Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes May 14, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 14, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio Council member), Doug Eklof (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD member), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Steven Hawk, and Jean Hoyt.

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

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

Also Present:  Renee Terebuh, Bryon Reed, Susan King, Donna Jenkins, Herach Nazarian, Michael Cox, Steve Gauger, Enoch Ahenkora, Roger Lossing, Geoffrey Hiler, Dottie Vaughn, and Charlie Hansen. 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Old Business:

327 North Pearl Street – Ed and Donna Jenkins- Application #2012-42

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of three (3) windows. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Donna Jenkins.  

Discussion:

The application was tabled at the previous Planning Commission meeting.  Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2012-42 from the table, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Donna Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, indicated they would like to add three windows and two of them would be on the north side alley.  Ms. Jenkins stated the window on the first level is a duplicate of the existing.  She stated the new windows would be the same style and make of the existing windows on the home.  Ms. Terry explained the location of the windows on the pictures submitted by the applicant.  Mr. Hawk asked if window 3 would be centered under the gothic style window.  Ms. Jenkins stated yes.  He asked if window 1 would be lined up with the windows on the first floor.  Ms. Jenkins stated yes, it would match up with the trim.  She stated the window space is 12x18 and the window will go above the door.  Ms. Jenkins stated the windows are going in due to lack of light inside the home.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-42: 

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 window 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 for the windows are consistent with other window materials used in this district.

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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-42 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-42: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

401 North Pearl Street – Renee Terebuh - Application #2012-49

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 Renee Terebuh. 

Discussion:

Renee Terebuh, 126 South Main Street, stated she would like to put this sign in front of Steve Mershon’s fence.  She presented the actual sign and indicated it matches the existing signage on the building.  Ms. Terebuh stated the signage would come down at the end of the day.  She stated she would place the two-sided signage in the landscaping area and not on the sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated sidewalk signage is permitted in this district, but the sign measure 3 feet wide x 4 four feet tall which does not meet the width requirement of two feet maximum.  Ms. Terry stated a variance would be required if the Planning Commission chooses to approve the application. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-49: 

a)        Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the proposed signage exactly matches existing signage already approved by the Planning Commission for this business.

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. 

d)        Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-49: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss indicated the variance is required for the width only and the proposed signage matches existing signage on the building. 

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.  Mr. Ryan stated the business needs signage to attract customers to the back building.  Mr. Ryan stated the variance is needed because of the width and if it were not this wide a variance wouldn’t be required.        

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Ryan stated the increase is by one foot.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage will have drive-by traffic and the size requested is appropriate.  

(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.  

(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.  Mr. Ryan indicated the business owner is renting and did not purchase the property, but is aware there are zoning restrictions with zoning and signage.    

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed 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.  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.   

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-49 with the condition that the applicant bring the signage in and out at the close/open of business each day; and a variance be granted to increase the sidewalk signage width from two feet (2’) to three feet (3’).  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-49: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

401 North Pearl Street – Renee Terebuh - Application #2012-50

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

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

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

Discussion:

Renee Terebuh, 126 South Main Street, stated that the proposed temporary signage is identical to the building signage and is proposed to be located on Broadway in front of Park National Bank.  She stated this sign has not yet been made and would meet the size requirements of 2’x 4’.  Ms. Terebuh stated the manager of the bank has approved the requested location for the signage for thirty (30) days.  Ms. Terry acknowledged a letter the Village received from Ryan Mills at Park National Bank.  She stated the only reason this request for temporary signage is before the Planning Commission is because the applicant wants to place the sign off-premise and this has to be approved by the Commission.  Ms. Terry explained temporary signage is otherwise issued by the Planning Department.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-50:

 a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burris stated the business location is unique compared to other business establishments in this area.  Mr. Ryan added the signage request is only for thirty days.  

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the thirty day request for signage is very reasonable.      

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial.  Mr. Hawk stated the request for signage is only thirty days.  

(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.  

