. Mitchell stated this is an important structure in the Village and they do not want to redesign the plan for the applicant.  Mr. Ryan stated he agrees with Mr. Mitchell about the look of the proposed railing.  He stated his comments also apply to what is being proposed for Mulberry Street.  Mr. Noblick stated he is hearing the Planning Commission is ok with two railings, but they do not want them to extend out to the sidewalk.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed they did not like the plan before them.  Mr. Burriss stated the length of the two railings together on the sidewalk feels like a wheelchair ramp, but the architecture and landscaping is nice.  He stated he likes the look of the handrail but there is too much of it.  Mr. Noblick worked with the Planning Commission to redraw the same railing ending at the steps and not continuing on to the sidewalk – Per ‘Exhibit A.’ 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-117:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the railings are consistent with other railings approved 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 the railings are of a historical character.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes the iron is appropriate.  Mr. Ryan stated he does not feel the handrails are historically appropriate. 

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the owner can exit and enter property safely.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #2012-117 with the condition the applicant install black iron handrails on both sides of the porches with the terminations to be at the bottom of the steps per Exhibit “A” (Mulberry porch) and Exhibit B (West Broadway porch).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-117:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2011-117 (Amended); Sam Sagaria; 117 South 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 #2011-117 (Amended) as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-117 (Amended).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

New Business:

Application #2012-110: Cynthia Cort; 115 East Broadway; Signs

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 Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-110 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-110.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

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

 

Application #2012-111: Cynthia Cort; 115 East Broadway; Signage

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 Chapter 1189, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-111 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-111. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2012-113: James Day; 237 East College Street; Roof

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 #2012-113 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-113. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2012-114: Goumas Candyland; 113 North 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-114. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2012-115: Goumas Candyland; 113 North 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, and Chapter 1147 Variances, hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-78 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-115. Seconded by Mr. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2012-116: Goumas Candyland; 113 North 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, and Chapter 1147 Variances, hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-116 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-116. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #2012-117: John Noblick for Russ and Melissa Bow; 131 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 #2012-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-117. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Steven Hawk from the July 23, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 9, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from July 9, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  Mr. Burriss abstained because he did not attend the July 9, 2012 meeting. 

 

Adjournment:  9:15 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, August 13, 2012

Monday, August 27, 2012

GPC Minutes July 9, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 9, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Roll Call:  Those responding to the roll call were Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Eklof, Chairman Ryan, Mr. Hawk, Ms. Hoyt and Vice Chairman Mitchell.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair).

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss. 

 

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

 

Also Present:  Fred Abraham, Monique Keegan, Nancy Iker, Carolyn Johnson, Greg Fracker, Chris White, Ann Lowder, Don DeSapri, and Tim Riffle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2012-74

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of cobblestone pavers

and replacement with exposed aggregate concrete.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Don DeSapri, Carolyn

Johnson, Nancy Iker, and Ann Lowder. 

 

Discussion:  (No action was taken on a roll call vote for Application #2012-74 at the June 25, 2012 meeting.)

 

Don DeSapri, Potter’s Lane, indicated they have made some revisions to the plan by adding stone planters near the rear of the Counting House and they have added a red brick decorative border in the gravel area.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the brick border would go around the exposed aggregate.  Mr. DeSapri stated they are proposing for the brick to only go around the area where they are removing the cobblestones.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant would be maintaining landscaping around the air conditioning unit.  Mr. DeSapri stated they have proposed to place three stone planters in this area.  He also confirmed the Robbin’s Hunter Garden Club would maintain these.  Ms. Hoyt asked what type of barrier would be used to protect the air conditioning unit.   Mr. DeSapri stated they would place hand cut stone (18 x 18 x 4) that are original to the foundation in front of the unit.  Ms. Hoyt asked how the proposed drain in the gravel area would work and will it be screened to keep gravel from clogging it.  Mr. DeSapri stated the contractor said he would raise this area slightly so this is not a problem.  Mr. Ryan clarified if the cobblestones have already been removed.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated he was objecting to the applicant using another material, especially with the neighbors proposing a brick entry.  Mr. Mitchell stated he would have preferred to see the existing cobblestones in place and he wouldn’t have agreed to their removal.  Mr. Mitchell stated nonetheless the cobblestones are gone and he thinks brick is more appropriate for the area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the reason that they did not reuse the cobblestones is due to cost and it is a very labor-intensive process.  Mr. DeSapri stated there are over 3,000 cobblestones and not two of them are the same dimension.  Ms. Hoyt asked about the border between the proposed aggregate and gravel.  She questioned what would keep the gravel from coming onto the aggregate.  Mr. DeSapri stated the aggregate would be higher and the gravel would move away from the aggregate.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the entire area was at one time proposed to be exposed aggregate.  Mr. DeSapri stated yes, but due to the dogwood tree and saving money they decided to use gravel in part of the area.  He stated the first twenty-four feet is where the parking is going to occur.  Ms. Hoyt stated she would not be against seeing aggregate in the entire area, but more than anything she would like to see more landscaping to soften the area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the area around the tree would be mulched.  Mr. Hawk stated he too would like to see brick used, but it doesn’t appear as though the applicant is willing to use this material.  He asked if the applicant would consider extending the brick border to the alleyway surrounding the exposed aggregate area and creating a border between the gravel and the exposed aggregate area.  Mr. DeSapri stated this would be possible.  Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the idea of extending the brick. 

 

Nancy Iker, Co-chair of Robbin’s Hunter Garden Club, stated they have worked hard on this project to preserve the historical integrity.  She explained they did an abundant amount of research and found gravel was the most historically appropriate surface material used when the structure was originally built.  Ms. Iker stated gravel is permeable, economically efficient, and would save the plants.  She went on to say the effects from freezing and thawing problems are lessened in the wintertime with the use of gravel.  Ms. Iker stated she can assure the Planning Commission that the Garden Club would landscape around the tree.  She stated the bricks would complement the new entry and be complementary to the alley.  Ms. Iker urged the approval of the presented plan before the Planning Commission.  Mr. Hawk asked if the heat drawn to the area with the larger hard surface is concerning for plant life.  Ms. Iker stated no.  Mr. Mitchell asked why gravel is proposed in the area near the drain if cars won’t be located in this area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the main parking area will be on the aggregate surface, but there could be cars on the gravel at times for loading and unloading during special events. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-74:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the materials used are compatible with other materials which have been approved within this District. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated because of the improvement and upgrading of the materials it does improve the historical character.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hawk agreed with Ms. Hoyt.  Mr. Mitchell stated the historical character is downgraded and he does not agree this would be an improvement.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated that by contributing to the vitality of a property is contributes to the continuing vitality of the district as well.   All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated the proposed materials are historically correct so it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.    

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Approve Application #2012-74, as amended and submitted on July 9th with the condition that a red brick decorative border be added along the perimeter of the exposed aggregate.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-74:  Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

New Business:

545 West Broadway – Fred Abraham - Application #2012-97

Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval the addition of a rear garage addition and replacement of siding with board and batten siding. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Fred Abraham, 545 West Broadway, indicated he would like to add on to his existing garage.  He stated this would be a story and a half that goes back an additional forty feet from the existing garage.  Mr. Abraham stated he is proposing white board and batten siding for the entire structure with dimensional shingles.  He stated he would be adding a porch with a dark green standing seam metal roof.  Mr. Abraham stated he is proposing changing the windows to divided light windows.  Ms. Terry explained this property is not located within the AROD, but due to the proposal being more than a 20% increase in total gross livable area – the AROD standards apply.  She stated there are variances required for this proposal and that the BZBA will be considering those at their July 12th meeting. 

 

Nick Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated he owns property located at 555 West Broadway, which is to the west of Mr. Abraham’s property.  He stated he is in support of the project and feels it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked how much the project exceeds the 20% requirement and has building massing been addressed.  Ms. Terry stated building massing is one of the items that will need to be addressed by the Planning Commission.  She read aloud the criteria related to building massing.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant meets the lot coverage requirements for the addition.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the adjacent homes on each side of the property are two story.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated the property to the west drops down in the rear yard.  Mr. Mitchell asked the purpose of the cupola and the reason for the six-foot height increase between the main house and the addition.  Mr. Abraham stated it would add light to the upper story of the garage and the perspective from the street won’t make the cupola look higher than the roof.  The Planning Commission indicated there were no problems with building massing for this project.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-97:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Mitchell stated that the board and batten siding and roof lines are stylistically compatible.  Mr. Ryan stated the overall improvement of the property is compatible with other approved projects in the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Ryan stated that the design and materials bring the overall character into line with surrounding properties and the historical character of the neighborhood. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated by upgrading the overall character of the house it is contributing to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Ryan stated by upgrading the overall aesthetic it protects and enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-97 as submitted contingent upon receipt of approval of the required variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-97:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

217 East College Street – Joe and Demaris Rosato - Application #2012-98

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:

1)         Removal of an existing one-story addition and replacement with a two-story rear addition;

2)         Removal of a bay window on the eastern side of the home;

3)         Adding a small bump out area for the front door on the front porch. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Frank Rosato, stated his son purchased the property and it is in a sad state of disrepair.  Mr. Rosato stated in 1990 there was an extensive amount of work done on this property.  He stated there is no basement and the existing foundation is not good.  Mr. Rosato stated they are proposing to remove part of the foundation and put in a half bath, laundry area, and storage.  He explained the existing bay window was compromised and they would like to remove this to put in an architectural element on the side of the kitchen.  He stated they are also proposing a sixteen-inch bump out at the front door.  He stated they are planning on gutting the entire house and they expect this to be a nine-month project.  Mr. Rosato stated when one looks at the house from the front it will appear to look exactly the same.  He stated there is a slight chance they will have to replace the wood columns with fiberglass columns, but they are not sure yet.  Mr. Rosato stated HUD paid to have a new roof put on the house and they will only have to put a roof on the front porch.  He stated they are proposing a black rubber roof since this is not visible from the ground.  Mr. Rosato stated the windows will be taken out and reset.  He indicated they will only replace windows with like windows if need be.  He indicated the windows are divided light windows.  Mr. Rosato provided an example of the cement board they would be using for trim around the windows.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the window at the bump out should match the upper story window on the same elevation.  Mr. Rosato agreed this would be a good idea and they are aiming to do this if they can make the interior space work.  Mr. Hawk stated this would help with the massing.  The Planning Commission reviewed the building massing and agreed this was not an issue.  Joseph Rosato, owner of the property, stated they received a letter from their neighbor on the west side, Gloria Hoover, indicating she did not have any problems with the proposed changes.     

 

Ms. Terry stated the applicant would need variances for side yard setbacks from the BZBA.  The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-98:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated it is stylistically compatible and by restoring the home it is consistent with other renovation requests approved in the District.  Mr. Hawk further stated the improvements are significant. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated that by restoring the home to its historical grandeur it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated the vitality of the District is improved by the proposed project renovations. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated by embracing the current structure of the house it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-98 as submitted contingent upon approval by the BZBA of the required variances.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-98:  Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

116 North Pearl Street – Monique Keegan for Three Amigos, LLC - Application #2012-99

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

The request is for architectural review and approval the installation of concrete pavers,

wood retaining walls and pea gravel to the south side of the structure.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Monique Keegan, 115 West Elm Street, indicated she is representing Newkirk Designs.  She stated they would like to install replacement pavers with gravel.  Ms. Keegan stated the color was the biggest obstacle.  She explained they are wanting to create a spa feeling and are proposing the use of sixteen-inch pavers.  She explained they would like to add two stairs for easier access and maintenance between their property and the Granville Inn.  Ms. Keegan stated there is a substantial berm at the side yard where it is difficult for plants and grass to grow due to erosion.  She stated they came up with a barrier to edge the planting bed that runs the entire length of the Granville Inn parking lot.  Ms. Terry stated the lot coverage and setback requirements have been met. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-99:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated the proposal is compatible with the business District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated that the materials are consistent with the historical flavor and it improves a business.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by contributing to the improvement of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated with the appropriate historic materials the facility is enhanced and protects surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-99 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-99:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

337 North Pearl Street – Chris and Laura White/Greg Fracker Colorscapes - Application #2012-100

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a concrete paver patio in the rear yard and a concrete paver wall along the south side of the house.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Chris White, and Greg

Fracker. 

 

Discussion:

Greg Fracker, 335 West Elm Street, stated that he is representing the White’s.  He stated the proposed improvements are in an area where they cannot get vegetation to grow and they are having problems with water sitting there.  Mr. Fracker stated they would like to install a drain on the four hundred square foot patio.  Mr. Fracker stated the existing concrete walkway is broken up and the applicant would like to install a wider paver walkway.  He stated the drainage would pipe out near Pearl Street into the flowerbeds.  Ms. Terry stated the proposed patio and sidewalk are not required to meet setbacks because they are under three feet in total height.  Ms. Terry stated all other setback requirements have been met.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-100:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the proposed materials/pavers are consistent with similar projects in the district and are historically correct.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated the historical character is upgraded which contributes to the improvement of the property. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated the drainage issues are being addressed which positively impacts the vitality of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated the project enhances the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-100 as presented noting that the two (2) columns and retaining/seat wall originally requested are not part of the project.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-100:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

1000 North Pearl Street – Denison University/Tim Riffle - Application #2012-101

Institutional District (ID).  The request is for review and approval of the installation of a 2-story concrete block press box at the softball field. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, Elm Street, indicated they would like to install a two-story concrete block press box.  Ms. Terry stated this applicant would have to go before the BZBA for Conditional Use approval of this structure.  Ms. Terry stated the height and setback requirements have been met.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-101 as submitted contingent upon approval by the BZBA for the Conditional Use.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-101:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

334 East Broadway – Denison University/Tim Riffle- Application #2012-102

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing wood double-hung windows and replacement with vinyl double-hung windows on the second floor.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Tim Riffle, Elm Street, indicated he is representing Denison University for approval of the window replacement.  Mr. Riffle stated the second floor of the College Town House is used for apartments and they are proposing the use of more environmentally friendly windows that are double-glazed.  He stated these windows would look exactly the same as the existing windows on the property. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-102:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the replacement windows are stylistically compatible with the other windows on the structure and are consistent with similar projects which have been approved previously within the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated the replacement windows do contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by contributing to the upgrading of an historical structure with replacement windows it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated by replacing the windows with a consistent style it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-102 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-102:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #2012-74: Robbins Hunter Museum; 221 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-74 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-74. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

New Business:

 

Application #2012-97: Fred Abraham; 545 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 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-97 as submitted by the applicant and indicated in the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-97.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-98: Frank Rosato; 217 East 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 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-98 as submitted by the applicant and indicated in the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-98.   Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-99: Monique Keegan; 116 North Pearl 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 #2012-99 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-99.   Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-100: Chris and Laura White; 337 North Pearl Street; Exterior Modifications

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-100 as submitted by the applicant and indicated in the conditions of approval.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-100. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-101: Denison University; 1000 North 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 1169, Institutional District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-101 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-101. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-102: Denison University; 335 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 #2012-102 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-102. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss from the July 9, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 25, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 25, 2012 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:25 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 23, 2012

Monday, August 13, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes June 25, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 25, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair).

Members Absent:  Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, and Doug Eklof.   

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

Also Present:

Citizens’ Comments: Carolyn Johnson, Marvin Rutter, Yadi Delaviz, Leman Beall, Don DeSapri, Ann Lowder, Keith Myers, Kevin Lewis, Craig McDonald, and Mary Ann Stone. 

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Old Business:

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2012-74

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of cobblestone pavers and replacement with exposed aggregate concrete. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Don DeSapri, Ann Lowder, and Keith Lewis. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2012-74 from the table.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

Discussion: 

Don DeSapri, 250 Potter’s Lane, Granville, stated that he is representing the Robbin’s Hunter Museum.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the layout they received at the last meeting has been revised.  Mr. DeSapri stated they did not change the number of parking spaces, but they did change the layout by incorporating gravel along with the exposed aggregate concrete.  Mr. DeSapri stated the objections posed by the Planning Commission dealt with the surface and south boundary air conditioning unit being protected.  Mr. Mitchell stated a third concern by the Planning Commission was how the applicant proposed to go about parking in the area.  Ms. Terry stated there are three parking spaces proposed for the area and it is now deep enough for a car to pull out.  Mr. Mitchell clarified if there are three head in parking spaces being proposed.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. DeSapri explained they are proposing to put gravel at the eastern end of the parking area and exposed aggregate concrete in the rest of the areas.  Mr. DeSapri stated they feel the gravel is more historically correct and would be a more acceptable surface material.  He also presented an example of the exposed aggregate concrete.  Mr. DeSapri stated they are proposing to use this because it simulates gravel, which they have been told is the most historically accurate surface material that would have been used when the structure was originally built.  He went on to say the reason the exposed aggregate is preferred next to the alley is because it does not move and secures the brick pavers already located in this area.  Mr. DeSapri stated the brick pavers in the alley are moving with cars going over them.  He stated there is a prized dogwood tree in the eastern area that they would like to save and they feel this would be easier if they use gravel in the area.  Mr. DeSapri stated there are several advantages to using the gravel and they include historical accurateness and not having to plow snow from gravel in the wintertime.  As for the proposed exposed aggregate, Mr. DeSapri, stated it is cheaper than brick and stamped concrete and does not show imperfections from oil spills or cause slippery pavement.  Mr. DeSapri stated exposed aggregate has a long life and they chose it because it closely resembles gravel, which is used throughout Granville.  He stated Sam Schnaidt has told him he has had it for forty years and never had a problem.  Mr. DeSapri stated they could protect the air conditioning unit with four-foot wide stones (three of them) to be used as a barrier.  Mr. DeSapri stated the proposal before the Planning Commission was devised by the same person who requested the front stone sidewalk approval, clock tower approval, and was responsible for having the bathrooms installed in the museum.  He stated this person is very knowledgeable about preservation.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the new plan has gravel surrounding the dogwood tree.  Mr. DeSapri stated there would be a four-foot radius around the tree and the perimeter would be a hard plastic.  Mr. Mitchell stated the green line on the submitted paperwork looks like the ending point of the gravel.  Mr. DeSapri clarified on the drawing and explained it was incorrect.  Ms. Hoyt questioned the variety of surfaces in the rear.  She stated she researched the proposed aggregate and she could be ok with it, but she has concern in having aggregate going up to the counting house building and eliminating a landscaping bed in this area.  Ms. Hoyt stated she would like to maintain the landscape bed around the air conditioning unit even though it is just weeds now – she believes something nice could be put in here.  Ms. Hoyt also suggested the gravel should stop at the green line indicated in the drawing and a softer material should be placed around the dogwood tree, such as mulch and/or shrubberies.  Mr. DeSapri suggested the look Ms. Hoyt is referring to around the air conditioning unit could be achieved with planted window boxes.  He stated they would like to keep the area in this location clean and feel it is necessary for the concrete to go right up to the building.  Mr. Hawk asked if the Robbin’s Hunter Museum was aware of the neighbor’s project proposing removal of the existing alley asphalt and putting in a brick paver driveway at their expense.  Mr. DeSapri stated Robbin’s Hunter Museum is sharing in part of this cost along with the Granville Public Library.  Mr. Hawk questioned if cost is the driving decision for choosing the exposed aggregate concrete.  Mr. DeSapri stated not totally and they do feel brick would move too much no matter how well it is laid.  He stated they did not want to deal with any future maintenance issues associated with brick.    

