Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 9, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

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. 

 

Discussion: 

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. 

 

Discussion:

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 dismissedLaw 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:

 

New Business:

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. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 13, 2014

Monday, January 27, 2014

Monday, February 10, 2014

 

 

 

Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 25, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair) 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), and Jean Hoyt. 

 

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell (Chair).

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Tim and Kathy Klingler. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

120 East Elm Street – Tim and Kathy Klingler- Application #2013-150

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of low stone retaining walls, stone steps, and two (2) eight (8’) foot tall arched gates, located in the rear of the property.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Tim and Klingler. 

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, stated he is requesting approval for the gateways into their proposed landscape area.  He stated the lot has a natural fall from the barn to the house and they would like to terrace this into three areas.  Mr. Klingler stated he may be using compacted brown gravel with stone steps.  Mr. Klingler stated this area was previously used as a patio.  He added they would be using a lot of perennials and rose bushes for an English garden appearance.  Mr. Klingler stated one area would have raised beds for vegetable gardens.  Mr. Klingler stated the steps he is proposing were originally used as curb steps in Granville.  Mr. Klingler stated he is proposing to bend the hemlocks around an iron arch with a wooden door and window.  He stated the arches would be located in two areas on the lot.  Ms. Walker indicated the applicant would be requesting a variance from six foot (6’) to eight foot (8’) for the arches.  She stated this would be heard at the BZBA December 12th meeting.  Mr. Eklof asked if there is any existing fence that would remain.  Mr. Klingler stated there is a piece of a fencing installed by Mr. Preston located in the northeast corner of the property and this would remain.  Mr. Klingler stated the trees (service berry) in the northeast corner will likely remain, but he may replace them with river birch. Mr. Hawk stated he appreciated the design and variety of materials.  Ms. Walker stated the hardscape including the walls are added into the total lot coverage.  She stated this is zoned VBD and they can have 70% total lot coverage.  Ms. Walker stated the crushed stone does not count towards lot coverage.  She stated the Planning Commission is reviewing the proposed walls, steps, and gates only.                  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-150:

 

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

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual residence is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-150 on the condition the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA for the proposed arbor/gate height.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-150:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-150: Tim and Kathy Klingler; 120 East Elm 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 #2013-150 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-150. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the November 25, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for November 12, 2013:

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the minutes from November 12, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Hawk abstained because he did not attend this meeting.)

 

Adjournment:  7:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 9, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2013

 

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Jean Hoyt, Tom Mitchell (Chair), and Dennis Cauchon (non-voting)

 

Members Absent:  Steven Hawk.

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning and Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Eric and Gayle Stewart. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

133 Cherry Street – Eric and Gayle Stewart - Application #2013-135

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of brick steps and replacement with concrete steps.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker, Eric Stewart, and Gayle

Stewart. 

 

Discussion:

Eric Stewart, 133 Cherry Street, stated this project has already been completed.  Mr. Stewart stated they viewed this as a replacement and did not feel approval from the Planning Commission was necessary.  He stated there were concrete steps already located in this area and they had a brick face put on them.  Ms. Hoyt stated this appears to be a necessary repair and replacement.  Mr. Stewart agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated the brick was not sized to fit the steps appropriately.  Mr. Burriss stated he has no issues with this replacement/renovation.  Other members of the Planning Commission agreed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-135:

 

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 sidewalk project requests approved in the district.  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 not only historically appropriate but also a safer alternative.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of the district is improved.  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 steps are historically appropriate for the home.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-135 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-135:  Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-135: Eric and Gayle Stewart; Cherry Street; Sidewalk

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 #2013-135 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-135. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Steve Hawk from the November 12, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for October 28, 2013:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from October 28, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  7:15 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 25, 2013

Monday, December 9, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 28, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

 

Swearing in of Ex-Officio Member:

Law Director King swore in Dennis Cauchon as the Granville Exempted Village School District Ex-Officio Member to the Planning Commission on October 28, 2013 at 7:02 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, Village Law Director

 

Also Present: Karl Schneider. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

NE Corner of Columbus Road and Weaver Drive – Ryan Badger/ADR Associates, Ltd. on behalf of Karl Schneider Raccoon Creek, LLC. - Application #2013-70

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for review and approval of a lot split for an existing thirty-two-point-zero-three-seven (32.037) acre parcel. The applicants would like to divide the property into three separate parcels, described as follows:

1.  Lot Split 1: being an eight-point-three-seven-nine (8.379) acre parcel;

2.  Lot Split 2: being an eighteen point-seven-seven-zero (18.770) acre parcel; and

3.  Lot Split 3: being a four-point-eight-eight-eight (4.888) acre parcel.

The property is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for review and approval of three separate lot splits.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Karl Schneider.

 

Discussion:

Karl Schneider, Raccoon Valley Creek, LLC, stated he would like to sub-divide the property into three separate lots.  Mr. Schneider indicated part of the property is being co-developed with another partner out of Indianapolis.  He stated part of the property would be owned by another entity and they decided now is the appropriate timing to sub-divide the property. 

 

Ms. Terry stated the proposed lot split is 8.379 acres for what is being referred to as Lot 1, and Lot 2 is 18.770 acres.  Ms. Terry stated the area to the south where the manufactured home park is located is being referred to as Lot 3 and is 4.888 acres.  Ms. Terry stated there is a commercial portion and conservation easement piece to the north, which was taken into consideration when choosing how to divide the property.  Ms. Terry indicated the applicant meets all requirements for the lot split.  She read aloud the criteria set forth in the code pertaining to lot splits.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the applicant meets all of the criteria pertaining to lot splits in the Village Gateway District. 

 

Mr. Hawk asked if an easement would be granted for Lot 1.  Mr. Schneider stated yes.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the plan is to still vacate the residences on Lot 3 by years end.  Mr. Schneider stated they are still in the process of addressing this and they have run into some soil testing issues on Lot 1 that have made it hard to address matters with the other lots. 

 

Councilmember Johnson asked if the driveway would be shared as a means of ingress for outparcels.  Mr. Schneider stated yes, this access point would feed everything with no additional access points being considered.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is moving the access point further to the north where they will funnel all the traffic to both sites.  Mr. Schneider indicated they are also looking to enlarge the culvert in this area. 

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned what is located within the setback on the drawings.  Mr. Terry explained this would be an enclosed patio area, without a roof, and it is permitted to encroach within the setback.  She stated the area would be similar to a courtyard with fencing. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the conservation easement gives enough open space for out parcel Lot split 1 and 2.  Mr. Schneider stated yes. 

 

Councilmember Johnson asked if the applicant foresees the need for access to the detention pond on Lot 2.  Mr. Schneider stated they are currently working on this.  Ms. Terry explained there would be a blanket easement for a water line, storm sewer, and fire hydrant.  They have a blanket easement for storm sewer and fire hydrant to access this.  She indicated that if additional storm water needs to be detained it has to be on site even if the water is being funneled to a detention pond.  Ms. Terry stated the Village would have inspection and maintenance agreements in place that run with the property even if it transfers ownership.  She stated the property owner is required to maintain the detention pond on a regular basis.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the storm water from Lot 1 would go into the basin.  Mr. Schneider stated they are still working this out and it is yet to be determined.  Councilmember Johnson asked if the water moves into Raccoon Creek.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

Dennis Cauchon indicated the manufactured home park has been known to take on water – even recently.  He questioned if this land is considered to be in the flood zone.  Ms. Terry stated this area is considered to be in the 500-year flood zone.  Mr. Cauchon questioned if the developer has any plans for this area at this time.  Mr. Schneider stated they are continuing working on Lot 1 and 2 and have not begun plans for Lot 3.   

