Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 2012

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 10, 2012

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: 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: Kevin Baker, Richard Crawford, Jane Jordan, Debi Hartfield, Bill Kirkpatrick, Tim Klingler, and Anna Nekola.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

223 South Main Street – Richard Crawford - Application #2012-140

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

The request is for architectural review and approval of the conversion of a gravel driveway to an asphalt driveway.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Richard Crawford, 223 South Main Street, indicated he would like to change the existing gravel driveway to an asphalt or concrete driveway.  Mr. Crawford stated there has been an existing gravel driveway in this location for a number of years.  He stated when he first submitted his application his immediate concern was cost and he requested asphalt, but he has since gotten bids and found that concrete is not much more.  Mr. Crawford stated he is unsure which surface he would choose at this time, but it would be covered over the existing footprint as located on the plot plan.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the lot coverage requirements and drainage is located on the plan.  She stated there are no provisions for driveway setbacks in this zoning district.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village Maintenance Department has reviewed this application.  Ms. Walker stated no and they do not estimate there to be a drastic change in water flow.  Mr. Crawford stated his neighbor’s yard drain occasionally backs up.  He stated his project would be lessening the water provided to the neighbor’s drain and bring the water to the street.  Ms. Walker stated the neighbor, Jane Jordan, is present.  Mr. Crawford stated he believes the Village needs to address water backup from the storm water system in this area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-140:

 

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. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the driveway allows the home to be accessed easily. All other Planning Commission members concurred. 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-140 stipulating that either asphalt or concrete can be used for paving.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-140:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

327 West Maple Street – Debi Hartfield - Application #2012-141

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Change siding from all stucco to board and batten with stucco along the bottom elevation only;

2)         Change roofing from asphalt shingles to standing seam metal with ice guards;

3)         Change front door on northern elevation from all wood to a wood door with 9-lite grids;

4)         Install wood soffits and decorative corbels.

The proposed improvements are to the rear detached structure only.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Debi Hartfield. 

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated the proposal this evening is for the rear accessory structure on this property.  She stated the door had to be replaced in January because the previous door fell apart.  She indicated she had originally proposed to keep the existing door until it fell apart, but is now requesting approval for the wooden door installed in January.  Ms. Hartfield stated she was given approval for new windows and trim, but much of this work has not been completed within the two years allowed for approval.  She asked that this be reapproved by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Hartfield stated there are also lights to be located on each side of the garage door and at the doorway.  She asked for the lights to be reapproved by the Planning Commission since the original approval was two years ago.  Ms. Hartfield requested approval for a wooden Hemlock garage door and standing seam metal roof with ice breakers.  She stated the pitch more than meets the necessary grade requirements for the roof.  Ms. Hartfield explained the roof seams would be sixteen inches on center.  Ms. Hartfield requested approval for the siding on the accessory structure to be board and batten siding to be twelve inches on center.  She explained the wood strips would be an inch and a half by three quarters of an inch thick.  Ms. Hartfield explained the accessory structure was previously all stucco and she would like to repair the stucco below the working line.  She stated it doesn’t make sense to put the board and  batten siding below.  Ms. Hartfield also proposed decorative wooden corbels for the accessory structure - four on every elevation.  She went on to say she would put soffits in where the rafters are exposed.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant has done an amazing job at presenting details on this project.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the wooden batten strips would be beveled.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the structure would be painted.  Ms. Hartfield stated she would stain or paint if needed.  Mr. Mitchell asked what kind of plywood the applicant is using.  Ms. Hartfield stated she would use ½ inch 1x4x10.  She stated she would use a nicer quality if she can find it.  Ms. Hartfield stated she would paint or stain the finish of the wood if she is not pleased with the look.  She went on to say she would stain the garage doors.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission can only request the structure have a finish, but not specify the type of finish.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-141:

 

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 proposed detailing of the project is of a historical character.  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 project is a restoration of building that could disappear due to the current condition.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.   

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2012-141 with the addition that the batten strips be beveled and be twelve inches on center.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-141:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

315 East Elm Street – Bill Kirkpatrick & Anna Nikola - Application #2012-142

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure to be located in the rear yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Anna Nikola.