Kevin Lewis, Jutlew Concrete, 32 Waterworks Road, Newark, stated the exposed aggregate is only sealed one time. 

Mr. Mitchell questioned why gravel would be put in the area of the dogwood tree.  Mr. DeSapri stated they may use this area for turning around, especially for deliveries.    

Mr. Mitchell asked the parking space size regulations.  Ms. Terry stated the requirement is 10 x 20 feet per parking space.  She explained the applicant is only required to replace parking they currently have in place.  She stated they could maybe fit three spaces, but they are only required to have two spaces.  Councilmember Johnson asked the proposed thickness of the concrete.  Mr. Lewis stated four inches.  Councilmember Johnson asked if this is sufficient for vehicular traffic.  Mr. Lewis stated it is the same as residential driveway standards.  Councilmember Johnson asked if there are larger vehicles expected for deliveries.  Mr. DeSapri stated they don’t envision any big vehicles, but rather smaller type repair trucks.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is a shame the applicant is not considering bricks in this location since the neighboring properties are using it.  Mr. DeSapri stated they talked with a board member architect and asked him the most appropriate ground surface for a building of this era and he stated gravel.  Mr. DeSapri stated if they are going to be historically correct they are using a material that simulates gravel and is more stable.  Mr. Mitchell stated the previously existing cobblestones were more appropriate than anything else.  Mr. DeSapri stated they were a headache and a tremendous expense to redo.  Ms. Hoyt stated she would want to see landscaping beds added to the applicant’s plan. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-74: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the aggregate concrete is compatible with other driveways within the Village which makes it stylistically compatible with other renovated structures.  The other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated it's compatible with other aggregate concrete which contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character. She also stated that she would rather see grass in place of the proposed gravel and that she would want to see additional landscaping beds.  The other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.       

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the vitality of the district continues.  The other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.  

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   Ms. Hoyt stated gravel is an approved material used by past generations.  Mr. Hawk stated he would agree if the proposed gravel was placed in a different area.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-74 with the following conditions: 1)  There be a landscaping bed around the existing air conditioning unit on the south side of the Counting House; 2)  That the green line around the dogwood tree utilize the existing stone on the site as landscape barriers.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-74: Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 2-1.  No Action Taken. 

Ms. Terry explained No Action is Taken on Application #2012-74.  She stated there are three Planning Commission members present and the applicant would have needed a unanimous vote for approval.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant can come back to a future meeting with additional information or present the same information in front of a full Planning Commission board.  Ms. Lowder asked if the Planning Commission is aware that the alley having asphalt removed and brick pavers put in is a private alley way.  Mr. Beall stated his project will be delayed because they will not go ahead with the driveway replacement until the work at the Robbin’s Hunter is complete.  

New Business: 

464 South Main Street – Always Forward Crossfit- Application #2012-81

Community Service District (CSD)

The request is for review and approval of the off-street parking requirements for a fitness business. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Craig McDonald. 

Discussion:

Craig McDonald, 428 East College Street, indicated he is co-owner of Always Forward Crossfit.  Ms. Terry explained this application is before the Planning Commission because it is a recreational use and the code states the number of parking spaces required is to be determined by the Planning Commission.  Mr. McDonald stated their business operates in off hours and there is only overlap at the 9:15 class.  He stated their class size is approximately 18 people.  Mr. McDonald stated there has never been a conflict in parking that he is aware of.  Ms. Hoyt asked if these would be assigned parking spaces.  Ms. Terry stated no.    

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-81 as presented with a total of eighteen (18) parking spaces.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-81: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

218 East Elm Street – Bob Johnson - Application #2012-85

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with a brick driveway.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Carolyn Johnson, Keith  Lewis, and Leman Beall.  

Discussion:

Leman Beall, 212 East Elm Street, stated he would speak for the two applications concerning a driveway replacement with brick pavers.  He stated until recently it was believed this was an alley owned by the Village.  He stated a title search showed he and his neighbor Mr. and Mrs. Johnson actually own the alley.  Mr. Beall stated he drafted a cross-access easement agreement that was approved by the Robbin’s Hunter Museum, the Granville Public Library, and the Johnson’s that will soon be recorded.  Mr. Beall explained they would like to remove the existing asphalt and put concrete and brick pavers in.  He explained that it is their hope this project will cut down on the traffic in this area and the alley will appear to be a driveway.  Mr. Beall stated they plan to put private driveway signage in place and they have requested the Library and Robbin’s Hunter Museum limit the access to large vehicles.  He stated they would still tolerate pedestrian traffic in the alley.  

Mr. Beall stated the existing curb cuts have been damaged and repaired twice.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant had considered a gate.  Mr. Beall stated this option is included in the easement for the future if need be, but they are choosing to not install this at this time.  Mr. Beall also stated they will wait to do this project until the work is complete at the Robbin’s Hunter Museum.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission would like to see the museum continue the use of the brick pavers that they are presenting.  Mr. Beall stated regardless there are water drainage issues on their property and the Johnson’s have had to have French drains put in because of water run-off from the museum property.  He stated anything they do would be a much-needed improvement in this area.  Mr. Beall stated all four parties (Robbin’s Hunter Museum, Granville Public Library, Johnson’s and Beall’s) are paying for a portion of the project, but the two residential neighbors are paying the majority.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the proposed brick is compatible with the existing brick.  Mr. Beall stated yes.  Ms. Terry indicated the applicant will need a right of way permit from Terry Hopkins for the work within the right-of-way for the driveway approach.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-85: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed project is consistent with the library pavement and other structures which have been approved in the District. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick pavers are very consistent and an improvement from the asphalt. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by improving the historical character the livability is improved.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick was used long before asphalt and is a more appropriate material.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.   

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-85 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-85: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

212 East Elm Street – Leman Beall - Application #2012-86

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with a brick driveway.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Leman Beall. 

Discussion:

Leman Beall, 212 Elm Street, indicated he is the homeowner.  This application was previously discussed during ‘Discussion’ of Application #2012-85.  Mr. Hawk asked if the interlocking brick system can have movement.  Mr. Lewis, Juttlew Concrete, stated they can move.  He explained the bricks will be set on top of concrete and not in the concrete.  He stated this is similar to the walkways in town that are brick.  

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed project is consistent with the library pavement and other structures which have been approved in the District. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick pavers are very consistent and an improvement from the asphalt. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated by improving the historical character the livability is improved.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated the brick was used long before asphalt and is a more appropriate material.   The other Planning Commission members concurred. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-86 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve 2012-86 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-86: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

1820 Newark-Granville Road– Spring Hills Baptist Church- Application #2012-87

Planned Unit Development District (PUD)

The request is for a minor revision to the Preliminary Development Plan to allow for baseball dugouts and a bathing cage in the rear of the property.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Marvin Rutter, John McGowan, Yadi Delaviz, and Mr. and Mrs. Stone. 

Discussion:

Marvin Rutter, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, stated the application indicates this request is for baseball, but it is actually for girl’s softball.  

John McGowan, Athletic Director for Granville Christian Academy, indicated he was approached by Todd Hartshorn who offered to partially fund the dugouts and batting cage area.  

Mary Ann Stone, 125 Wicklow Drive, stated she really has no problem with the batting cages.  She explained her back yard is next to the church.  Ms. Stone stated the church recently cleared the sound barrier (trees and undergrowth) from our neighborhood and they now hear highway noise.  She questioned if there would be noise issues associated with the applicant’s request.   Ms. Stone stated the trees were trimmed from four feet and she is “totally exposed to their church and parking lot.”  Mr. Hawk asked if Ms. Stone was in opposition to the applicant’s request.  Ms. Stone asked if the church could come up with something to bring back her privacy then she wouldn’t be opposed.  She questioned if some screening ought to be put in.  Ms. Stone stated she has lived there for eight years and the noise wasn’t a problem and now she also believes her property value has been affected because of the recent changes with the trees. 

Yadi Delaviz, 137 Wicklow Drive, stated his property is back to back with the church.  He stated he echo’s what his neighbor says.  Mr. Delaviz stated most of the trees are gone and there is a noise problem.  Ms. Hoyt asked if Mr. Delaviz is proposing that the Planning Commission not approve the application.  Mr. Delaviz stated out of respect for the neighborhood he believes it would help if a barrier was put in.  He agreed a fence or plantings could be appropriate.  Mr. Rutter stated they have improved the area to make it aesthetically pleasing from the freeway.  He agreed he could check to see if there is something they can do in the way of screening.  Mr. Rutter stated he does not believe the request by the neighbor’s is pertinent to their request for a dug out and batting cages.  The Planning Commission agreed the two parties should discuss this matter and it sounded as though they could reach a resolution with further discussion.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-87 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-87: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

118 South Main Street – Village of Granville - Application #2012-88

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with a buff colored exposed aggregate concrete pedestrian walkway. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry.  

Discussion:

Alison Terry, 118 South Main Street, stated Keith Myers worked on the plan that is before the Planning Commission.  She stated based on a request from St. Luke's and the Historical Society that Council is considering permanently changing this area from vehicular access to a pedestrian only walkway.  Mr. Hawk stated he is in support of this.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Ms. Terry stated the asphalt would be completely removed and that there is an existing drainage issue in this area.  She stated buff washed exposed aggregate concrete is being proposed and there is an indication that the area might be further improved with decorative benches and planters by both the Historical Society and St. Luke's.  Ms. Terry stated the application is before the Planning Commission for review of materials, design, and historical appropriateness.  She explained there are two options Council is considering – vehicular drive through ro pedestrian only.  Mr. Johnson stated Council is supporting vehicular traffic being allowed for emergency purposes only.  Although, he stated Chief Hussey has already indicated he would not take a fire truck through this alley.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the softening the pavement with additional landscaping.  Ms. Terry explained this would be a future cost, not a part of this project.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village considered the use of brick pavers, rather than exposed aggregate.  

Keith Myers, 221 East College Street, stated he is a landscape architect.  He stated the material they have suggested is concrete with a nice finish with socket joints.  He stated they did discuss brick, but it is not economically feasible and more than the historical society, church, or Village were willing to bear.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the material being suggested is consistent with any nearby materials.  Mr. Myers stated they are proposing a very fine grain aggregate similar to what was used in downtown Columbus for the Scioto Mile.  Mr. Myers reviewed the sample materials proposed by the the Robbin’s Hunter Museum for their application.  He stated the exposed aggregate material they are proposing does not simulate the material he is talking about.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if brick could be incorporated somewhere.  Mr. Myers stated both groups are limited on what they would be willing to spend on the project.  Ms. Hoyt suggested the landscaping should be more of a focus and less pavement.  Councilmember Johnson questioned if there would be water basins in the alley.  Mr. Myers explained this is still being determined, but it looks as though they can save some money and not put these in.  He stated it would save money if a drainage system is not needed.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-88: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated it's compatible with other structures in the area and is compatible with other approvals by the Planning Commission. The other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated by being compatible with other approved structures it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.  The other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated by upgrading and improvement the character it does contribute to the continuing vitality of the district.   The other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hoyt stated the upgrading of this area with a pedestrian surface and appropriate materials does protect and enhance the physical surroundings.   The other Planning Commission members concurred. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend to Council Application #2012-88 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-88: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

238 East Broadway – Erin DiGiacomo - Application #2012-92

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

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

The applicant was not present to speak in regards to Application #2012-92.  Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2012-92 until the applicant could be present.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-92:  Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Other Business:

Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed zoning code revisions.  

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03, and 1189.13.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions for Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13 from the Table.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Mitchell (yes). 

Discussion: 

Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission had previously requested that she include their suggestions and present the updated information.  Mr. Mitchell indicated all five members of the Planning Commission were present when these changes were reviewed.

Mr. Hawk moved to recommend the changes in the June 19, 2012 draft for zoning code changes sections 1171.03 and 1189.13 to the Village Council.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote on Proposed Zoning Code Changes to Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13: Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-81: Always Forward Crossfit; 464 South Main Street; Picket Fence

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, Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-81 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-81. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-85: Bob and Carolyn Johnson; 218 Elm Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-85 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-85. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-86: Leman Beall; 212 East 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, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-86 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-86. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-87: Spring Hills Baptist Church; 1820 Newark-Granville Road; Wall 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 1171, Planned Unit Development, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-87 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-87. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-88: Village of Granville; 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-77 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-88. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss and Tim Ryan from the June 25, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 11, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 11, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, July 9, 2012

Monday, July 23, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 11, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Rob Montgomery (non-voting, Ex-Officio Village Council Member), Doug Eklof (non-voting, Ex-Officio GEVSD Member), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  None.

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

Also Present: Tonda Thomas, Don DeSapri, Jeff Manecke, Kevin Lewis, and Ann Lowder.  

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

115 West Elm Street – Tonda Thomas- Application #2012-70

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a picket fence in the rear yard. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Tonda Thomas.  

Discussion:

Tonda Thomas, 115 West Elm Street, indicated she would like to install a picket fence.  Mr. Ryan asked if there are any proposed gates for the fence.  Ms. Thomas stated yes and one is larger to accommodate a riding lawn mower.  She indicated the location of the gates on a survey.  Mr. Ryan asked if the gates are made out of the same material as the fence.  Ms. Thomas stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the fence would be finished with a paint or stain.  Ms. Thomas stated she would paint the fence white after it has weathered for about thirty days, as recommended by her contractor.  Mr. Ryan asked if both sides of the fence would be painted.  Ms. Thomas stated yes.  She explained the fence would connect to Ms. Hickey’s fence at some point.  Mr. Ryan asked how the gate would open with the neighboring property.  Ms. Thomas stated she believed the fence would open onto the neighbor’s property.  She explained she is unsure how close the fence would be to the property line.  Mr. Mitchell indicated there is an easement noted for the property.  Ms. Walker agreed it is unclear as to whom the easement belongs to.  Mr. Mitchell stated the gate could be intruding on the neighboring property, unless the easement is in Ms. Thomas favor.  Mr. Ryan clarified the gate should open on the applicant’s property.  Ms. Thomas agreed.       

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-70:

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 fence requests approved 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 materials are consistent with other materials used for fencing in this district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the fence allows for vitality in the district.

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 #2012-70 with the condition the west boundary gate swing inward onto the applicant’s property and the fence be painted white.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-70:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2012-74

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of cobblestone pavers and replacement with exposed aggregate concrete. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Don DeSapri, Jeff Manecke,

Kevin Lewis, and Ann Lowder.  

Discussion:

Ann Lowder, 335 West Elm Street, stated the cobblestone area would be replaced with aggregate concrete.  Ms. Terry noted there were some sunken in areas within the previous parking area.  Ms. Lowder stated the cobblestone materials had not been properly installed some thirty years ago and they have had lots of mud and puddles accumulating.  Ms. Lowder explained they would like to add to the parking area by taking over the grassy strip to the south, which often has car tracks.  Ms. Lowder stated the undersurface and removing the pavers is a very expensive endeavor.  Mr. Ryan asked the expansion amount for the area.  Ms. Lowder stated yes there would be an additional 734 square feet added.  Mr. Ryan stated it appears the slope would move towards the drains to get rid of the excess water.  Mr. Burriss asked about the bedding area in the back of the bakery and if they would be lifting up the air conditioning unit to put it on a pad.  Mr. Hawk asked how the air conditioning unit would be protected from someone driving into it.  Ms. Lowder stated there would be a pad put in and they are willing to block the unit with rocks or balusters if need be.  Mr. DeSapri stated there is a stone in front of the unit now.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant had considered installing concrete with an historic stained finish instead of exposed aggregate?  

Kevin Lewis, 36 Waterworks Road, Newark, stated he is representing the contractor.  He stated the material they are proposing is rustic looking and very similar to what was in front of Park National Bank.  Mr. Mitchell stated he liked the former look of the cobblestones.    

The applicant discussed parking plans for the entire area.  Ms. Terry questioned if the number of spaces the applicant is presenting would fit.  She stated the Village does not allow stacked parking.  She stated diagonal parking takes up more space and the Code states the parking spaces have to be twenty feet (20’) in length with a twenty-two foot (22’) drive aisle.  Mr. DeSapri stated they are trying to aide the Village in increasing parking spaces.  Ms. Terry stated the cars would have to back out of the area and the applicant will only be able to provide a total of two spaces to meet current code requirements, even with the increased area.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the parking area has enough room to back out.  Ms. Terry stated yes, but the applicant is not picking up additional parking spaces by adding the additional concrete.  Mr. DeSapri questioned if removing the hedges on the south would help.  Mr. Burriss stated the Village would require parking spaces to be screened.  Mr. Ryan stated there is no question the applicant may not gain what they desire with the amount of money they are spending.  Mr. Mitchell commented that it looks like additional planning is prudent and perhaps the applicant should have an engineer review the proposal for maximum benefit.  Mr. Hawk agreed.  