(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 agreed 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.  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 #2012-50 with a variance to allow the installation of a temporary sidewalk sign off premises; for a period of no longer than 30 days after final approval of this application; and with the condition that the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours. 

Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-50:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

1001 Cherry Valley Road – DaNite Sign Co./Bob Evans - Application #2012-52

Planned Commercial District (PCD)

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Michael Cox. 

Discussion:

Michael Cox, 420 East Broadway, indicated he is with DaNite Sign Company and representing the applicant, Bob Evans.  Mr. Cox stated they are requesting a refacing of the existing wall, taking the yellow face off and putting a different white face on.  He explained this change is being required by Bob Evans management to meet their new standards.  Ms. Terry stated she reviewed the file from when Bob Evans originally applied for signage on the property and she is unable to find any paperwork or documentation related to any variances for the signage.  She stated there is no record of a variance for internal illumination and the signage is currently internally illuminated.  Ms. Terry explained two variances would be necessary for the requested approval – one to allow for internal illumination and the second to increase the maximum height from twelve feet (12’) to sixteen feet (16’).  Mr. Burriss questioned the spot lighting for the signage.  Mr. Cox stated they have spot lighting for the entire building.  Mr. Burriss agreed the signage is not a source of lighting for the building.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-52: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated the peculiarity is this is an existing sign and the only change is going from yellow to white.  He indicated the Village does not have any record of approval of this and it is not the fault of Bob Evans Restaurants.  Mr. Burris stated they had a similar situation with the local funeral home signage.    

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.  Mr. Ryan stated he prefers the look of the white signage, rather than the existing yellow.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage being replaced is the exact same size.   

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial because of the preexisting conditions.  

(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.  

(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.  Mr. Ryan indicated it is not the applicants fault that the Village doesn’t have records of the signage approval.  

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission agreed 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.  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 #2011-113 with the following variances:

1)                  To allow for an internally illuminated sign in the Planned Commercial District; and

2)                  To increase the maximum height of a wall sign from twelve (12’) feet to sixteen-foot-eight (16’-8”) to allow for an existing wall sign.

Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-113: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.  

1229 Cherry Valley Road – Enoch Akenkora - Application #2012-53

Planned Commercial District (PCD)

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Enoch Ahnkora. 

Discussion:

Enoch Akenkora, 1229 Cherry Valley Road, stated he is representing ‘Love n Comfort’ Home Health Care.  He stated the signage is for a home healthcare business.  Ms. Terry stated this property is allowed eleven (11) square feet of signage total and the sign proposed is a double sided sign which totals sixteen (16) square feet.  Ms. Terry stated the maximum height can be twelve feet (12’) and the applicant’s sign with the frame is six to seven feet (6’-7’) tall, so the height requirement has been met.  Ms. Terry explained the applicant meets the freestanding sign code requirements for the PCD (Planned Commercial District) zoning, but they do not meet the gross maximum total signage allowed for the property.  Ms. Terry clarified this sign is not located within the TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District).  Ms. Terry stated previous signage for Red Vette was allowed within the existing sign frame, but there is no variance on file for the approval that was given in 2005.  

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-53: 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated there is an existing structure in place for previous signage that was approved by the Planning Commission in 2005.      

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.  Mr. Burriss stated automobile traffic is traveling at a higher speed and the signage is further from the roadway.  

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial because of the preexisting conditions with the existing framing.   

 

(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. 

 

(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 agreed 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.  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 special conditions by the applicants request to have lighting on the signage.  The Planning Commission requested the signage be turned on at dusk and off by 10:00 P.M.      

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-53 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage of all signs on this zoned lot in the Planned Commercial District (PCD) from eleven (11) square feet to sixteen (16) square feet to allow for the installation of a freestanding sign; and to allow the lighting to be turned on at dusk and off at 10:00 P.M.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-53: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

331 Spellman Street – Russell and Amy Hall - Application #2012-57

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of ten (10) replacement windows and the front door.  