 

Mr. Mitchell asked Councilmember Johnson if there is anything he is aware of from Council’s perspective that would preclude this subdivision.  Councilmember Johnson stated the lot split was not discussed.  He stated he can only speak as one member from Council, but he does not see anything different than what was presented in the applicant’s original plan.  He stated he believes Council clearly understood there would be out parcels and they were undefined at that time.  Mr. Mitchell indicated Ms. Terry has indicated all of the criteria for a lot split have been met by the applicant. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-134, and agreed with Staff's comments as bolded below:

 

1)         Section 1113.02 Subdivision without plat (lot-split).

 

(a)        Written application for a subdivision without plat shall be submitted to the Village Planner or designee of the Manager who shall review such application for proper form and content. Upon acceptance of the application, the Village Planner or designee of the Manager shall process the application in accordance with this section. Submitted by the applicant.

           

(b)        The Planning Commission shall consider an application for subdivision without plat within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of the application and shall act on such application within thirty (30) days after consideration, unless otherwise extended by mutual agreement, and may approve such application provided:

 

(1)               All lots of the resulting subdivisions are contiguous to a dedicated public street right-of-way for such distance as is required by the applicable zoning district.   The three proposed lots are contiguous to a dedicated public street right-of-way, Weaver Road (Township Road 131) and or Columbus Road.  The Village Gateway District (VGD) does not require a specific lot width it only requires that the lot size be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be based on site conditions and the requirements established within the code for the proposed lot use.

 

(2)        No opening, widening or extension of any road, street or other public way is involved.  No opening, widening or extension is proposed. Not applicable.

(3)        No more than five (5) lots, each of which meets the established criteria for development, result after the original tract is completely subdivided. The proposed lot split is for three (3) total lots meeting this requirement.

 

(4)               The request for subdivision is not contrary to platting, subdividing or zoning regulations of the Municipality.  The proposed lot splits will not be contrary to any platting, subdividing or zoning regulations. Refer to Raccoon Creek Lot Split Ratios Chart dated 10/16/2013.

 

(c)        A boundary survey prepared by a registered surveyor shall be submitted with each application for subdivision without plat. Such survey shall show:

 

(1)        Boundaries of the proposed subdivision based on an accurate transverse with angular and lineal dimensions.  Submitted with the application.

 

(2)        Size of all lots within the proposed subdivision with accurate dimensions in feet and hundredths with bearing in degrees and minutes.  The submitted lot split drawing shows a total of three (3) lots with accurate dimensions in feet and hundredths and with bearings in degrees and minutes, as required.

 

(3)        Exact location, width and name of all streets or other public ways contiguous to the proposed subdivision.  The submitted lot split drawing shows the location, width and name of Columbus Road and Weaver Road (Township Road 131), as required.

 

(4)        Names of adjacent subdivision and/or owners of adjoining parcels with the boundary lines of adjacent tracts of unsubdivided and subdivided land.  Illustrated on the submitted lot split drawings, as required.

 

(5)        Scale of plan, north point and date. The location, widths of easements, parks, permanent buildings, military survey and township lines within and adjacent to the subdivision.  The submitted lot split is shown at 100 scale with a north point and date of 10/15/2013. The plan further illustrates the Scenic/Conservation/Walkway Easement along the northern property lines of proposed Lots 1 & 2 and an existing sewer easement that bisects proposed Lots 1 & 2.

 

(d)        The Planning Commission may grant conditional approval to any proposed subdivision or lot-split pending approval by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals or Council of variances which may be required for development. Not applicable.

 

(e)        No application for subdivision without plat shall be approved by the Planning Commission which would result in any parcel of land becoming or remaining landlocked or which does not meet the conditions of this section. (Ord. 21-95. Passed 8-2-95.) None of the proposed lots would be become landlocked as a result of this request.  Not applicable.

 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-134 as presented with the affirmation of the Staff's review of the regulations.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-134:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-134: Ryan Badger of ADR & Associates, Ltd. on behalf of Karl Schneider of Raccoon Creek, LLC; Northeast Corner of Weaver Drive and Columbus Road; Lot Split of 32.037 Acre Parcels into 3 Lots

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Plat Approval and Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-134 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-134. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 23, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from September 23, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. (Mr. Mitchell abstained.)

 

Adjournment:  7:25 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 12, 2013

Monday, November 25, 2013

Monday, December 9, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes September 23, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 23, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), and Jean Hoyt.

 

Members Absent:  Councilmember Johnson and Tom Mitchell.  

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant; Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: Charles Dilbone, Jean Brown, Jack Lucks, Keith Myers, Michael Pfautsch, Bill Hanes, and Daniel DeGreve. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

130 North Granger Street – Granville Exempted Village School District - Application #2013-120

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of four (4) scupper drains with downspouts. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Charles Dilbone. 

 

Discussion:

Charles Dilbone, Granville Schools representative, stated the additional drains are for torrential downpours and the scupper drains will handle excessive overflow.  Mr. Dilbone stated the downspout would be in brown, and the part closest to the school roofline would be in white.  He presented examples of the materials to be used.  Mr. Hawk asked if the water would daylight on the concrete pad.  Mr. Dilbone stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-120:

 

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 drainage projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission agreed 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 allowing for the preservation of the structure.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE improvements pertain to the vitality of a structure in the district, and therefore contributes to the vitality of the entire district.   The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-120 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-120:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

324 West Elm Street– Jean Brown - Application #2013-121

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the remodeling of the front porch, and the installation of two (2) solar powered roof vents at the rear of the structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Michael Pfautch. 

 

Discussion:

Michael Pfautch, 324 West Elm Street, stated that he would be the contractor completing this job.  Mr. Pfautch stated he would duplicate the existing architecture as close as possible.  He explained the existing porch material consists of patches of aluminum on top of aluminum.  Mr. Pfaustch stated it is his intent to try to keep as close to the original as possible.  He stated all of the decking material would be CCA and all of the roofing material would be the same that is currently on the structure.  Ms. Walker asked Mr. Pfautch to explain the installation of the solar roof vents.  Mr. Pfautch stated the home has a finished attic that was refinished some time ago.  He stated this space gets excessive heat and has even reached 130 degrees.  Mr. Pfautch stated he suggested solar vents since there is not a power source.  He stated each fan can handle up to 1200 square feet per vent and he is proposing the use of two vents.   Mr. Pfautch stated it is likely Mickey’s roofing would be handling the installation of the roofing vents and they are not very visible from the street.  Mr. Hawk asked if Mr. Pfautch has had success with use of the fans in the past.  Mr. Pfautch stated they receive a 5 star rating and he isn’t aware of any problem.  Mr. Pfautch stated the vents would be facing the southeast.  Mr. Burriss questioned the height from the porch floor to the ground.  Mr. Pfautch stated he guesses eighteen inches (18”).  He stated by code the railing can remain the same height. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-121:

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. The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the changes are a historical upgrade to the home by keeping what is in place looking the same.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the livability of the structure is improved.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-121 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-121:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Columbus Road/Weaver Drive – Karl Schneider/Raccoon Creek, LLC - Application #2013-104 AMENDED

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is an amendment to the architectural review and approval of the assisted living facility.  Specifically, the applicant is requesting amendments to allow alternates to the following items:

1)                  Approval of vinyl siding in replacement of brick;

2)                  Approval of Timberline dimensional asphaltic shingles in replacement of EuroLite Slate-style roofing in Charcoal Black

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Jack Lucks.

