Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 11, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Rob Montgomery (non-voting, Ex-Officio Village Council Member), Doug Eklof (non-voting, Ex-Officio GEVSD Member), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell.

Members Absent:  None.

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

Also Present: Tonda Thomas, Don DeSapri, Jeff Manecke, Kevin Lewis, and Ann Lowder.  

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

115 West Elm Street – Tonda Thomas- Application #2012-70

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a picket fence in the rear yard. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Tonda Thomas.  

Discussion:

Tonda Thomas, 115 West Elm Street, indicated she would like to install a picket fence.  Mr. Ryan asked if there are any proposed gates for the fence.  Ms. Thomas stated yes and one is larger to accommodate a riding lawn mower.  She indicated the location of the gates on a survey.  Mr. Ryan asked if the gates are made out of the same material as the fence.  Ms. Thomas stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the fence would be finished with a paint or stain.  Ms. Thomas stated she would paint the fence white after it has weathered for about thirty days, as recommended by her contractor.  Mr. Ryan asked if both sides of the fence would be painted.  Ms. Thomas stated yes.  She explained the fence would connect to Ms. Hickey’s fence at some point.  Mr. Ryan asked how the gate would open with the neighboring property.  Ms. Thomas stated she believed the fence would open onto the neighbor’s property.  She explained she is unsure how close the fence would be to the property line.  Mr. Mitchell indicated there is an easement noted for the property.  Ms. Walker agreed it is unclear as to whom the easement belongs to.  Mr. Mitchell stated the gate could be intruding on the neighboring property, unless the easement is in Ms. Thomas favor.  Mr. Ryan clarified the gate should open on the applicant’s property.  Ms. Thomas agreed.       

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-70:

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used for fencing in this district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the fence allows for vitality in the district.

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 #2012-70 with the condition the west boundary gate swing inward onto the applicant’s property and the fence be painted white.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-70:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

221 East Broadway – Robbins Hunter Museum - Application #2012-74

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of cobblestone pavers and replacement with exposed aggregate concrete. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Don DeSapri, Jeff Manecke,

Kevin Lewis, and Ann Lowder.  

Discussion:

Ann Lowder, 335 West Elm Street, stated the cobblestone area would be replaced with aggregate concrete.  Ms. Terry noted there were some sunken in areas within the previous parking area.  Ms. Lowder stated the cobblestone materials had not been properly installed some thirty years ago and they have had lots of mud and puddles accumulating.  Ms. Lowder explained they would like to add to the parking area by taking over the grassy strip to the south, which often has car tracks.  Ms. Lowder stated the undersurface and removing the pavers is a very expensive endeavor.  Mr. Ryan asked the expansion amount for the area.  Ms. Lowder stated yes there would be an additional 734 square feet added.  Mr. Ryan stated it appears the slope would move towards the drains to get rid of the excess water.  Mr. Burriss asked about the bedding area in the back of the bakery and if they would be lifting up the air conditioning unit to put it on a pad.  Mr. Hawk asked how the air conditioning unit would be protected from someone driving into it.  Ms. Lowder stated there would be a pad put in and they are willing to block the unit with rocks or balusters if need be.  Mr. DeSapri stated there is a stone in front of the unit now.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant had considered installing concrete with an historic stained finish instead of exposed aggregate?  

Kevin Lewis, 36 Waterworks Road, Newark, stated he is representing the contractor.  He stated the material they are proposing is rustic looking and very similar to what was in front of Park National Bank.  Mr. Mitchell stated he liked the former look of the cobblestones.    