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

Discussion:

Russell and Amy Hall, 331 Spellman Street, stated they are before the Planning Commission because some of the window replacements thirteen (13) total would not be an exact replacement, they would not have an arch – like what is currently in place.  Ms. Hall stated they have chosen an architectural series from Pella windows.  Ms. Hall stated they were originally told the arches were not available, but then found they could get them special order for significantly more cost.  Ms. Hall stated ten (10) of the twenty-three (23) windows being replaced do not have an arch.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is replacing all of the windows on the home, but some are considered exact replacement windows and do not require architectural review and approval.  Mr. Burriss asked why the applicant chose a door different than what is in place.  Mr. Hall stated they have chosen a craftsman style fiberglass door.  Ms. Hall stated the existing door does not seal well and they wanted to add more light in the entry area.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant looked at any doors along the Victorian lines?  Mr. Hall stated they were told this door would be consistent with the time period of the house.  Mr. Hall clarified the sill around the door would also be replaced.  Ms. Hoyt indicated she personally likes the arches in the windows, but the replacement will be compatible with the additional windows on the home.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-50: 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the home is being improved and so is the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the livability is improved and the vitality of 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 #2012-57 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-50:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

198 Welsh Hills Road – Terra Nova Partners - Application #2012-36 AMENDED

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A)

The request is for review and approval of the reduction of the number of lots previously approved, from three (3) lots to two (2) lots total.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Dottie Vaughn and Geoffrey Hiler. 

Discussion:

Mr. Ryan clarified the board would like to limit the discussion of Application #2012-36 to new testimony and facts not already heard by the Planning Commission at the last hearing regarding the proposed lot splits.  

Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive, stated they met with the BZBA and after going through this process they are before the Planning Commission requesting an amendment from three lots to two lots total.  Mr. Reed indicated they previously needed three variances for three lots, and now they only need one variance per lot for the frontage.  Mr. Reed stated each lot would be a ½ acre and the BZBA felt two lots was a compromise and therefore agreed to the amendment.  Ms. Terry stated the BZBA approved the application to reduce the road frontage for lot 1 from ninety feet (90’) to eighty-two feet (82’).  She stated the lot 2 frontage variance was from ninety feet (90’) to zero feet (0’).  Ms. Terry stated the approval for the variances has been appealed and will go through Village Council.  She indicated the Planning Commission can still make a decision on the application request for the amended lot splits and if the variance doesn’t go approved the lot split won't be approved by the Village either.  Mr. Ryan clarified the Planning Commission has previously approved three lots for the applicant and they are now amending their request to go to two lots.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is still considering the same style of home as previously presented to the Planning Commission.  Mr. Reed stated yes, but they may look at adding a basement.  Mr. Reed requested the right to be able to cross-examine each individual presenting new testimony.  Ms. Terry indicated this is allowed.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the garages on both lots would be back to back along the divide in the center?  Mr. Reed stated they are not positive as to the exact locations, but they would meet all setback requirements for the rear and side yards.  He stated they are still going to propose a shared driveway.  

Roger Lossing, 54 Pinehurst Drive, stated he did not believe the financial impacts for the neighbors associated with this approval was emphasized enough.  He stated in review of the code, he believes the financial impacts, in this case being negative financial impacts, should be a considering factor.  Mr. Lossing stated in particular Mr. Hiler’s home, which was recently purchased and now will have a home right up against the front or back of his house – maybe 25 feet away.  Mr. Lossing stated Mr. Hiler purchased the home with the thought he would be protected by development through zoning.  Mr. Lossing stated part of the reason for the existence of a zoning code is for protection of financial impacts to the neighbors.  He stated there is “no great benefit for anyone by allowing the lot split.”  He stated the lot is buildable and profitable for the applicant without the granting of the lot splits.  