 

Discussion:

Jack Lucks, Raccoon Valley Creek, LLC, stated he is representing all of the owners of the proposed assisted living facility.  Mr. Lucks stated they are requesting a change to the previously proposed materials because they just became aware of a water line that has to be installed in the southwest corner of the building.  Mr. Lucks explained they did not anticipate the cost of this at the time of approval and due to these cost overruns he would like to have a backup plan in place for some of the materials on the building. 

 

Mr. Lucks stated there are two suppression systems for the sprinkler system.  He stated the Village requires that this water line be put in.  Mr. Lucks stated the architecture would remain the same, but the materials used could potentially change.  He asked if vinyl siding could be considered, as well as, dimensional shingles in asphalt.  Mr. Lucks stated if he can he would consider not switching both and using parts of the upgraded materials. 

Mr. Hawk agreed to change from brick to vinyl is a significant change.  He asked if split face block was considered.  Mr. Lucks stated no.  Ms. Hoyt asked if a combo of brick and vinyl was considered.  Mr. Lucks stated this would involve using two different contractors and would not end up being much of a cost savings.  

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the chimneys were discussed remaining in brick.  He stated there is a significant number of chimneys and this could add some stability to the structure visually.  Mr. Lucks agreed.  Mr. Burriss asked if there was any consideration to making the vinyl a different color.  Mr. Lucks stated they felt the all white was a better representation of Granville.  Mr. Lucks reiterated this is a hypothetical proposal and he needs approval in order to move forward with the project.  He indicated it is still his hope to have the higher end materials used, but it will all come down to cost.  Law Director King stated any motion presented by the Planning Commission would indicate these materials are to be listed as an alternative to the previous application.  Mr. Eklof asked if brick face was considered.  Mr. Burriss stated this would be a layering of stucco that is carved out and it was used on the Presbyterian Church.  Mr. Lucks stated this would be in the same price range as installing hardi-plank.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed they prefer the look of the materials presented in the previous application.     

 

Ms. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2013-104 AMENDED with the following materials as an alternative option:  

1)                  Approval of vinyl siding in replacement of brick;

2)                  Approval of Timberline dimensional asphaltic shingles in replacement of EuroLite Slate-style roofing in Charcoal Black

3)                  Chimneys to remain brick

  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-104 AMENDED:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

107 East Broadway – Meleca Architecture/St. Luke’s Episcopal Church - Application #2013-66 AMENDED

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new undercroft stair enclosure on the eastern side of the structure to replace the existing stair enclosure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker,  Daniel DeGreve, and Keith Myers.

 

Discussion:

Daniel DeGreve stated he is an architect with Meleca Architecture.  He stated the application before the Planning Commission relates to the undercroft.  He explained they are proposing to increase the square footage because they would be adding a second stairway.  Mr. DeGreve stated this stairway would be due to the code restriction and the existing stairway is being retained for convenience for a new conference room.  Mr. DeGreve stated the existing “shanty” is  68 square feet and they are proposing to increase it to 138 square feet.  He stated that most of the footprint would be within the paved area and would not be increasing impervious surface.  Mr. DeGreve stated this is going to be a secondary entrance to the basement and they feel the presented look would not detract from the original mass of the building.  Mr. DeGreve stated they are proposing something very transparent and the concept is that of a conservatory.  Ms. Walker stated the proposal is respectfulness of the Greek revival structure.  She went on to say  they have had discussions regarding the rainwater conductor.  Mr. DeGreve stated there are two rain conductors on the side of the building and they would run rain conductors on the low slope roof to be run perpendicular to the main runs of the church.  Mr. DeGreve stated the central portion would have scuppers and the actual rain conductors would be concealed and tied into tile below.  He explained they do not want the rain conductors to detract from the look.  Ms. Hoyt stated this appears well-designed and well thought out, as has been the case with all of the information submitted by St. Luke’s for this project.  Mr. Burriss agreed.  Mr. Burriss asked if the rear doors have similar fenestration patterns to the new doors.  Mr. DeGreve stated yes. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked about lighting for the structure.  Mr. DeGreve stated they would match the lighting proposed for the sunken garden.  Mr. Burriss asked about the proposed interior lighting for the stairways.  Mr. DeGreve stated they want something on the interior that is not intrusive.  He stated lighting pollution concerns can certainly be taken into consideration and they can even consider knee wall lighting for the stairs. Mr. DeGreve stated he does not expect a pendant type light, but possibly recessed lighting.  He stated he is unsure at this time.   

 

Keith Myers, 229 East College, stated the lights would not be on 24/7 and the stairway lights would only be on when other lights are on surrounding the church.  Mr. Myers stated they would not choose lighting that would stand out or be intrusive.  Mr. Eklof stated a motion-activated light could be considered.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-66 AMENDED:

 

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 agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the changes are an historical upgrade to the church by making the undercroft more architecturally appealing than what currently exists.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

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

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-66 AMENDED, with the addition of the undercroft stair enclosure, as designed and submitted, and with the addition of Exhibit A (water conducting system).  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-66 AMENDED:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-120: GEVSD/Charles Dilbone; 130 North Granger Street; Addition of scupper drains & downspouts

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 #2013-120 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-120. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2013-121: Jean Brown; 324 West Elm Street; Remodel front porch and installation of solar powered roof vents

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village Residential District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-121 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-121. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

Application #2013-104 AMENDED: Karl Schneider/Raccoon Creek, LLC; Columbus Road/Weaver Road; 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 1173, Village Gateway District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-104 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-104 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2013-66 AMENDED: Meleca Architecture/St. Luke’s Episcopal Church; 107 East Broadway; Eastern Side Addition

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 Square District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-66 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-66 AMENDED. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the September 23, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for September 9, 2013:

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the minutes from September 9, 2013 as revised.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Ms. Hoyt abstained.)

 

Adjournment:  8:05 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Monday, October 28, 2013

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

 

Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 9, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  None. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept., Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: Mark Clapsadle, Jodi Melfi, Alysa Reinoehl, Bob Gravitt, Kate Remillard, and Renee Terebuh. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

454 South Main Street – Ben Pickrell/Millennium Irish Dance - Application #2013-107  AMENDED

Community Service District (CSD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Jodi Melfi. 

 

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, 660 West Broadway, stated she is applying for an all-inclusive sign package by integrating the three existing signs into one.  She explained the signage would be used for all of the businesses located in the dance building.  Ms. Melfi stated this would also eliminate the need for a variance.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-107 AMENDED as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-34:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

223 North Granger Street– Alysa Reinoehl - Application #2013-109

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an exterior door and replacement with a new exterior door on the north side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Alysa Reinoehl. 

 

Discussion:

Alysa Reinoehl, 223 North Granger Street, stated that she would like to replace a door on the north side of the home with a Jeldwyn steel door.  She stated the new door is being installed for aesthetics and security reasons.  Mr. Hawk asked the proposed color of the door.  Ms. Reinoehl stated white. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-109:

 

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.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the new door is more historically appropriate.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the vitality and livability is improved by the installation of the door.   The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the appearance of the proposed door is more pleasing architecturally than the existing door.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-109 as presented with the door to be in the color of white.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-109:  Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

205 South Pearl Street – Mark Clapsadle on behalf of Bob & Cris Gravitt - Application #2013-111

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a thirty-eight (38) replacement windows. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker, Mark Clapsadle, and Bob Gavitt.