Jeff Manecke, 2308 Hankinson Road, Granville, indicated he is a Trustee on the Robbins Hunter Board.  He requested to have the application tabled.  Ms. Hoyt requested the applicant expand on searching for different materials that are more historically appropriate.  Mr. Lewis stated he would bring in an example of the aggregate concrete. The Planning Commission began to review the Criteria for Application #2012-74 and their discussion resulted in the applicant making a formal request to Table the application until they have the opportunity to gather additional information.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2012-74.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-74:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

454 South Main Street – Leigh Brennan – A Place to Call OM - Application #2012-75

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a new wall sign.  

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

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, 116 West Maple, Apt. A., indicated she is representing the business ‘A Place to Call OM.’  Ms. Melfi stated the signage would be fifteen inches (15”) high and five feet (5’) long.  She stated they are proposing to use the same materials and fonts as the existing signage on the building for ‘Granville Dance Academy.’  Ms. Terry indicated the requirements have not been met because only one wall sign is allowed per building.  She stated the square footage requirements for signage have been met.  Ms. Terry explained if the Planning Commission chose to approve the application a variance would be necessary to increase the number of wall signs per building from one to two.  Mr. Hawk stated he does not like the proposed elevation of the signage and wondered if it could be centered within the proposed location.  Ms. Melfi stated the existing lighting that is already in place makes it prohibitive to change the elevation.  Ms. Hoyt asked if each patron entering business’s in this building would enter in the same location.  Ms. Melfi stated yes.   

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-75: 

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. Ryan stated there is only one (1) entrance and a sharing of the space by three businesses. 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.    Mr. Hawk stated the other two businesses couldn’t exist if they are denied signage.  Mr. Ryan stated one business in the building could still be considered beneficial use of the property, but not a reasonable return.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss stated FALSE, with them supporting the need for a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE 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 this was FALSE it 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).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE it would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission has no way of knowing this.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE substantial justice would be done. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated the applicant did not build the building. 

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE it will not. 

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 there were no special conditions.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-75 as submitted with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from one (1) to two (2) on this building in the Community Service District (CSD).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-75:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

454 South Main Street – Daniel Sprague/Sprague Shotokan Karate - Application #2012-76

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a new wall sign.  

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

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, West Maple Street, Apt. A., indicated she is representing the owner of the business regarding the signage.  She stated the sign is five foot long and fifteen inches high.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-76: 

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 this was 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 this was FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated the owner could not make enough in rent for a reasonable return without the additional businesses located in the building.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial and it’s adding a sign for another business.    

(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 this was FALSE.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE the applicant is a tenant.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated a variance is needed to allow for another tenant. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE and substantial justice would be done. 

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

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE it will not adversely affect any of the above. 

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 there were no additional conditions.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-76 as submitted with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from two (2) to three (3) on this building in the Community Service District (CSD).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-76:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

221 East Broadway – Granville Chamber of Commerce- Application #2012-77

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

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

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

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, West Maple Street, stated she is representing the applicant, Granville Area Chamber of Commerce.  She stated they would like to place a piece of plastic covering on the sidewalk sign so they can display posters and information underneath the logo.  She stated this would mean the applicant wouldn’t have to tape information on the glass doors anymore because they could display it on the sidewalk sign.  Ms. Melfi stated the sign would be located on the sidewalk during business hours only.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sign would be a changeable copy sign.  Ms. Terry stated this would not be considered changeable copy.  Mr. Hawk stated the proposal is not different from signage across the street.  Ms. Terry stated if the Planning Commission were to approve the application a variance would be necessary to increase the maximum square footage for signage from 28.75 square feet to 40.33 square feet because there is a wall sign and window sign already on the property.  Mr. Montgomery asked how the Planning Commission feels about sidewalk signage being on this side of Broadway and the area on the north of side of Broadway in general.  Mr. Mitchell stated in general the Planning Commission does not like sidewalk signage, but it is allowed in the Code and they have to follow the Code.  He added he cannot see how they could deny signage on the south side and allow them on the north side.  Mr. Montgomery stated he has heard some comments that the amount of sidewalk signage on the north side is an impediment to pedestrians and it is nice to have the space open on the south side.  Mr. Ryan stated the Village also wants businesses on the south side to ensure the downtown area is viable.  He stated they can’t penalize businesses just because they are located on the south side.  

Ms. Terry clarified sidewalk café areas are approved by Village Council through an annual resolution and this is not a part of the zoning code.  Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission technically cannot deny a sandwich board sign permitted by the Code, but in this case the applicant would need a variance to have the sandwich board sign.  She explained the applicant right now has 24.33 square feet of existing signage and 28.75 square foot signage is the maximum allowed by the code. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-77: 

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 this was TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated this was true because the front of the business is only eleven foot (11’) wide.    

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. Ryan, Mr. Hawk, and Ms. Hoyt stated the business is already operating in this location without the signage.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell stated this is the Chamber Office and it’s a community service organization that is promoting the entire community, so this was FALSE.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated the variance would go from 28 square feet to 40 square feet.  Mr. Burriss stated for this instance, the variance is not substantial due to the limited frontage of the building.                           

(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 this was FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated there are additional sandwich board signs on this side of the street.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Hawk stated FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated a variance is needed if the owner wants an additional sign on the building, TRUE.  Ms. Hoyt stated the owner or leasee should be aware of the zoning they are in, 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Ms. Hoyt stated FALSE, the tenant of the property had the ability to research the property before renting it.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated FALSE.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Burriss 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE it will not. 

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 the removal of the sidewalk sign should occur when the business is not open, and a plastic cover be added to prevent items from blowing away on the sign, and that additional signage displayed within the window, and not approved by the Planning Commission, be removed. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-77: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed sidewalk sign is stylistically compatible with other sidewalk signs which have been approved within this district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated it provides for the advertisement of community events which does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved for the businesses within the community by advertising community events and promoting community involvement. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated it helps with community involvement and growth of the community.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-77 with a variance to increase the maximum total square footage for signs on this property, for this business, from 28.75 square feet to 40.33 square feet and with the following conditions:  1)  That the sign shall be removed and secured during non-business hours; 2)  That the practice of taping information to the inside windows be discontinued; and 3)  That a protective covering be applied to the exterior of the sign to secure the materials attached to the sidewalk sign.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-77:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

338 East College Street – Susan Day - Application #2012-78

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a white picket fence in the rear

yard with gates. 

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

Discussion:

Susan Day, 338 East Elm Street, stated she would like put in a picket fence at 338 East College Street.  Ms. Day stated the gates would match the picket fence and the fence would be painted off-white on both sides.  Ms. Terry stated the requirements have been met.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the fencing would be made of wood.  Ms. Day stated yes.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-78: 

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 fence is consistent with similar fences 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.  Mr. Burriss stated that the fence is historically appropriate. 

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

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-78 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-78:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Other Business:

Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed zoning code revisions.  

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13;  and Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1137.01, 1139.04, 1139.05, and 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, and 1141.06.  

Discussion:

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13:  

Ms. Terry distributed a Subdivision Residential Development Densities chart to the Planning Commission for their review.  Mr. Ryan stated he feels there should be a differentiation of densities between single family and multifamily housing.  The other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Ryan agreed this is an area of the code that is left up to interpretation and needs to be clarified.  He applauded the staff’s effort to clean this area up in the code.  Ms. Terry stated BZBA makes determinations and interpretations where there are conflicts with the zoning map, but does not make determinations or interpretations where there are conflicts with the zoning code. 

Mr. Ryan asked how open space is referenced.  Ms. Terry stated it is interpreted by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry reviewed some of the areas in the Village zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) including Granville Golf Course, 2780 Newark Granville Road, and land located across from Fackler’s Garden Center and owned by Park National Bank.  Ms. Terry stated the PUD does allow for some combination of commercial uses in conjunction with a mixture of residential densities.  Mr. Ryan suggested 1.5 dwelling units per acre for density in single family development.  Mr. Hawk agreed.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not know the details on this matter enough to make a decision.  Ms. Hoyt stated she is for lower density.  Ms. Terry explained the Ordinance now is not clear because there are two (2) conflicting sections.  In one section it talks about 1 dwelling unit per acre in another it says there can be 6 dwelling units per acre.  Ms. Burriss stated for single family residential development – 1.5 units per acre gross is an acceptable number for him.  Mr. Mitchell stated with 1.5 units per acre - there would be more density than that at Bryn Du.  Mr. Burriss stated 1.5 units per acre is what is being developed because of usability of the land and affordability.  Mr. Ryan stated any PUD changes would not just affect the golf course.  Mr. Mitchell stated this is a way to limit the number of houses within the school district.  Ms. Hoyt stated the density depends on the land itself.  She stated the golf course land is conducive to a lower density than the land across from Facklers.  Mr. Ryan stated he doesn’t believe zoning for municipalities should be solely based on schools.  He stated the school’s enrollment has been on a decline for the past two years and is expected to be less in the future.  He stated zoning should be based on the community as a whole and a healthy community is one that grows.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission is in favor of separating the single family and multi-family figures.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Ms. Terry stated two-family and multi-family could be lumped together.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated he would be comfortable with a 1.5 dwelling unit per acre gross density.  Ms. Hoyt asked Ms. Terry to do an analysis which excluded a few PUD properties.  She stated she would like to see the number lowered to 1.3.  Ms. Terry stated she is hearing the Planning Commission say they would like the density to be 1.5 dwelling units per acre for single family and 5 dwelling units per acre for two-family and multi-family residential.  She indicated she would work on the wording and bring a new proposal back to the Planning Commission for review.     

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1137.01, 1139.04, 1139.05, and 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, and 1141.06: 

Mr. Ryan indicated these are proposed language changes to clean up the code.  Ms. Terry explained many of these proposed changes are to make the language between the BZBA and Planning Commission more consistent.  For instance, Ms. Terry stated all references to certified mail have been removed.  The Planning Commission did not provide any additional comments regarding the proposed changes.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend the changes in Sections 1139.01, 04. 05, 06, 07 as prepared by Village Staff on draft document 5/9/2012.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-70: Tonda Thomas; 115 West Elm Street; Picket Fence

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 #2012-70 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-70. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-75: Leigh Brennan; 454 South Main Street; Wall 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 #2012-75 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-75. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2012-76: Danny Sprague/Sprague Shotokan Karate; 454 South Main Street; Wall 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 #2012-76 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-76. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-77: Granville Chamber of Commerce; 125 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-77 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-77. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-78: Susan Day; 338 East College Street; Fence

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 Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-78 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-78. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from May 14, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. (Mr. Mitchell abstained.) 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from May 29, 2012 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hawk abstained.)

Adjournment:  9:15 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 25, 2012 (Mr. Ryan stated he may not be able to attend this meeting.)   Monday, July 9, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 29, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk and Tim Ryan

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

Also Present: Michelle Ventker, Timothy Church, Kevin Reiner, Don DeSapri, and Tim Klingler. 

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

New Business:

120 ½ East Broadway – Patti Urbatis- Application #2012-65

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

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

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

Discussion:

Michelle Ventker, 120 ½ East Broadway, indicated she is representing Patti Urbatis for this application for a sandwich board sign.  Ms. Ventker stated they had a sign above the awning that has been removed and they would like to replace it with a sandwich board sign.  Ms. Terry stated the application calls for a 2’ wide x 3’9” high sign that meets all of the requirements.  She stated the sign would have to be removed and secured during non-business hours.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the small signs in the window on either side of the entrance was redundant with this proposed ‘open’ signage.  Mr. Burriss stated he would be in favor of the sandwich board sign only if the window signage for ‘office’ and ‘open’ are removed.  Ms. Hoyt agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Ms. Ventker indicated she would think Ms. Urbatis would agree to removing these signs if it means approval of a sandwich board sign is allowed.  Mr. Burriss questioned if a variance is required for this application with the Aladdin signage and this being located within the same building.  Ms. Terry stated yes a variance is required.   

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application $2012-65: 

a.         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated structures in the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that it's consistent with other signs which have been approved in this District; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

b.         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated there are examples in historical photos showing sidewalk signs, therefore it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

c.         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated by contributing to the continuing vitality of a business it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

d.         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated it's reducing the number of signs at this location which does protect and enhance examples of past generations; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-65: 

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. Yes, multiple signs for single buildings have been approved in the past; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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. Yes, there are other signs on the property, however, this will help clarify the hours of operation for this business; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  No, it’s not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.                     

(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.  No, it will not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  No, it will not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  No, they're a tenant only; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  No, the variance is the most logical conclusion; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Yes, the spirit is achieved by the granting of this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.      That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  True, they do not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  It will not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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 the applicant should remove the ‘open’ and ‘office’ signage in the window with the addition of the sandwich board signage and the sandwich board sign should be secured indoors during non-business hours.        

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-65 with the following conditions: 

1)         That the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business          hours;

2)         That the applicant remove the "open" and "office" signage in the front window; and

3)         That a variance be approved to increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs for this building from one (1) to two (2).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-65: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

121 South Main Street – Kevin Reiner on behalf of John and Maria Bishop - Application #2012-66

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a front door.

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

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, Kevin Reiner Designs, 219 West Broadway, indicated he is representing the homeowners, John and Maria Bishop.  He stated the homeowner would like to change the existing door to an antique wooden door.  Mr. Reiner explained one door would be active and one passive with a transom located above.  Mr. Reiner stated they would use dark non-descriptive hardware and the doors would be painted.  Mr. Burriss asked what kind of glass would go in the doors.  Mr. Reiner stated they would be using the existing single pane antique glass.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the glass has to be replaced with safety glass?  Mr. Reiner stated this was not requested by the zoning inspector.  Mr. Burriss stated the replacement with safety glass is associated with the size of the glass.  Ms. Terry stated the building department would review whether a building permit would be required for this improvement, and would be the ones to determine whether there needed to be safety glass installed.  Mr. Burriss stated the door Mr. Reiner is replacing is not original to the house.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-66: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other remodeling projects which have been approved previously; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the new front doors are more in keeping with the historical character; all Planning Commission members concurred.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated by contributing to the authenticity of a structure it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District; all Planning Commission concurred.  

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the newer authentic front doors do protect and enhance the property and are closer to the physical surroundings in which past generations lived; all Planning Commission members concurred. 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-66 as submitted with the condition that the doors be painted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-66: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  

462 South Main Street – Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions - Application #2012-67:  Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a wall sign to be located on the south side of the building.  

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

Discussion:

Timothy Church, 462 South Main Street, stated that the automotive center is in the front of the building and there are three businesses in the back that many people are not aware of.  He stated they are in need of additional signage to alleviate any confusion regarding their location.  Mr. Church stated they have a specific entrance to ensure safety for customers coming/going.  Mr. Church stated they would like to add signage for the auto appearance businesses located in the rear of the building and they are attempting to make the rear building more customer friendly.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant is proposing three separate signs for the rear location in the building.  She stated the first application is for modification of an existing sign.  Ms. Terry stated there is a lot of signage on this building and staff cannot find records of all of the approvals.  She indicated that variances would be necessary were the Planning Commission to grant the additional wall signs as the code only allows one (1) wall sign per building.  Mr. Johnson stated the total square footage is not an issue, but a variance is required due to the number of wall signs.  Mr. Johnson asked if there is a color change on all of the applications.  Ms. Terry stated for Application #2012-67 it is a color change and the proposed signage has more than three colors, which was not previously approved for other signage.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if a variance is required due to the Pennzoil yellow for the logo.  Mr. Church stated this color was chosen due to the logo.  Mr. Mitchell stated they rarely give variances for additional colors on signs.  Mr. Church stated he wouldn’t be speaking for himself if he were to change the color of the logos.  He stated these signs are not facing the street and a customer looking for them is looking for what matches their business cards.  Mr. Burriss stated they have worked hard in this district to limit the signage to three colors.  Mr. Burriss stated he is inclined to consider a larger amount of signage for this structure, rather than being inclined to allow for additional colors.  Mr. Mitchell agreed he has frequented the business and it can be difficult to know where to go for which business.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss agreed they would be in favor of a variance for additional signage, but not for additional colors.  Mr. Church suggested the Dent Solutions sign in blue with a grey ‘S’ could be changed to match the signage on the front of the building.  Ms. Hoyt stated it would be best for the public to not see different colors on different signs having the same logo.  Mr. Johnson stated the color change does not just affect one logo, but there are other businesses that are different than the front sign.  Ms. Hoyt stated each business should have compatible signage that matches the signage in the front of the building.  Mr. Burriss stated the new signage also does not have the same font that is in the front.          

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-67 pertaining to the number of wall signs allowed on the building structure: 

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. Burriss stated the physical size of the building and number of tenants creates a special circumstance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is not extreme and is common sense; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated for this particular structure the variance is not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.          

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated the entire area would not be affected by this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burris stated no, it would not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Burriss stated no, this is a tenant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated no, based on the size of the building granting the variance is the most obvious solution; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated substantial justice would be done by granting the variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated they do result from the actions of the applicant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

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.  Mr. Burriss stated no, it will not adversely affect any of these; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.   

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-67 with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from one (1) to three (3) for this building in the Community Service District; and to continue to observe the three (3) color maximum for signage in this District.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-67: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

462 South Main Street – Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions - Application #2012-68Community Service District (CSD). The request is for review and approval of a wall sign to be located on the east side of the building.  

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

Discussion:

See Application #2012-67 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-68 pertaining to the number of wall signs allowed on the building structure: 

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. Burriss stated the physical size of the building and number of tenants creates a special circumstance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is not extreme and is common sense; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated for this particular structure the variance is not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.          

