Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes August 27, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 27, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Responding to the Roll Call were: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Doug Eklof (non-voting). 

 

Staff Present:  Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Mark Clapsadle, Josh Whittington, Gillian Jones, Richard Liebson, Tim Klingler, Rodger Kessler, Paul Jacobs, Kristen Prahan, Mark Orten, Art Chonko, Ray Lynn, Michael Casey, Tim Dunham, Kevin Harvey, Lindsay Martin, and Bob Gardner. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

325 East Maple Street – Brian Davis - Application #2012-120

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a concrete driveway.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Brian Davis. 

 

Discussion:

Kevin Harvey, 1859 River Road, indicated he is representing the applicant, Brian Davis.  Ms. Walker stated there is not a current driveway in place.  She stated the applicant has received a variance to be closer than the required five foot (5’) setback.  Ms. Walker indicated all other criteria for this application has been met.  Mr. Harvey stated the driveway would be nine foot (9’) wide and go to the end of the house.  Ms. Walker stated a right-of-way permit has been filed and approved by the Service Director.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the coverage requirements have been met.  Ms. Walker stated yes.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-120:

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other driveway 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 TRUE the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district and a muddy area is being replaced. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the vitality of the district is maintained.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the proposal is an improvement to the dead grass located in this area.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-120 with an approved variance by the BZBA.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-120:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

134 South Mulberry Street – Richard Liebson - Application #2012-122

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a generator on the north side of the home.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Richard Liebson. 

 

Discussion:

Richard Liebson, 134 South Mulberry Street, stated that he would like to place a generator on the north side of the home.  Ms. Walker stated the generator would be very well concealed and not be an eye sore.  She stated all of the requirements for this application have been met.  Mr. Liebson clarified the generator is not already in place.  Ms. Hoyt stated the neighbor’s generator is located on the same side of the home and adjacent to the applicant’s proposed location, which is a plus.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-122:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE 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 TRUE the generator would not be viewable from the streetscape.  All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the safety is improved and the structure is protected with the proposed generator.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-122 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-122:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

121 East Broadway – Granville Dental - Application #2012-125

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – 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 Deb Walker and Michael Casey.

 

Discussion:

Micheal Casey, 4318 Brompton Court, New Albany, Ohio, indicated he is representing the applicant, Granville Dental.  He explained three versions of the sign in different colors has been presented because they would be using them seasonally for different specials.  Mr. Casey stated the signage would be taken in during non-business hours.  Ms. Walker stated variances would be necessary if the Planning Commission were to approve the application as it has been presented by the applicant.  She stated a variance to go from 43.31 square feet to 59 square feet, and a variance to increase the maximum number of sidewalk signs for this building.  Mr. Mitchell questioned which tenants utilizing this building already have sidewalk signage.  Ms. Walker stated the Chamber of Commerce and Tickleberry Moon.   Ms. Hoyt stated there is signage located on the windows that appears to have been taped.  She questioned if this signage would remain in the windows if the sidewalk sign is approved.  Mr. Casey stated the taped signage on the windows would be removed if the sidewalk sign is approved.  He went on to say the sidewalk sign would be used to promote quarterly specials that are on a seasonal basis. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-125:

 

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, there is a sizeable amount of street frontage with multiple tenants, which is unique.  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. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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 service (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

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

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance. Mr. Burriss stated FALSE, a variance makes the most sense for this situation. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, other tenants have existing sandwich board signs.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  The Planning Commission agreed the signage should be secured indoors during non-business hours.  They agreed the signage should be placed in conjunction with the existing sidewalk signage already located on this side of the street.  Mr. Hawk stated he would like the approval to be contingent upon the removal of the additional signage taped on the windows.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-125:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the sidewalk signage is consistent with similar sidewalk signage 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 yes,  sandwich board signage does appear in historical photographs of the Village.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, 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 #2012-125 with the following variances:

1)                  For the total square footage for signage to be increased from 43.31 square feet to 59.31 square feet to allow for a sidewalk sign; and

2)                  to increase the number of sidewalk signs from 1 to 3;

and with the following conditions:

1)         the applicant must secure the signage indoors during non-business hours; and

2)         the existing taped signage on the windows must be removed; and

3)                  the location of the sidewalk signage should be consistent with other sidewalk signage already approved for the building. 

Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-125:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

319 Summit Street – Timothy and Jill Dunham - Application #2012-126

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:

1)                  Removal of one (1) exterior door and one (1) exterior window and replacement with two (2) windows on the east side; and

2)                  New windows on the east side; and

3)                  Removal of one (1) window and replacement with one (1) smaller window on the west side of the home.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Timothy Dunham.

 

Discussion:

Tim Dunham, 319 Summit Street, indicated he is submitting an application for some external modifications to his home.  Ms. Walker stated this is a very straight forward situation affecting the eastern façade of the home.  She stated a larger window on the western façade would be replaced with a slightly smaller window.  Mr. Dunham stated at some point he would like to remove the steps.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be an additional rear egress added.  Mr. Dunham stated there is an existing egress in place in the back.  Mr. Hawk asked if the other window would be more consistent with the existing windows.  Mr. Dunham stated the top of the windows would all line up.  Mr. Ryan asked if the trim would match the existing windows.  Mr. Dunham stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-126:

 

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

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality.   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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-126 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-126:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

14 Westgate Drive – Kessler Sign Co/Licking Memorial Hospital Urgent Care - Application #2012-127

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for approval of a freestanding sign to be located perpendicular to SR 16.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Ray Lynn, and Rodger Kessler. 

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, Kessler Sign Company, stated this structure would be turned into an urgent care center.  He presented examples of what the signage would look like and the placement of the signage.  Mr. Kessler stated it is vital to have good access and easy to find locations for all Urgent Care Centers.  He stated it is great to get this type of center in our immediate area.  Mr. Hawk asked if the signage would be illuminated.  Mr. Kessler stated the signage would be externally illuminated.  Mr. Hawk asked if there would be landscaping around the signage.  Mr. Kessler stated yes. 

 

Ray Lynn, Licking Memorial Hospital, was present to address any concerns.  Mr. Ryan questioned if this signage is for the sign facing the highway.  Mr. Lynn stated yes.  He explained their proposed operating hours would be 12-8, but they respectfully request for this signage to be lit from dusk to dawn to make the public aware of this location.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-127:

 

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. Hawk stated TRUE, the location is along a busy highway with high speed traffic.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, given the nature of the business (urgent care) it calls for additional signage.  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. Ryan stated this building has been empty for some time.  He questioned if signage could be the reason.  The Planning Commission agreed this was FALSE, given the nature of this business larger signage is required.

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this criteria was FALSE, the 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 service (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

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

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

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

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

d.         That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance, and not diminish or impair established property values within the surrounding areas, and not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, and not unreasonably increase the congestion in public streets. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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.  Mr. Hawk stated in the past they have required lighting for signage to be turned off by 10:00 P.M.  Mr. Mitchell stated this situation is different with it being an urgent care center.  He added it is important for the public to be aware of the location.  Mr. Ryan stated the building is located along the expressway and lighting it isn’t affecting residential homes or adjacent businesses.  The Planning Commission agreed some of the businesses in this area are open all night.  Ms. Hoyt indicated 10:00 P.M. is a reasonable time to turn off the lights.  Mr. Burriss stated leaving the lighting on would be consistent with commercial properties on the corner, so he is willing to consider dusk to dawn lighting for the signage.  Mr. Ryan and Mr. Hawk agreed.  The Planning Commission agreed the application included request for external lighting, so this did not need to be made part of the condition of approval. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-127 as submitted with the following variances:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage of signage on this zoned lot from 58.4 square feet to 58.5 square feet; and

2)                  To allow for freestanding signage on this property to increase from 24 square feet to 24.5 square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-127:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

14 Westgate Drive – Kessler Sign Co/Licking Memorial Hospital Urgent Care - Application #2012-128

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for approval of a freestanding sign to be located perpendicular to SR 16.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Rodger Kessler, and Ray

Lynn. 