The applicant discussed parking plans for the entire area.  Ms. Terry questioned if the number of spaces the applicant is presenting would fit.  She stated the Village does not allow stacked parking.  She stated diagonal parking takes up more space and the Code states the parking spaces have to be twenty feet (20’) in length with a twenty-two foot (22’) drive aisle.  Mr. DeSapri stated they are trying to aide the Village in increasing parking spaces.  Ms. Terry stated the cars would have to back out of the area and the applicant will only be able to provide a total of two spaces to meet current code requirements, even with the increased area.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the parking area has enough room to back out.  Ms. Terry stated yes, but the applicant is not picking up additional parking spaces by adding the additional concrete.  Mr. DeSapri questioned if removing the hedges on the south would help.  Mr. Burriss stated the Village would require parking spaces to be screened.  Mr. Ryan stated there is no question the applicant may not gain what they desire with the amount of money they are spending.  Mr. Mitchell commented that it looks like additional planning is prudent and perhaps the applicant should have an engineer review the proposal for maximum benefit.  Mr. Hawk agreed.  

Jeff Manecke, 2308 Hankinson Road, Granville, indicated he is a Trustee on the Robbins Hunter Board.  He requested to have the application tabled.  Ms. Hoyt requested the applicant expand on searching for different materials that are more historically appropriate.  Mr. Lewis stated he would bring in an example of the aggregate concrete. The Planning Commission began to review the Criteria for Application #2012-74 and their discussion resulted in the applicant making a formal request to Table the application until they have the opportunity to gather additional information.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2012-74.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-74:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

454 South Main Street – Leigh Brennan – A Place to Call OM - Application #2012-75

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a new wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Jodi Melfi. 

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, 116 West Maple, Apt. A., indicated she is representing the business ‘A Place to Call OM.’  Ms. Melfi stated the signage would be fifteen inches (15”) high and five feet (5’) long.  She stated they are proposing to use the same materials and fonts as the existing signage on the building for ‘Granville Dance Academy.’  Ms. Terry indicated the requirements have not been met because only one wall sign is allowed per building.  She stated the square footage requirements for signage have been met.  Ms. Terry explained if the Planning Commission chose to approve the application a variance would be necessary to increase the number of wall signs per building from one to two.  Mr. Hawk stated he does not like the proposed elevation of the signage and wondered if it could be centered within the proposed location.  Ms. Melfi stated the existing lighting that is already in place makes it prohibitive to change the elevation.  Ms. Hoyt asked if each patron entering business’s in this building would enter in the same location.  Ms. Melfi stated yes.   

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-75: 

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.  Mr. Ryan stated there is only one (1) entrance and a sharing of the space by three businesses. 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.    Mr. Hawk stated the other two businesses couldn’t exist if they are denied signage.  Mr. Ryan stated one business in the building could still be considered beneficial use of the property, but not a reasonable return.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss stated FALSE, with them supporting the need for a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE 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 this was FALSE it would not alter the character of the neighborhood.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE it would not adversely affect the delivery of governmental services. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission has no way of knowing this.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE substantial justice would be done. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated the applicant did not build the building. 

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE it will not. 

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 there were no special conditions.    

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-75 as submitted with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from one (1) to two (2) on this building in the Community Service District (CSD).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-75:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

454 South Main Street – Daniel Sprague/Sprague Shotokan Karate - Application #2012-76

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for review and approval of a new wall sign.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Jodi Melfi. 

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, West Maple Street, Apt. A., indicated she is representing the owner of the business regarding the signage.  She stated the sign is five foot long and fifteen inches high.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-76: 

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 this was 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 this was FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated the owner could not make enough in rent for a reasonable return without the additional businesses located in the building.    

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial and it’s adding a sign for another business.    

(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 this was FALSE.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE the applicant is a tenant.      

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated a variance is needed to allow for another tenant. 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE and substantial justice would be done. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE the applicant is a tenant.  

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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE it will not adversely affect any of the above. 

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 there were no additional conditions.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-76 as submitted with a variance to increase the maximum number of wall signs from two (2) to three (3) on this building in the Community Service District (CSD).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-76:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

221 East Broadway – Granville Chamber of Commerce- Application #2012-77

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Jodi Melfi.  