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated the entire area would not be affected by this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burris stated no, it would not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Burriss stated no, this is a tenant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated no, based on the size of the building granting the variance is the most obvious solution; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated substantial justice would be done by granting the variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated they do result from the actions of the applicant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated no, it will not adversely affect any of these; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.   

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-68 with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from three (3) to four (4) for this building in the Community Service District; and to continue to observe the three (3) color maximum for signage in this District.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-68: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

462 South Main Street – Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions - Application #2012-69Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a wall sign to be located on the north side of the building.  

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

Discussion:

See Application #2012-67

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-69 pertaining to the number of wall signs allowed on the building structure: 

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. Burriss stated the physical size of the building and number of tenants creates a special circumstance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is not extreme and is common sense; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated for this particular structure the variance is not substantial; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.          

(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.  Mr. Burriss stated the entire area would not be affected by this variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  Mr. Burris stated no, it would not; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction. Mr. Burriss stated no, this is a tenant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Burriss stated no, based on the size of the building granting the variance is the most obvious solution; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated substantial justice would be done by granting the variance; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Burriss stated they do result from the actions of the applicant; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  

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.  Mr. Burriss stated no, it will not adversely affect any of these; the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.   

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-69 with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from four (4) to five (5) for this building in the Community Service District; and to continue to observe the three (3) color maximum for signage in this District.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-69: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Other Business: 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13.

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1137.01, 1139.04, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05 and 1141.06. 

Discussion: 

Mr. Mitchell noted two members of the Planning Commission were absent for discussion.  The Planning Commission thanked Ms. Terry for the additional information distributed, including a density comparison chart for their review.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she would like to move to table this discussion until each Planning Commission member is present.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-65: Patti Urbatis; 120 ½ East Broadway; Sidewalk 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signs and Chapter 1147, Variances and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-65 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-65. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-66: Kevin Reiner for John and Maria Bishop; 121 South Main 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-66 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-66. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-67: Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions; 462 South Main 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-67 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-67. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-68: Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions; 462 South Main 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-68 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-68. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-69: Auto Trim Design/New Phase/Dent Solutions; 462 South Main 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-69 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-69. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Members:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Tim Ryan and Steven Hawk from the May 29, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 14, 2012:

The minutes were not considered because there was not a quorum of Planning Commission members present to review and approve them. 

Adjournment:  8:15 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, June 11, 2012 (Melanie Schott may not be able to attend this meeting.)

Monday, June 25, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 14, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio Council member), Doug Eklof (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD member), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, and Jean Hoyt.

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

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

Also Present:  Renee Terebuh, Bryon Reed, Susan King, Donna Jenkins, Herach Nazarian, Michael Cox, Steve Gauger, Enoch Ahenkora, Roger Lossing, Geoffrey Hiler, Dottie Vaughn, and Charlie Hansen. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Old Business:

327 North Pearl Street – Ed and Donna Jenkins- Application #2012-42

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of three (3) windows. 

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

Discussion:

The application was tabled at the previous Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2012-42 from the table, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Donna Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, indicated they would like to add three windows and two of them would be on the north side alley.  Ms. Jenkins stated the window on the first level is a duplicate of the existing.  She stated the new windows would be the same style and make of the existing windows on the home.  Ms. Terry explained the location of the windows on the pictures submitted by the applicant.  Mr. Hawk asked if window 3 would be centered under the gothic style window.  Ms. Jenkins stated yes.  He asked if window 1 would be lined up with the windows on the first floor.  Ms. Jenkins stated yes, it would match up with the trim.  She stated the window space is 12x18 and the window will go above the door.  Ms. Jenkins stated the windows are going in due to lack of light inside the home.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-42: 

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 window requests approved 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 materials for the windows are consistent with other window 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 #2012-42 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-42: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

401 North Pearl Street – Renee Terebuh - Application #2012-49

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

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

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

Discussion:

Renee Terebuh, 126 South Main Street, stated she would like to put this sign in front of Steve Mershon’s fence.  She presented the actual sign and indicated it matches the existing signage on the building.  Ms. Terebuh stated the signage would come down at the end of the day.  She stated she would place the two-sided signage in the landscaping area and not on the sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated sidewalk signage is permitted in this district, but the sign measure 3 feet wide x 4 four feet tall which does not meet the width requirement of two feet maximum.  Ms. Terry stated a variance would be required if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the application. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-49: 

a)        Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the proposed signage exactly matches existing signage already approved by the Planning Commission for this business.

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. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-49: 

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 indicated the variance is required for the width only and the proposed signage matches existing signage on 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated the business needs signage to attract customers to the back building.  Mr. Ryan stated the variance is needed because of the width and if it were not this wide a variance wouldn’t be required.        

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated the increase is by one foot.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage will have drive-by traffic and the size requested is appropriate.  

(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.  

(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.  Mr. Ryan indicated the business owner is renting and did not purchase the property, but is aware there are zoning restrictions with zoning and signage.    

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

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-49 with the condition that the applicant bring the signage in and out at the close/open of business each day; and a variance be granted to increase the sidewalk signage width from two feet (2’) to three feet (3’).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-49: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

401 North Pearl Street – Renee Terebuh - Application #2012-50

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

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

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

Discussion:

Renee Terebuh, 126 South Main Street, stated that the proposed temporary signage is identical to the building signage and is proposed to be located on Broadway in front of Park National Bank.  She stated this sign has not yet been made and would meet the size requirements of 2’x 4’.  Ms. Terebuh stated the manager of the bank has approved the requested location for the signage for thirty (30) days.  Ms. Terry acknowledged a letter the Village received from Ryan Mills at Park National Bank.  She stated the only reason this request for temporary signage is before the Planning Commission is because the applicant wants to place the sign off-premise and this has to be approved by the Commission.  Ms. Terry explained temporary signage is otherwise issued by the Planning Department.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-50:

 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 business location is unique compared to other business establishments in this area.  Mr. Ryan added the signage request is only for thirty days.  

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 thirty day request for signage is very reasonable.      

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Hawk stated the request for signage is only thirty days.  

(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.  

(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 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.   

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-50 with a variance to allow the installation of a temporary sidewalk sign off premises; for a period of no longer than 30 days after final approval of this application; and with the condition that the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours. 

Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-50:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

1001 Cherry Valley Road – DaNite Sign Co./Bob Evans - Application #2012-52

Planned Commercial District (PCD)

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

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

Discussion:

Michael Cox, 420 East Broadway, indicated he is with DaNite Sign Company and representing the applicant, Bob Evans.  Mr. Cox stated they are requesting a refacing of the existing wall, taking the yellow face off and putting a different white face on.  He explained this change is being required by Bob Evans management to meet their new standards.  Ms. Terry stated she reviewed the file from when Bob Evans originally applied for signage on the property and she is unable to find any paperwork or documentation related to any variances for the signage.  She stated there is no record of a variance for internal illumination and the signage is currently internally illuminated.  Ms. Terry explained two variances would be necessary for the requested approval – one to allow for internal illumination and the second to increase the maximum height from twelve feet (12’) to sixteen feet (16’).  Mr. Burriss questioned the spot lighting for the signage.  Mr. Cox stated they have spot lighting for the entire building.  Mr. Burriss agreed the signage is not a source of lighting for the building.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-52: 

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. Ryan stated the peculiarity is this is an existing sign and the only change is going from yellow to white.  He indicated the Village does not have any record of approval of this and it is not the fault of Bob Evans Restaurants.  Mr. Burris stated they had a similar situation with the local funeral home signage.    

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 he prefers the look of the white signage, rather than the existing yellow.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage being replaced is the exact same size.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial because of the preexisting conditions.  

(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.  

(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.  Mr. Ryan indicated it is not the applicants fault that the Village doesn’t have records of the signage approval.  

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

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-113 with the following variances:

1)                  To allow for an internally illuminated sign in the Planned Commercial District; and

2)                  To increase the maximum height of a wall sign from twelve (12’) feet to sixteen-foot-eight (16’-8”) to allow for an existing wall sign.

Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-113: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

1229 Cherry Valley Road – Enoch Akenkora - Application #2012-53

Planned Commercial District (PCD)

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

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

Discussion:

Enoch Akenkora, 1229 Cherry Valley Road, stated he is representing ‘Love n Comfort’ Home Health Care.  He stated the signage is for a home healthcare business.  Ms. Terry stated this property is allowed eleven (11) square feet of signage total and the sign proposed is a double sided sign which totals sixteen (16) square feet.  Ms. Terry stated the maximum height can be twelve feet (12’) and the applicant’s sign with the frame is six to seven feet (6’-7’) tall, so the height requirement has been met.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant meets the freestanding sign code requirements for the PCD (Planned Commercial District) zoning, but they do not meet the gross maximum total signage allowed for the property.  Ms. Terry clarified this sign is not located within the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District).  Ms. Terry stated previous signage for Red Vette was allowed within the existing sign frame, but there is no variance on file for the approval that was given in 2005.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-53: 

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 there is an existing structure in place for previous signage that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2005.      

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 automobile traffic is traveling at a higher speed and the signage is further from the roadway.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial because of the preexisting conditions with the existing framing.   

 

(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. 

 

(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 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 special conditions by the applicants request to have lighting on the signage.  The Planning Commission requested the signage be turned on at dusk and off by 10:00 P.M.      

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-53 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zoned lot in the Planned Commercial District (PCD) from eleven (11) square feet to sixteen (16) square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign; and to allow the lighting to be turned on at dusk and off at 10:00 P.M.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-53: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

331 Spellman Street – Russell and Amy Hall - Application #2012-57

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of ten (10) replacement windows and the front door.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Russell and Amy Hall. 

Discussion:

Russell and Amy Hall, 331 Spellman Street, stated they are before the Planning Commission because some of the window replacements thirteen (13) total would not be an exact replacement, they would not have an arch – like what is currently in place.  Ms. Hall stated they have chosen an architectural series from Pella windows.  Ms. Hall stated they were originally told the arches were not available, but then found they could get them special order for significantly more cost.  Ms. Hall stated ten (10) of the twenty-three (23) windows being replaced do not have an arch.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is replacing all of the windows on the home, but some are considered exact replacement windows and do not require architectural review and approval.  Mr. Burriss asked why the applicant chose a door different than what is in place.  Mr. Hall stated they have chosen a craftsman style fiberglass door.  Ms. Hall stated the existing door does not seal well and they wanted to add more light in the entry area.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant looked at any doors along the Victorian lines?  Mr. Hall stated they were told this door would be consistent with the time period of the house.  Mr. Hall clarified the sill around the door would also be replaced.  Ms. Hoyt indicated she personally likes the arches in the windows, but the replacement will be compatible with the additional windows on the home.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-50: 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the home is being improved and so is the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the livability is improved and the vitality of the district.   

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 #2012-57 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-50:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

198 Welsh Hills Road – Terra Nova Partners - Application #2012-36 AMENDED

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of the reduction of the number of lots previously approved, from three (3) lots to two (2) lots total.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Dottie Vaughn and Geoffrey Hiler. 

Discussion:

Mr. Ryan clarified the board would like to limit the discussion of Application #2012-36 to new testimony and facts not already heard by the Planning Commission at the last hearing regarding the proposed lot splits.  

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, stated they met with the BZBA and after going through this process they are before the Planning Commission requesting an amendment from three lots to two lots total.  Mr. Reed indicated they previously needed three variances for three lots, and now they only need one variance per lot for the frontage.  Mr. Reed stated each lot would be a ½ acre and the BZBA felt two lots was a compromise and therefore agreed to the amendment.  Ms. Terry stated the BZBA approved the application to reduce the road frontage for lot 1 from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’).  She stated the lot 2 frontage variance was from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’).  Ms. Terry stated the approval for the variances has been appealed and will go through Village Council.  She indicated the Planning Commission can still make a decision on the application request for the amended lot splits and if the variance doesn’t go approved the lot split won't be approved by the Village either.  Mr. Ryan clarified the Planning Commission has previously approved three lots for the applicant and they are now amending their request to go to two lots.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is still considering the same style of home as previously presented to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Reed stated yes, but they may look at adding a basement.  Mr. Reed requested the right to be able to cross-examine each individual presenting new testimony.  Ms. Terry indicated this is allowed.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the garages on both lots would be back to back along the divide in the center?  Mr. Reed stated they are not positive as to the exact locations, but they would meet all setback requirements for the rear and side yards.  He stated they are still going to propose a shared driveway.  

Roger Lossing, 54 Pinehurst Drive, stated he did not believe the financial impacts for the neighbors associated with this approval was emphasized enough.  He stated in review of the code, he believes the financial impacts, in this case being negative financial impacts, should be a considering factor.  Mr. Lossing stated in particular Mr. Hiler’s home, which was recently purchased and now will have a home right up against the front or back of his house – maybe 25 feet away.  Mr. Lossing stated Mr. Hiler purchased the home with the thought he would be protected by development through zoning.  Mr. Lossing stated part of the reason for the existence of a zoning code is for protection of financial impacts to the neighbors.  He stated there is “no great benefit for anyone by allowing the lot split.”  He stated the lot is buildable and profitable for the applicant without the granting of the lot splits.  

Geoffrey Hiler, 212 Welsh Hills Road, stated the delivery of governmental services, as reviewed for other applications this evening, will be significantly impacted by the lot split approval.  Mr. Hiler stated there is a significant issue with the houses being stacked as proposed by the applicant.  He stated waste removal will be five hundred feet (500’) down the driveway.  Mr. Hiler stated nobody can find his house now and it will be worse if the Planning Commission allows another home in the back.  He stated if emergency services are required it is difficult to find these homes.  Ms. Hoyt asked for clarification as to the location of Mr. Hiler’s home.  Mr. Lossing presented an aerial.  Mr. Hiler stated he has filed the appeal to Village Council and he will have home appraisers testify on his behalf indicating this application will indeed decrease the value of his home.  

Susan King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, indicated she would like to speak regarding application #2012-36.  Ms. Terry asked where Ms. King’s home is located in relation to this property.  She stated she is at 316 Welsh Hills Road and she did not receive notice of this meeting in the mail.  Ms. Terry clarified anyone offering testimony and granted standing to speak in regards to the application also has the right to appeal the application.  She stated the Planning Commission is charged with acting as a quasi-judicial board and that individuals offering testimony as "interested parties" need have a direct interest in the application.  She indicated that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether this individual has the right to speak as an interested party.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion indicating, Ms. Susan King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, does not having standing to speak in regards to Application #2012-36.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Burris (no), Hoyt (no) Ryan (yes).  Motion did not carry 2-2.  

Ms. Terry stated Ms. King can be called by either party as a witness.  Mr. Ryan stated Ms. King was not notified of the hearing by the Village.  He stated the variance application is already being appealed to Village Council and he does not believe Ms. King is a party of interest in this matter due to the location of her home.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission would not be allowing Ms. King to speak as an interested party. 

Mr. Ryan stated he would like to address the comments by Mr. Lossing and Mr. Hiler.  He stated the location of the house is not a detriment to financial property values.  He stated this is a piece of property that was for sale and sold.  He indicated any of the neighbors could have purchased the property if they wanted to control what went on at the property.  Mr. Ryan stated the applicant has the right to purchase the property and build one home and it could still affect Mr. Hiler’s view because of the applicants choice to locate the home within the setbacks on the property.  Ms. Terry stated she would like to address a comment made regarding emergency services.  She stated all addresses are required to be installed at the street, in situations such as this one, and the address must be installed by the applicant in order to receive an occupancy permit.  She stated the governmental services Mr. Hiler referred to earlier is a part of the variance criteria.  She stated the Planning Commission did review variance criteria this evening for other applications, but only as it related to signage.  Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission is not charged with considering that particular criteria for issues such as a lot split.   

Bryon Reed asked Mr. Lossing if he is aware of the value of Mr. Hiler's home.  He stated no. Mr. Lossing has indicated Mr. Hiler’s home value will drop as a result of this application.   Mr. Lossing stated he believes Mr. Hiler’s home will be worth less as a result of the lot split regardless of what he paid for the home.  Mr. Reed indicated he has a right to build an $800,000 single family home on the property and he questioned if Mr. Lossing knows for a fact this would devalue Mr. Hiler’s home.  Mr. Reed stated regarding the size of the lots, they are requesting to do the same thing as what was allowed next door.  He stated “the only difference is our lot width is 20% larger than both lots next door.”  Mr. Reed stated his lot is 44% larger than the lot next door and is 8% larger than Mr. Hiler’s lot.  Mr. Reed submitted pictures of the property and indicated they can meet all of the setback requirements from the side yard and back yard.  He stated they would only need a front yard setback variance and there is not a setback on Mr. Hiler’s property.  Mr. Reed stated after the survey process they found Mr. Hiler has a retaining wall that actually sits on their property.  

Mr. Hiler indicated if this is located on Mr. Reed’s property it may belong to Mr. Reed.  Mr. Reed stated as far the comment on the homes being stacked - part of the problem they are trying to work through in the building process is the properties next door not having any setbacks.  Mr. Reed stated they will be doing some cleaning up on the lot and possibly removing an old shed.  He stated he believes Mr. Hiler’s view will not be negatively affected and could be enhanced.  

Herach Nazarian, 2780 Cambria Mill, stated they did not install the retaining wall they found to be on their property.  He stated there is a dog fence next to it and it is obvious this belongs to Mr. Hiler.  Mr. Nazarian stated the neighbors were not ever guaranteed a 360 degree view of pasture forever.  Mr. Nazarian stated as far as home values in the area, they are working to improve what is there and he finds it hard to believe values would decrease.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she is sensitive to the neighbors concerns and she appreciates their concerns on the view.  She went on to say she has to believe the applicant, along with his financial interests, would be sensitive to the proper placement of the homes on the lots so everyone’s view is protected.  She stated it behooves the applicant to protect the views from the homes.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-36 AMENDED as presented.  Seconded by Ms Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-36 AMENDED:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

217 East Broadway – Charlie Hansen/Granville Public Library - Application #2012-58

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing stone steps leading to the basement and replacement with concrete steps.  