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, Kessler Sign Company, stated this would be the exact same sign requested for placement on Route 16.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be an objection to turning the lighting off for this sign at 10:00 P.M. since the business would be closed at that time.  Mr. Lynn stated there would not be any objection to turning the lighting off at 10:00 P.M.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the following Variance Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-128:

 

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 TRUE, the building is on a residential street and it faces the highway.  He stated the future shows an intersection in this area, which is peculiar with this particular piece of property.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, there would need to be signage of where the business is located off of Route 16.  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. Ryan stated TRUE, given the nature of the business it is important to make the public aware of the center’s exact location for emergency purposes.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

(2)    Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the variance is substantial in this case, but justified. 

(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 service (e.g., water, sewer, garbage).  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed 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. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the granting of the variance is the most common sense approach to this situation.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

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

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.

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

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.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-128 with the following variances:

1)                  To increase the maximum total square footage for a freestanding sign in the Community Service District on this zoned lot from 58.5 square feet to 117 square feet; and

2)                  To increase the maximum number of freestanding signs on this zoned lot from one (1) to two (2) total; and

3)                  The signage external lighting is to be turned off by 10:00 P.M each evening. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-128:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

120 Shepardson Court – Coppertree Homes/Josh and Robin Whittington - Application #2012-129

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).  The request is for review and approval of a new two-story single family structure, driveway, and rear patio and rear retaining wall. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Josh Whittington, Bob Gardner, and Gillian Jones. 

 

Discussion:

Bob Gardner, Coppertree Homes, stating he is the contractor representing Josh and Robin Whittington.  Ms. Walker stated this is actually an application requiring administrative approval due to the zoning, but there is a part in the code that says all new structures require review by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the SRD requirements in the code.  She stated the applicant will be applying for a variance for a maximum building lot coverage increase from 20% to 21.7%.  Ms. Walker explained there is an existing variance on file that carries with the property for the height of the structure.  Mr. Hawk complimented the applicant on their submittal information.  He asked the reason for not extending the board and batten siding on the rear elevation.  Mr. Gardner stated this is just as an accent.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Gardner if the floor plan calls for a fireplace in the great room.  Mr. Gardner stated yes and it would be an internal gas fireplace with an external vent located between the double windows. 

 

Gillian Jones, 128 Shepardson Court, asked about the proposed nine foot (9’) retaining wall.  She stated she was under the impression the limit is six feet (6’).  Ms. Walker stated she looked into this and there is a footer that extends down three feet, so the wall at its peak would not be higher than six foot (6’).  Ms. Jones stated she has concerns with water run off from the installation of the retaining wall.  She stated she wants to ensure there wouldn’t be water run off on her driveway.  Mr. Gardner explained the plan is for the center of the wall to be higher and it would taper down with the landscaping. Mr. Mitchell stated the applicant is forbidden to put water from their property onto an adjacent property.  Ms. Jones stated she is there to ensure this doesn’t happen.  Ms. Jones stated she would like to speak to the applicant about an oak tree that “leans precariously over her property.”  She explained it was at one time marked to be removed, but the tree service felt removal would cause damage to her property.  Mr. Jones asked if there is any way to mitigate this problem.  Mr. Gardner stated they would certainly be willing to speak with Ms. Jones about this further and at this point they have not marked trees that would be removed.  She stated perhaps the tree just needs to be trimmed back.  Ms. Jones asked about light pollution.  Mr. Gardner stated they are proposing no flood lights and lights are to be located at each door.  Ms. Jones stated the previous owner used her driveway for access to the lot and she would like to ensure this doesn’t happen.  She stated she would work with the applicant if access is required.  Mr. Gardner stated he did not anticipate using Ms. Jones driveway.  He agreed to speak with her further after the meeting.  Mr. Gardner asked if an additional curb cut could be sought for a separate driveway from the shared roadway.  Ms. Walker stated there is an existing easement in place for the shared driveway and this could be reviewed, but she did not anticipate a problem with an additional curb cut off of Shepardson Drive.  Councilmember Johnson stated four homes in this area share the use of the driveway and there is an easement in place.   