Geoffrey Hiler, 212 Welsh Hills Road, stated the delivery of governmental services, as reviewed for other applications this evening, will be significantly impacted by the lot split approval.  Mr. Hiler stated there is a significant issue with the houses being stacked as proposed by the applicant.  He stated waste removal will be five hundred feet (500’) down the driveway.  Mr. Hiler stated nobody can find his house now and it will be worse if the Planning Commission allows another home in the back.  He stated if emergency services are required it is difficult to find these homes.  Ms. Hoyt asked for clarification as to the location of Mr. Hiler’s home.  Mr. Lossing presented an aerial.  Mr. Hiler stated he has filed the appeal to Village Council and he will have home appraisers testify on his behalf indicating this application will indeed decrease the value of his home.  

Susan King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, indicated she would like to speak regarding application #2012-36.  Ms. Terry asked where Ms. King’s home is located in relation to this property.  She stated she is at 316 Welsh Hills Road and she did not receive notice of this meeting in the mail.  Ms. Terry clarified anyone offering testimony and granted standing to speak in regards to the application also has the right to appeal the application.  She stated the Planning Commission is charged with acting as a quasi-judicial board and that individuals offering testimony as "interested parties" need have a direct interest in the application.  She indicated that the Planning Commission needs to determine whether this individual has the right to speak as an interested party.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion indicating, Ms. Susan King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, does not having standing to speak in regards to Application #2012-36.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Burris (no), Hoyt (no) Ryan (yes).  Motion did not carry 2-2.  

Ms. Terry stated Ms. King can be called by either party as a witness.  Mr. Ryan stated Ms. King was not notified of the hearing by the Village.  He stated the variance application is already being appealed to Village Council and he does not believe Ms. King is a party of interest in this matter due to the location of her home.  Mr. Ryan indicated that the Planning Commission would not be allowing Ms. King to speak as an interested party. 

Mr. Ryan stated he would like to address the comments by Mr. Lossing and Mr. Hiler.  He stated the location of the house is not a detriment to financial property values.  He stated this is a piece of property that was for sale and sold.  He indicated any of the neighbors could have purchased the property if they wanted to control what went on at the property.  Mr. Ryan stated the applicant has the right to purchase the property and build one home and it could still affect Mr. Hiler’s view because of the applicants choice to locate the home within the setbacks on the property.  Ms. Terry stated she would like to address a comment made regarding emergency services.  She stated all addresses are required to be installed at the street, in situations such as this one, and the address must be installed by the applicant in order to receive an occupancy permit.  She stated the governmental services Mr. Hiler referred to earlier is a part of the variance criteria.  She stated the Planning Commission did review variance criteria this evening for other applications, but only as it related to signage.  Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission is not charged with considering that particular criteria for issues such as a lot split.   

Bryon Reed asked Mr. Lossing if he is aware of the value of Mr. Hiler's home.  He stated no. Mr. Lossing has indicated Mr. Hiler’s home value will drop as a result of this application.   Mr. Lossing stated he believes Mr. Hiler’s home will be worth less as a result of the lot split regardless of what he paid for the home.  Mr. Reed indicated he has a right to build an $800,000 single family home on the property and he questioned if Mr. Lossing knows for a fact this would devalue Mr. Hiler’s home.  Mr. Reed stated regarding the size of the lots, they are requesting to do the same thing as what was allowed next door.  He stated “the only difference is our lot width is 20% larger than both lots next door.”  Mr. Reed stated his lot is 44% larger than the lot next door and is 8% larger than Mr. Hiler’s lot.  Mr. Reed submitted pictures of the property and indicated they can meet all of the setback requirements from the side yard and back yard.  He stated they would only need a front yard setback variance and there is not a setback on Mr. Hiler’s property.  Mr. Reed stated after the survey process they found Mr. Hiler has a retaining wall that actually sits on their property.  

Mr. Hiler indicated if this is located on Mr. Reed’s property it may belong to Mr. Reed.  Mr. Reed stated as far the comment on the homes being stacked - part of the problem they are trying to work through in the building process is the properties next door not having any setbacks.  Mr. Reed stated they will be doing some cleaning up on the lot and possibly removing an old shed.  He stated he believes Mr. Hiler’s view will not be negatively affected and could be enhanced.  