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

Discussion: 

Charlie Hansen stated he is representing the library.  He indicated they looked at replacing the steps with stone, but it was too expensive.  Mr. Hansen indicated they are proposing concrete steps which would have a brush finish and be stained to match the look of sandstone.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-58: 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the structure is being improved and so is the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the vitality of the building is improved and this contributes to the vitality of the district.   

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 #2012-58 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-58:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

130 North Main Street – George Gauger- Application #2012-59

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a picket fence in the front yard.  

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

Discussion:

Ms. Terry stated the applicant’s request meets all requirements.  Mr. Gauger stated the fence would be stained white.  Mr. Burriss stated this is an appropriate enhancement to the property.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-59: 

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

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 #2012-59 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-59:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Other Business:

To Amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13 of the codified ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio.  

1171.03 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. 

(a)          Planned Development District Lot Guidelines: Minimum Yards. 

                                                                                 MINIMUM YARDS

                                  Frontage                                                        Min.

                         Min            To A                                          Total           Rear           Max

                         Lot             Public   Set              Backs         Side            Set-            Bldg           Max

Zoning             Area           Row     Front             Side            Yard           Back          Lot             Height

District             (Sq. Ft.)      (Feet)   (Feet)         (Feet)         (Feet)         (Feet)     Coverage        (Feet)

PUD                *    350 *     35          14               30               50               20%            35

PID                  *   350         40        none                             none              35%            35

PCD                 *   125         30          15                               none              40%            25

See (b)(3)Below

* Minimum lot area requirements shall be determined by the Planning Commission upon conditions of the proposed development of the land and the requirements established herein for each development.   In measuring lot coverage, all buildings and other covered areas, such as parking areas, sidewalks, loading areas, driveways and driveway areas, shall be included.

            (1)        There must be sufficient lot area and width to meet all parking and yard requirements.

            (2) Planned Unit District (PUD) when abutting another district, no structure shall be closer than thirty-five feet and no parking area or access drive shall be closer than fifteen feet to a side lot line.

            (3) Planned Industrial District (PID) when abutting another district, no structure shall be closer than fifty feet and no parking area, loading area or access drive shall be closer than fifteen feet to the rear lot line.

            (4) Parking areas shall be no closer to the main structure(s) than ten

            feet.

            (5)        Planned Unit District (PUD) parking and accessory building standards shall be as follows:

                        a.   No driveway or parking area shall be within five feet of a side lot line; or ten feet for multi-family dwellings.

b.   No driveways or parking areas shall be within ten feet of a rear lot line.

                        c.   For accessory buildings, such as detached garages:  minimum yard requirements shall be the same as required for main structures, except in all cases the minimum distance between an accessory building and the rear property line shall be fifteen feet.

            (5) (6)  The net density in a development shall not exceed one (1) unit per one and one-half (1½) acres. The Planning Commission may increase the density to one (1) unit per acre, provided that the conditions of subsection (b)(4) (c)(5) hereof  are met.

(6)        Density. The maximum PUD density is six units on any given acre in a development. Publicly dedicated streets shall not be included in the computation of area.

1189.13 GENERAL PERMIT PROCEDURES. 

            The following procedures shall govern the application for, and the issuance of, all sign permits under this chapter, and the submission and review of a Master or Common Signage Plan.

(a)                Applications. All applications for the sign permits of any kind and for approval of a Master Signage Plan shall be submitted to the Village Planner on an application form with the application specifications and materials as published by the Planning and Zoning Office.

            (b)        Fees. Each application for a sign permit or for approval of a Master Signage Plan shall be accompanied by the applicable fees, which shall be established by the Village Council from time to time by ordinance.

            (c)        Completeness. Within seven days of receiving an application for a sign permit or a Master Signage Plan, the Village Planner shall review it for completeness. If the Planner finds that it is complete, the applications shall then be processed. If the Planner finds it incomplete, the Planner shall, within such seven-day period, send the applicant a notice of the specific ways in which the application is deficient, with appropriate reference to the applicable sections of this chapter.

            (d)        Submission Requirements. The following materials must be included with the completed application forms. Examples are available from the Planning and Zoning Office.

(1)        Site plan. A site plan drawn to an appropriate scale which shows the proposed location of the sign as well as all other significant site features such as rights of way, topography, existing vegetation, and adjacent buildings and properties which may be affected by the proposal.

(2)        Elevation. An elevation of the proposed sign and its mounting system that includes an accurate rendering of the proposed graphic design, typography, color, and materials used for construction. For window, wall or building signs this drawing should include a complete elevation of the building face on which the sign will be attached.

            (e)        Action. After processing a complete application, the Village Planner will submit the application to the Planning Commission for review at its next available meeting. This review will be scheduled as the Planning Commission agenda will allow, but action must be taken within forty-five days of the acceptance of the completed application, unless the applicant requests a delay.

            (f)         Appeal. Any party aggrieved or affected by a decision of the Planning Commission involving a sign application may appeal to Council. The appeal shall follow the procedures established in Chapter 1137. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Village Clerk no later than ten days after the decision of the Commission is filed with the Village Clerk or sent to the applicant by personal service or ordinary by deposit in the U.S mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, whichever shall last occur. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed staff language changes presented for the above sections.  Ms. Terry stated these are cleanup issues of inconsistencies within the code.    

Mr. Ryan stated he has concerns over the language changing the PUD density from six units per acre to one unit per acre.  He asked for further clarification on this item, including other density comparisons.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to table this discussion to research further information before making a recommendation to Village Council.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

Old Business:

Application #2012-42: Ed and Donna Jenkins; 327 North Pearl 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 #2012-42 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-42. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

Application #2012-49: Renee Terebuh; 126 South Main 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-49 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-49. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-50: Renee Terebuh; 126 South Main 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-50 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-50. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-52: Bob Evans; 1001 Cherry Valley Road; 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, Signs, Chapter 1171, Planned Commercial District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-52 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-52. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Application #2012-53: Enoch Ahenkora; 1229 Cherry Valley Road; 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-53 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-53. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-57: Russell & Amy Hall; 331 Spellman 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 #2012-57 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-57. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Application #2012-36 AMENDED: Terra Nova Homes; 198 Welsh Hills Road; Lot Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedures for Plat Approval, Village District, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-36 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-36 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-58: Granville Public Library; 217 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-58 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-58. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-59: Steve Gauger; 130 North Main Street; Fencing

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 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-59 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-59. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 23, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 23, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the May 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Adjournment:  9:10 PM

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

Next meetings:

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Monday, June 11, 2012 (Councilmember Johnson indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

Planning Commission Minutes April 23, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 23, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (Council Ex-Officio/Non-Voting), Doug Eklof (GEVSD Ex-Officio/Non-Voting) Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  None. 

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

Also Present: Kevin Reiner, Art Chonko, Sherrie Gardner, Sharon Sinsabaugh, Tim Klingler, Cheryl Houser, and Sabato Sagaria.   

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

329 West Elm Street – Cheryl Houser- Application #2012-40

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the relocation and extension of a rear yard picket fence.  

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

Discussion:

 

Cheryl Houser, 329 West Elm Street, indicated she would like to move the location of the fence and extend it.  Ms. Terry indicated that the fence met all setback and height requirements as proposed. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-40: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the application is consistent with similar requests approved 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-40 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-40:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

327 North Pearl Street – Ed and Donna Jenkins - Application #2012-42

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of three (3 windows).  

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

Discussion:

The applicant was not present to speak regarding the application.  Mr. Hawk asked why the applicant could not attend the meeting.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant received the proper notice regarding the date and time of the Planning Commission meeting and they have been through the approval process in years past.  Mr. Mitchell indicated this seems like a straight forward application.  Ms. Terry reviewed the application with the Planning Commission.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the windows are new.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if it is mandatory for the applicant to appear before the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated it is not mandatory, but highly encouraged in case there are questions presented by members of the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated they would typically see an elevation drawing/picture of the entire elevation where the windows are proposed.  The Planning Commission agreed they would like to see a drawing of the entire wall and where the windows would be located on this side of the home. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Motion to Table Application #2012-42.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-42:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

240 West Broadway – Denison University - Application #2012-44

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a portion of the existing delaminating slate roof and re-roofing with asphaltic shingles.  

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

Discussion:

Art Chonko, 420 East Broadway, indicated they need to replace a section of the roof over the art gallery.  Mr. Chonko stated he is presenting dimensional asphaltic shingles in Estate Gray.  He explained a portion of the building would have slate remaining, but it is possible this will change to shingles in the future.  Mr. Chonko stated there have been internal discussions on the future of the building and they prefer to fix only what is needed at this time.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant is not proposing to put slate back on the structure.  Mr. Chonko stated there is a significant cost difference of  $45,000 compared to $7,000.  Mr. Chonko stated he believes this is the original roof from the 1960’s and they quickly need to address leakage in the gallery area.  He stated the long-term existence and use of the building is in question.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission recently reviewed a proposal from Granville Schools, and they presented a partial roof replacement using composite slate.  He asked if this was considered by the applicant?  Mr. Chonko stated composite slate would still be three times the cost of asphalt shingles.  Mr. Chonko stated when one pulls off of Broadway and enters the building, they would not be able to see any area on the building where the asphalt shingles would be next to the existing slate.  Mr. Ryan stated he is hearing the applicant state asphalt shingles are the best solution for them moving forward.  Mr. Chonko agreed and stated it doesn’t make sense to make the investment in slate.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant has looked at the cost to repair the existing slate.  Mr. Chonko stated they have been doing repairs the past few years and this is no longer working.  Mr. Chonko stated they would match any future repairs to the Estate Gray asphalt shingles, and any cost beyond asphalt shingles is a budgetary issue at this point.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the original plans for the structure called for a metal roof in one area.  Ms. Chonko stated he was unsure.  Mr. Chonko stated he feels the asphalt shingles match the existing roof better than synthetic shingles would.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is hard for him to believe a synthetic shingle would look more like slate than synthetic slate or real slate.  Mr. Chonko stated it costs much more.  Ms. Hoyt stated there are multiple buildings in the Village which have multiple roofing materials and this is not unprecedented.  Mr. Mitchell agreed and stated it also isn’t necessarily the most attractive solution.  Mr. Chonko suggested that if the Planning Commission found the new roof to be offensive they could look at replacing the remaining part of the roof for the next budget cycle.  Mr. Mitchell indicated this is a prominent building located in the AROD. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-44: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated this is consistent with other projects – including First Baptist Church. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss, Mr. Hawk, and Ms. Hoyt stated a new roof would contribute to the use of the structure. Ms. Hoyt indicated she is skeptical about the upgrading of the historical character.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not agree.   

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the usability is protected with a new roof.   

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated this building has been in use since the 1960’s.     

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-44 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-44:  Burriss (no), Mitchell (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2.  

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner - Application #2012-45

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a stone wall, a low stone retaining wall, stone edging at ground level along the driveway and an iron gate in the rear yard. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Kevin Reiner, and Sherrie Gardner. 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, distributed some additional pictures to the Planning Commission.  He stated this is a continuation of items he had approved previously through the Village and Planning Commission.  Mr. Reiner stated he overlooked that some of the work started while he was away traveling was not included in a previous approval by the Planning Commission.  Therefore, he stated he received a stop work order and the Village staff was very gracious in explaining why work had to cease.  Mr. Reiner stated the wall is six feet tall (6’) and ten foot (10’) wide.  He stated he is proposing an iron gate that would be connected to the stone wall, but he may change his mind on this and not install the gate.  Mr. Reiner stated the studio/greenhouse was inspired by Monticello and the wall inspired by the Granville Inn.  Mr. Reiner stated the cap would be like the stone wall at the Inn, but scaled to the size of his property.  Mr. Reiner stated there is a 2 ¼ inch cap.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is something planned for the front face of the wall.  Mr. Reiner stated the thought is to have a historical troth to act as a planter on the ground or maybe a spout/fountain out of the wall.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is any additional proposed lighting.  Mr. Reiner stated no, there is lighting on the existing house and they are all historical copper made in Massachusetts.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant did a great job in his explanation and the application does meet height requirements and can be installed on the property line.  Mr. Mitchell stated he is unclear as to what would be done on the front of the wall and this elevation is most visible from the street.  Mr. Reiner stated it would be all stone with a rectangular troth made from sandstone and he could present pictures of a carving he plans to have done in the front area next to the troth.    

Sherrie Gardner, 216 West Elm Street, stated she is an admirer of Kevin Reiner’s designs and she has often given support and testimony on projects he has completed.  Ms. Gardner stated she is not in favor of the work that was recently done, especially without approval by the Village.  Ms. Gardner stated regarding the back of her property - “it looks as though I have a fireplace coming out from my garage.”  She stated the new detached structure sits five feet (5’) off of her garage.  Ms. Gardner stated she failed to comprehend how immense the new structure would be in regards to height.  She stated the variance for the placement of the structure sits five to eight feet (5’-8’) from her garage.  She added she did not report to the Planning Commission that this unauthorized wall had been built.  Furthermore, Ms. Gardner stated she does not want the wall because it can be an impediment for fire equipment needing to reach the rear structure in case of a fire.  She stated there have been garages which have burned down in this area in the past.  She stated Mr. Reiner violated good will and with his occupation he should have been aware this would be a problem.  Ms. Gardner stated the Village should not be rewarding anyone who circumvents the process and there are other multiple KRD projects in the Village.  She stated it is not enough for the applicant to ask forgiveness later after they have already violated the intent of the permit.  Ms. Gardner asked the intended use for the detached structure.  She stated she has been told by neighbors that Mr. Reiner has paneled the inside of the structure and placed a chandelier in there for his office staff.  She inquired as to whether any commercial use would be a violation of Village code?  Ms. Gardner stated she would also like to know about the lot coverage that was supposed to be 57%.  Mr. Ryan asked the applicant how they would access the studio?  Mr. Reiner stated from the patio by a pea gravel walkway or the driveway.  He went on to say this building is a studio where they create and he does have some people who help him and stop by.  He stated he does work from his home and he is aware of other properties where there are home offices – such as, 339 West Broadway, James Hale, 221 West Broadway, 203 West Broadway, and there is a working studio at the Sinsabaugh’s.  Ms. Terry stated home occupation businesses are allowed, but no outside employees are allowed with home occupations.  Ms. Terry stated regarding the lot coverage everything was included in the calculations and Mr. Reiner is ok with lot coverage requirements after her review.  She added gravel areas are not counted towards impervious surface coverage as water can infiltrate through and this is not considered to be an impervious structure.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant received the required variances from the BZBA.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed materials used and the landscaping layering, he feels are appropriate elements to continue what is already happening along the driveway.  He stated he likes the appearance of the wall and it hides the new structure built back there.  He stated they have had a good history from this applicant.   He stated he would trust the Village Planner with final review of the capping and reviewing a photograph of how the applicant will finish the front part of the wall.  Mr. Reiner stated he would like to apologize to Ms. Gardner for the construction process and noise.  He added he is sorry Ms. Gardner does not love the wall.  Ms. Gardner asked if the gate would be locked.  Mr. Reiner stated he does not intend to lock the gate.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-45: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated this is consistent with other projects we have approved in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the materials are historically appropriate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the vitality of the garden is contributing to the vitality of the entire district. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated this is a historically correct proposal.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-45 with the stipulation that details regarding the cap of the wall and water element are presented to the Village Planner.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-45: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business:

Application #2012-32: Dan Rogers; 119 South Prospect Street; Privacy Fence

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be inconsistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their denial of Application #2012-32 as submitted by the applicant. 

Discussion:

Ms. Terry stated due to the complexity with the items in this application at the last meeting, Assistant Law Director King was asked to complete the Findings of Fact for the Planning Commission.  She stated she needs the Planning Commission to review the proposed Findings of Fact and see if there is anything they feel should be added, removed, or modified.  Mr. Burriss asked for the emergency egress hardware reference to be made part of the Findings of Fact.  He stated the applicant also referred to the gate as being a handicap entrance.  Councilmember Johnson stated the applicant was asked if there would be additional lighting and the applicant indicated only if the building department required this.  Mr. Hawk indicated it should be noted in the Findings of Fact that the applicant was given the opportunity to table the application so that they could have legal representation to help address questions raised by the Planning Commission and the applicant declined this proposal.     

Mr. Mitchell move to amend the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-32 as follows: 

"Item 21.  The application was submitted showing emergency egress hardware on one of the gates.  The applicant testified during the hearing that the hardware was required by the Licking County Building Department and the Planning Commission determined that the installation of emergency egress hardware on a gate was not a typical detail for a privacy fence request. 

Item 22.  The Planning Commission offered the applicant the opportunity to table the application in order to retain legal counsel to address some of the questions that he declined to answer during the meeting, and the applicant declined. 

Item 21 becomes Item 23.” 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.   Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve the AMENDED Findings of Fact for Application #2012-32.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (abstain), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  4-0. 

Mr. Ryan questioned when an abstention from voting is appropriate.  Assistant Law Director King stated if a Planning Commission member feels they have enough information to reach an opinion it is their duty to vote.  He stated “that being said, no member can be compelled to vote.” 

New Business:

Application #2012-40: Cheryl Houser; 335 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 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-40 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-40. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-44: Denison University; 240 West Broadway; Roof Replacement

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 Institutional District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-44 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-44. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (no), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2. 

Application #2012-45: Kevin Reiner; 219 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 #2012-45 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-45. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 9, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 9, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0.

