Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 27, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent:  Jean Hoyt.

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director

Also Present: Dan Rogers, John Wilson, Dave Rice, Sam Sagaria, Pat Kelley, Bryon Reed, and Herach Nazarian.

Citizens’ Comments: None.

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

102 Miller Avenue – Mark and Beth Edwards- Application #2012-13

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of the construction of a new one-story detached garage.  

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

Discussion:

John Wilson, Wilson Building & Remodeling, indicated he is the contractor for the proposed project.  Mr. Wilson stated he is demolishing the existing white garage and they want to construct a more suitable garage for the homeowner’s needs.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the submitted drawing is relevant to the building plans.  Mr. Wilson explained this was an initial drawing and he then referred to the example on the board for the new plan.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a proposed raised platform.  Mr. Wilson explained the area Mr. Mitchell is referring to is a sectioned off area for storage.  Mr. Wilson clarified there is not a second floor proposed for the garage and it would be fifteen foot high.  He stated the homeowner is a car collector and plans to install a car lift inside the garage.  Mr. Mitchell asked what the ¾ plywood platform is for at the eight foot (8’) elevation.  Mr. Wilson stated this would be the top of the office area used for storage.  Mr. Mitchell asked Ms. Terry if the application is complete.  Ms. Terry stated yes and all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant has received approval from Village Council for demolition and they received a Variance from the BZBA.  She explained there are not any architectural criteria for review by the Planning Commission because this is located within the Suburban Residential District-A zoning classification only, not in the Architectural Review Overlay District. 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-13 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-13:Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

119 ½ South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers - Application #2012-14

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a tenant panel sign to be placed on the existing freestanding sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Sam Sagaria, and Dan Rogers.  

Discussion:

Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, stated he would like to put up an open sign for the businesses in their building.  He presented an example of an aluminum sign with plastic lettering which indicates "Open" that he would like to use.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the Planning Commission had already approved signage for Taco Dan’s in the past.  Ms. Terry stated yes, although the signage for Taco' Dan's has not been installed yet.  She stated it was approved on May 23, 2011.  Ms. Terry explained the new "open" sign would require a variance for a total of 1.16 square feet, and the Taco Dan’s sign that was previously approved also received a variance.  Mr. Mitchell asked the maximum size for a freestanding sign in this district.  Ms. Terry stated twelve (12) square feet.  She went on to explain that if a variance is granted it wouldn’t be from the twelve (12) square feet, but from the sixteen (16) square foot variance already approved and currently in place.  Mr. Hawk asked if the existing signs where Mr. Rogers would like to hang the open sign are constructed of wood.  Mr. Rogers stated yes and he added that the dimensions of the existing signs are larger than the proposed "open" sign.  Mr. Ryan asked if the "open" sign would be removed when business is not going on.  Mr. Rogers stated yes.  Mr. Ryan commented the "open" sign is not a permanent.  Mr. Rogers agreed.  Mr. Ryan asked if this is the reason Mr. Rogers is proposing a sign different than the existing signage in place.  Mr. Rogers stated yes.   

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated there are two "open" signs already in place on the property and approval for this sign would be a third "open" sign.  He questioned how many "open" signs a business needs.  

Mr. Rogers stated this "open" sign would be located on the freestanding tenant panel sign and the existing "open" signs are on the front of the building next to FootLoose.  He stated different businesses within the building have different entrances.  Mr. Hawk asked if the existing "open" signage is included in the calculations when determining total square footage of signage.  Ms. Terry stated the calculations before the Planning Commission include sizes for the freestanding tenant panel sign only, but that all of the signage combined meets to the total square footage allowed on a property.  Mr. Rogers explained the Taco Dan business would use a separate entrance on the north side of the driveway.  Mr. Ryan asked if there is still a Chiropractor office in the building.  Mr. Rogers stated yes, and that the only sign for the Chiropractor is on the freestanding sign. He went on to state that the Chiropractor business uses a different entrance halfway down the driveway.  Mr. Rogers clarified the "open" sign would be used for all of the businesses that exist within the building and it does not specifically pertain to Taco Dan’s.  Mr. Hawk indicated these businesses have been in existence for some time and have survived without having an additional "open" sign added to the freestanding sign.  Mr. Rogers stated the businesses have survived, but that does not mean they do not want to recruit more business.  

Mr. Burriss asked the hours of operation for the businesses in the building.  Mr. Rogers stated they vary.  He stated for instance, the chiropractor’s office can be a 24/7 operation.  He stated Barb Frank’s business is open when she is there.  He stated hours will start at 11:00 A.M. for Taco Dan’s and he is unsure of the shut down time. He also stated the entrance for Taco Dan’s will be on the front porch.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is opposed to an "open: sign that is more consistent with the existing tenant panel signs on the freestanding sign.  Mr. Rogers stated yes he would be opposed and he already has the presented "open" sign constructed and ready to go.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant would be willing to take down an existing "open" sign on the building and that this request could be made a condition of the approval.  Mr. Rogers questioned if the Planning Commission was requesting him to remove Barb Frank’s "open" sign. The Planning Commission discussed how the aluminum and plastic open sign does not fit in with the existing signage on the tenant panel sign.  Mr. Rogers stated his signage doesn’t need to tie in and there are other businesses downtown with "open" signage that does not reflect the business sign shape or style.  Mr. Ryan stated that he feels other freestanding signage with "open" signs tie in, but there is some neon "open" signage that does not tie into the business signage.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-14: 

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 FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated there are multiple businesses in the building.  Mr. Ryan stated there are other businesses in the district will multiple businesses in the building, and this is not peculiar to this zoning district.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Hawk agreed this is not a peculiar circumstance.     