 

Discussion:

Mark Clapsadle, 4380 Granview Road, stated he is the architect for the project.  Mr. Clapsadle explained the home is in need of repair on the interior and exterior.  He stated they plan to replace all of the siding and windows.  Mr. Clapsadle stated the current windows on the home do not open.  He went on to say the project would include demolishing the two existing porches on the home and adding on a two-story addition to the rear.  He stated the new porch would be a wrap around instead of two individual porches.  Mr. Clapsadle stated there is an extensive amount of interior work being done that is driving the entire project.  Mr. Clapsadle stated they would be replicating the existing house to a degree.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant would be required to receive variances for front yard and side yard setbacks on Elm Street and South Pearl Street.  The Planning Commission reviewed the powerpoint slides of the proposed renovation.  Mr. Clapsadle explained the current location where the door is would become a window.  He stated the new front door would be moved to the corner.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the shed roof would be replaced?  Mr. Clapsadle stated the look would remain the same, but new materials would be used.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the railing would be square pickets?  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes because they wanted to go for simplicity.  He stated he felt National was the closest style that could be designated to the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant is switching from single light top sashes to double light top sashes.  Mr. Clapsadle stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated he appreciates the completeness of the submittal.  Mr. Burriss stated the porches on the home now are not original to the home.    

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-36:

 

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. The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the architectural changes that are proposed will bring the home into a more unified historical presence.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the livability is improved.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the home will appear to be more historically correct than it currently is once the renovation is complete.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-111 with the condition the applicant receive the required variances from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-111:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

 

 

 

218 South Mulberry Street – Damon & Kate Remillard- Application #2013-115

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of two (2) sections of picket fence to enclose the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Kate Remillard.

 

Discussion:

Kate Remillard, 218 South Mulberry Street, stated she would like to install the additional fence to complete the current look.  She stated the fence would be completely enclosed for her dog.  Ms. Walker stated this is kind of a unique setup in order to enclose the Remillard’s fence because they will have to run portions of the fence down the property line and then connect to the Hunt and VanOfferen properties.  She stated this is due in part to the way the existing fences were already installed.  Ms. Remillard stated the new fence would match the existing picket fence.  Ms. Walker stated the fence would go near the garage of one neighbor, but it would not connect.  She went on to explain there would be another connection near the window of the Hunt residence.  Law Director King stated the fence would go part way on both of the adjacent properties.  He stated they have suggested both adjacent property owners submit something in writing indicating they are in agreement to the placement of the fence.  Law Director King stated if any issue ever arises from the fence location it would be considered a civil matter. 

 

Mr. Mitchell acknowledged receiving written authorization from the Vanofferan’s to the north side and Lele Horrace.  Mr. Mitchell indicated Ms. Horrace is not the owner of this property, but a resident not objecting to the fence placement.  Law Director King suggested the property owner would need to submit written authorization.  Mr. Hawk agreed it would be good for the authorization letters to be in the Village files even though the fence placement is ultimately a civil matter.  Law Director King stated he reviewed the code and it does not say there needs to be separate application for each property the fence will encroach upon.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant was aware they could potentially be required to take down the fence that encroaches on the adjacent property unless a recorded easement is in place.  Ms. Remillard stated yes.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-115:

 

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 fence requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission agreed 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 fences used in the district.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the vitality of the district is enhanced due to the proposal.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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 #2013-115 on the condition the applicant receive written authorization from the property owners located on the adjacent properties’, 210 and 222 South Mulberry Street, and this information is filed with the Village Planning Department.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-115:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

224 East Broadway – Renee Terebuh - Application #2013-117

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Renee Terebuh.

 

Discussion:

Renee Terebuh was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated the application meets all requirements and was previously used in a different location and approved by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terebuh stated she does not have the signage prepared for the building wall sign at this time.   Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sidewalk sign would block the sidewalk entrance into the business.  Ms. Terebuh stated the signage would not be obstructing the sidewalk and the presented picture is deceiving by depicting this. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-117:

 

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 sidewalk sign requests approved in the district.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the graphics for the sidewalk sign are consistent with other sidewalk signs used in the district.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the vitality of the district is enhanced due to the proposal.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-117 with the condition the sidewalk sign is moved and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-117:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2013-107 AMENDED: Ben Pickrell; 454 South Main; 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 1167, Community Service District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-107 AMENDED as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-107. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2013-109: Alysa Reinoehl; 223 North Granger Street; Exterior Modifications/Door

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 #2013-109 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-109. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

Application #2013-111: Mark Clapsadle on behalf of Bob & Cris Gravitt; 205 South Pearl Street; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-111 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-111. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

Application #2013-115: Damon & Kate Remillard; 218 South Mulberry Street; Fence

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, Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-115 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-115. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2013-117: Renee Terebuh; 224 East Broadway; Sidewalk Sign

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 #2013-117 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-117. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jean Hoyt from the September 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for August 26, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from August 26, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 3-0.  (Mr. Burriss abstained)

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 23, 2013

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Monday, October 28, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes August 26, 2013

 

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 26, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Councilmember Johnson (non-voting) and Jack Burriss. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Nasie Gallagher, Jodi Melfi, Ben Rader, Greg Tracey, Jean Fuller, and Donna Fuller.  

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

454 South Main Street– Ben Pickrell/Millenium Irish Dance - Application #2013-107

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Jodi Melfi. 

 

Discussion:

Jodi Melfi, 120 East Elm Street, stated that she is representing the business owner, Ben Pickrell because he is currently in Ireland.  Ms. Melfi stated they have three signs in place and they are asking for a fourth sign, which would require a variance.  Ms. Melfi stated the proposed signage would coordinate with and match the existing signage on the building.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the same color, font, and proportions are being used.  Ms. Melfi stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is additional room on the existing monument sign.  Ms. Melfi stated no.  Mr. Mitchell asked if a variance would be required to place the signage on the monument sign.  Ms. Walker stated she would need to research this to find out.     

 

Mr. Hawk questioned if the Planning Commission should grant another variance and is it possible the applicant could just keep requesting variances for additional signage.  Ms. Melfi stated she would not request another variance.  Ms. Walker explained the application for a sign variance should be the last request because the Code has been changed to mandate all variances (sign and other) will go to the BZBA for approval.  She added there is now a $250 fee associated with any request for a sign variance. 

 

Mr. Eklof questioned if a variance would be required if the existing three lower signs were all hung together.  He asked if this could be considered one sign.  Ms. Melfi stated she could incorporate these three panels onto one background.  Ms. Walker stated any variances granted for signage would carry with the property owner and not the business owner.  She stated variances for signage do not expire, and if another tenant moves into the building the variance would carry with the property.  Ms. Hoyt stated she does not have a problem with the proposed balance of signage on the front façade, but she does like the idea of incorporating the signage into one unit.   

 

Mr. Hawk stated he would support incorporating the existing signage into one unit, but he cannot support granting another variance for signage.  The Planning Commission discussed Ms. Melfi coming back with another sign proposal not requiring an additional variance.  Ms. Melfi agreed to work with the business owner on incorporating some of the sign panels into one sign.  She stated the business owner would like this in place as soon as possible because they are currently undergoing open enrollment for dance classes.  Ms. Walker stated the application could be brought up under ‘Old Business’ at the next Planning Commission meeting. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2013-107.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2013-107:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

107 North Prospect – Nasie Gallagher/Moe’s Original Barbeque - Application #2013-114

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a single steel door and replacement with new double steel doors, six (6’) feet in total width, at the rear of the structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker, Ben Rader, Greg Tracey,

Nasie Gallagher. 