Other Matters:

Ms. Terry reviewed testimony procedures with the Planning Commission.  She stated the Planning Commission can request testimony be limited to less than five minutes if there are multiple people present to testify and if someone has already spoken in regards to testimony on the record, the Planning Commission can request this information not be restated, but rather that new information could be shared.  Ms. Terry stated this board is acting as a quasi-judicial board.  She explained testimony can be given by an interested party and anyone else who demonstrated that they would be impacted by the application in question.  Ms. Terry stated someone who was not permitted to speak by the Planning Commission has the right to appeal to the Village Council.  Assistant Law Director King advised that if it’s a close call – he would allow someone to speak.  Ms. Terry added non-voting members (Councilmember Johnson and Mr. Eklof) can participate in the discussion of all applications.  Ms. Terry made the Planning Commission aware of a complaint received at the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan at the previous Village Council meeting.  She stated this individual stated staff and/or Planning Commission have made the planning process difficult and have treated residents “rudely.”  When questioned by the Planning Commission about who made these statements, Councilmember Johnson indicated the individual who spoke was Bill Wernet.  He stated members of Village Council and Manager Stillwell did not agree with Mr. Wernet’s comments.  He added many on Council were complimentary of staff and indicated they had not witnessed rudeness.  He indicated Mr. Wernet was not able to provide any specific information on when and why individuals felt that they were treated rudely.  Councilmember Johnson stated he knows individuals are not always pleased with the outcome of their request and he does feel they are in the process of making the zoning code more "friendly".  

Mr. Ryan indicated he would like to move forward and stated the information provided by Assistant Law Director King at the previous meeting was excellent and well done.  He stated Mr. King did a good job researching the facts and thanked him for his work.  Mr. Hawk asked about the retention schedule for Village emails.  Ms. Terry stated she would check with the retention specialist, Mollie Prasher, and get back to him with this information.

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, asked if there are any guidelines in place on audience members becoming rude.  Assistant Law Director King explained the presiding officers have the discretion to deal with these types of situations.   

Adjournment:  8:38 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Next meetings:

Monday, May 14, 2012

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 9, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (Ex-Officio, non-voting), Doug Eklof (GEVSD Ex-Officio, non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair).

Members Absent:  None. 

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

Also Present: Bryce Corder, Steve Stilwell, John Davis, Lisa Dietrich, John and Dottie Vaughn, Tim and Kathy Klingler, Jeffrey Hiler, Robin Hoekstra, Roger and Charlene Lossing, Ryan Mills, Sam Sagaria, Dan Rogers, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, and Jodi Melfi. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizens’ Comments. 

Tim Ryan welcomed Doug Eklof to the board.  He stated Mr. Eklof was appointed to the Planning Commission as an ex-officio member by the Granville School Board.  

Old Business

121 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers - Application #2012-32

The request is for architectural review and approval of a six (6’) foot rear yard privacy fence. The property is zoned Village Business District-D (VBD-D) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Dan Rogers, Ryan Mills, and Sam Sagaria.

Discussion:  

Mr. Ryan stated no action was taken by the Planning Commission at the March 26th meeting therefore the meeting will just continue.  

Mr. Rogers stated today he has provided the details requested by the Planning Commission at the last meeting, including some additional drawings related to the fence and gate designs.  He explained he changed the slider from twelve (12’) foot to two six (6’) foot gates on hinges. He stated the Planning Commission didn’t like the slider he presented so he changed it to a double six foot gate.  Mr. Ryan stated he doesn’t recall the Planning Commission having a problem with the twelve (12’) foot gate, but they did ask a question about how it would function.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the proposed northern gate will be hung on the neighbors fence.  Mr. Rogers stated he has no intention of attaching the fence to his neighbor’s fence.  He stated he is proposing to use a 4" x 4" post for the gate attachment, which would be located solely on his property.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the two (2), four (4’) foot gates, have emergency egress hardware.  Mr. Rogers stated yes and this would match what his neighbor to the north put on their gate.  Mr. Rogers stated he went a little further with his application by indicating he would have hidden hinges, with only a latch on the outside.  Mr. Rogers stated he is proposing the exact same fence installed by his neighbor.  Mr. Burriss asked why the applicant is proposing emergency egress hardware.  Mr. Rogers stated this is due to a “code situation with the County.”  He explained the County would also review the same paperwork that is before the Planning Commission this evening.  Mr. Rogers stated he was hoping to have the County permit in hand, but he will not receive this until next week.  Mr. Ryan questioned why the County would be looking at approval for fencing.  Mr. Rogers stated they requested this information from him and he wouldn’t be paying them $350 if he didn’t have to.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the applicant’s property is commercial so he could see the County requesting the applicant submit for approval of this type of structure.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Rogers is making a commercial structure.  Mr. Rogers stated no, he is putting in a privacy fence and the County asked for a permit.  He stated at first the County said he didn’t need a permit, and then they told him he does need one.  He stated he applied for a building permit from Tom Gall at the County.  Mr. Ryan asked if this request was classified as a request for an enclosure permit.  Mr. Rogers stated it was explained to him this is required for commercial use.  Ms. Terry indicated that she had spoken with the Building Code Department and their concern related to leaving a commercial building from an emergency door and being trapped within a fenced area.  Mr. Burriss questioned if this space was calculated and counted as parking for maneuverability space.  Ms. Terry stated when the barn became an accessory structure, the parking requirements Mr. Burriss is referring to no longer applied and these were in place just for the front structure.  

Mr. Ryan questioned if the proposed fence is for commercial use, rather than privacy - is it the applicant’s intention to use the enclosed area as part of Footloose or an interior business within the building?  He asked if the applicant is planning on serving food and drink in the patio area.  Mr. Rogers indicated he has no intentions of anything and he is there to request a permit for a privacy fence.  Mr. Ryan asked if the tables and umbrellas located in the patio area are going away.  Mr. Rogers stated no.  He indicated people could go outside and eat, just as they do at Whits.  Mr. Ryan stated the outside eating area for Whit’s is approved by the Village.  Mr. Rogers stated approval is sought from the Village because the outside seating for Whit’s and other downtown businesses is located on public property.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Rogers had called the County and had they indicated he needed a building permit.  Mr. Rogers stated yes.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Rogers talked to the County about expanding the commercial use of his property.   Mr. Rogers stated no and he has not had any detailed conversation with anybody at the County.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the proposed gates swing into the yard.  Mr. Rogers stated the two six (6’) foot gates do swing into the yard.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the panic hardware on the pair of gates is attached to the house.  Mr. Rogers stated yes and this is per the County code.  Mr. Mitchell stated the push bar might be placed backwards on the gate.  Mr. Rogers indicated he would be willing to place the hardware wherever the County wants it to be. 

Councilmember Johnson questioned if there would be more signage requests coming with the additional egress and if so is the applicant proposing any lighting for the signage.  Mr. Rogers stated he would put in whatever is required for safety.  Mr. Ryan questioned if Mr. Rogers has referred to the fencing as a ‘privacy fence’ when discussing his application with the County.  Mr. Rogers stated he does not recall.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Rogers what his intended use is for the fence.  Mr. Rogers stated safety and security.  Mr. Ryan questioned if once the back yard area is enclosed would this become an accessory use for Taco Dan’s?  Mr. Rogers stated it’s an accessory use for the barn and the Planning Commission made the barn an ‘accessory use.’  Furthermore, he stated the fence is to contain their businesses for a variety of reasons, but mainly safety.  

Mr. Burriss stated Mr. Rogers has indicated in a document that 400 square foot of the primary structure is used for Taco Dan’s and there are two restrooms located within the facility.  He asked if two restrooms are sufficient?  Mr. Rogers stated yes - this is to code.  Mr. Burriss questioned if two restrooms are still sufficient given the additional space Mr. Rogers is requesting in the rear patio area.  Mr. Rogers stated he was unsure and would have to ask.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission approved a 400 square foot designation for Taco Dan’s.  He questioned if this use was expanded upon within the structure.  Mr. Rogers stated he would need to speak with his attorney about this.  Mr. Ryan stated his observation is that it looks like Mr. Rogers is using more than the approved 400 square feet for Taco Dan’s.  Ms. Hoyt indicated she has some concerns with the emergency safety gate being adjacent to the wall of the kitchen.  She stated this could be dangerous if there were to be a fire at Taco Dan’s.  Mr. Rogers clarified the location of the kitchen is on the other side of the building, not in the location Ms. Hoyt was referring to.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant would object to adding more gates.  Mr. Rogers stated no and he can put safety features wherever the Planning Commission prefers.  Mr. Ryan referred to a document from the Division of Liquor Control which indicates there is a prep kitchen on the second floor.  Mr. Rogers stated he did not label this document and the area Mr. Ryan is referring to is not a prep kitchen.  Mr. Ryan stated this information is what is listed on a legal document.  Mr. Rogers stated he does not use this area.  Mr. Ryan asked if Mr. Rogers has expanded the liquor license from the original approval to use the entire building to serve alcohol.  Mr. Rogers stated he would need to speak to his attorney on this.  He indicated his intent for coming before the Planning Commission this evening was to seek approval to install a privacy fence.  Mr. Ryan stated it appears as though Mr. Rogers has requested an expansion of the liquor license to utilize much of the primary structure and he asked if the applicant's intent would be to expand the liquor license to the rear patio area.  Mr. Rogers stated he would need to talk to his attorney.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the liquor license expansion is a pending application by the applicant or has it already been approved.  Ms. Terry stated a copy of the liquor license approved for the property is on file in each Planning Commission member’s packet. 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated he voiced his opinions and concerns at the last hearing, and they haven’t changed any.  He went on to say he has a few items relative to the specifics of the fence and gates.  Mr. Sagaria stated it appears Mr. Rogers is trying to hang the proposed fence on his existing fence.   He stated that when Mr. Rogers opens his gate it would undoubtedly cause damage to his fence.  He stated the other gate would go in the opposite direction and impede his ingress into the driveway.  Mr. Sagaria stated if this is truly for a privacy fence – what is the purpose?  He stated all indications are that Mr. Rogers wants to put a beer garden in the back yard of his property.  He stated Mr. Rogers proposal gives Mr. Rogers privacy, but it doesn’t give he and his family any privacy.  Mr. Sagaria stated the neighbors have indicated they do not want a beer garden on South Prospect Street.  Mr. Sagaria encouraged the Planning Commission to read the Village Code section 1159.01.  He stated he does not believe a beer garden would enhance this area and “South Prospect Street is being hijacked.”  

Mr. Rogers stated the proposed fence would not be attached to Mr. Sagaria’s fence in any way.  He explained he would put a 4" x 4" post on his property to secure the fence.  He stated the gate against Footloose would be flush and it would not impede transportation.  Mr. Rogers stated this is a common driveway. 

 Mr. Burriss referred to the liquor control drawings depicting various areas within Mr. Roger’s primary structure.  He stated the applicant appears to have received approval to serve alcohol on the second floor of the building and he questioned if the staircases within the home should be fire rated for this reason.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Rogers if either staircase in the structure is fire rated.  Mr. Rogers stated “probably not.”  

Ryan Mills, Assistant Vice President for Park National Bank, 119 East Broadway, stated they support businesses within the community.  He read aloud a prepared statement indicating Park National Bank has a good relationship with Mr. Rogers and they respect his ideas to grow his business.  Mr. Mills stated out of respect for the bank's clientele, they do have concerns on this particular request for a fence made by the applicant.  He stated they are not comfortable with the proposed gates to the enclosure.  Mr. Mills stated the egress/ingress is 35 feet away from their lot line.  He questioned how these additional entrances would encourage pedestrian activity in the bank's parking lot.  Mr. Mills stated the bank's clients don’t expect restaurant patrons to be located in the bank's parking lot and the bank's parking lot is already small and busy.  Mr. Mills stated they want to be good neighbors and they are pleased with the success of a local business.  He asked the Planning Commission to please consider negative impacts to their business and clientele when reviewing this application.  

Assistant Law Director Michael King requested to address the applicant regarding the March 26thPlanning Commission meeting where a number of legal issues were raised.  He explained the law department was asked to do an analysis of the legal issues.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. King asked Mr. Rogers if he had submitted a document labeled (Exhibit 1).  Mr. Rogers reviewed the document labeled Exhibit 1, Application for Commercial Certificate of Occupancy, and stated yes.  Mr. King stated item #8 of this document, on Exhibit 1, refers to the space that would be occupied by Taco Dan’s as 400 square feet for food and beverage service.  Mr. Rogers indicated he did not write this information on the document.  Mr. King asked if this was the applicant’s handwriting for item #6 of Exhibit 1.  Mr. Rogers stated he guesses it could be Barb Frank’s handwriting.  Mr. King stated this application was submitted on February 16, 2012 and approved on February 21, 2012.  He asked if there are any other businesses designated in the primary structure for food service.  Mr. Rogers stated at this time Taco Dan’s is the only food service within the structure.  Mr. King presented a second document labeled as Exhibit 2, and referred to it as the Building Permit application for the Licking County Building Department.  Mr. Rogers acknowledged the document and indicated he recently submitted this information to the Licking County Building Department.  Mr. King asked Mr. Rogers to look down at the document where the letter ‘U’ is circled, under OBC Occupancy Classification.  He asked if Mr. Rogers was familiar with this document permit and did he circle the ‘U’.  Mr. Rogers stated he did not circle the ‘U.’ Mr. King asked Mr. Rogers if he knows what the ‘U’ designation means.  Mr. Rogers stated no.  Mr. King asked if Mr. Roger’s conversation with the Building Department included inquiries on the requirements for a beer garden.  Mr. Rogers stated he asked about the safety of the gates.  Mr. King again asked if Mr. Roger's conversation with the Building Department included inquiries on the requirements for a beer garden.  Mr. Rogers stated he does not recall.  

Mr. King presented photographs under Exhibit #5 taken on Friday, April 6, 2012 in the afternoon.  He stated all three photographs included were taken by the Village on Friday and show the area that would be inside the proposed fence enclosure.  Mr. King stated all three photographs depict tables and chairs along with patrons of Taco Dan’s.  Mr. Rogers acknowledged the photographs and agreed they were taken on his property.  Mr. King asked if Mr. Rogers can see the brown bottle on one of the tables in the photograph that appears to be a Mexican beer bottle.  He asked if Mr. Rogers served this at Taco Dan’s.  Mr. Rogers stated yes, but this bottle was probably trash that was taken outside.  Mr. Rogers stated that he takes trash from the inside to the outside to dump in the trash. 

Mr. King presented Exhibit # 6 and referred to it as an application for the expansion of a liquor permit that Mr. Ryan referred to earlier in the meeting.  Mr. King stated Teddy Conn is the person at the Liquor Control that Mr. Rogers was dealing with.  He asked Mr. Rogers if he had asked Teddy Conn the requirements involved for putting in a beer garden.  Mr. Rogers stated he “asked him for different things.  I don't recall talking to him specifically about that specific thing.”  Mr. King questioned if Mr. Rogers isn’t saying it didn’t happen, just that he doesn’t recall.  Mr. Rogers agreed with Mr. King that he did not recall.  Mr. King asked if when Mr. Rogers originally asked for a liquor permit it was applicable for 400 square feet.  Mr. Rogers stated "negative", it was for the footprint for the alcohol in that building.  Mr. Rogers stated for example - if someone purchases a beer within the 400 square feet of Taco Dan’s – they could take the beer and walk around the building shopping.  Mr. Rogers stated this is "perfectly legal."  Mr. King asked if in February of this year, did the applicant apply for an expansion of a liquor permit as indicated in Exhibit #6.  Mr. Rogers stated he “never applied for an expansion of anything.”  Mr. King presented Exhibit #7, which referred to the Division of Liquor Control's Request for Expansion/Diminution (Reduction) of Permit Premises.  He asked the applicant if he had ever seen this form before. Mr. Rogers stated maybe. Mr. Rogers went on to say he talked to Mr. Conn regarding the footprint of the building and that was it.  Mr. King asked if when the applicant spoke with Teddy Conn – did Mr. Rogers fill out a form like this (Exhibit #7) and submit it to Teddy Conn.  Mr. Rogers stated he did not recall.  Mr. King asked if the applicant recalls seeing the second page of the form.  Mr. Rogers stated he does not recall.  Mr. King asked if Mr. Rogers is aware of Taco Dan’s customers using the patio area, specifically the area that would be enclosed where the proposed fence would be located.  Mr. Rogers stated he "does not know that, he would have to speak to his attorney because you people are putting the press on me and I don't have my legal representation to answer questions that I don't know nothing about."  Mr. King asked if the fence Mr. Rogers is planning to build is a complete enclosure.  Mr. Rogers stated it would be an enclosed area from ten (10') feet off the property line with gates.  Mr. King asked just as Taco Dan's customers use that area now to eat and drink your expectation is that they will also use that in the future. Mr. Rogers stated Barb's customers use this common patio area too for shopping at both structures and everything in the primary building and barn is for sale.  Mr. King asked if anywhere else in the building has items for sale that include food and drink.  Mr. Rogers stated "at this point no."  Mr. King asked if anyone eating and drinking within this outdoor area is a customer of Taco Dan's.  Mr. Rogers stated "he can't say."  Mr. King asked Mr. Rogers if he has ever asked anyone to leave the patio area, have there ever been any trespassers.  Mr. Rogers stated he couldn’t say.  

Mr. Ryan stated this discussion is about a fence.  Mr. Ryan stated the liquor permit includes language regarding a proposed expansion area "must be well defined, properly secured, and delineated by some type of physical structure.  Mr. Ryan stated that according to the liquor permit if Mr. Rogers were going to be using the area in question it would have to be completely fenced in order to serve alcohol in this area.  Mr. Ryan stated Section 1135.01, interpretation of the language, the word "use" shall include arranged, designed, constructed, altered, converted, rented, leased or intended to be used.  Mr. Ryan went on to state that "accessory use" means a use subordinate to the principal use of the land or building which serves a purpose customarily incidental to the principal use.  Mr. Ryan stated his personal opinion in viewing the interior of the property is that he saw an expanded use further than the 400 square feet granted by the Planning Commission for food and beverage sales.  He indicated he has seen tables and chairs in the patio area being used by Taco Dan’s customers.  Mr. Ryan stated he would say there is an intended use beyond fencing in the back yard because Mr. Roger’s request for liquor permit expansion says he needs a fenced in area.  Mr. Rogers stated his intent is a privacy fence.  Mr. Mitchell stated he agrees with everything Mr. Ryan stated.  