 

Kristen Prahan, 467 West Broadway, asked what is the advantage for an additional  curb cut/driveway.  Mr. Gardner stated for privacy and personal preference.  Ms. Prahan stated the shared driveway “has been a bone of contention for many years and doesn’t belong to either of the four people living along the road.”  Ms. Hoyt asked if there is a plan or agreement in place for the maintenance of the road.  Ms. Prahan stated no, but there have been attempts to do this over the years.  The Planning Commission discussed who owned the road.  Ms. Walker stated the road is located on the applicant’s property, but there is an easement in place for the other properties to access their properties using the road.  Ms. Prahan stated it can be complicated to get four people to maintain the road when they don’t own it. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-129 with the condition the applicant receive the required variance from the BZBA for building lot coverage.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-129:

Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

120 East Elm Street – Tim Klingler - Application #2012-133

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a detached two-story accessory structure that measures twenty-two (22’) feet by thirty-four (34’) feet total.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Mark Clapsadle, and Tim Klingler.

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, stated the proposed structure would be a garage and they wanted something with rural flavor, New England feel, and historical look.  He explained there would be a   storage room above the garage.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is an easement in place for parking lot number 7.  Mr. Klingler stated yes. 

 

Ms. Walker stated they would be asking for a variance for the height of the accessory structure to be eight inches higher for the cupola only.  She went on to say the applicant has received a variance for setbacks.  Mr. Klingler explained the cupola and design.  Mr. Ryan asked if the cupola is higher than the house.  Mr. Klingler stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked about water and flooding that occasionally happens in this area.  Mr. Klingler stated they would create a swale around the building for water and there is a storm sewer and spur.  Mr. Klingler stated they would most likely use cedar shake shingles but it could also be shiplap siding.  Mark Clapsadle reviewed the siding plans with the Planning Commission.  Mr. Klingler stated he is leaning towards the use of the cedar shake shingles.  He stated it would be a bleached white cedar shingle. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-133:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, 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 yes, the proposed project will contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character. 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.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-133 contingent upon the applicant receiving a variance for height from the BZBA.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-133:

Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

227 Sunrise Street – Dianne McDonald for John and Donna Lawrence - Application #2012-134

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure that measures eight (8’) feet by fourteen (14’) feet total. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Dianne McDonald.

 

Discussion:

Dianne McDonald, 428 East College Street, indicated she is representing the property owner’s, John and Donna Lawrence.  She stated the existing building was wiped out by a tree.  Ms. McDonald stated the new structure would be a different color with a different roofing material measuring eight foot (8’) by fourteen foot (14’) with a forest green tin roof to match the existing house, and black shutters with flower boxes.  Ms. Walker stated a variance is needed for the side yard setback from twelve foot (12’) to six foot (6’).  Ms. McDonald stated the structure is going to be located where the previous structure was located.  Mr. Mitchell asked if this is a freestanding structure.  Ms. McDonald stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-134:

 

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

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the accessory structure is appropriate and historical.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-134 with the condition the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA for the southern side yard setback.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-134:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

130 North Main Street – Tim Riffle/Denison University - Application #2012-135

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a second story window and infill with match siding on the north elevation of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Art Chonko.

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated they wish to renovate the bathroom and take the existing window out.  He stated they would put in an exhaust vent and make the siding look better than the existing peeling paint.  Mr. Chonko stated the location of the window is between houses and not visible from the roadway.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if there would be a window in the bathroom at all.  Mr. Chonko stated no.  Ms. Hoyt questioned not having proper ventilation for the bathroom.  Mr. Burriss questioned the appearance from the outside of the structure with the removal of the window.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-135:

 

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. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality of the structure. 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-135 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-135:  Burriss (no), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

204 North Mulberry Street – Tim Riffle/Denison University - Application #2012-136

Village Business District-C (VBD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a circular exterior concrete slab for a labyrinth.     

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Art Chonko, Mark Orten, and Paul Jacobs.