 

Discussion:

Nasie Gallagher, 956 Hopewell Heights, Heath, stated they are proposing opening a Moe’s BBQ restaurant at 128 East Broadway.  She stated they would employ an operating staff of 8-12 people and be open seven days per week.  Ms. Gallagher stated the Moe’s franchise has been sold exclusively to friends and family.  She stated that without a smoker there cannot be a Moe’s BBQ.  Ms. Gallagher explained that a steel double door would need to be installed to get the smoker unit in the building. 

 

Deb Walker stated the door would allow the smoker to come inside the property.  She explained she became aware today that there would need to be venting through the roof for the proposed smoker.  Ms. Hoyt asked how much smoke there could be.  Greg Tracey stated he would be part owner of the Moe’s franchise and there is an evac system that takes care of most of the smoke.  Ms. Gallagher indicated the location of the proposed vents on photographs.  She explained they would replace a hood system with the fan.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the fans would only be visible from the rear alley.  Ms. Gallagher stated yes.   

 

Ben Rader, 130 Linden Place, stated he has a neighboring property to the proposed BBQ location.  He questioned why the exhaust system wasn’t included in the application.  Ms. Walker stated she became aware of plans for the exhaust system late today.  Mr. Rader reviewed the plans for the double doors.  He wished the applicant good luck in their new business.  Mr. Rader added that he would like to see the applicant get full approval this evening. 

 

Carol Fuller Denison Drive, stated the mentioned storage space in the attic area is not for retail space.  She explained the fan in this area is to move hot air out of the attic space.  Ms. Fuller stated the second doorway would be installed going towards the downspouts. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-114:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the proposed improvements are compatible with the steel door that currently exists in the rear of the building.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hawk.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the request is consistent with the nature of the district.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hawk.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE having a thriving business in the district contributes to the vitality of the district.  The Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-114 for replacement of double doors as proposed and adding two additional exhaust stacks similar to the existing exhaust stacks already in place.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-114:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-114: Nasie Gallagher/Moe’s Original Barbeque; 128 East Broadway; 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 #2013-114 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-114. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Eklof moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss from the August 26, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion 1 (yes), 3 (no).

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for August 12, 2013:

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the minutes from August 12, 2013 as revised.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, September 9, 2013

Monday, September 23, 2013

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Monday, October 28, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

August 12, 2013

7:00pm

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (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: Richard Liebson, Darren Moore, Eric Rosenberg, Sherri Cummins, Karl Schneider, Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, Panchadsaram Arumugasaamy, Jack Lucks, Gary Gray, and Tyler Lucks.  

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

134 South Mulberry Street – Richard Liebson - Application #2013-97

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of four groupings of replacement windows at the rear of the first floor of the home on the north, east, and south sides.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Richard Liebson.  

Discussion:

Richard Liebson, 134 Mulberry Street, stated the existing windows are not functional because they are leaky, cold in the wintertime, and the prairie style window is not appropriate for a Victorian house.  He stated he has chosen a three over one style window which is a better match to the style of the home.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the proposed windows would be operable.  Mr. Liebson stated yes.  Mr. Liebson stated he is proposing Anderson Series 400 replacement windows.  Ms. Hoyt stated it sounds like a much needed project that is fitting to the home.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-97: 

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 window replacement requests approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members agreed 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 maintenance for a structure already in this district. All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Burriss.  

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 agreed with Mr. Burriss.  

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the applicant’s request is a move towards restoration of the home.    All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Burriss.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-97 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-97:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

411 & 417 Bryn Du Drive– Darren & Nadia Moore - Application #2013-101

Planned Unit Development (PUD).  The request is for review and approval of the re-platting of Lot 61 (411 Bryn Du Drive) & Lot 62 (417 Bryn Du Drive); Bryn Du Woods Phase 3.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Darren Moore.  

Discussion:

Darren Moore, 120 East Elm Street, stated they purchased the lot next door to them with the intention of installing a new driveway with a more gradual grade to their home.  He stated his existing driveway is referred to as “suicide drive” with a 32% grade driveway, which is really steep.  Mr. Moore stated they purchased the lot next door in the hope of building a new driveway for safety reasons.  He explained they have had 4-5 ambulance calls to their home over the years because they have a child with epilepsy.  

Panchadsaram Anumugasaamy stated he has lived on Lot 63 next to the property in question since 1996.  He explained he received a lot of harassment from neighbors when he built his home and he was forced to change some of his plans.  Mr. Anumugasaamy stated he is requesting the Planning Commission to not approve the proposed driveway unless an adequate landscaping plan is in place.  Mr. Mitchell stated the application before the Planning Commission is not for a driveway, but rather a replat.  Ms. Terry explained approval for a driveway would be considered administrative approval and landscaping is not required for the driveway according to code.  Mr. Anumugasaamy stated he would look out his window at the proposed driveway and he prefers to not have the view of pavement in place of the green space.  Mr. Moore and Ms. Terry explained the proposed location of the driveway.  Mr. Anumugasaamy indicated he thought the driveway was closer to his property and within his view.  He stated he would like to withdraw his concern.    

Ms. Terry stated the plat needs to be revised to show the roadway as Pren Tel Way, instead of Bryn Du Drive.  Councilmember Johnson inquired if variances would have to be obtained if someone wanted to build on the vacant property.  Ms. Terry stated the property could still be built on without variances if one builds a particular style of home.  She went on to say variances can be requested for any property.  Ms. Terry stated she does not believe the re-platting is creating a situation where a house could not fit on the property due to the sliver of land being used for the driveway.     

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-101 on the condition the technical requirements be met to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-101:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

401 North Pearl Street – Eric Rosenberg - Application #2013-102

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sunroom addition and front and rear decks. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Eric Rosenberg. 

Discussion:

Eric Rosenberg, 401 North Pearl Street, stated the decks would be built to create wheelchair access.  Ms. Terry stated the proposed sunroom is 280 square foot, 136 square foot for the front deck, 365 square foot for the rear deck.  Ms. Terry stated variances were granted for a five-foot encroachment.  Mr. Rosenberg stated the finish will be white stucco with Anderson double-hung windows.  He added you cannot see this from the street due to the steep incline.  Mr. Hawk asked about the service director’s concerns regarding water runoff.  Mr. Rosenberg stated this has been addressed by day lighting the downspouts on the hill.  Ms. Terry indicated the service director, Terry Hopkins, would review the final plan for water runoff.        

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-102: 

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 members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the improvements make it more consistent with neighboring properties.  All other members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the livability is improved.   All other members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the gable on the front along with the deck is a more pleasant appearance.    All other members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-102 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-102:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

1205 Cherry Valley Road – Sherri Cummins/Friends of Jesus - Application #2013-103

Planned Commercial District (PCD). The request is for review and approval of two (2) ADA compliant handicapped ramps.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Sherri Cummins. 

Discussion:

Sherri Cummins was present to address any questions by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated pressure treated lumber is being used and this ramp is necessary to be compliant with ADA standards.  Mr. Burriss stated the Planning Commission has required pressure treated lumber be stained in the past so it doesn’t look like raw wood.  He stated the applicant may need to wait a certain amount of time in order to apply a finish.  Ms. Cummins stated she has every intention to stain the wood material.    

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-103 with the condition the applicant stain or finish the ramp after the pressure treated lumber has been aged.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-103:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.  

