Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes February 13, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 13, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  None. 

Staff Present:  Debi Walker, Planning and Zoning Assistant.

Also Present: Sharon Sellito, Chuck Dilbone, Frank Fahner, Ben Rader, Christa Foreman, and Mayor Hartfield. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

Swearing in of Re-appointed Planning Commission Members:

Tom Mitchell and Jack Burriss were sworn in by Mayor Hartfield.  

Election of Chair to the Planning Commission:

Tom Mitchell nominated Tim Ryan as Chair of the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.     

Election of Vice-Chair to the Planning Commission:

Mr. Hawk nominated Tom Mitchell as Vice Chair to the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0.  

New Business:

224 & 226 South Pearl Street – Sharon Sellito- Application #2012-05

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of five (5) replacement windows on the side of the structure addressed as 224; of the following materials:

Jeld-Wen Windows; Builders Vinyl double-hung, white exterior/ white interior; Frame size 31” x 61 ½”, vent height = 31”; Low-E clear glass with balance covers; full box frames with fiberglass mesh; White interior hardware, cam style locks, and slope sill adaptor. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Sharon Sellito.  

Discussion:

Sharon Sellito, 215 South Cherry Street, indicated that she would like to replace the windows on half of the rental property.  Mr. Mitchell asked if Ms. Sellito is proposing to raise the sill for the window illustrated on the porch.  Ms. Sellito stated yes, and that it is against code to have a window (sill) this low with full glass.  She went on to explain the window would be built up (re-sized) so it looks like the other windows on the porch and building.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the top of the window would be at the same elevation as the other windows.  Ms. Sellito stated yes, and that the new windows would be a big improvement from what is currently in place.  She stated that she plans to return to the original dimensions of the windows from when the home was built.  Ms. Sellito stated the windows will match on each side of the home and that by replacing them, problems with leakage will be corrected.   Mr. Burriss asked if the new windows would have a built in half screen.  Ms. Sellito stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if Ms. Sellito would be removing the existing aluminum storm windows.  Ms. Sellito stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the side windows would be given the same header treatment that exists on the front of the home.  Ms. Sellito stated she would be replacing what is already in place and that the side windows on the home do not have headers.  She went on to say that the front porch window does not currently have a trimmed out header, but that this would be changed to match the other windows on the front of the home.  Ms. Sellito clarified that the submitted photo is an example of a window from the manufacturer and not the exact window she is proposing for installation.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-05: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the application is consistent with other projects approved in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed project is an improvement to what exists. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the replacement windows aid in the preservation of the home.

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 #2012-05 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-05: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

122 East Broadway – Aladdin Restaurant - Application #2012-08

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a neon ‘open’ window sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Ben Rader, and Christa Foreman 

Discussion:

Christa Foreman, 122 East Broadway, indicated she is proposing a 1.8 square foot neon sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the sign was currently in place.  Ms. Foreman stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant feels they need the sign.  Ms. Foreman stated patrons have told her they didn’t stop because it looked as though they were closed with no lights on.  She went on to say that it is very difficult to see inside the business from the street or sidewalk.  Ms. Foreman stated that this is especially difficult in the early morning hours and that they are not attracting passing motorists. Ms. Foreman stated that the sandwich board sign does not help in indicating they are open/closed because drivers cannot see it.  Ms. Foreman stated that the freestanding sign is not visible when the trees are in full foliage. Ms. Hoyt questioned whether the proposed design seems consistent with other neon signs in the district.  Mr. Ryan explained that each application is treated separately.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage has a frame around it and that the font is more consistent with the font on the freestanding neon Aladdin sign.  Mr. Ryan stated that he thinks that some of the other approved neon signs are not as narrow as this one.  He also agreed that the applicant has a greater need (for the sign) than some of the other businesses. Mr. Hawk questioned the need for a variance. Ms. Walker stated that the existing signage on the property predates the zoning code and that there is no record indicating a previous variance request. Mr. Burriss indicated that he is not typically in favor of neon open signs, but in this case it is consistent with signage that is already in place and that it is needed. Ben Rader, owner of the property, stated that the other signage in place has been there for many years.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the request is against the Sign Ordinance.  Mr. Hawk asked why a variance is not required in this case since neon signage is not allowed in this zoning district.  Ms. Walker stated neon signage is allowed if it is considered to be “artful in nature.”  Mr. Burriss stated he believes the proposed signage is “artful in nature” and the signage appears to have a vintage look.    

