GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
December 9, 2013
Call to Order: Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Dennis Cauchon (non-voting), Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Michael King, Law Director
Also Present: Barbara Franks, Christopher Avery, Sam Sagaria, Sharon Sellito, Jerome Scott, Steve Mershon, and Linda Scott.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
420 East Broadway – David Bussan - Application #2013-153
Suburban Residential District (SRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)
The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of an in-ground
swimming pool, patio, pool shelter and barbeque area in the rear yard.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Steve Mershon, Linda
Scott, and Jerome Scott.
Jerome Scott, stated he is the architect representing the property owner, David Bussan, located at 420 East Broadway. Ms. Terry stated the application is for a concrete patio and grill area, along with a concrete in-ground swimming pool. She stated the applicant purchased a small piece of property from the Granville Board of Education recently and his rear fence moved over to reflect the acquisition of this additional property. Ms. Terry presented slides of the site plan. She indicated the proposed pool would sit behind the house and the applicant would install a line of trees from north to south. Ms. Terry stated she was made aware of a previous 2002 application where the applicant did an addition to their home. She stated this application had a stipulation that a large tree was to be planted in the rear, but this did not happen. Ms. Terry stated the fence is now moved to a different location and the tree location would not have been ideal given the reconfiguration. Ms. Terry stated staff also looked at where the storm water associated with the property would go. She stated the drainage from the pool decking would go in the pool with storm water drainage tying in. Ms. Terry stated a six foot (6’) fence is already installed around the perimeter of the property to meet the swimming pool fence requirement. She added that all setback requirements have been met by the applicant. Ms. Terry explained the pool and concrete decking are under three foot (3’) height therefore there are no setback requirements for these features.
Mr. Hawk asked for further clarification on what the proposed equipment shelter would look like. Mr. Scott stated the exterior would have a plaster finish and would come up to be topped by an aluminum cover. He explained each end would have louvered vents. Mr. Scott stated the pool would be heated with a geo thermal heat pump and this unit would be enclosed within the pool shelter. He stated they have referred to the maintenance shelter as a “dog house” because it is low and not intrusive. Mr. Scott indicated it is similar to other materials used in the neighborhood. He went on to say the aluminum top would have water run over top and down the wall and into the pool for a waterfall affect. Mr. Scott stated the proposed pool is sixteen feet (16’) wide. Mr. Scott stated they chose to make the compressor for the heat pump a feature of the pool and it is going to be hidden. He explained maintenance would be done by accessing the side removable vents. He stated they are trying to build this in a way that does not require a hatch or a door. Mr. Hawk asked about the trapezoidal shape on the site plan to the northeast of the pool location. Mr. Scott stated this is a raised vegetable garden. Mr. Burriss stated this is a nice looking project and the quality mirrors the work done on the addition to the home. Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission has required elevation drawings for tool sheds in the past. He stated he would not be comfortable for approval on what the pool equipment house looks like without seeing these elevations or having them reviewed by staff. Mr. Scott stated he could get these to the Planning Commission, but the pool companies are already booking for the Spring and he would like to secure a place in line. He questioned if approval for the pool portion of the project could be approved this evening. Mr. Hawk stated he too would like to see an elevation drawing of the equipment shed. Mr. Mitchell stated he hesitates to cause more trouble for the applicant and he believes these could be reviewed by the staff. Mr. Scott stated they would propose white stucco on the north and south sides, coming out of the pool, with silver aluminum on the roof. Mr. Mitchell questioned what is being depicted in the north elevation. Mr. Scott stated these are the proposed steps into the pool. Ms. Hoyt asked if the entire back yard is currently completely fenced. Mr. Scott stated yes. Ms. Hoyt indicated she would prefer to see staff review and final approval of the proposed shelter house.
Steve Mershon, Lakeholm Company, stated he owns property to the north of the applicant. He stated the additional tree Ms. Terry referred to was at their request when the rear addition was approved. Mr. Mershon stated he currently has a lot for sale and the potential buyer does have concerns about above ground lighting at the pool and the potential noise level. He later indicated he would like to see that above ground lighting is not permitted as part of the approval. Mr. Mershon stated this is a fairly crowded residential area. He stated it could be advantageous to have some landscaping protection where the tree was to be located on the northwest side of the property. He added he would like to see ground level vegetation on the west side of the property to add some view protection and privacy.