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, West Maple Street, stated she is representing the applicant, Granville Area Chamber of Commerce.  She stated they would like to place a piece of plastic covering on the sidewalk sign so they can display posters and information underneath the logo.  She stated this would mean the applicant wouldn’t have to tape information on the glass doors anymore because they could display it on the sidewalk sign.  Ms. Melfi stated the sign would be located on the sidewalk during business hours only.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sign would be a changeable copy sign.  Ms. Terry stated this would not be considered changeable copy.  Mr. Hawk stated the proposal is not different from signage across the street.  Ms. Terry stated if the Planning Commission were to approve the application a variance would be necessary to increase the maximum square footage for signage from 28.75 square feet to 40.33 square feet because there is a wall sign and window sign already on the property.  Mr. Montgomery asked how the Planning Commission feels about sidewalk signage being on this side of Broadway and the area on the north of side of Broadway in general.  Mr. Mitchell stated in general the Planning Commission does not like sidewalk signage, but it is allowed in the Code and they have to follow the Code.  He added he cannot see how they could deny signage on the south side and allow them on the north side.  Mr. Montgomery stated he has heard some comments that the amount of sidewalk signage on the north side is an impediment to pedestrians and it is nice to have the space open on the south side.  Mr. Ryan stated the Village also wants businesses on the south side to ensure the downtown area is viable.  He stated they can’t penalize businesses just because they are located on the south side.  

Ms. Terry clarified sidewalk café areas are approved by Village Council through an annual resolution and this is not a part of the zoning code.  Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission technically cannot deny a sandwich board sign permitted by the Code, but in this case the applicant would need a variance to have the sandwich board sign.  She explained the applicant right now has 24.33 square feet of existing signage and 28.75 square foot signage is the maximum allowed by the code. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-77: 

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 this was TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated this was true because the front of the business is only eleven foot (11’) wide.    

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.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Hawk, and Ms. Hoyt stated the business is already operating in this location without the signage.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell stated this is the Chamber Office and it’s a community service organization that is promoting the entire community, so this was FALSE.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated the variance would go from 28 square feet to 40 square feet.  Mr. Burriss stated for this instance, the variance is not substantial due to the limited frontage of the building.                           

(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 this was FALSE.  Mr. Burriss stated there are additional sandwich board signs on this side of the street.  

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was FALSE. 

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Hawk stated FALSE.  Mr. Ryan stated a variance is needed if the owner wants an additional sign on the building, TRUE.  Ms. Hoyt stated the owner or leasee should be aware of the zoning they are in, TRUE.  

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE. 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Ms. Hoyt stated FALSE, the tenant of the property had the ability to research the property before renting it.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated FALSE.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Burriss 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.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this was TRUE it will not. 

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 the removal of the sidewalk sign should occur when the business is not open, and a plastic cover be added to prevent items from blowing away on the sign, and that additional signage displayed within the window, and not approved by the Planning Commission, be removed. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-77: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed sidewalk sign is stylistically compatible with other sidewalk signs which have been approved within this district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated it provides for the advertisement of community events which does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved for the businesses within the community by advertising community events and promoting community involvement. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated it helps with community involvement and growth of the community.  

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-77 with a variance to increase the maximum total square footage for signs on this property, for this business, from 28.75 square feet to 40.33 square feet and with the following conditions:  1)  That the sign shall be removed and secured during non-business hours; 2)  That the practice of taping information to the inside windows be discontinued; and 3)  That a protective covering be applied to the exterior of the sign to secure the materials attached to the sidewalk sign.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-77:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

338 East College Street – Susan Day - Application #2012-78

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of a white picket fence in the rear

yard with gates. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Susan Day.  

Discussion:

Susan Day, 338 East Elm Street, stated she would like put in a picket fence at 338 East College Street.  Ms. Day stated the gates would match the picket fence and the fence would be painted off-white on both sides.  Ms. Terry stated the requirements have been met.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the fencing would be made of wood.  Ms. Day stated yes.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-78: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence is consistent with similar fences 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 fence is historically appropriate. 

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

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-78 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-78:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Other Business:

Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed zoning code revisions.  

