Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes January 9, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 9, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan

Members Absent:  Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting)

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Assistant to Planning Department, Steve Stilwell, Village Manager

Also Present: Lisa Englefield, Tammy Williams, Paul Queen, Jodi Melfi and Emily George 

Mayor Hartfield swore in the new members to the Planning Commission:  Steven Hawk and Jean Hoyt. 

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

Old Business: 

113 East Elm Street – Elms Pizza Parlor- Application #2011-150

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker and Lisa Englefield. 

Discussion:

Ms. Englefield indicated that the sign materials have been altered since the last meeting from a plastic sign to a metal sign with the ability to change the number of years annually.  She provided the Commission with two alternatives indicating a preference for Option A.  

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he had listened to the tape from the last meeting.  He also confirmed the specific number of signs being requested upon the Code’s limit of four.  Ms. Walker indicated that there would be a total of six signs.  

Mr. Hawk asked if by permitting a change to the sign on an annual basis, could that sign be considered as having changeable copy.  Ms. Walker indicated that changing the number of years in business on an annual basis would not constitute changeable copy. 

Mr. Ryan commented that the revised sign is more in keeping with the existing style of the building 

Mr. Burriss asked if the lettering for the new sign could be in block letters to match the existing signage.  He also asked the hours of operation sign be moved from its current location. 

The Committee expressed concern regarding issuing a variance to permit two additional signs above the four signs that are currently permitted.  Some Commission members felt that counting the awning signs as two signs may not be reasonable. 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign was graphically consistent with other signs approved in the district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the consistency of the graphics maintained the historic character of the district. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the business thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the colors and graphics are consistent and more representative of the building’s style. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2011-150: 

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 as the location and frontage of this building is unique to the district. 

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 substantial.           

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way. 

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

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission indicated that a variance would not be needed if other signs were removed. 

(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 should be special conditions placed on the application including permission to change of the number of years in business number annually, to center the sign to the right of the front door and window, to move the hours of operation sign and to change the font to square block rather than italics.   

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2011-150 with the following variance: 1) To increase the maximum number of signs from four (4) to six (6); and the following conditions: 2) To permit the changing of the number of years in business number annually; 3) That the sign be centered to the right of the front door and window; 4) That the hours of operation sign be moved; and 5) That the sign font be square block rather than italic.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-150: Burriss (yes), Hawk (no), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-1. 

115 East Elm Street – Darlene and Paul Queen, Jr. on behalf of Subway- Application #2011-151

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

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

Mr. Hawk moved to remove Application #2011-151 from the table.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion approved. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker and Paul Queen Jr. 

Discussion:

Mr. Queen indicated that he added the “Open” sign following store renovation.  Subway began opening for breakfast and he wanted the community to notice the new hours of operation. 

Mr. Mitchell questioned how the Code addressed the use of neon signs.  The Council may need to consider revising the Code to clarify the use of neon signs.  Ms. Walker advised that the Code indicates that neon signs were permitted if considered to be artful in appearance, with no definition of what constituted artful. 

Mr. Burriss commented that this particular neon sign was more in keeping with the architectural design of the building.  The Commission also recently approved a neon sign for the adjoining business.  

Ms. Hoyt indicated that the use of this sign maintains a uniform appearance to the building. 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign was graphically consistent with other signs approved in the district. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the consistency of the graphics maintained the historic character of the district.  

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the project contributes to the continuing vitality of the business thereby contributing to the continuing vitality of the district. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the colors and graphics are consistent and more representative of the building’s style  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2011-151 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-151: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (no), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).   Motion carried 4-1.

 New Business: 

129 Westgate Drive – Granville Fitness, submitted by Jodi Melfi,  Application #2011-159

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker and Jodi Melfi. 

Discussion:

Ms. Melfi advised the Commission that the wall sign would be facing Westgate Drive on the front portion of the building.  The business is unable to install a freestanding sign due to the nature of the parking lot. 

Ms. Walker indicated that a variance would be necessary due to TCOD sign code requirements.  The variance would permit increasing the sign from six (6) square feet to thirteen (13) square feet.