Mr. Scott stated the applicant also does not want to hear any sounds from the pool compressor and this would be baffled by the proposed side louvers. He further indicated there would be no up lighting or post lighting. Mr. Scott stated there would be a light in the pool and possibly some ground lighting. Law Director King indicated the Village has a 10:00 noise ordinance that should address some concerns. Mr. Burriss asked if the waterfall effect is a splash noise. Mr. Scott stated no. Ms. Hoyt asked if Mr. Mershon would prefer to see one tree planted and what type. Mr. Mershon stated a hardwood deciduous tree wouldn’t do much. He suggested the applicant plant bushes along the western edge of the fence. Mr. Mershon explained the one tree was to be planted when the addition was constructed to break up the rear lawn area. Mr. Mershon agreed the addition of an active pool changes things and additional landscaping beyond the required tree would be nice. Mr. Burriss stated the northwest corner could add three evergreens in the corner. Mr. Scott agreed three pines in this area would be fine, but he would like to have the option to change the type of planting if possible. Mr. Scott stated they would plant bushes along 75% of the inside of the fence, along the western side of the property, and this should achieve Mr. Mershon’s objective.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-153:
a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the pool part of the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. He stated he cannot speak for the pool equipment shed without first seeing the elevations. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.
b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the request is consistent with other uses already in this district. He stated the additional vegetation contributes to the historical character. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality is contributed to with improvements to the property. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed landscaping would help with physical surroundings. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.
Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-153 with the following conditions: 1) There shall be shrubs to be determined from Staff approval from the corner along 75% of the west fence line; 2) There will also be Staff approval of the pool equipment shed; 3) There will be three (3) pine trees, 6'-8' in height, planted in the northwest corner; 4) There shall be no post or spot lighting associated with this application; and 5) Two (2) of the Commission members be included in the Staff approval. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-153: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.
121 South Prospect Street – Barbara Franks - Application #2013-158
Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)
The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a wood, six (6’)
foot high rear yard privacy fence with four (4) gates.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Christopher Avery, Sam
Sagaria, Sharon Sellito, and Barbara Franks.
Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, stated this is a property line fence similar to what her neighbors have. Ms. Terry stated the fence location is along the southern part of the property line and then goes west to the property line and heads north with a gate. She stated the fence then goes to the north where there are two more gates on the east and one gate on the west. Ms. Terry stated the fencing would have emergency egress hardware. She stated the fence would match the neighbors’ fence. Ms. Terry stated the footprint of the barn accessory structure is nine hundred (900) square feet. She stated the outdoor area the applicant would like enclosed is one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six point nine (1,776.9) square feet. Ms. Terry stated the staff reviewed the proposed fence in conjunction with the accessory use. Ms. Terry read aloud the following from the staff report:
"Accessory Use means a use subordinate to the principal use of land or building and which serves a purpose customarily incidental to the principal use. Such use is an Accessory Use, as defined in this provision, to Taco Dan's which is the primary use. Outdoor patio seating serves a purpose customarily incidental to a food service use such as Taco Dan's and is subordinate to that principal use."
"Accessory uses and/or structures within non-residential zoning districts shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross floor area of the primary use. This provision limits accessory uses to a maximum of twenty-five percent. The proposed enclosed area is a total of 1,776.88 square feet, or 37.8% of the primary use which does not meet this requirement."
Ms. Terry stated the applicant recently applied for an expansion of use for the principal structure. She stated the application indicated the interior space is over seven thousand (7,000) square feet. Ms. Terry stated she was able to determine from the Licking County Auditor’s Office website that the interior square footage of the principal structure is actually four thousand six hundred and ninety-three (4,693) square feet. Ms. Terry stated this number was used to compute the maximum square footage for use in the outdoor space. She stated the code permits a 25% maximum use, while the applicant is applying for a 37% increase. Ms. Terry read aloud the following from the staff report:
"Page 3, Compatibility and Building Height. Section 1159.01: The goal of regulation in the Village District is to ensure that any land use changes which occur within the District are harmonious and compatible with the appearance and character of adjacent land uses and that such changes enhance the Village District. The applicant's commercial property is adjacent to one or more residential properties, and the area that the applicant proposes to enclose is intended to be used by Taco Dan's Restaurant for outdoor consumption of food and/or beverages. Taco Dan's posted business hours are 11:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday and 12:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays."