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. Ryan stated there are multiple businesses in the structure and the question is if the applicant needs additional signage.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Hawk stated there can be beneficial use of the property without the proposed signage.  Mr. Burriss stated the multiple businesses in the structure have different entrances and he fears the signage would be confusing.  Mr. Ryan stated the building can have a beneficial use without the variance.    

(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.  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 TRUE.    

(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.  Mr. Ryan asked what would happen if the applicant applied another wall sign to the building.  Ms. Terry stated she would need to review the application because she believes there is already one wall sign on the building.  Mr. Burriss stated the property owner has been encouraged to condense the signage and use a tenant panel sign for the multiple businesses located within the structure.  

(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.  Mr. Mitchell stated justice would be done by granting the variance.  Mr. Hawk agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated he does not disagree.      

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed there are no special conditions or circumstances.  

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

e.         In granting a variance, the board may impose any requirements or conditions regarding the location, character, and other features of the proposed uses or buildings or structures as the board deems necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code, and to satisfy the other conditions set forth in Division (d) of this Section.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-14:

 a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated other open signage has been approved in this zoning district.  Mr. Burriss stated in this particular application – the style of the lettering and the coloring of the lettering is not consistent.  He stated the applicant has done a nice job with the existing signage with the lettering and sizing being consistent and this would take away from that.  He stated it doesn’t tie into other signage.     

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage could contribute more to the historical character, but it does contribute.    

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage is consistent with other approvals in this zoning district.     

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-14 as submitted with a variance to increase the maximum size of the freestanding sign from sixteen (16) square feet to seventeen point one six (17.16) square feet with the following conditions: 

1)         The sign is to be removed when the business is not open; and

2)         The blue/white open sign to the left of the entrance door (Footloose) is to be removed from the property. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-14: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Burriss (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1.

119 East Broadway – Park National Bank- Application #2012-15

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an ADA Handicapped Exterior Ramp.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Pat Kelley. 

Discussion:

Pat Kelley, Kelley & Associates Architects, indicated Dave Rice accompanied him to the meeting.  He stated Mr. Rice is in charge of facilities for Park National Bank.  Mr. Kelley stated the plans are to make the area ADA handicap accessible.  He stated more landscaping beds are in the plan and the existing lighting would remain in place.  Mr. Kelley stated the side ATM unit would have a raised walkway in front of it and they are also proposing railings.  He explained the entire project would be poured concrete with an aggregate surface similar to an example presented to the board at the meeting.  Ms. Terry stated the application would go to Village Council because there would be an encroachment within the public right-of-way.  She stated Council would have to formally approve this encroachment.  Ms. Terry explained the side portion of the project is a replacement of the existing sidewalk.  Mr. Burriss asked the finish of the ironwork.  Mr. Kelley stated black.  Ms. Terry indicated a landscape plan was submitted by the applicant. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-15: 

a)    Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission unanimously 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 material is being used in an historically appropriate way.    

c)   Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

d)   Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the use of material is appropriate.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-15 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-15: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 Work Session:

Requested by Terra Nova Partners for the property located at 198 Welsh Hills Road.  The Work Session has been requested to review Chapter 1163.03, Lot & Building, and Parking & Accessory Building requirements in the Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) as they relate to the potential for splitting the existing lot.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A).  

Discussion

Bryon Reed stated the intent is to provide three active adult style homes because he feels they are really needed in the community.  He stated the proposed property on Welsh Hills Road has golf coarse views and is being proposed for subdivision into three lots.  He stated they discussed dividing it into four or five lots, but they found they meet the setback requirements with three lots.  He added this would create a nice distance between the properties.  Mr. Reed stated they would need some variances.  Mr. Ryan asked if the driveway would be shared.  Mr. Reed stated they would have a shared driveway with access to each of the lots.  He also stated there is a high water table and part of the property is holding water. They hope to fix this problem through development of the property and coordination with the golf course.  Mr. Reed stated each home would not have a basement and storage would be available in the garage.  Mr. Reed stated the proposed layout meets every requirement needed for active adults.  He explained the lack of a basement, need for storage, and layout without steps would create a larger footprint, and this is one reason for a variance.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant has spoken with Granville Golf Course regarding their plans.  Mr. Reed stated he has had a discussion with one of the employees, but not yet with the owner.  He stated that a variance would be needed for the footprint and for the lot frontage to a public right-of-way. The Planning Commission suggested switching the entrance and view for the third home.  Mr. Reed agreed to take this into consideration.  Ms. Terry explained the Planning Commission would be reviewing the lot split request and the site plan review for the homes, but that there would be no architectural review of the house plans because this property is not located within the Architectural Review Overlay District.   

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-13: Mark and Beth Edwards; 102 Miller Avenue; Detached Accessory Structure

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-13 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-13. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-14: Dan Rogers; 119 ½ South 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 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-14 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-14. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (no), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

Application #2012-15: Park National Bank; 119 East Broadway; Handicap Ramp

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-15 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-15. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jean Hoyt from the February 27, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to approve meeting minutes for February 13, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from February 13, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Adjournment:  8:20 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, March 12, 2012

Monday, March 19, 2012 (Special Meeting for Comprehensive Plan)

Monday, March 26, 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.