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

 

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.