"Page 9, Staff comments and concerns:
a. The applicant proposes construction of a 6-foot high privacy fence with gates, which would completely enclose the outdoor patio area between the primary structure and the barn. The proposed gates would be equipped with emergency egress handicap hardware per Building Code requirements.
b. The outdoor patio area that would be completely enclosed by the proposed structures is intended to be used for outdoor consumption of food and/or beverages by customers of Taco Dan's, as reflected in the Application for Commercial Certificate of Occupancy No. 2013-147, submitted as Planning Commission Hearing Exhibit D.
c. In order for Taco Dan’s to serve alcoholic beverages in an outdoor patio area, Ohio Liquor Control Commission Guidelines require such outdoor patio area to be clearly delineated by some sort of structure.
d. Such use is an Accessory Use, as defined in Granville Codified Ordinances Section 1135.01(a)(2), to Taco Dan's which is the primary use. Outdoor patio seating serves a purpose customarily incidental to a food service use such as Taco Dan's and is subordinate to that principal use.
e. Granville Codified Ordinances Section 1157.14(b) limits accessory uses within the Village Business District to a maximum of 25% of the gross floor area of the primary use. The proposed enclosed area is a total of 1,776.88 square feet, or 37.8% of the primary use which does not meet this requirement.
f. As reflected in Planning Commission Hearing Exhibit 1, the gross floor area of Taco Dan's is 4,693 square feet.
g. The proposed structure on Applicant's property would enclose 1,776.9 square feet of area which is greater than the statutory limit of 25% of the gross floor area of Taco Dan's."
Ms. Franks stated she is not installing emergency egress hardware on the doors. Ms. Terry stated the application indicates handicap accessible hardware would be installed per Building Code.
Law Director King requested allowance to ask some follow-up questions to witnesses presenting testimony, in order to indicate some needed facts. Mr. Mitchell asked Law Director King to proceed. Law Director King asked Ms. Terry to confirm if “Exhibit D”, which was presented as a part of this proceeding, pertained to Application #2013-147 which was submitted by Barbara Franks to the Village. And if the Village is the custodian of this record. Ms. Terry stated yes.
Barbara Franks indicated she thinks the application needs to be tabled since this is clearly not discussion of a fence, but much more.
Dennis Cauchon asked if this is really pertaining to the use of alcohol in the outdoor space. Law Director King stated the use of alcohol is not in front of the Planning Commission. He added the intended use of the outdoor area is relevant information to the Planning Commission. Law Director King stated he spoke for 45 minutes today with Nick Cavalaris. He stated Mr. Cavalaris contacted him and indicated he may be working with Barbara Franks and Dan Rodgers regarding pending litigation with the Village. Law Director King stated he and Mr. Cavalaris had a very candid discussion of this application and the procedure to be followed by the Planning Commission. Law Director King stated Mr. Cavalaris may be representing the applicant, but he had not yet been officially retained. Law Director King stated Mr. Cavalaris also indicated he serves on the German Village Zoning Board and he could not attend this evening's meeting. Law Director King stated perhaps the commission should consider tabling the application if Mr. Cavalaris is representing the applicant since he is unable to attend this evening. He suggested the Commission move forward on the application if they do not have confirmation that Mr. Cavaleris has been retained. Law Director King later confirmed in the meeting that he had received a phone call from Mr. Cavalaris (during the meeting and stepped out to take the call) indicating he received a fax this evening retaining him to represent Ms. Franks on this matter.