121 South Prospect Street – Barbara Franks - Application #2013-106

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of an emergency stand-by generator on the western side of the accessory structure.   

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Dan Roger, and Barbara

Franks.  

Discussion:

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated the proposed generator is to allow the various businesses located on her property to function in the event of a power outage. 

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street, stated he would like to know the purpose of the generator.  Mr. Mitchell stated it would be used when power is not available.  Mr. Sagaria stated, more specifically, what part of the establishment would the generator serve?  Ms. Franks stated her entire property which includes five meters would be serviced by the generator.  Mr. Sagaria asked “where is the heart of the operation?”  Ms. Franks stated the unit would be placed next to the barn.  She went on to say they originally proposed to place the generator in the back because they felt this location would have the least impact on the neighborhood.  Ms. Franks stated she has learned the rear location would not work.  She indicated she could move it behind the fence and at the northern edge of the barn if Mr. Sagaria prefers, but she felt this would be more intrusive to him.  Mr. Hawk asked if cars park in the proposed area of placement of the generator.  Ms. Franks stated this is an old parking space and cars do not park in this location.  Mr. Sagaria asked what advantages there are for the applicant to install a permanent generator over a portable generator.  Mr. Mitchell stated the permanent generator offers more capacity at 20kw and a permanent generator is generally quieter than a portable generator.  Ms. Franks stated getting gas for a portable generator can be a nuisance.  She indicated the permanent generator uses natural gas.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is natural gas service in place.  Ms. Franks stated yes.  Ms. Franks stated there are already two permanent generators in place very close to Mr. Sagaria’s property.  She questioned if Mr. Sagaria had attended the Planning Commission meetings to oppose the installation for the telephone company and the Village offices.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the generator could be installed near the supply lines.  He stated the location may have to change due to this.  Ms. Franks stated the Licking County Building Department and the electrician should have adequate information regarding what is allowed by code.  

Mr. Sagaria stated the applicant was approved for 400 square feet to operate Taco Dan’s and now they are using a basement, first floor, front porch, and back porch for the operation of Taco Dan’s.  Mr. Sagaria stated his concern is approving something else when the applicants are currently not complying with the zoning requirements.  Law Director King stated the Planning Commission is to review the AROD criteria associated with this request.  He explained there is a built in zoning condition indicating the applicant shall comply with village ordinances.  Law Director King stated there is currently a stop order for operation of Taco Dan’s in the expanded areas and the condition that is built in would already be subject to meet that condition.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there is pedestrian traffic in the area where the generator would be located.  Ms. Franks stated no.  Ms. Terry stated if the location of the generator were to  change, the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission with a revised application.  Mr. Burriss asked if Ms. Franks would be eliminating a parking space, since the generator is shown in a location on the site plan in the same location as a parking space.  Ms. Franks stated no.  Ms. Terry stated the drawing before the Planning Commission is an old drawing the applicant had previously submitted which they are now using simply to depict the location of the proposed generator.  

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-106: 

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 generator install requests approved in the district.  All other members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the request allows the structure to function in the event of a power outage and allows a business to operate.  All other members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated true, the vitality of a business is enhanced with the capability to function in the event of a power outage.   All other members agreed with Mr. Burriss. 

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

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-106 as presented with replacement of the generator on the eastern side of the accessory structure (which differs from the original proposed location indicated on the application.)  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-106:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Weaver Road/Columbus Road – Karl Schneider – Raccoon Creek, LLC - Application #2013-104

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, and lighting plan.  

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Karl Schneider, Jack Lucks, Gary Gray, and Tyler Lucks. 

Discussion:

Karl Schneider, Metropolitan Partners, stated the outside of the structure would be a rough finish with painted white brick.  Mr. Schneider stated the footprint has changed due to flood plain issues.  

Jack Lucks, Metropolitan Partners, presented an example of the proposed roofing material.  He stated it has a 50-year life and is made of recycled rubber tires.  Mr. Lucks stated they are looking at two different charcoal gray colors.   

Gary Gray, Metropolitan Partners Architect, stated the plan changed with an increase in the number of dormers.  He indicated they would use hardi-plank board on what is being referred to as the chapel.  He stated this would make this area stand out and feel unique.  

Mr. Gray stated they were going for a New England style chapel and even modeled some of the look from St. Lukes Episcopal Church and the Old Academy building in town.  Mr. Lucks stated they have increased the number of plant materials.  Ms. Terry stated review of landscaping and plant materials would be done by the Tree and Landscape Commission.  Mr. Lucks stated they have upgraded the proposed columns to now be made of stone.  Ms. Terry stated all of the architectural requirements have been met.  She stated the Village Gateway District calls for lighting fixtures to be acorn style, but the Planning Commission had approved more downcast lighting for a project at 1919 Lancaster Road.  Mr. Mitchell and other members of the Planning Commission agreed the acorn style lighting is nice, but much of the light is diffused in the air and it is not always practical.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there are any exposed gutters and ridges.  Mr. Gray stated they are using rectangular aluminum gutters and they are wanting to minimize and not draw more attention to the roof to keep the eyes down.  He stated there would be some painted metal.  Councilmember Johnson asked if the building would be fully suppressed (fire suppression).  Mr. Lucks stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the entrance off of Weaver Drive connecting to the back parking lot.  Ms. Terry stated Village Engineer, Doyle Clear, has approved this access point.  Mr. Hawk asked the timeframe for construction.  Mr. Lucks stated they would like to move dirt in the next few weeks and they still need to have a review of the construction plans.  Mr. Hawk asked what would become of the other side of the property.  Mr. Lucks indicated this is a separate parcel with separate ownership.  Mr. Burriss asked if a lantern was considered for the chapel.  Mr. Gray stated he tried six different ones and they felt it was too much of a religious overture.  He indicated they were wanting a more civic feel to the space to emulate a grange hall or meeting hall.  Mr. Burriss asked if the dormers would be functional.  Mr. Lucks stated no.  Mr. Gray stated the windows would be real windows.  Mr. Burriss asked if imitation florescent lighting would be used in the dormers.  Mr. Gray stated no.    

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-104 on the condition the landscaping for the application meets the Tree and Landscape Committee’s approval, and the lighting shall be steel straight pole lighting PM40/R920 without light bulb industrial cage.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-104:  Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2013-97: Richard Liebson; 134 South Mulberry Street; Window Replacement

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 #2013-97 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-97. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2013-101: Darren & Nadia Moore; 411&417 Bryn Du Drive; Re-Platting of Lots 61&62

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-101 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-101. Seconded by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2013-102: Eric Rosenberg; 401 North Pearl Street; Sunroom Addition and Front & Rear Decks

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 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-102 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-102. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2013-103: Sherri Cummins/Friends of Jesus; 1205 Cherry Valley Road; Exterior Modification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1171, Planned Development District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-103 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-103. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2013-106: Barbara Franks; 121 South Prospect Street; Generator

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 #2013-106 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-106. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2013-104: Karl Schneider/Raccoon Creek, LLC; Weaver Road and Columbus Road; Building Elevation, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Lighting Plan

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District, Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and Chapter 1195, Traffic Impact Study Ordinance, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-104 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-104. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 22, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from July 22, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Adjournment:  8:45 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, August 26, 2013

Monday, September 9, 2013

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 22, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  None. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept, Mike King, Village Law Director

 

Also Present: Sherri Cummins, Tim Hughes, and Paul Pyle. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

1205 Cherry Valley Road – Sherri Cummins/The Friends of Jesus Ministries - Application #2013-92

Planned Commercial District (PCD).  The request is for review of the parking requirements for a Day Habilitation Center for persons with developmental disabilities, a Community Chapel, and a Counseling Center in relation to a commercial occupancy permit request.   