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-08: 

a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed sign is consistent with other artful in nature signage in the district.

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

c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is improved with the proposed signage.  

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 #2012-08:

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. Mr. Burriss stated that the preexisting signage has been in place for some time and is part of the character of downtown Granville.  He stated the signage is unique and that this should be taken into consideration.  He stated that the Aladdin character on the building is also unique and that the Commission wants to keep the old signage in place.         

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 agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is limited architectural fenestration on the storefront and it is difficult to determine whether or not the restaurant is open/closed.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he is not in favor of neon open signs, but the current signage in place may not do enough because people wouldn’t know if the business is open/closed.      

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. FALSE; 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.  Each member of the  Planning Commission stated 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 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant didn’t build the building or design the window area available for signage.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the applicant inherited the signage that is already in place.  

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 with the exception of the sign only being illuminated during business hours.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-08 with the stipulation that the sign only be turned on during business hours, and with variances: 1) To increase the maximum sign area from 37.5 square feet to 80.1 square feet for this business in the Village Business District; and 2) To increase the maximum number of signs per storefront from four (4) to five (5) for this business in the Village Business District. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-08:Hawk (no), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2. 

WORK SESSION

Granville Schools – Art Room Slate Replacement - GES:

The work session request is for review of the removal and replacement of the slate roof on the ‘Art Room’ building; and repairs and renovations to the cupola using the following process and materials:

  1. Removal of existing slate from each section including all fasteners;
  2. Removal of existing felt paper down to the deck;
  3. Removal of any remaining debris over the wood deck;
  4. Replacement of any deteriorated wood decking;
  5. Removal of all existing drip edge from all sections;
  6. Install ice & water shield on all exterior sides of each section;
  7. Install #30 felt paper over the entire section;
  8. Install Inspire Roofing Products, Class C, Slate-Style, 8” exposure, 100% recyclable, in a color to closely match the existing slate. (Grey/Black)
  9. Install all metal components including but not limited to; step flashings, counter flashings, reglit flashing and drip edging;
  10. All debris removed daily from project area.
  11. Cupola repairs and/or renovations in a manner similar to one illustrated in the provided East Coast ‘Plymouth’ image. 

Discussion: 

Chuck Dilbone: explained that the existing slate (roof) on the Elementary School art building has tremendous problems with leakage.  He stated that they have tried to repair the existing cupola, but that it is not working and that the slate continues to crumble.  Mr. Dilbone stated that new slate would require more decking and they are worried about the aesthetics of a standing seam metal roof.  Therefore, Mr. Dilbone stated they would like to consider an artificial/plastic slate material.  He stated the material is much lighter than slate and has a fifty-year warranty.  Mr. Dilbone indicated that the fascia and down spouting would remain the same and that it will be repainted.  Mr. Dilbone stated they had concerns with trying to replicate the character of the existing cupola.  The Planning Commission liked the proposed artificial slate, but they were not in favor of the submitted cupola design. Mr. Dilbone stated the submitted design is not what they plan on utilizing.  He then distributed another example of a cupola that the Planning Commission preferred.  Frank Fahner agreed the cupola could be the same height, width, and design.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed they would prefer to see a replication of the existing cupola design which pays respect to a building  that  previously  existed (1896) on the site.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-05: Sharon Sellito; 224 & 226 South Pearl 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-05 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-05. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-08: Aladdin Restaurant; 122 East Broadway; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1189, Signage, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-8 with a condition and variances. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-08. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no), Hoyt (yes) Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for January 9, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from January 9, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.   

Motion to approve meeting minutes for January 23, 2012:

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

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, February 27, 2012

Monday, March 12, 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.