Mr. Hawk asked for clarification of procedural questions. He questioned why this application is before the Planning Commission if the request clearly violates the Code of Granville. Law Director King explained most of the Commission will remember a similar application that came before them and was denied and then appealed to Council. He stated the appeal was later dismissed. Law Director King stated the primary reason the first application was denied was because the Commission found that the applicant was not actually seeking permission for a fence, but for a commercial enclosure. Law Director King stated a second application came to the Village and in this application the information was the same as previously submitted. Law Director King stated the second application was never accepted to be put on the agenda, because it had already been denied by the Village. He stated the application before the Planning Commission today is different because it was submitted directly following a separate application to expand the four hundred (400) square foot footprint of Taco Dan’s within the principal structure. He stated the applicant showed the footprint of Taco Dan’s to be approximately seven thousand (7,000) square feet in their commercial certificate of occupancy expansion permit. He stated Staff referenced the Licking County Auditor's website and determined the actual square footage is four thousand six hundred and ninety-three (4693) square feet. Law Director King stated Village Staff then rescinded the updated Certificate of Occupancy and changed the square footage to four thousand six hundred and ninety-three (4,693) square feet.
Law Director King stated the Village received an application from Alfie’s Restaurant/Carryout up the street near the library. He stated they proposed to have a couple of tables inside, but most of their business would be carry away. Law Director King stated the request for outdoor seating then came to the Village and their application was in excess of the 25% limitation. Law Director King stated the applicant then amended their application and reduced the area they were seeking to fit within the 25%. Law Director King indicated this could still happen with the application before them today. He stated the request exceeds 25%, but they could make modifications. Law Director King stated a bigger issue that needs addressed is the code requirement that the proposed use be compatible with adjacent property uses.
Law Director King read aloud Section 1135.01(a): "Accessory use means a use subordinate to the principal use of the land or building and which serves a purpose customarily incidental to the principal use."
Law Director King stated the applicant has indicated that all they want is a privacy fence and there is testimony and fact's showing this request is fundamentally different from a privacy fence. He stated the applicant is clearly asking to expand the restaurant and food and beverage consumption to outdoor areas of the property and this is not in question. Law Director King stated this is not an application for a routine regular privacy fence, but rather a commercial enclosure. Law Director King indicated the Planning Commission analysis is similar to what they did before, but it is true the facts have changed with the expansion of the interior footprint. Mr. Hawk questioned if the applicant is willing to reduce the area for the fence to fit within the 25%. Ms. Franks stated she has plans to install a 10' x 60' horseshoe ring and corn hole playing area. She indicated there are existing tables in the yard and these would remain. Ms. Franks ultimately indicated she would consider changing the size of the fenced area, but she questioned safety concerns with the proposed horseshoe area and the need for a fence with that proposed use. Ms. Franks stated Ms. Terry indicated she would have seventeen hundred (1,700) square foot of table service and this is not true. Ms. Terry stated the use of a horseshoe area is still considered an accessory use.
Mr. Eklof asked in regards to the stated adjacent properties if that is strictly related to the use of alcohol. Law Director King stated the code speaks to “any land use is required to be compatible and harmonious with adjacent land uses” and he suggests considering the definition of those words. Law Director King presented evidence of two citations issued at Taco Dan’s in the last eight months. He explained one was issued for noise on the front porch and for disturbing the peace with music and loud noise after 1:35 AM. He went on to say a second citation was given at 11:03 PM when Taco Dan’s was still open and it was related to loud guitar playing and noise. Law Director King clarified these are not convictions and they are still pending. He stated they are symptomatic to what others are going to testify about this evening. Law Director King stated there are residential homes in this neighborhood with some of the neighboring properties being owned by Connie Westbrook, Tim Klingler, and the Hoekstra Funeral Home. Law Director King stated Alfie’s is not adjacent to a residential neighborhood and their hours of operation are much different. He stated Taco Dan’s is open six days a week past midnight and it is in an area that is both business and residential zoning. Law Director King stated there is evidence to support the proposed use of the outdoor space is not harmonious and compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. He stated to his knowledge there has not been an issue with noise when the establishment is using the indoor space and complaints have only risen when outside on the front porch or in the rear area.
Dennis Cauchon questioned if there was no question about the commercial use of the property would they have a right to build a fence? He asked what if the applicant is zoned commercially, but they do not want the fence for commercial reasons?