Mr. Burriss indicated that the sign presentation was tasteful and appropriately sized.  He noted that the lot drawing shows how the parking lot configuration prohibits a freestanding sign. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the variance criteria pertaining to Application #2011-159 as follows: 

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 as the TCOD sign requirements impact the size of signs in the district. 

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 FALSE as signage is necessary in order for a business to identify itself. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is substantial as it is more than double the sign size allotted.         

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way. 

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

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated 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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2011-159 with a variance for a wall sign at thirteen (13) square feet increased from the required six (6) square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-159: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).   Motion carried 5-0. 

129 Westgate Drive – Granville Fitness, submitted by Jodi Melfi,  Application #2011-160

Community Service District (CSD) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker and Jodi Melfi.  

Discussion:

Ms. Melfi indicated that this sign would be identical to the sign just approved, but on the west side of the building for visibility from Cherry Valley Road. 

 Ms. Walker indicated that a variance would be necessary to increase the number of wall signs from one (1) to two (2) and to increase the maximum size of signage from thirteen (13) square feet to twenty-two (22) square feet total. 

Mr. Mitchell asked if these signs were needed for identification of the location of the building.  Ms. Walker indicated in the affirmative.

Mr. Burriss thanked the applicant’s representative for consistency of the graphics in both sign applications. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2011-160: 

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 as the TCOD sign requirements impact the size of signs in the district. 

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.  he Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE as signage is necessary in order for a business to identify itself. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is 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 as the proposed signage would not alter the neighborhood in a negative way. 

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

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission a variance is required specifically due to the TCOD requirements. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  

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

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

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2011-160 with the following variances:  1) To permit two (2) wall signs instead of one (1) wall sign; and 2) To increase the maximum square footage of signage from thirteen (13) square feet to twenty-two (22) square feet.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-160: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

128 East Broadway – DaVinci’s Lounge, submitted by Emily George - Application #2011-162

Village Business District-D (VBD-D) – 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 Debi Walker and Emily George.  

Discussion:

Ms. Walker indicated that in looking through the file for both businesses located at this address, there is no application for the existing neon sign.  

Mr. Mitchell asked if this sign was the same sign that had been there.  Ms. George indicated that it was the same sign.  She also indicated that it is her intent to design a new sign that is more artful and she would like the Commission to permit this sign for the next twelve months until business has stabilized and a new sign can be designed. 

Mr. Burriss indicated that he believed this sign was just added when the establishment was Brews II, without Planning Commission approval.  Nona did not use this space for several years after they opened.  

Manager Stilwell commented that when new owners change a business, new sign approvals are necessary and non-conforming signs can then be removed or brought into compliance. 

Mr. Burriss indicated that he might be willing to support a limited use of the sign, but not more than six (6) to nine (9) months. 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded no, as a generic open sign in the historic district is not acceptable.  Other businesses in the area have made an effort to comply and provide more artistic type signs. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded no.  

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 no.     

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to conditionally approve Application #2011-162 as a temporary sign for nine months only.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-162: Ryan (no), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 4-1.

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Old Business: 

Application #2011-150: Elms Pizza Parlor; 113 East Elm Street; Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1147, Variances and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-150 as submitted by the applicant.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-150. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (no), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 4-1. 

Application #2011-151: Subway by Darlene and Paul Queen, Jr.; 115 East Elm Street; Neon Sign

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 #2011-151 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-151. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (no), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).   Motion carried 4-1.  

New Business:

Application #2011-159: Jodi Melfi for Granville Fitness; 129 Westgate Drive; Wall Sign

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 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-159 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-159. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).   Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2011-160: Jodi Melfi for Granville Fitness; 129 Westgate Drive; Wall Sign

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 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2011-160 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-160. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).   Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2011-162: Emily George for DaVinci’s Lounge; 128 East Broadway; Neon “Open” Window Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their conditional approval of Application #2011-162 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-162. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Ryan (no), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 4-1. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for December 12, 2011:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from December 12, 2011 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried.  

Adjournment:  8:46PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, January 23, 2012

Monday, February 13, 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.