Herach Nazarian, 2780 Cambria Mill, stated they did not install the retaining wall they found to be on their property.  He stated there is a dog fence next to it and it is obvious this belongs to Mr. Hiler.  Mr. Nazarian stated the neighbors were not ever guaranteed a 360 degree view of pasture forever.  Mr. Nazarian stated as far as home values in the area, they are working to improve what is there and he finds it hard to believe values would decrease.  

Ms. Hoyt stated she is sensitive to the neighbors concerns and she appreciates their concerns on the view.  She went on to say she has to believe the applicant, along with his financial interests, would be sensitive to the proper placement of the homes on the lots so everyone’s view is protected.  She stated it behooves the applicant to protect the views from the homes.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-36 AMENDED as presented.  Seconded by Ms Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-36 AMENDED:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

217 East Broadway – Charlie Hansen/Granville Public Library - Application #2012-58

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing stone steps leading to the basement and replacement with concrete steps.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Charlie Hansen. 

Discussion: 

Charlie Hansen stated he is representing the library.  He indicated they looked at replacing the steps with stone, but it was too expensive.  Mr. Hansen indicated they are proposing concrete steps which would have a brush finish and be stained to match the look of sandstone.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-58: 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the structure is being improved and so is the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the vitality of the building is improved and this contributes to the vitality of 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 #2012-58 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-58:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

130 North Main Street – George Gauger- Application #2012-59

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

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

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Steve Gauger. 

Discussion:

Ms. Terry stated the applicant’s request meets all requirements.  Mr. Gauger stated the fence would be stained white.  Mr. Burriss stated this is an appropriate enhancement to the property.   

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-59: 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposal is consistent with other fence approvals in the same zoning 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.  

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 #2012-59 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-59:Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Other Business:

To Amend Sections 1171.03 and 1189.13 of the codified ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio.  

1171.03 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN GUIDELINES. 

(a)          Planned Development District Lot Guidelines: Minimum Yards. 

                                                                                 MINIMUM YARDS

                                  Frontage                                                        Min.

                         Min            To A                                          Total           Rear           Max

                         Lot             Public   Set              Backs         Side            Set-            Bldg           Max

Zoning             Area           Row     Front             Side            Yard           Back          Lot             Height

District             (Sq. Ft.)      (Feet)   (Feet)         (Feet)         (Feet)         (Feet)     Coverage        (Feet)

PUD                *    350 *     35          14               30               50               20%            35

PID                  *   350         40        none                             none              35%            35

PCD                 *   125         30          15                               none              40%            25

See (b)(3)Below

* Minimum lot area requirements shall be determined by the Planning Commission upon conditions of the proposed development of the land and the requirements established herein for each development.   In measuring lot coverage, all buildings and other covered areas, such as parking areas, sidewalks, loading areas, driveways and driveway areas, shall be included.

            (1)        There must be sufficient lot area and width to meet all parking and yard requirements.

            (2) Planned Unit District (PUD) when abutting another district, no structure shall be closer than thirty-five feet and no parking area or access drive shall be closer than fifteen feet to a side lot line.

            (3) Planned Industrial District (PID) when abutting another district, no structure shall be closer than fifty feet and no parking area, loading area or access drive shall be closer than fifteen feet to the rear lot line.

            (4) Parking areas shall be no closer to the main structure(s) than ten

            feet.

            (5)        Planned Unit District (PUD) parking and accessory building standards shall be as follows:

                        a.   No driveway or parking area shall be within five feet of a side lot line; or ten feet for multi-family dwellings.

b.   No driveways or parking areas shall be within ten feet of a rear lot line.

                        c.   For accessory buildings, such as detached garages:  minimum yard requirements shall be the same as required for main structures, except in all cases the minimum distance between an accessory building and the rear property line shall be fifteen feet.

