Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes July 23, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 23, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm) 

 

Roll Call:  Those responding to the roll call were Mr. Eklof, Chairman Ryan, Mr. Burriss, Ms. Hoyt and Vice Chairman Mitchell.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof (Ex-officio, non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk. 

 

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

 

Also Present: Barbara Franks, Sam Sagaria, John Noblick, Cynthia Cort, Mr. and Mrs. Art Sayre, Russ Adams, and Marilyn Goumas.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

117 South Prospect Street – Sam Sagaria - Application #2011-117( Amended)

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement front steps with concrete and the replacement of three (3) small windows on the north and west sides with two (2) larger windows. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Barbara Franks, and Sam Sagaria. 

 

Discussion:

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, indicated the application was previously submitted and the Planning Commission asked him to table it to gather additional information.  Mr. Sagaria stated he tried to articulate the answers to the Planning Commission’s questions in the updated information he submitted.  He explained the front steps need to be replaced because of wintertime freezing and they become very slippery.  Mr. Mitchell suggested the applicant may be able to add another stone to help with safety since the existing stones have settled.  Mr. Sagaria stated he considered this option but he feels it would be safer in the long run to replace the steps.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant submitted an illustration showing the posts stopping at the last step.  She stated staff has recommended the posts continue to the ground instead of terminating at the bottom step.  Ms. Walker stated the proposed handrails would match existing handrails on the porch and the step, tread, and riser information is in staff packets.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification regarding the windows and their approximate location and size.  Ms. Walker stated a tree blocks these windows from being seen, so the illustration shown by staff shows the windows without the tree in place.  Mr. Sagaria stated the proposed windows would match other windows on the house.  Mr. Burriss asked if the windows would line up with windows on the second floor.  Mr. Sagaria stated he could ensure that they do line up.  Mr. Sagaria stated there are presently three windows and the replacement would reduce this to two windows.  Mr. Mitchell stated he prefers the look of the original stone steps and they have been in place for 100 years.  He stated something could be done with the steps to ensure safety.  Mr. Sagaria stated he understands and he would reuse the sandstone in the back for landscaping.  Mr. Burriss suggested the new concrete could be colored to match the sandstone.  Mr. Mitchell stated sometimes when you try to match the paint color of the concrete with the sandstone it can look worse than the unfinished concrete.  Ms. Hoyt stated stamped concrete has come a long way and could look very nice.  Mr. Burriss asked if the replacement windows would have trim and sills to match the existing windows.  Mr. Sagaria stated it is his goal to ensure they are identical. 

 

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, stated this is a very historical home and she thinks it would be a shame to remove the original stone steps. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2011-117 (Amended):

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application (steps and windows) are consistent with other similar requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.  

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the windows are consistent with other materials used in this district and other windows on the existing home.  Mr. Ryan stated concrete has replaced sandstone, gravel, and cobblestone.  Mr. Mitchell stated the Planning Commission is not a precedent setting body and he disagrees taking sandstone away and replacing with concrete is not an upgrade to the historical character.  Ms. Hoyt stated maintaining the original materials is preferred unless the condition makes it impossible for replacement.  Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Burriss and Mr. Ryan all stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.     

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability and safety is enhanced with the proposal.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the original steps were at one time safe and the house could have also had wooden steps when originally built.  Mr. Ryan stated the windows to be returned to what should have been in place years ago.  Mr. Ryan stated the steps will improve the exit/entrance for the house.  Mr. Mitchell stated concrete steps will enhance the ingress/egress in many peoples’ eyes.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2011-117 (Amended) with the condition the concrete be colored to match the existing sandstone and the proposed outside window be aligned (west) with the existing second story window.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2011-117 (Amended):  Mitchell (no), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

New Business:

115 East Broadway – Cynthia Cort/Granville Historical Society Museum - Application #2012-110

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Cynthia Cort. 