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Sherri Cummins. 

 

Discussion:

Sherri Cummins, 14505 Fancher Road, Johnstown stated she is available to address any concerns by the Planning Commission. 

 

Law Director King explained the reason why the application was before the Planning Commission.  He stated this matter is before the Planning Commission because the zoning department had reviewed the code and noted there were no specific parking requirements for the proposed uses.  He stated since the proposed uses are not listed in the code, the Code states that the number of parking spaces shall be established by the Planning Commission when the use is not specified.  Law Director King stated the applicant is proposing to use the space for multiple functions, including a counseling center, occupational rehabilitation for developmentally disabled clients, and as a chapel one day per week.  He stated it is up to the Planning Commission to decide how many parking spaces should be required for the proposed use.  He explained it cannot be an arbitrary number and it has got to be an objective and fair explanation as to how they got to the number.  Law Director King stated the Commission can consider some of the specific uses already set forth and listen to testimony presented this evening to come up with the best benchmark or closest comparison. 

 

He encouraged the Planning Commission to articulate as best they can how the use is similar or dissimilar from the request.  Law Director King stated once the Planning Commission establishes the number of required spaces there would be a subsequent analysis for this applicant on whether or not they can meet that number or if they do not meet the requirement, what options would be available.  Deb Walker stated staff reviewed comparables in Section 1183 of the code and considered ‘Administrative Office Space’ because this could pertain to the counseling portion of the application.  She stated ‘Administrative Office Space’ calls for 1 parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area, and this is the most generous designation in the code.  Ms. Walker stated Ms. Cummins testimony should indicate if she plans to use the entire space.  Ms. Walker stated the code specifies ten parking spaces for a Chapel/Church, and the applicant has indicated this function would occur on a weekday or evening and consist of maybe four people.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant has indicated to staff they plan to have two part-time employees and they would not be there in tandem - one person in the day and one in the evening on alternate days.  She encouraged the Planning Commission to review the email provided by Ms. Cummins indicating planned use of the space.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the existing garage is considered parking spaces.  Ms. Walker stated they could consider these if they do not have stacked parking behind them.  She explained there is a hammerhead – and this is needed to turn around so you don’t have to back out onto Cherry Valley Road – which can be dangerous.  Ms. Walker explained the client base frequenting the establishment would be delivered by Licking County Transit Authority bus and they will need room to maneuver.  Ms. Walker explained the additional space for the hammerhead would be considered one parking space and the bus would pull into the other space and maneuver out.  She stated Ms. Cummins has provided design standards that would be reviewed after a parking space number is in place.  Ms. Walker stated staff is currently considering there to be three parking spaces already in place.  The Planning Commission reviewed Ms. Cummins email (attached to the application), which indicates there would be two part time employees - working different days - one staff per day.  The email indicated there would be different shifts Monday-Friday 8:00-3:00 and Tuesday & Thursday 3:00-8:00.  Ms. Cummins indicated the chapel time would be one day per week with four participants and it is more of a bible study.  Ms. Cummins stated they teach life skills to their clients, which ultimately help the community.  She explained they get paid though the State of Ohio.  Law Director King asked if the business is classified as a 501(c)3.  Ms. Cummins stated yes, as a church.  Councilmember Johnson asked if there is the potential for staff to overlap.  Ms. Cummins indicated she must have one staff for every twelve people.  She testified she does not intend to have over fifteen clients at any given time.  Ms. Cummins agreed there could be two staff there for shift overlap or if they were to have up to fifteen clients present.  Ms. Cummins stated two staff cars could park in the existing garage.  Ms. Cummins testified the counseling hours would be after clients leave and there should not be any overlap.  She stated some clients drive themselves.  She stated there would not be staff present on Monday’s when she counsels from 3:00-8:00. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated at this time Ms. Cummins can have up to twelve clients with one staff member.  He asked if there is ever anyone else in the building.  Ms. Cummins stated she is the Executive Director and she does do paperwork in the building until it is time for counseling.  Mr. Mitchell asked how many could potentially drive to the chapel service.  Ms. Cummins stated four cars.  Ms. Walker stated Village staff considered a parking space needs to be 10' x 20', and this is how they established there are three spaces versus four.  Mr. Eklof asked if parking could be considered in a grassy area.  Ms. Walker stated the parking area would have to be expanded and pavement could be required.  She explained there is a threshold on whether it's required to be paved or gravel.

 

Law Director King explained the limitation with the applicant adding parking to the front of the building since this zoning district does not allow for parking in the front of buildings.  He stated any additional spaces would have to be behind the building and there is a lot of property to the back of the building.  He added that the applicant may need to obtain an easement for driveway access or they could consider shared parking with the neighboring property, or even a drive through garage scenario.  Law Director King explained all of the options could be reviewed after the number of parking spaces is determined by the Planning Commission.   Ms. Walker indicated both neighboring properties to this property have rear parking lots.  The Planning Commission discussed the number of classrooms.  Councilmember Johnson stated staff has indicated there are five classrooms.  Ms. Cummins stated it would depend on what is being considered as a classroom.  She indicated there are potentially two classrooms.  Law Director King stated all of the circumstances can be considered when determining the amount of spaces needed, including that the client base will be dropped off and picked up by public transportation.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant has plans to finish the basement.  Ms. Cummins stated not presently because of the difficulty getting handicapped individuals in the lower space.  Mr. Hawk questioned how many parking spaces were required at their previous location.  Ms. Cummins stated many were available to them.  Councilmember Johnson indicated the establishment currently has higher functioning clients requiring one staff person per twelve clients.  He indicated this ration could change if they have clients with more needs.  Ms. Cummins agreed she has no way of knowing what type of client she may get.  Ms. Hoyt asked Ms. Cummins how many spaces she feels she needs to operate.  Ms. Cummins stated three parking spaces.  Mr. Mitchell questioned how the three spaces in the front are grandfathered in if this is a request for a new use of the property.  Mr. Mitchell stated based on the testimony and the number of classrooms and potential for staff – he is comfortable with five parking spaces.  Law Director King stated the Planning Commission is to connect the use with the parking burden and come up with a number given the specific information given to them and the circumstances that are in place for this situation.  Law Director King stated the Planning Commission can take all of the testimony into consideration, such as staff not being there at certain times.  Mr. Mitchell stated he is in agreement that the proposed use is not in line with a church or school, but it’s the closest analogy they have to go by.  He agreed the use is actually a day habilitation/counseling center.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion that given the stated business plan and proposed client load the Planning Commission shall require three (3) parking spaces for Application #2013-92 - the property located at 1205 Cherry Valley Road.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-92:

Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (no).  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-92: Sherri Cummins/The Friends of Jesus; 1205 Cherry Valley Road; Parking Requirements

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-92 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-92. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (no).  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 8, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from July 8, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:07 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, August 12, 2013

Monday, August 26, 2013

September 9, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes July 8, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 8, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair).

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss and Councilmember Johnson. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept; Michael King, Law Director.

 

Also Present: Steve & Jenifer Dennis and Ed Lowry.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

65 Wexford Drive – Steve and Jenifer Dennis - Application #2013-89

Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request is for a lot split for an existing seven-point-two-seven-five (7.275) acre parcel.  The applicants would like to divide the property into a point-six-eight one (.681) acre parcel and a six-point-six-one-three (6.613) acre parcel. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Steve & Jenifer Dennis, and Ed Lowry. 

