Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 26, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tim Ryan.

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting). 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant

Also Present: Gary Hall, Jeremy Taylor, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Dr. Chris Avery, Barbara Franks, Brice Corder, Sharon Sellito and Renee Terebuh

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business: 

310 West Elm Street – Gary Hall - Application #2012-29

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wooden privacy fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Gary Hall.  

Discussion:  Mr. Hall indicated that he wanted to install a six-foot cedar privacy fence to coordinate with an existing fence on his property.  He intends to paint the fence white. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Standards and Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-29: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is stylistically similar to other fences in the district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is compatible with other fences in the district.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes that it enhances the property and thereby contributes 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 it is compatible with the existing fence.   

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-29 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-29:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

1919 Lancaster Road – Brian Ditty, Verizon Wireless - Application #2012-31

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for review and approval of a neon “Open” window sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Jeremy Taylor.  

Discussion:

Jeremy Taylor, Tower Wireless, 1919 Lancaster Road representative, indicated that Verizon has requested the addition of a neon “Open” sign to their overall sign package.  The “Open” sign that is currently installed is not the sign being proposed for approval.  A representation of the sign is included in the application.  The sign will be closed after hours.  Planner Terry indicated that a variance would be necessary if the Planning Commission chose to approve the proposed sign, as the proposed sign exceeded the code requirements by an additional four square feet, increasing the total from 228 square feet to 232 square feet for the entire property.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-31: 

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 that there were no special circumstances.  

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 indicated that it was premature to apply for an “Open” sign as the original signage has not been put in place.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission 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.  Mr. Hawk 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 agreed the owner was aware of the restrictions.  

(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 in order to meet code 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 FALSE.  

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.   

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-31, as presented, with the sing only being illuminated during the hours of operation.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-31: Hoyt (yes), Ryan (no), Hawk (no), Vote 1-2.  No action taken.  This application is continued. 

121 South Prospect Street – Dan Rogers,  Application #2012-32

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a six-foot (6’) rear yard privacy fence. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Dan Rogers, Dr. Chris Avery, Sam Sagaria and Barbara Franks 

Discussion: 

Mr. Rogers indicated the application is for a six-foot privacy fence with gates similar to the existing fence on the northern edge of the property with four openings and finished in the same manner as the neighbor’s fence. 

 Dr. Chris Avery, 127 South Prospect Street, indicated that Mr. Rogers has received an extension of his liquor permit to include the first floor, second floor, basement and front porch.  He indicated that the original zoning which Mr. Rogers received for his restaurant did not permit that for those extended areas.  The liquor license requires that the permit holder must meet all state and local codes including zoning codes.  He stated that Mr. Rogers is currently not in compliance with those codes.  He stated that additionally, with the approval of this fence, Mr. Rogers will extend his restaurant and alcohol consumption into that area as well.  Dr. Avery suggested that the Village should consider legal review of this application prior to any approval.  

Planner Terry indicated that the application before the Commission is for a fence.  Any other issues related to his existing liquor permit or existing restaurant use are not relevant to this application.  At this point, the Commission can only rule on issues relevant to the fence application. 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated that he had several concerns.  He questions how the gates would be hung and if Mr. Rogers intended to use his fence to hang a gate.  He indicated that Mr. Rogers did not have any “hanging” rights.  He commented that the expansion of the liquor permit expanded the restaurant area from the originally approved 400 square feet.  Mr. Rogers is now in violation of the Village Code for exceeding his original zoning permit application.  Mr. Sagaria also indicated that he felt the addition of the privacy fence is to expand the restaurant area into a beer garden, which is also a non-compliance issue according to Village Code.  He questioned if expansion of the restaurant required zoning approval and additional parking requirements.  Mr. Sagaria felt the approval of this fence would not enhance the character of the neighborhood. 

Mr. Ryan commented that the Commission is only permitted to evaluate the application presented, which is for the addition of a six-foot privacy fence.  Any additional issues are not pertinent, nor can they be considered, as part of this application.  Mr. Hawk commented that he is willing to make a motion to table the application in order to seek legal counsel.  No motion was made. 

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, is concerned about why her application is being singled out and being questioned.  She asked what legal issues needed to be addressed.  Ms. Franks sees no reason why her application should be denied. 

Mr. Ryan indicated that he is concerned about the gates.  The application does not include a picture of the gates or a picture of the hardware.  Gates such as these have not been approved previously, in his memory.  He expressed concerns that the applicant has previously received approvals with vague descriptions or drawings provided at the meeting and then installed something completely different.  He indicated that the applicant needed to provide specific drawings of the gates and hardware. 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the gates will be locked most of the time, if they will be locked from the inside, and what type of locks will be used. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-32: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes that the fence would be stylistically compatible with other structures in the district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that the fence would be compatible with other structures, but may not upgrade the historic character of the district.  

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to make a conclusion.

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2012-32 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-32:  Ryan (no), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (no).   Vote 1-2.  No action taken.  This application is continued.

126 South Main Street – Renee Terebuh, on behalf of the business “What’s In It For Me”,  Application #2012-33

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).The request is for review and approval of a wall sign. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Renee Terebuh 

Discussion: 

Ms. Terebuh indicated that this application was for a 3 x 6 sign on the south facing wall.  The sign will be stainless steel with a black border and raised black letters.  There will be no lighting. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-33: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes as the sign design is in keeping with the architectural style in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes as it is a new business that will be upgrading 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 district. 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-33 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-33:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business: 

Application #2012-29: Gary Hall, 310 West Elm Street, Privacy Fence  

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 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-29 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-29. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes), Hawk (yes),.   Motion carried 3-0. 

Application #2012-33: Renee Terebuh for What’s In It For Me, 126 South Main Street        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 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-33 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-33. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes), Hawk (yes),.   Motion carried 3-0. 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excusing Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell from the March 26, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  

Next meetings:

Monday, April 9, 2012

Monday, April 23, 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.