 

Discussion:

Cynthia Cort, 1632 Newark-Granville Road, indicated the Historical Society has completed their renovation.  She stated the sign would go where the eagle in the gable was located.  Ms. Cort stated the sign would have the word “Museum” in the middle with the words “Granville Historical Society” surrounding it.  Ms. Cort presented an example of the colors in blue and brown.  She went on to say there would be an outside striped blue line around the wording.  Ms. Walker stated there is a clean slate on square footage requirements for this structure.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the old signage used on the building.  Ms. Cort stated there used to be a piece of white sheet metal with black and white lettering.  Mr. Burriss stated he appreciates the thoroughness of the application.  He asked why the proposed signage is different.  Ms. Cort explained they are going through a branding process and these signs would be more durable.  She stated the museum letterhead would reflect their new logo.  Mr. Burriss stated with this being a museum he likes the fact that the wording on the grand opening sign indicated the establishment date in 1885.  He questioned if this could have been incorporated in the proposed signage.  Ms. Cort stated their letterhead would have this, but they wanted the signage to be simpler.  She indicated they could possibly add this.  She explained they weren’t sure what to put up since the new building was built in 2012 and the old building dates back to 1885.  Mr. Burriss stated we are fortunate to have a building of this age in the Village and the date would add authenticity.  Ms. Cort stated this could be added.  Mr. Ryan stated he agrees this should be added especially if it is going to be incorporated in the branding.  Ms. Cort agreed to add “EST 1885” on the wall signage.  Mr. Burriss asked about the blue edge and if an additional line should be added.  Ms. Cort stated they hadn’t thought of adding an additional line and they didn’t want to create less space for lettering.  Mr. Burriss stated a line would help the sign stand out.  Ms. Walker suggested illustrating the added line on the artwork and for this to be submitted as ‘Exhibit A.’  Mr. Burriss suggested this could be added if they can work something out with the printer and they could even make the signage slightly larger.  Ms. Cort agreed.  Mr. Burriss suggested the line should be outside the words “Granville Historical Society.”  Mr. Ryan asked if the sign was expanded to add the proposed line – is an additional variance required for any of the signage?  Ms. Walker stated no variance would be required for the presented signage even if the wall sign were enlarged a bit.   She indicated the sign would be three feet (3’) by four feet (4’) and would have beige, blue, and brown colors. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-110:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district for signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the signage allows the cultural institution to be accessed easily and the vitality is contributed to.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-110 with the addition of the “est 1885” being added to the graphics and if possible a line detail per Exhibit ‘A’ be added to the signage if found feasible by the Granville Historical Society with the final approval to be by Village Staff.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-110:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

115 East Broadway – Cynthia Cort/Granville Historical Society Museum - Application #2012-111

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign on the west side of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Cynthia Cort. 

 

Discussion:

Cynthia Cort, 1236 Newark-Granville Road, stated this signage would have the words “Hubert and Oese Robinson Research Center” on it and they cannot add the established date because it is already wordy.  Mr. Burriss asked if the sign would be mounted flat against the building.  Ms. Cort stated yes – maybe an inch away.  Ms. Walker stated a variance would be necessary if the Planning Commission were to approve the sign since there is only one wall sign permitted per building. Ms. Cort stated there would be times when the museum is closed, but the research center is open so the additional side entrance and signage is important.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-111:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the application is consistent with other signage requests approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials are consistent with other materials used for signage in this district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the sign is historically appropriate.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-111:

 

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. Burriss stated true, the location on the alley way and the dual entrances for this structure are unique and justify a variance.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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. Burriss stated true, the proposed variance is the benefit of the public since this is a research center open to the public.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 
 

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

 

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  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.  Mr. Ryan stated true the museum did an addition knowing they would need a variance for additional signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.  The Planning Commission agreed a variance is the most logical way to allow for the wall signage.      

 

(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.   Mr. Burriss stated true if the variance is NOT granted the health, safety, and general welfare of the public could be affected.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

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 Commission agreed that there are no special conditions.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-111 on the condition that the signage have an additional detailed line per ‘Exhibit A’ and the application be approved  with a variance for an additional wall sign from one (1) to two (2).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-111:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

115 East Broadway – Cynthia Cort/Granville Historical Society Museum - Application #2012-112

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Alison Terry and Cynthia Cort. 

 

Discussion:

Cynthia Cort stated this is a sign they had located at the train depot and they wanted to reuse it.  Ms. Terry stated they were not aware of the wording on the signage when this application was originally submitted.  Mr. Mitchell stated this appears to be artwork and not signage since there is not information on the sign he suggested the application be withdrawn.  Ms. Cort agreed and withdrew application #2012-12.