            (5) (6)  The net density in a development shall not exceed one (1) unit per one and one-half (1½) acres. The Planning Commission may increase the density to one (1) unit per acre, provided that the conditions of subsection (b)(4) (c)(5) hereof  are met.

(6)        Density. The maximum PUD density is six units on any given acre in a development. Publicly dedicated streets shall not be included in the computation of area.

1189.13 GENERAL PERMIT PROCEDURES. 

            The following procedures shall govern the application for, and the issuance of, all sign permits under this chapter, and the submission and review of a Master or Common Signage Plan.

(a)                Applications. All applications for the sign permits of any kind and for approval of a Master Signage Plan shall be submitted to the Village Planner on an application form with the application specifications and materials as published by the Planning and Zoning Office.

            (b)        Fees. Each application for a sign permit or for approval of a Master Signage Plan shall be accompanied by the applicable fees, which shall be established by the Village Council from time to time by ordinance.

            (c)        Completeness. Within seven days of receiving an application for a sign permit or a Master Signage Plan, the Village Planner shall review it for completeness. If the Planner finds that it is complete, the applications shall then be processed. If the Planner finds it incomplete, the Planner shall, within such seven-day period, send the applicant a notice of the specific ways in which the application is deficient, with appropriate reference to the applicable sections of this chapter.

            (d)        Submission Requirements. The following materials must be included with the completed application forms. Examples are available from the Planning and Zoning Office.

(1)        Site plan. A site plan drawn to an appropriate scale which shows the proposed location of the sign as well as all other significant site features such as rights of way, topography, existing vegetation, and adjacent buildings and properties which may be affected by the proposal.

(2)        Elevation. An elevation of the proposed sign and its mounting system that includes an accurate rendering of the proposed graphic design, typography, color, and materials used for construction. For window, wall or building signs this drawing should include a complete elevation of the building face on which the sign will be attached.

            (e)        Action. After processing a complete application, the Village Planner will submit the application to the Planning Commission for review at its next available meeting. This review will be scheduled as the Planning Commission agenda will allow, but action must be taken within forty-five days of the acceptance of the completed application, unless the applicant requests a delay.

            (f)         Appeal. Any party aggrieved or affected by a decision of the Planning Commission involving a sign application may appeal to Council. The appeal shall follow the procedures established in Chapter 1137. Such appeal shall be submitted to the Village Clerk no later than ten days after the decision of the Commission is filed with the Village Clerk or sent to the applicant by personal service or ordinary by deposit in the U.S mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, whichever shall last occur. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed staff language changes presented for the above sections.  Ms. Terry stated these are cleanup issues of inconsistencies within the code.    

Mr. Ryan stated he has concerns over the language changing the PUD density from six units per acre to one unit per acre.  He asked for further clarification on this item, including other density comparisons.  

Mr. Burriss made a motion to table this discussion to research further information before making a recommendation to Village Council.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

Old Business:

Application #2012-42: Ed and Donna Jenkins; 327 North Pearl Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-42 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-42. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

New Business:

Application #2012-49: Renee Terebuh; 126 South Main 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-49 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-49. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-50: Renee Terebuh; 126 South Main 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-50 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-50. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-52: Bob Evans; 1001 Cherry Valley Road; 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 1189, Signs, Chapter 1171, Planned Commercial District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-52 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-52. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Application #2012-53: Enoch Ahenkora; 1229 Cherry Valley Road; 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 and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-53 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-53. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-57: Russell & Amy Hall; 331 Spellman Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-57 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-57. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Application #2012-36 AMENDED: Terra Nova Homes; 198 Welsh Hills Road; Lot Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedures for Plat Approval, Village District, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-36 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-36 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-58: Granville Public Library; 217 East Broadway; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-58 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-58. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Application #2012-59: Steve Gauger; 130 North Main Street; Fencing

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 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-59 as submitted by the applicant. 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-59. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 23, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 23, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the May 14, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Adjournment:  9:10 PM

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

Next meetings:

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Monday, June 11, 2012 (Councilmember Johnson indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

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.