Granville Community Calendar

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

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.