 

237 East College Street – James Day- Application #2012-113

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of 3-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with GAF Timberline Dimensional asphaltic shingles in Williamsburg Slate color. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and James Day. 

 

Discussion:

Art Sayre, contractor for the roofing company Roof Tech, stated that he would replace the drip edge that is already in place.  Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be open valley.  Mr. Sayre stated it would be closed valley.  Ms. Hoyt stated this is a nice improvement for this property.  Mr. Sayre stated the proposed color for the roofing shingles is Williamsburg slate. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-113:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed project is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvement will upgrade the historical character. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-113 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-113:  Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas/Peter Coutsos/Goumas Candyland, LLC - Application #2012-114

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an awning sign on the front of the building.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Marilyn Goumas and Russ Adams.

 

Discussion:

Russ Adams, 113 North Prospect Street, indicated he is the owner of the building and is leasing the property to Goumas Candyland.  He stated the awning would match his existing awning that is in black, but the Goumas awning would be a different color.  Mr. Mitchell stated there are multiple variances for the subsequent signage being requested.  Ms. Walker explained the sidewalk sign is double sided and would need a variance and the overall square footage requirements would also need a variance if the Planning Commission chose to approve both signs.  Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the presented fonts and red and white coloring.  Mr. Burriss stated the presented signage reminds him of awnings in downtown Granville when he was a child.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-114:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage is of an architectural historic nature for the Village to have awnings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved with the added business in this district.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the awning is an architectural element consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2012-114 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-114:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas/Peter Coutsos/Goumas Candyland, LLC - Application #2012-115

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a projecting sign on the front of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Marilyn Goumas and Russ Adams.

 

Discussion:

Russ Adams was present to address any questions.  Ms. Walker stated this is a twelve (12) square foot sign and ten (10) square foot per side is allowed.  Mr. Adams stated the applicant used this signage when they were located on the corner of East Broadway and North Pearl Street.  He added the signage on his business tends to block the candy store signage – so the larger size is needed.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission had discussion when they previously approved the same signage at the 238 East Broadway. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-115:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the sign is of a historic nature.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved with the added business.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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 Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-115:

 

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 other lands and structures have the same predicament when advertising their businesses on Prospect Street, because they are not very visible from Broadway.  He stated the business may not be able to exist if it is not viewable from Broadway.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Ryan this criteria 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.  Mr. Burriss stated they have attempted to have businesses located on Prospect Street.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Ryan this criteria was TRUE.
 

 (2)       Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed variance is not substantial going from ten square foot to twelve square foot. 

 

(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 criteria was FALSE.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was 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 unanimously agreed this criteria was 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. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2012-115 with a variance to increase the maximum square footage for a projecting sign from ten (10) square feet to twelve (12) square feet to allow for a projecting sign on the eastern façade of the building”.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-115:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas/Peter Coutsos/Goumas Candyland, LLC - Application #2012-116

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign to be located in front of the building. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Marilyn Goumas and Russ

Adams. 

 

Discussion:

Marilyn Goumas indicated the size would be the same as the sandwich board they had at their previous location, but not as heavy.  She added the existing sign is badly worn.  Ms. Walker stated the location needs to be determined for the signage.  Ms. Goumas indicated the previous tenant had asked for permission to place the sidewalk sign at the corner of Broadway and Prospect.  Mr. Ryan stated the Planning Commission reluctantly allowed this for a period of time.  He added the previous tenant had less visible signage than what is being requested by the applicant.  He stated he would not be in favor of placement at the corner.  The other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage would have to be removed at the end of business daily.  Ms. Goumas agreed this would not be a problem. The Planning Commission suggested the signage be placed in the tree lawn.   Ms. Walker stated the variance is because the maximum total square footage allowed for this business is 33.75, while the applicant is requesting 41.81 total square feet of signage. 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-116:

 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated the business is off of Broadway.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Ms. Hoyt this criteria 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.  Mr. Ryan stated the applicant will be able to attract additional business with a sandwich board sign by advertising specials. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Ryan this criteria was TRUE.     
 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Mitchell indicated the variance is substantial.  Ms. Hoyt stated the variance is minimally substantial.  Mr. Burriss stated the variance is justifiably 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.  Mr. Burriss stated this is False as long as the sandwich board sign is located in the location suggested by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Burriss this criteria was 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 this criteria was TRUE.   

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria 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.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed this criteria was TRUE.