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13;  and Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1137.01, 1139.04, 1139.05, and 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, and 1141.06.  

Discussion:

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13:  

Ms. Terry distributed a Subdivision Residential Development Densities chart to the Planning Commission for their review.  Mr. Ryan stated he feels there should be a differentiation of densities between single family and multifamily housing.  The other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Ryan agreed this is an area of the code that is left up to interpretation and needs to be clarified.  He applauded the staff’s effort to clean this area up in the code.  Ms. Terry stated BZBA makes determinations and interpretations where there are conflicts with the zoning map, but does not make determinations or interpretations where there are conflicts with the zoning code. 

Mr. Ryan asked how open space is referenced.  Ms. Terry stated it is interpreted by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry reviewed some of the areas in the Village zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) including Granville Golf Course, 2780 Newark Granville Road, and land located across from Fackler’s Garden Center and owned by Park National Bank.  Ms. Terry stated the PUD does allow for some combination of commercial uses in conjunction with a mixture of residential densities.  Mr. Ryan suggested 1.5 dwelling units per acre for density in single family development.  Mr. Hawk agreed.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not know the details on this matter enough to make a decision.  Ms. Hoyt stated she is for lower density.  Ms. Terry explained the Ordinance now is not clear because there are two (2) conflicting sections.  In one section it talks about 1 dwelling unit per acre in another it says there can be 6 dwelling units per acre.  Ms. Burriss stated for single family residential development – 1.5 units per acre gross is an acceptable number for him.  Mr. Mitchell stated with 1.5 units per acre - there would be more density than that at Bryn Du.  Mr. Burriss stated 1.5 units per acre is what is being developed because of usability of the land and affordability.  Mr. Ryan stated any PUD changes would not just affect the golf course.  Mr. Mitchell stated this is a way to limit the number of houses within the school district.  Ms. Hoyt stated the density depends on the land itself.  She stated the golf course land is conducive to a lower density than the land across from Facklers.  Mr. Ryan stated he doesn’t believe zoning for municipalities should be solely based on schools.  He stated the school’s enrollment has been on a decline for the past two years and is expected to be less in the future.  He stated zoning should be based on the community as a whole and a healthy community is one that grows.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission is in favor of separating the single family and multi-family figures.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Ms. Terry stated two-family and multi-family could be lumped together.  The Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated he would be comfortable with a 1.5 dwelling unit per acre gross density.  Ms. Hoyt asked Ms. Terry to do an analysis which excluded a few PUD properties.  She stated she would like to see the number lowered to 1.3.  Ms. Terry stated she is hearing the Planning Commission say they would like the density to be 1.5 dwelling units per acre for single family and 5 dwelling units per acre for two-family and multi-family residential.  She indicated she would work on the wording and bring a new proposal back to the Planning Commission for review.     

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1137.01, 1139.04, 1139.05, and 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, and 1141.06: 

Mr. Ryan indicated these are proposed language changes to clean up the code.  Ms. Terry explained many of these proposed changes are to make the language between the BZBA and Planning Commission more consistent.  For instance, Ms. Terry stated all references to certified mail have been removed.  The Planning Commission did not provide any additional comments regarding the proposed changes.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend the changes in Sections 1139.01, 04. 05, 06, 07 as prepared by Village Staff on draft document 5/9/2012.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 5-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2012-70: Tonda Thomas; 115 West Elm Street; Picket 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 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-70 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-70. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-75: Leigh Brennan; 454 South Main Street; Wall 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-75 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-75. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2012-76: Danny Sprague/Sprague Shotokan Karate; 454 South Main Street; Wall 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-76 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-76. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-77: Granville Chamber of Commerce; 125 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-77 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-77. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2012-78: Susan Day; 338 East College Street; 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-78 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-78. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from May 14, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. (Mr. Mitchell abstained.) 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from May 29, 2012 as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hawk abstained.)

Adjournment:  9:15 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, June 25, 2012 (Mr. Ryan stated he may not be able to attend this meeting.)   Monday, July 9, 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.