Law Director King stated the Village has gone about treating this application just like any other. He stated any applicant has an independent right to a fence and one could certainly be approved for a commercial business. Law Director King stated in this case there is a record of noise disturbances and a history of the property owner doing what they wanted to do. He added the Planning Commission can determine that the applicant would like a fence and does not plan to use it for an accessory outside use of Taco Dan’s restaurant. If stated that if the Planning Commission believes the rules would be followed and they agree with that testimony, they can make their decision based on this information.
Dennis Cauchon stated he is asking if building the fence is an independent right unrelated to the use and whether the use is decided separately? Law Director King indicated if the applicant stood up tonight and said they just wanted to build a fence and never use the area for Taco Dan's, would they have a right to the fence. They could potentially, if the Commission believed their testimony.
Mr. Cauchon stated that's not what he was asking. What he was asking is whether building the fence, like putting in a toilet, in an independent right and whether the use should be considered separately. Law Director King stated there is no absolute right to use of property and it is always decided in context with surrounding property. He stated these rights are not independent and they are balanced with community property rights as well.
Mr. Cauchon questioned if there was a risk to the Village, because of the disturbing the peace complaint on the front, is injecting emotions from elsewhere on the property to a simple question of the right to build a fence and that somehow biases your perception? He stated he has only been on the Commission for a couple of months, but thinks the applicant should be given the courtesy of tabling the application. He added it seems to him there is some animosity that's not related to the issue of the applicant's right to build a fence. Law Director King indicated there was no animosity on the part of the Village. And that there was a significant effort on the part of the village to not inject any emotion or bias in the review of this application. Particularly regarding this applicant, because that has been suggested by the applicant previously. The application is being reviewed and processed exactly the same as anyone else's.
Mr. Cauchon added he just received some additional information today that was not included in his original packet. Ms. Terry clarified the same staff report that was in the Planning Commission packets was what was before them on the table this evening. She added specific Code language was added to the packets but the same reference was already included in the original Staff report under the Staff Comments and Concerns at the back.
Law Director King added that from a legal perspective you have to take into account all of the facts and evidence presented, beyond just what the applicant has presented as an "ordinary" fence application. Specifically when the applicant has submitted a separate application requesting expansion of the commercial use to the area where the fence enclosure is also proposed. If the Commission chooses to approve the application, they need to be completely clear that they will be approving the commercial expansion of Taco Dan's to that enclosed area.
Ms. Franks stated the Village sued her and shut her business down. She stated now she can't use her handicap seating area in the rear barn and as a result she's in violation of her ADA requirements. She stated, “it was recommended I get legal counsel” and Nick Cavalaris will be her zoning lawyer. Ms. Franks stated there have been two hundred and twenty (220) police calls to business establishments on East Broadway in the last three years and no citations were issued at these places. She stated she has had twenty-nine (29) calls placed against her business, and fifteen (15) of those were from Mr. Sagaria. She stated one to two (1-2) of those were placed by Sharon Sellito. Ms. Franks stated there have been fifty-four (54) incidents with she and Mr. Sagaria involving the police since he bought the property. Ms. Franks stated Mr. Sagaria lost a lawsuit against her and the judge said he should take better neighboring classes. Ms. Franks stated the citations the law director is speaking of are an attempt to diminish her ability to do business in this town. She stated Mr. Sagaria has installed cameras and listening devices to ruin her business and he doesn’t even live in the home, but stays in Upper Arlington. Ms. Franks stated Mr. Sagaria “lives on a variance and this variance was broken.” She added he is breaking Village Ordinances by harassing her. Ms. Franks stated she is only trying to run a family business and install a privacy fence. Ms. Franks also stated she would like to be neighborly to Ms. Westbrook and Ms. Corbett across the street and place any potential noise disturbances in the back of her property. She added she has a certificate of occupancy, yet anyone can come in her back yard or her front porch and eat Day Y Noche or Elm’s Pizza, but they cannot eat food from Taco Dan’s.
Mr. Cauchon asked if Ms. Frank's lawyer would be present at a future Planning Commission meeting if the matter were tabled. Ms. Franks stated yes.