Mr. Burriss stated there were too many questions that were not answered by the applicant for him to make a judgment on this application.  Mr. King stated he is able to render a legal analysis if it would be helpful.  Mr. King went on to state that if the Commission would prefer to deal with this on the factual issues in front of the Commission they could do so as well.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan both agreed that they would like to hear Mr. King's legal analysis. Mr. King continued by saying the Chairman’s last comments in referring to Section 1135.01 the word “use” is specifically defined to include "intended to be used".  Mr. King stated while the Planning Commission could choose to look at this purely as a privacy fence and just review the materials and design, consistent with other privacy fences in the area, they also have jurisdiction to analyze it in terms of the intended use associated with this application.  He stated if the Planning Commission feels there is enough evidence before you that can support a conclusion that there is an intended use is not consistent with the code – then that could also be a basis for the Commission's decision.  Mr. King stated that as the chairman pointed out, this use really is an accessory use and accessory use is defined in the Village Code.  Mr. King stated the building permit application that was introduced as Exhibit # 2, shows the circled ‘U’ on tab 3 of the Ohio Building Code/Administrative Code.  Mr. King explained these are 10 different use code classifications designated by the County, and the applicant chose use 10 – ‘Utility and Miscellaneous’ group – which is for buildings and structures of an accessory character, so the Building Code Department is viewing this as an accessory character.  Mr. King stated that the Granville Code in Section 1135.01 (a)(2) defines accessory use as a use subordinate to the principal use of land or building and which serves a purpose customarily incidental to the principal use.  Mr. King went on to state that the Commission is talking about Taco Dan’s as the principle use for this structure - 400 square feet of a food service business.  Mr. King stated that certainly an accessory use to a food service business during warm months is outside seating in a patio area.  Mr. King further stated there "really isn't any question about what is going on out there with the photographs that the Commission has in front of them showing the tables with the customers out there eating and drinking, it's an accessory use to Taco Dan's.  Mr. King stated that why that's relevant is on the next page of that tab is Section 1157.14, regarding accessory uses in non-residential zoning districts shall not exceed 25% of the gross area of the principal use.  Mr. King stated the approval received from the Village is for 400 square feet, which is the only area that has received an occupancy permit for food and beverage use, it has no certificate of occupancy for anything other than the 400 square feet.  He further stated this would then mean that to be in conformity with Section 1157.14, the accessory use could be no more than 100 square feet (25%), and if you look at the applicant's proposal there is an enclosure of approximately 1,200 square feet.  Mr. King stated that if the Commission is just viewing the fence as a privacy fence in someone's back yard that could be one analysis.  Mr. King went on to state that when the Commission looks at the application in context, and that's how the Building Code Department has chosen to review it, it's a commercial enclosure and the intended use is, based on the evidence, the Commission could choose to conclude that the intended use of this fence is for a commercial enclosure to allow the future expansion of the liquor permit.  Mr. King read aloud Section 1157.01, Exhibit #7, Department of Liquor Control which states "no building, structure or land shall hereafter be used, and no building or part thereof, or other structure, shall be located, erected, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered except in conformity with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located". Mr. King stated this indicates it is clearly within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction to take into consideration the intended use of this fence application.  Lastly, Mr. King indicated there is not a requirement that police or any legislative authority be notified about expansion of a liquor permit. Mr. King indicated that the real key is the Code defines use to include intended use and when the Commission is analyzing an application such as this, Village Code Section 1157.01 provides that "no building, structure or land shall hereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations that are applicable to that District; use includes intended use." Mr. King stated that when an applicant applies for a use, including an intended use, and the evidence supports that it's not in conformance with the Code, it's within the Commission's jurisdiction to take that into account when rendering a decision.  Mr. King went on to state that the Commission can look at it either way they choose, ultimately it's a policy decision for the Commission, and he makes no recommendation either way; he just wanted to make sure that the Commission is aware of all of the different concerns. 

Mr. Ryan stated based on page 2 of the liquor permit before him it states the applicant must comply with all State, City and township codes. Mr. Ryan questioned Mr. King that if the use of Taco Dan’s has expanded beyond the 400 square feet, would that mean that the permit premises have changed. Mr. King indicated that in his opinion the applicant has not complied.  Mr. King stated that if the Liquor Control issues a permit stating that they will allow them to sell liquor on the entire building, and not just the 400 square feet, but no request has been made to the Village for a certificate of occupancy for more than 400 square feet, in his opinion even selling taco's, much less alcohol, and using the rest of the building would be not in compliance with the applicable Village Code.  

Mr. Ryan stated there is something other than a fence for the Planning Commission to take into consideration, a structure that's use is intended for something other than a fence.  He questioned if other Commission members felt any need to go through the criteria for this application or did someone want to make a motion to approve/deny the application.  The Planning Commission did not feel there was a need to go through the criteria for Application #2012-32.  Mr. Hawk suggested the applicant consult with his legal counsel and report back to the Planning Commission, giving time to answer questions the Planning Commission has asked during the discussion, and thus tabling the application. Mr. Ryan asked the applicant if he would like the Commission to table the application per Mr. Hawk's suggestion or if the applicant wanted the Commission to "just rule on it."  Mr. Rogers responded "I think you should probably rule on it myself; we're talking about a fence here."  Mr. Ryan asked the Commission how they would like to proceed with the application.  Mr. Hawk indicated clearly the applicant is not interested in having the Commission table the application, he would be ready to make that motion, however, there's no point in making that motion if the applicant has no interest in having it tabled.  

Mr. Ryan indicated he would entertain a motion to deny the application.  Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny Application #2012-32 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call: Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (abstain), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0; 1 abstention.  

New Business: 

198 Welsh Hills Road – Terra Nova Partners- Application #2012-36

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) The request is for review and approval of a lot-split for three (3) lots total. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Roger and Charlene Lossing, John and Dottie Vaughn, John Davis, Lisa Dietrich, and Jeffrey Hiler.  

Discussion:

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, Granville, indicated they would like to subdivide the one acre lot into three parcels.  He stated Terra Nova Partners had a work session with the Planning Commission regarding this project and they are asking for the same thing that is located with lot's next door.  Mr. Reed stated the Granville Comprehensive Plan depicts some primary goals to direct development towards the existing village area and to manage development for a balanced tax base.  Mr. Reed stated the Comprehensive Plan also refers to the need for housing for empty nesters, retirees, etc.  He stated the plan before the Planning Commission is consistent with what the town has a desire to achieve.  Mr. Reed stated 40.8% of the existing population is 50 years plus, and part of the problem in Granville is that people want to stay here but there is no opportunity with a floor plan that is conducive to first floor living.  Mr. Reed stated the properties they are proposing would allow for first floor living and be desirable for empty nesters.  He explained one challenge with the property is a very high water table.  He stated a tremendous amount of water drains to this area, and for this reason they have decided not to have basements in the homes.  Mr. Reed stated he spoke with Rodney Butt, with the Granville Golf Course, and he supported the idea they are proposing to alleviate the drainage issues.  He indicated the Golf Course would work with them to fix this.  Mr. Reed stated he had tried to speak to some of the neighbors, but he ultimately only spoke with one.  He continued by saying they have received "will serve" letters from the water and sewer departments.  Mr. Reed stated in this zoning district there are various lot sizes.  He stated there are 20-30 lots that are much smaller than what they are requesting in size. 

Ms. Terry explained the variances required for approval.  She stated the applicant has requested the lot frontage on Welsh Hills Road be reduced from ninety feet (90’) to eight-two feet (82’) for the first lot.  She stated the applicant is requesting to go from ninety feet of road frontage (90’) to zero (0’) feet of frontage for the two lots in the back.  She explained these two lots could be referred to as land locked, however, the applicant would create a driveway easement for drive access to these two rear lots.  Ms. Terry stated no more than five lots can result after the original tract is subdivided and the applicant is proposing three lots.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is requesting variances beyond the public right-of-way frontage requirement.  She explained all three lots are required to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet and the applicant is proposing each of the three lots be in the 14,000 square feet range.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant also needs variances for the maximum building coverage, because the code allows for 20% building coverage in SRD-A, not referring to any impervious surfaces.  Ms. Terry stated the first property would be from 20% coverage to 21.7%, the second lot would go from 20% to 22.5%, and the third lot would go from 20% to 21%.  Ms. Terry explained the BZBA would review the requests for variances on Thursday and any approval of an application this evening would be contingent upon BZBA approval.  Mr. Reed stated the variances for lot coverage are due to the homes not having basements because of the water table and the footprint needing to be larger.   Mr. Mitchell questioned how the ingress easement gets maintained.  Mr. Reed stated this is a legal document and there are some people here tonight who have similar agreements set up for shared driveway access.  Mr. Reed stated if there is an argument there is legal recourse because this would be a legally binding document.  He added the driveway would likely be concrete, or possibly asphalt.  Mr. Burriss questioned if lots 2 and 3 would take their trash dumpsters to the curb on Welsh Hills Road.  Mr. Reed stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the mailboxes would also be located on Welsh Hills Road.  Mr. Reed stated yes.    

Charlene Lossing, 54 Pinehurst Drive, stated it is not shown how close the existing home is to other homes.  She stated this plan would impact their area of Granville.  Ms. Lossing stated the applicant needs a large number of variances, and this should be considered when making a determination for approval.  Ms. Lossing stated she is not in favor of the proposed lot split.  Mr. Mitchell clarified the house that is there now is five feet (5’) from the property line, but it will be torn down.  He explained the new house would be located approximately twenty-one (21’) feet from the property line. 

Roger Lossing, 54 Pinehurst Drive, stated the zoning for this property is SRD-A.  He stated it was his understanding that the building lot coverage cannot be greater than 15%.  Ms. Terry reviewed the code and indicated this was a mistake in the staff report and the lot coverage for SRD-A is not 20%, but actually 15%.  Mr. Lossing stated, “I think we have more density than what we are talking about.”  Mr. Lossing agreed this area is not within the historic district and this particular area is odd because of little long lots.  He stated this is an example of stacking with no frontage for the back two lots.  He stated the Code refers to the importance of road frontage.  Mr. Lossing stated the proximity of these homes to the high school and elementary school would be attractive to families other than empty nesters.  Mr. Lossing asked if the shared driveway was part of the side yard or separate.  Ms. Terry clarified the driveway is allowed to be five foot from property line and within the building setback.  Mr. Lossing asked will this undermine the Village land use plan in this PUD.  Mr. Ryan stated this is not an application for a PUD (Planned Unit Development), but for three separate homes to be built.  

Mr. Reed stated there were unaware of the 15% lot coverage requirement, but they can achieve this – even if it would mean incorporating a basement.  He stated their objective was to accommodate empty nesters, but they are also willing to consider three single family homes in this area.  

Mr. Reed stated they might not be able to do a first floor master bedroom.  He added their proposal is for city living that incorporates smart growth mentioned in the new Comprehensive Plan.  He stated this plan speaks to development in the core and not outside of the core of the town.

Jeffrey Hiler, 212 Welsh Hills Road, stated the site lines for his house were developed so the house that is currently in place would not be visible from the inside of his house.  He explained his current site lines do not look at the Lossing property or the neighbor’s next doors home.  Mr. Hiler stated that with the proposed plan, he would look directly at the back of someone else’s house.  He stated he just bought his home in September and he moved here from German Village to have “country style” living.  

Mr. Hiler stated there is a tract of property next to this proposed property and what is to stop them from subdividing and putting in six houses.  Mr. Hiler stated the proposed plans are destroying the intent of his purchase of his property.  He added there are wetlands on one side of the property with ducks and animal life in trees.  Mr. Hiler stated he chose this property because he wanted to be close to town, but he also didn’t want to live in an urban environment.  Mr. Hiler stated he is absolutely opposed to the subdividing of lots, even though he agrees the proposed look of the homes are nice.  Mr. Hiler questioned if empty nesters really want a 2,800 square foot home with 2-3 bedrooms upstairs.  He stated he believes the developer is trying to tell the Village something they want to hear, but that this is actually not the case.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Hiler how he would feel about the developer building one house that still affects his site line.  Mr. Hiler agreed he couldn’t do anything about this.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if Mr. Hiler would be interested in purchasing the back lot.  Mr. Hiler indicated this is not a possibility for him at this time.  

Mr. Reed stated the property they purchased is wider than the property mentioned next door.  He stated that if the lots were subdivided differently than how they proposed, the large trees in place would likely go away.  Mr. Reed agreed their intent was to market to empty nesters, and he agreed they have no control over who ultimately purchases the property.  

John Vaughn, 180 Welsh Hills Road, stated his lot is a non-confirming lot and his home was built in the 1950’s.  Mr. Vaughn stated his strip of land is narrow and is grandfathered for his lot.  Mr. Vaughn stated the open space is their concern.  He explained he has lived at this location for 40 years and they want to keep the deer and character of the area as is.  Mr. Vaughn explained the history of the property originally being part of the Township, but they have since been annexed and now abide by the Village rules.  He stated there is a safety issue associated with homes being close to the golf course.  Mr. Vaughn also stated the developer cannot control who would purchase the property.  He stated with the added driveway there would be a nuisance with traffic in and out because their house is 17 feet from one driveway and 12 foot from another.  Mr. Vaughn stated he would look at houses instead of the golf course.  He added there are water issues in this area and he is forced to have two sump pumps.  Mr. Vaughn questioned if there would be utility poles going in.  Mr. Ryan later clarified the applicant is proposing underground wiring.  Mr. Vaughn stated the proposal is not appropriate for the neighborhood and zoning in place.  He also reviewed how his driveway easement is set up.  

John Davis, 40 Pinehurst Drive, stated they live in the SRD-A zoning district and the intent of this zoning is more open space.  Mr. Davis agreed the proposed homes are lovely, but they are more in line with the core Village homes.  He stated the developer has indicated particular ways in splitting the lot could result in the loss of trees, but he wanted to remind the Planning Commission that not splitting the lot at all could also allow the large trees to remain.  

Roger Lossing stated they thought this land could never be subdivided in this way because of the zoning in place and the fact that there isn’t enough road frontage in place.  Mr. Lossing stated they always imagined someone could purchase the property and tear down the existing home to building a new home.  He stated the developer could not do the three builds without variances.  Mr. Lossing questioned how this could be approved if there is zoning in place to not allow these narrow of lots to be built on today. 

Mr. Ryan asked what the zoning district is on the other side of Granger Street.  Ms. Terry stated Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) to the north and to the west is Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).   

Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant has indicated they would bring an engineering solution to the water issues in this area.  He asked what the solution is.  

Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill, stated they would propose curtain drains be installed on the other side of the driveway that would ultimately tie into the storm water drains from the golf course.  

Dottie Vaughn, 188 Welsh Hills Road, stated when they bought their house they knew it was an old house and they knew they would be sharing a driveway, which has been an issue at times.  Ms. Vaughn stated if they wanted to buy a house in a condominium complex or apartment complex – they would have purchased at the Colony.  She stated they chose this area because of the country living.  Ms. Vaughn stated she “does not want houses forced down her throat.” 

Lisa Dietrich, 40 Pinehurst Drive, stated she has listened to the conversation and the applicant is now thinking of putting in basements because of the lot coverage change.  She stated this could mean the existing large trees would have to go away, which could impact the drainage and the character of the neighborhood.  Ms. Dietrich stated she agrees with everything her neighbors have stated this evening.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she has no problem with the façade and the design of the proposed homes.  She stated as for the emphasis to empty nesters, she is not convinced they would be attracted to the maintenance involved.  She stated she is not saying they wouldn’t purchase these homes, but she sees some problems.    

Mr. Reed stated the plan before the Planning Commission with three lots saves the existing trees and they are ultimately going to build something on this property.  He stated if it is one or two homes it would likely mean taking out the trees.  

Mr. Burriss asked if the curtain drainage would prevent landscaping on the side of the driveway.  Mr. Nazarian stated “no, not necessarily.”  He explained the curtain drain is six inches wide and they can put landscaping inside the driveway as opposed to outside.  

Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant owns the lot and they are going to do something with it.  He stated the Planning Commission could try and fight this and could end up with a product not as good as what is before them now.  He stated the neighbors could fight and they could shoot themselves in the foot by getting something different.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is hardly unlikely they can stop them from doing two lots. He stated he would think two lots could be done without taking out trees, but the applicant is indicating differently.  Mr. Mitchell stated his point is their plan might be the best plan for everyone concerned and they can solve an existing drainage problem.  Mr. Mitchell suggested the applicant work together to position the end house with the least amount of interference for Mr. Hiler’s house.  Mr. Mitchell stated he understands the neighbors live in the country and they want to keep things that way, but it can’t stay that way because this lot became available and someone purchased it.  He stated development is inevitable.  Mr. Ryan stated he agrees with Mr. Mitchell on the drainage, and the driveway maintenance agreement can be worked out.  Mr. Ryan stated the big question is splitting the lot into three lots.  Mr. Ryan stated he is bothered that the developer was under the impression he had 20% lot coverage to work with and now finds out it is actually 15% lot coverage.  He asked if the applicant could still work within these means without the requested variances.  Mr. Nazarian stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the variances would come before the BZBA and the Planning Commission is only considering the lot split this evening.  Ms. Terry stated any approval by the Planning Commission is contingent upon the BZBA granting variances.  Ms. Hoyt stated she thinks the Planning Commission has to seriously consider moving from a low density area into a higher density area because of the impact of the neighbors.  The neighbors agreed they would not be objecting to a single family home, but they do not want to see three separate homes built.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-36 contingent upon the applicant receiving variances from the BZBA related to the following:

1)         Required lot frontage to a public right-of-way;

2)         Minimum lot area; and

3)         Maximum building lot coverage for all three (3) lots.

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-36:  Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (no), Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1. 

401 North Pearl Street – Gretchen Hollingsworth - Application #2012-38

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement windows. 

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

Discussion:

Robin Hoekstra, stated she is representing the owner as the property manager with Shai Commercial Real-estate.  She stated this is an application for window replacements.  Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed windows would include a screen.  Ms. Hoekstra stated yes, a half screen.     

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-38: 

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed windows are an improvement to the structures. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability of the structure is improved by the structure being updated with new windows.   