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated they have already poured the slab of concrete for the labyrinth.  He apologized for this being a late submittal.  Mr. Chonko stated it is a forty-two foot (42’) concrete circle to the left of the main entrance and the idea is for a labyrinth or a place of contemplation.  He stated a labyrinth goes back to ancient times and many people in town have indicated they would like to have this in place.  Mr. Chonko state Robert Ferry would put the pattern on the concrete and this would be a quiet place to go and walk the maize.  He explained the location is close to the open house and would lead to contemplation.  Mr. Chonko stated there would be a path with mulch path that would not be visible from the street.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the labyrinth would be open to the public.  Mr. Chonko stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would ever be groups playing music, chanting, etc. in this area. 

 

Mark Orten, Denison University, stated labyrinths have not been used this way in the past.  Mr. Chonko added it is intended to be for an individual experience as opposed to a group experience.  Ms. Hoyt asked about landscaping.  Mr. Chonko stated they would just plant grass for the landscaping.  He explained the design would be a polymer resin in a dark red and is supposed to hold up extremely well.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be benches.  Mr. Chonko stated they do not have plans for them at this point. 

 

Paul Jacobs, 115 East College Street, stated intoxicated students collect each week around his home at 2:00 A.M.  He asked how the University was going to keep students from congregating in this area.  Mr. Jacobs stated benches are an invitation for students to congregate.  Mr. Chonko stated he did not anticipate there being a problem and there would not be an easy way for students to get to this.  Mr. Orten stated they do not intend to have students congregating in this area, but it is meant for personal reflection and a quiet time.  He agreed he could work with Mr. Jacobs on alleviating noise in this area.  Mr. Chonko stated we live in a college town where there are benefits and some negatives.  He agreed they could address any situation where there is on going noise in the middle of the night.  Mr. Jacobs said he calls the University and they tell him to phone the police, but by the time the police get there the students have moved on. 

 

Lindsay Martin, student at Denison University, stated she lives one block away from open house and there is a patio with benches open to students fifteen feet (15’) away from the location of the labyrinth.  She stated in the three years she has lived at this location she has not witnessed students gathering on this patio.  She added the area is heavily patrolled by University police every twenty minutes.

 

Ms. Hoyt stated she would like to see some landscaping added, especially on the hillside where grass doesn’t grow.  Mr. Burriss agreed and stated he would like to see a formal landscaping plan.  Mr. Orten stated it is there intent to make this area pleasing to the eye since it is meant for contemplation.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if additional shrubs could cause for an area to be secluded and not visible from the roadway, which could be dangerous.  Ms. Hoyt stated they may miss their opportunity if the landscaping is not addressed.  Mr. Chonko suggested the landscaping for noise pollution could be addressed if they find students are congregating in this area.  He stated they would ensure the grass is planted up to the edges and the area is pleasing to the eye.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-136:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the execution of the proposed materials and the process is similar to other materials used 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 yes, there is historical precedence for a labyrinth.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated yes, the livability is improved, and therefore the vitality of the structure. 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. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-136 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-136:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-120: Brian Davis; 325 East Maple Street; Concrete Driveway

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-120 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-120. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-122: Richard Liebson; 134 South Mulberry Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-122 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-122. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-125: Granville Dental; 121 East Broadway; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-125 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-125. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-126: Timothy and Jill Dunham; 319 Summit 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 #2012-126 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-126. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-127: Licking Memorial Hospital; 14 Westgate Drive; Signage on SR 16

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, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-127 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-127. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-128: Licking Memorial Hospital; 14 Westgate Drive; Signage on Cherry Valley Road

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, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-128 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-128. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-129: Josh and Robin Whittington; 120 Shepardson Court; New Structure

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-129 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-129. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-133: Timothy and Cathy Klingler; 120 East Elm Street; New Accessory Structure

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-133 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-133. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-134: John and Donna Lawrence; 227 Sunrise Street; New Structure

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-134 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-134. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2012-135: Denison University; 130 North Main 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-135 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-135. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (no), Hoyt (no), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Application #2012-136: Denison University; 204 North Mulberry 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-136 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-136. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 23, 2012:

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

 

Adjournment:  9:15 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 10, 2012

Monday, September 24, 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.