Dr. Christopher Avery stated he runs a dental office next door to Ms. Franks property. He stated this all started seven (7) years ago when they were at odds over the use of the barn. He stated his point at that time is that a restaurant or bar belongs in the front structure and not in the back. Dr. Avery stated he has no problem with this business and he came before the Commission when they requested the use of four hundred (400) square feet in favor of it. He stated he hasn’t had too much problem since this business opened. He added his business is different since he is not open on the weekends and he's gone after 6:00 PM. Dr. Avery stated it was in the Granville Sentinel that Ms. Franks stated “she wants the space to be a comfortable place to hangout.” He stated one wouldn’t think you hang out at a lighting or retail store. He further explained the use of the building moved from the four hundred (400) square feet to over four thousand (4,000) square feet. Dr. Avery stated he is “very much opposed to moving the party outside.” He stated he also fought serving alcohol in the back. Dr. Avery stated he fears eventually the business owners will get what they have wanted all along and that is to serve alcohol in the back building. He stated the Village has been consistently fair and treated the business owner well. Dr. Avery stated he does not have a problem with the current use indoors. He also stated the Commission should keep in mind there are residential homes on this street and Mr. Sagaria is next door to this property and Mr. Hoekstra lives two doors down with his family. Dr. Avery stated his property has an apartment inside and he may use property someday as residential too.
Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated four hundred (400) square feet got approved for restaurant use and later a liquor license. He stated the applicant, Barbara Franks, went to the Liquor Control Board and sought expansion to the front porch and they were approved. Mr. Sagaria stated this is a “tale wagging the dog” situation. He stated the applicant has a track record of doing what they want and the same thing will happen with this situation. Mr. Sagaria stated the proposed fence is a first step to have the barn and back yard incorporated into a beer garden and food service. He added this kind of establishment is not appropriate for the neighborhood and there are not other beer gardens in the village. He stated Ms. Franks indicated he was not present when particular calls were made to the police department about noise. He stated this is untrue and he was present. He questioned why it should matter if he is there 100% of the time and if it matters he would like his property tax money reimbursed. Mr. Sargaria stated he has observed drunken students, broken bottles and bottle caps on his property, cigarettes, trespassing, and loud noises and music. He stated he is unable to enjoy his front porch. Mr. Sagaria stated he also observed a break-in at Taco Dan’s where the police came and this was not a quiet incident. Mr. Sagaria stated he has reported disturbances in the past and he will in the future because they are breaking the law. He stated there is a 10:00 pm noise Ordinance and he would like this to be enforced. Mr. Sagaria stated the fact is that this is an establishment with open mic nights, bands, etc. all past the hours of 12:00 am. Mr. Sagaria stated that even though the inside has been increased to four thousand six hundred (4,600) square feet, the proposed outdoor use is not a good fit for the Village or the neighborhood. He added this is an escalation of what they have been doing. Mr. Sagaria stated 71% of the houses on this block are residential. He stated a beer garden cannot work for a town with a noise Ordinance of 10:00 PM. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the proposal. Mr. Sagaria stated he “would love for South Prospect Street to stop being hijacked.”
Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on parking being required by the Village in the rear where the fence was being proposed. Ms. Terry stated there was a parking plan shown during a previous application for food and beverage use within the rear accessory structure, but that no parking was ultimately required because the change of use was not approved.
Law Director King left the meeting for a short period and when he returned indicated he had spoken with Nick Cavalaris and Mr. Cavalaris indicated he has been retained by Barbara Franks for this matter.
Dr. Avery asked if his testimony this evening would be considered for the next meeting even if he cannot attend. Law Director King stated yes. He also asked if he would have standing to speak to Council if the matter is appealed. Law Director King stated yes, he would also have standing to speak to Council. Mr. Sagaria stated he would like to have called Sharon Sellito to testify. He stated she owns property further down the street on Prospect, but she had to leave the meeting. He asked if he could retain the right to call her to speak at a future meeting. Mr. Mitchell indicated this would be possible.
Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2013-158. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.
Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2013-158: Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Application #2013-153: David Bussan; 420 East Broadway; Swimming Pool
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, Accessory Uses and Structures, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1185, Swimming Pools and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-153 with conditions as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-153. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.
Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.
Motion to approve meeting schedule for 2014:
Mr. Hawk moved to approve the meeting schedule for 2014 as presented by Village Staff. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Motion carried 5-0.
Adjournment: 8:40 PM
Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk. Motion carried 5-0.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Monday, January 27, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014