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed this criteria was 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.  Mr. Burriss stated this is true as long as the signage is located in the area suggested by the Planning Commission.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss this criteria was 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 to remove the signage at the close of business daily and for the signage to be located in the tree lawn area adjacent to the curb. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-116 with the condition the signage be removed at the end of business hours daily and the signage be located in the tree lawn area – adjacent to the curb; and a variance be granted allowing the total square footage to increase from 33.75 square feet to 41.81 square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-116:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

131 West Broadway – John Noblick for Russ and Melinda Bow - Application #2012-117

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District.  The request is for architectural review and approval of black iron handrails on the northern and western porches. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and John Noblick.

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Company, indicated he is representing the homeowner as their contractor.  He stated the applicant would like handrails added for protection from anyone falling off of the porch and sidewalk.  Ms. Walker explained they have been in contact with the Village Manager and Village Service Director because the proposed iron railings would be installed in the right of way.  She stated they did not have any issues with the proposal and signed off for approval.  Mr. Noblick stated some of the bricks will likely have to be relayed because of the installation.  He added the steps will also be reset.  Mr. Mitchell stated the proposed railing and location is not attractive and looks too in commercial for a residential neighborhood.  Ms. Hoyt stated she likes the look of the railing, but not the proposed location.  Mr. Burriss asked the finish on the railing.  Mr. Noblick stated it would be a black powder coat that is very durable.  Mr. Ryan asked if two railings on each side is what is being proposed.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  He asked for suggestions to change the look of the Planning Commission does not like what has been proposed.  Mr. Burriss stated he has been to gardens where there was a railing to cover the steps and not the entire walkway.  Mr. Burriss stated he would be ok with both railings if they ended at the stairway.  Ms. Hoyt stated she can see the handrail being located on both sides to be symmetrical.  Mr. Eklof suggested one step could be moved up to be adjacent to the other.  The Planning Commission suggested the applicant come back with another plan.  Mr. Mitchell stated this is an important structure in the Village and they do not want to redesign the plan for the applicant.  Mr. Ryan stated he agrees with Mr. Mitchell about the look of the proposed railing.  He stated his comments also apply to what is being proposed for Mulberry Street.  Mr. Noblick stated he is hearing the Planning Commission is ok with two railings, but they do not want them to extend out to the sidewalk.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed they did not like the plan before them.  Mr. Burriss stated the length of the two railings together on the sidewalk feels like a wheelchair ramp, but the architecture and landscaping is nice.  He stated he likes the look of the handrail but there is too much of it.  Mr. Noblick worked with the Planning Commission to redraw the same railing ending at the steps and not continuing on to the sidewalk – Per ‘Exhibit A.’ 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-117:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the railings are consistent with other railings 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 the railings are of a historical character.  Mr. Mitchell stated yes the iron is appropriate.  Mr. Ryan stated he does not feel the handrails are historically appropriate. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality is enhanced by contributing to safety. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated the owner can exit and enter property safely.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Approve Application #2012-117 with the condition the applicant install black iron handrails on both sides of the porches with the terminations to be at the bottom of the steps per Exhibit “A” (Mulberry porch) and Exhibit B (West Broadway porch).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-117:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2011-117 (Amended); Sam Sagaria; 117 South Prospect 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 #2011-117 (Amended) as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2011-117 (Amended).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

New Business:

Application #2012-110: Cynthia Cort; 115 East Broadway; Signs

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 #2012-110 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-110.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-111: Cynthia Cort; 115 East Broadway; Signage

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, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-111 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-111. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-113: James Day; 237 East College Street; Roof

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 #2012-113 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-113. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-114: Goumas Candyland; 113 North Prospect Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-114. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-115: Goumas Candyland; 113 North Prospect Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, and Chapter 1147 Variances, hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-78 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-115. Seconded by Mr. Hoyt.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2012-116: Goumas Candyland; 113 North Prospect Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, and Chapter 1147 Variances, hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-116 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-116. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Application #2012-117: John Noblick for Russ and Melissa Bow; 131 West 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-117. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Steven Hawk from the July 23, 2012 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 9, 2012:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from July 9, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  Mr. Burriss abstained because he did not attend the July 9, 2012 meeting. 

 

Adjournment:  9:15 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, August 13, 2012

Monday, August 27, 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.