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 #2012-38 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-38:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

143 East Broadway – Jodi Melfi- Application #2012-39

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 Jodi Melfi. 

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, 143 East Broadway, indicated they would be removing the freestanding signage and placing window signage in its place.  Ms. Terry stated the application requires a variance because the signage doesn’t not meet an eight square feet requirement.  She explained the proposal is for a sixteen point five-eight total square footage sign (16.58).  Mr. Burriss clarified the placement and alignment of the verbiage with Ms. Melfi.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-39: 

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. 

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 #2012-39: 

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 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.  

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.  Each member of 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-39 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage for window signage for this storefront from eight (8) square feet to sixteen-point-five-eight (16.58) square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-39:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business: Application #2012-32:

The Finding of Fact for Application #2012-32 will be approved at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting due to review by the legal department. 

New Business:

Application #2012-36: Terra Nova Partners; 198 Welsh Hills Road; Lot-Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-36 as submitted by the applicant, and contingent upon the applicant receiving variances from the BZBA. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-36. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (no), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1. 

Application #2012-38: Gretchen Hollingsworth; 119 North Granger Street; Window Replacement

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 #2012-38 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-38. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-39: Jodi Melfi; 143 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, Signs and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-39 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-39. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve the meeting minutes for March 12, March 19 and March 26, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from March 12, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 4-0. (Mr. Ryan abstained) 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from March 19, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried 5-0. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from March 26, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss abstained)  

Adjournment:  9:35 PM

Ms. Hoyt moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Next meetings:

Monday, April 23, 2012

Monday, May 14, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 26, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tim Ryan.

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting). 

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

Also Present: Gary Hall, Jeremy Taylor, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Dr. Chris Avery, Barbara Franks, Brice Corder, Sharon Sellito and Renee Terebuh

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

New Business: 

310 West Elm Street – Gary Hall - Application #2012-29

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wooden privacy fence. 

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

Discussion:  Mr. Hall indicated that he wanted to install a six-foot cedar privacy fence to coordinate with an existing fence on his property.  He intends to paint the fence white. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-29: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is stylistically similar to other fences in the district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is compatible with other fences in the district.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes that it enhances the property and thereby contributes to the continuing vitality of the district. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is compatible with the existing fence.   

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-29 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-29:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

1919 Lancaster Road – Brian Ditty, Verizon Wireless - Application #2012-31

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for review and approval of a neon “Open” window sign.  

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

Discussion:

Jeremy Taylor, Tower Wireless, 1919 Lancaster Road representative, indicated that Verizon has requested the addition of a neon “Open” sign to their overall sign package.  The “Open” sign that is currently installed is not the sign being proposed for approval.  A representation of the sign is included in the application.  The sign will be closed after hours.  Planner Terry indicated that a variance would be necessary if the Planning Commission chose to approve the proposed sign, as the proposed sign exceeded the code requirements by an additional four square feet, increasing the total from 228 square feet to 232 square feet for the entire property.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-31: 

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 that there were no special circumstances.  

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 indicated that it was premature to apply for an “Open” sign as the original signage has not been put in place.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission 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. Hawk 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 agreed the owner was aware of the restrictions.  

(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 in order to meet code 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 FALSE.  

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.   

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-31, as presented, with the sing only being illuminated during the hours of operation.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-31: Hoyt (yes), Ryan (no), Hawk (no), Vote 1-2.  No action taken.  This application is continued. 

121 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers,  Application #2012-32

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a six-foot (6’) rear yard privacy fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Dan Rogers, Dr. Chris Avery, Sam Sagaria and Barbara Franks 

Discussion: 

Mr. Rogers indicated the application is for a six-foot privacy fence with gates similar to the existing fence on the northern edge of the property with four openings and finished in the same manner as the neighbor’s fence. 

 Dr. Chris Avery, 127 South Prospect Street, indicated that Mr. Rogers has received an extension of his liquor permit to include the first floor, second floor, basement and front porch.  He indicated that the original zoning which Mr. Rogers received for his restaurant did not permit that for those extended areas.  The liquor license requires that the permit holder must meet all state and local codes including zoning codes.  He stated that Mr. Rogers is currently not in compliance with those codes.  He stated that additionally, with the approval of this fence, Mr. Rogers will extend his restaurant and alcohol consumption into that area as well.  Dr. Avery suggested that the Village should consider legal review of this application prior to any approval.  

Planner Terry indicated that the application before the Commission is for a fence.  Any other issues related to his existing liquor permit or existing restaurant use are not relevant to this application.  At this point, the Commission can only rule on issues relevant to the fence application. 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated that he had several concerns.  He questions how the gates would be hung and if Mr. Rogers intended to use his fence to hang a gate.  He indicated that Mr. Rogers did not have any “hanging” rights.  He commented that the expansion of the liquor permit expanded the restaurant area from the originally approved 400 square feet.  Mr. Rogers is now in violation of the Village Code for exceeding his original zoning permit application.  Mr. Sagaria also indicated that he felt the addition of the privacy fence is to expand the restaurant area into a beer garden, which is also a non-compliance issue according to Village Code.  He questioned if expansion of the restaurant required zoning approval and additional parking requirements.  Mr. Sagaria felt the approval of this fence would not enhance the character of the neighborhood. 

Mr. Ryan commented that the Commission is only permitted to evaluate the application presented, which is for the addition of a six-foot privacy fence.  Any additional issues are not pertinent, nor can they be considered, as part of this application.  Mr. Hawk commented that he is willing to make a motion to table the application in order to seek legal counsel.  No motion was made. 

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, is concerned about why her application is being singled out and being questioned.  She asked what legal issues needed to be addressed.  Ms. Franks sees no reason why her application should be denied. 

Mr. Ryan indicated that he is concerned about the gates.  The application does not include a picture of the gates or a picture of the hardware.  Gates such as these have not been approved previously, in his memory.  He expressed concerns that the applicant has previously received approvals with vague descriptions or drawings provided at the meeting and then installed something completely different.  He indicated that the applicant needed to provide specific drawings of the gates and hardware. 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the gates will be locked most of the time, if they will be locked from the inside, and what type of locks will be used. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-32: 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the fence would be compatible with other structures, but may not upgrade the historic character of the district.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion.

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2012-32 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-32:  Ryan (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (no).   Vote 1-2.  No action taken.  This application is continued.

126 South Main Street – Renee Terebuh, on behalf of the business “What’s In It For Me”,  Application #2012-33

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).The request is for review and approval of a wall sign. 

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

Discussion: 

Ms. Terebuh indicated that this application was for a 3 x 6 sign on the south facing wall.  The sign will be stainless steel with a black border and raised black letters.  There will be no lighting. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-33: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign design is in keeping with the architectural style in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is a new business that will be upgrading the historic character of the district.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the business thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the colors and graphics are consistent and more representative of the district. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-33 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-33:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business: 

Application #2012-29: Gary Hall, 310 West Elm Street, Privacy Fence  

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-29 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-29. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes), Hawk (yes),.   Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-33: Renee Terebuh for What’s In It For Me, 126 South Main Street        Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-33 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-33. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes), Hawk (yes),.   Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excusing Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell from the March 26, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Next meetings:

Monday, April 9, 2012

Monday, April 23, 2012

Planning Commission Minutes Special Meeting March 19, 2012

Special Planning Commission Meeting

March 19, 2012

7:00 P.M.

Minutes

 

Present:  Alison Terry, Constance Barsky, Jackie O’Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, Stephen Hawk, Jean Hoyt, Jeremy Johnson, Sam Sagaria, and Deb Walker.  

The purpose of the special Planning Commission meeting was to discuss, and potentially make a recommendation to Village Council, on the Draft Joint Granville Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Granville and Granville Township.   

Alison Terry updated the Planning Commission about the history of the Comprehensive Plan before the committee.  She stated this version was recommended by the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee to the Village and the Township.  Ms. Terry explained Poggemeyer Design Group was hired in 2006 to work on the updated plan.  She explained an OSU student recently edited and condensed the plan.  She added there were not any substantive changes made to the document by the student.  Ms. Terry explained each of the colors on the future land use map and what their designations were.  She went on to say that most of the land uses remained the same in the Village and part of the reason for updating the document was to include the different land use categories that were not previously included in the 2001 Plan (such as Institutional, Commercial, Planned Unit Development, etc.).  Ms. Terry stated most of the Village is built out except the Cherry Valley Road area.  She also stated some expansion of research and technology near the existing Owens Corning area is reflected on the future land use plan.  Ms. Terry stated they have shown the green/open space areas which have been purchased or secured through the Township Open Space Program, as well as the area where Kendal is located.  

Councilmember Constance Barsky added there are some issues that they need to address through zoning once the plan is adopted. She added the Comprehensive Plan is not a zoning document.  Councilmember Barsky stated they are looking to streamline the zoning code.  

Ms. Terry stated the Village can write specific zoning regulations related to architectural standards, landscaping, etc. in their code and the Township cannot do this because they must adhere to the Ohio Revised Code.  

Mr. Hawk clarified if the Township Trustees’ approved this version of the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  She explained the version approved by the Township Trustees will go to the Licking County Planning Commission and then to the Licking County Commissioners.  Mr. Hawk stated according to a recent article he read about the Comprehensive Plan, there was no testimony given to the Trustees’ in support or opposition at their public hearing.  Councilmember Barsky stated there were a series of public meetings held to discuss and revise the plan prior to it going to the Township Trustees’ for approval.  Mr. Hawk indicated he had some grammatical notations he would pass on to Ms. Terry.  

Mr. Burriss stated the left corner on Plate 3 depicts the Mockingbird Hill subdivision.  He stated this is for residential use, even though all of the lots have not yet been sold.  He went on to say the area to the left of the wide lot was all in a woodland preserve.   Mr. Burriss stated the rest of the area was developed into residential lots and has been platted by the County.  Ms. Terry stated there are other areas on Hankinson, Glyn Carin, and Phillips Drive that also have developed subdivisions within the agricultural land use designation.  She explained the designation in these areas has been included in Agriculture, but they will remain as residential lots in this category.  

Mr. Mitchell noted some inconsistencies labeled under Urban Residential with regard to Kendal.  He questioned why this isn’t labeled as senior living, especially since the Comprehensive Plan depicts a need for additional senior housing.  Ms. Terry explained they are not differentiating between senior living, apartments, etc. by spelling out a type of use.  She stated everything is combined in with the Urban Residential category.  Mr. Mitchell stated he feels this should have warranted a separate designation.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Plate 6 doesn’t show the Township open space, but it does show it on Plate 3.  Ms. Terry stated the open space areas were added later and it simply wasn't updated on Plate 6.   Mr. Hawk questioned the green space being labeled green space when some areas are conservation and other Township purchases.  Mr. Mitchell explained the green space land is purchased under state law that makes the purchase in perpetuity.  He stated the other green space can be bought and sold by the Township if it was purchased with general revenue dollars.  Mr. Mitchell stated this all depends on where the money to purchase the green space land comes from.  Mr. Ryan questioned if this clarification should be noted in the Comprehensive Plan.  Councilmember Barksy – stated that would be a Township issue, and in terms of the current arrangement – this was their preference.  She stated the clarification has to come from another arena.  Councilmember Barsky noted the open space signage that was recently installed depicts how the land was purchased. 

Ms. Terry indicated it would be difficult to add more green colors to the map to show an additional green space category.  Councilmember O’Keefe indicated this matter could be brought up with the Open Space Committee.  

Mr. Hawk stated Page 19 under ‘Urban Residential’ - the last sentence reads:  “It is recommended that any future development of Kendal property be for continuing care residential type facilities and support services to those facilities.”  Mr. Mitchell indicated he works for Kendal and they are in agreement to this statement.  He stated the boundaries for Kendal changed when they purchased an additional six acres a year ago.  He asked for this change of area to be updated in the Comprehensive Plan.  

Mr. Mitchell noted a Comprehensive Plan can be used against a municipality, as much as it can be used for good by developers.  Councilmember Barksy stated they are well aware of this.  

Mr. Hawk stated Page 35 ‘Scenic Byways and Corridors’ mentions an amendment to include the TJ Evans Trail.  Ms. Terry stated Nancy Recchie put together the Scenic Byway Plan for the Village and Township and submitted it to ODOT.  She explained the County Commissioners asked for the T.J. Evans trail to be added to the plan, but ultimately the plan was not adopted by ODOT.  Ms. Terry stated ODOT would not adopt the plan because they were in the process of revising the Scenic Byway program.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated this is on hold and a notation of this is in the Appendices.  

Mr. Mitchell stated he can appreciate the amount of work that went into this Comprehensive Plan, but he feels it is still too general and seems too long.  Mr. Mitchell stated he wishes it was more specific, especially with a mention to move towards having underground utilities and burying electric lines within the old Village area.  Mr. Mitchell stated Granville is not a poor community and this would not be cost prohibitive.  Mr. Mitchell stated the community is losing trees because of power lines.  He stated the burying of lines doesn’t have to occur all at once and this could be done over a long period of time.  Ms. Terry stated the Village researched burying lines with the College Street project and they talked with AEP.  She stated they were informed this area does not house a single-phase line.  She explained they carry a large grid and that 12x12 transformer boxes would most likely need to be located on the corner or front yard.    Mr. Mitchell stated AEP would likely give multiple reasons why this can’t be done.  Ms. Terry stated the burying of lines is always discussed when a road project is being done.  Councilmember Barsky stated the lines throughout Granville are not just for Granville and there are trunk lines for other communities.  Councilmember Barsky indicated the Planning Commission could present this as a recommendation for Village Council to consider.  Mr. Ryan stated they are currently discussing the Comprehensive Plan, which is a land use document.  He suggested the subject matter Mr. Mitchell is referring to could be a process the Village addresses separately.  Ms. Terry explained Village Council has a list of strategic goals and this could be added to their list if they are in agreement.  Mr. Hawk agreed with Mr. Mitchell that having lines buried in the Village should be something addressed by Village Council.  Ms. Hoyt stated AEP is not an objective source on this subject and should not be the go to source for information.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated it can cost money just to get an estimate or study done.  Councilmember Johnson stated the Tree and Landscape Committee is looking into this and a subcommittee is meeting with AEP.  

Mr. Mitchell asked if a merger between the Township and Village was ever discussed as a part of the Comprehensive Plan review.  Mr. Ryan stated a merger would mean the ultimate in protection for the community.  Councilmember Barsky stated this subject has not been discussed. 

Councilmember Johnson asked if there is any area in the Village where development is encouraged.  He stated he is not suggesting a large commercial user go in, but some plans for development can be healthy for a community.  Ms. Terry stated development is planned to occur along Weaver Drive and Columbus Road – which is already zoned business in the Township.  She stated some of this land is not developed and the other areas may be redeveloped.  Ms. Terry stated there are some areas along Newark-Granville Road and the existing Cherry Valley Road where further development could take place.  She stated there is land next to the Erinwood office building owned by Park National Bank. Mr. Mitchell asked if the property along Columbus Road is classified as Urban/Suburban Residential.  Ms. Terry stated yes and they didn’t modify this as it came through from the Poggemeyer plan.  She stated this area is used commercially now. 

Councilmember Johnson stated the Township would likely need to modify their zoning code.  Ms. Terry agreed, and stated she is unsure if they are rezoning properties or just modifying zoning language. Councilmember Johnson stated the Agricultural designation is significant in the Township.  He questioned if they embrace the agricultural designation as the future land use in the northern area - why would they need to purchase development rights if zoning only allows for five acre lots.  Councilmember Barsky stated some issues were raised similar to this and the Township Trustees put together the Open Space Committee and charged them with forming criteria on which land to purchase.  She stated the Open Space Committee has bylaws.  Councilmember Johnson stated 50% of the open space revenue comes from the Village residents even though the Village does not have a lot of control on the lands purchased with open space funding.  Councilmember Barsky stated they are looking at having additional representation from the Village on the Open Space Committee.  Mr. Ryan stated that when looking at Plate 3 – the Agriculture land designation, with conservation design overlay, has very restrictive criteria on what can be done.  He stated the community doesn’t want to stifle growth completely, but control growth.  

Mr. Hawk inquired if there was consideration to Thornwood Drive in the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Terry stated yes this was taken into consideration along with the new interchange at Cherry Valley Road.  Mr. Hawk stated the Comprehensive Plan is a good framework for the community.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated a definition of “unrestricted” is needed for the open space purchases.  Councilmember Barsky stated this could be added as a footnote to the Table.  

Mr. Ryan stated this is a much improved document from what they started with.  Councilmember Johnson agreed and stated the last bit of work done was much cheaper than the original cost for the consultant to prepare the Comprehensive Plan.  Ms. Hoyt asked how issues that come up throughout the years will be addressed.  Ms. Terry stated staff keeps track of those items and the plan is generally revised every five years.  Mr. Ryan stated the Village is covered with their zoning ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan is a guiding document.  He added the utilities are also a controlling factor, as with no public utilities the densities of housing are significantly lower.  Ms. Terry stated the Village currently controls if and when they want to annex land to provide utilities.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked the Planning Commission if they would be interested in having an ad hoc committee to make recommendations to the Village about issues that they see should be put in the Comprehensive Plan.  She asked the Planning Commission to give a presentation to Village Council yearly regarding the Comprehensive Plan, zoning, planning, etc.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this could be done.    

Motion to Amend and Recommend Approval:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan to Village Council with the following amendments:

1.  Natural Resources – modify to show all Open Space Properties

2.  Future Land Use Plan:  Modify area in southwest portion to show the 6 acre Kendal tract (Plate 3), and to modify the small areas long Columbus Road to be shown as Neighborhood Commercial. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  The motion was unanimously approved 5-0.     

Other Matters:

Mr. Mitchell made a recommendation to Village Council that the subject of underground utilities should be considered for the incorporated Village and corridors as a long-term goal of Village Council, and specifically a study be done by someone other than AEP to determine the actual costs involved. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Adjourn:

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried. 5-0.

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.