 

Discussion:

Anna Nikola, 315 East Elm Street, stated they would like to replace the shed, which is falling down.  She stated it is currently a plywood shed and the new shed would be 10’ x 12’ with a single window and have double doors without a transom.  Ms. Nikola stated the siding would be wood pine painted to match the house and the roof would be asphalt shingles.  Ms. Walker stated there would be a ground contact skid and the new structure would be in the same location as the old structure.  Ms. Nikola stated the new structure would be slightly larger with a different orientation.  Mr. Burriss stated this is certainly an improvement to what is currently in place.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant would need a variance from the BZBA.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-142:

 

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

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2012-142 with the condition the applicant receive approval from the BZBA for a variance.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-142:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

141 East Broadway – Village of Granville - Application #2012-143

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new generator to be located in the rear of the building, adjacent to the parking lot. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker.

 

Discussion:

Deb Walker indicated the current generator in place failed during the last power outage and needs to be replaced.  She stated the old unit is located in the basement and the new generator would be located in the rear of the building.  Ms. Walker stated the Village would need to pour a concrete slab for the generator to sit on.  Ms. Walker stated the generator would be screened with an iron fence, but landscape screening is not possible due to the space.  Mr. Burriss asked if there is a comparison of the height of the unit compared to the height of the proposed fence.  Ms. Walker stated the existing fence is 32”- 34” inches high and should help screen the generator visually.  Councilmember Johnson questioned if a bollard is needed to protect a $22,000 generator.  Ms. Walker stated a solid metal post could be put in the parking lot.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is a disconnect at the meter.  Councilmember Johnson stated there would be a disconnect switch at the panel.  Mr. Mitchell stated there would need to be eighteen inches (18”) of clearance in front of the panel.  Mr. Burriss agreed.  Councilmember Johnson stated this type of clearance is governed by AEP.  Ms. Walker questioned if they would lose a parking space by putting the Bollard in.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed some additional information needs to be gathered for this application.  Ms. Walker agreed to gather further information from AEP and find the location of the bollards.  She requested to table the application.  

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2012-143.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2012-143:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

110 East Elm Street – Legend Interior Construction, LLC - Application #2012-146

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding tenant panel sign to be located along East Elm Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Kevin Baker. 

 

Discussion:

Kevin Baker, 110 East Elm Street, stated he is requesting signage approval from the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant is well within the square footage allowed for this application.  The Planning Commission agreed this is a very straightforward application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-146:

 

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.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated the signage is required to recognize the location of the business and is vital for the business to succeed. 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 #2012-146 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-146:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

110 East Elm Street – Legend Interior Construction, LLC - Application #2012-147

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Kevin Baker. 

 

Discussion:

Kevin Baker, 110 East Elm Street, stated that the signage would clarify their location in the building since there are multiple businesses located in this building.  Ms. Walker clarified there is existing signage on the door for Granville Sentinel, but it is barely visible.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Findings of Fact during their discussion of Application #2012-147:

 

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 business is located on the second floor and the entrance door is located on the first floor.   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 FALSE, the business cannot be found without location and directional signage.  Mr. Ryan stated this building houses multiple tenants.   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 this criteria was FALSE.     

 

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

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed this 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.  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.  Mr. Ryan stated FALSE, the variance is needed because this is a second floor business with the entrance located on the first floor.  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 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.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-147:

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.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed signage is consistent with the neighborhood signage.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the livability is improved with improved signage.   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 #2012-147 with a variance for the maximum window area to increase from fifteen (15) square feet to thirty point seven (30.7) square feet.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-147:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2012-140: Richard Crawford; 223 South Main Street; 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-140. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-141: Debi Hartfield; 327 West Maple Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2012-141 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-141. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-142: Bill Kirkpatrick and Anna Nekola; 315 East Elm Street; Detached 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, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-142 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-142. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-146: Legend Interior Construction, LLC; 110 East Elm 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-146 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-146. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2012-147: Legend Interior Construction, LLC; 110 East Elm 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-147. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Adjournment:  7:55 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 24, 2012

Monday, October 9, 2012

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.