 

Discussion:

Jenifer Dennis, 117 Cambria Circle, stated her application is rather self explanatory with the request for a lot split and she is available to address any questions by the Planning Commission. 

 

Ms. Walker indicated there are severe topographical challenges for construction on this property.  She indicated the smaller area the applicant would like to divide out would be the most buildable area on the lot.  Ms. Walker stated all of the requirements have been met for the PUD (Planned Unit Development); She indicated all of the lot frontage requirements have also been met.  Law Director King stated this lot split request originated when the Dennis’ purchased the land and were determining the location of the sewer line.  Law Director King stated the code section being applied to this is ambiguous language that would have required the applicant to extend the sewer line across the entire property.  He stated the intent was to have the extension in the event the entire property was developed.  Law Director King stated this changes with the applicant not proposing to develop the entire property and there now being only one home located on the parcel.  The Planning Commission added this small parcel appears to be the only easily buildable area on the entire parcel.  Ms. Dennis stated there are six or eight properties with large lots requiring the installation of septic systems in this neighborhood.  Law Director King stated they believe none of these lots would have incentive to tie into the Village sewer for the next thirty years.  He explained the proposed lot split allows the Dennis’ to use the lot as they want without extending the sewer line across the entire property and this is the final plan to separate out the area on the land that they plan to build.  Ms. Dennis stated the manhole is on their property and the building location is the closest to the sewer hookup.  Law Director King stated that if the larger divided parcel were to ever be developed, the owner of that property would be required to extend the sewer line across this larger parcel. 

 

Ms. Dennis stated that if they get the lot split from the Village they would then give the Village an easement consistent with the Village's requirement.  Law Director King stated this was the original intent was for the Village to have an easement in this area and the recording of this easement somehow did get overlooked years back.  Law Director King stated there are four code requirements that have to be met by the applicant and the Village staff report indicates the applicant has met them.  He stated it is requested that Planning Commission review the proposal and determine whether they agree the staff interpretation.  Mr. Hawk inquired if the Village staff reviewed the criteria for both lots.  Ms. Walker stated yes.   

 

Ed Lowry, 75 Wexford Drive, inquired on the property located to the west of him and the access points to the remaining property.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the access would have to be off of Wexford Drive.  Mr. Lowry asked if there is any easement from below.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.  Law Director King indicated someone from the addition below could build an access road going up, although it would be a challenge.  Law Director King explained development is proposed to occur only on the smaller parcel of land in the lot split.  He stated sewer lines would not be extended across the larger parcel for development at this time.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the sewer line would be across the back portion.  Ms. Dennis stated it is eighteen feet past the manhole on the south and there is an extension that goes north of the manhole.  Law Director King explained the neighboring properties upstream could request sewer hookup in the future, although the Village does not anticipate this to be the case but this is part of the reason for the easement.  Mr. Mitchell stated anyone developing the larger portion of land would still have to follow the Ordinance and extend the sewer line across the property.  Mr. Mitchell stated the extension of the sewer line would be a minor problem for said developer for any future development plans. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-89 on the condition the applicant receive from the BZBA approval of the amended variance request to reduce the front yard setback to twelve (12’) feet, or that the applicant move the home back the meet the original variance request of twenty (20’) feet if the BZBA does not approve the amended variance request.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-89:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-89: Steve and Jenifer Dennis; 65 Wexford Drive; Lot Split

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval, Chapter 1171, Planned Development District, and Chapter 921, Streets, Utilities and Public Services Code and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-89 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-89. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jack Burriss from the July 9, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 2-2. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 28, 2013 and June 24, 2013:

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the minutes from May 28, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 2-0.  The majority of those present voted on the May 28, 2013 meeting minutes.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 24, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0

 

Adjournment:  7:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 22, 2013

Monday, August 12, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes June 24, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 24, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  Councilmember Johnson (non-voting) and Jack Burriss. 

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner; Michael King; Village Law Director.

 

Also Present: Jim and Nancy Dumbold, Melanie Schott, Phil Claggett, Ben Justice, Jodi Melfi, Josh and Lauren Fisher, Ben and Nadine Rader, Candi Moore, Steve Mershon, Seth Patton, Andy Crawford, and Karl Schneider.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Swearing In Of New Member Doug Eklof:  Law Director Michael King swore in Doug Eklof as the newest member to the Granville Planning Commission. 

 

Other Business:

Note: These agenda items are open to the public and are public hearings.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of these proposed zoning amendments. 

 

1375 North Pearl Street – Denison University - Application #2013-76

The request is for a zoning amendment from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Institutional District (ID).  The property is a total of 5.00 acres. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Seth Patton. 

 

Discussion:

Seth Patton, Denison University, stated they were working with Columbia Gas on the installation of a high pressure gas line.  He stated Columbia Gas is looking for an easement to install lines and that in return will reduce the pressure for other lines.  Mr. Patton stated Denison University would prefer the proposed location for the lines be off of campus, rather than any installation being on the hill.  He added the proposal is not aesthetically pleasing wherever it is located, but it is needed. 

 

Ms. Terry stated throughout conversations with Denison University both entities determined that it was unusual for the property to be zoned PUD in this location when everything surrounding it within the Village is zoned Institutional.  Ms. Terry stated the zoning change would make this property Institutional all the way up to the Village limits. 

 

Tom Mitchell asked if the property would be removed from the tax rolls.  Mr. Patton indicated it was not their intent or plans to have this parcel removed for tax purposes.  He indicated they would not be petitioning for this.  Ms. Terry indicated the applicant can apply for a tax exempt status regardless of zoning classification.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked for clarification for future development.  Ms. Terry stated the current zoning would allow for the property to be split and put in single family homes or condos.  She indicated this wouldn’t be the best use of the property to have multiple access points along New Burg Street within close proximity to the North Pearl Street intersection.  She stated the University has indicated they want the use in the future to be an accessory use to the campus and if they want anything built in the future it would be behind the tree line.  Ms. Terry added this is also a wet piece of property.  She explained the zoning to the north is within the Township and is Agricultural.  Ms. Terry stated the change in the zoning classification would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria during their discussion of Application #2013-76:

 

a)         Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.   

 

Adjacent Land Uses: The property to the west is the Granville Middle School/High School facility.  To the south is Denison University and to the east is the Denison physical plant.

                       

Adjacent Zoning:        Institutional District (ID) to the west, south and east.  In Granville Township, the property to the north is zoned Agricultural District (AG).

 

Appropriate Plans for the area

 

Granville Comprehensive Plan, July 18, 2012: 

 

Institutional District CategoryInstitutional land uses, include educational, governmental, religious, and health facilities.  Public utilities may be components of this category.  All buildings, grounds, and parking lots that comprise the facility are included within the institutional unit, but areas not specifically related to the purpose of the institution should be placed in a separate category, if appropriate.  Larger public schools and Denison University lands have a unique impact on the community and are identified under this category.  Smaller institutional units, such as churches and some secondary and elementary schools, may be included within another category.

The applicant is proposing rezoning of this property to Institutional District (ID) which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this land use category. 

 

Mr. Hawk agreed the designation is appropriate.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

(b)        Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow.  There are no current plans to develop the property therefore there are no traffic access or traffic flow concerns. 

 

            Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's comment. 

                                   

(c)        Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.  The proposed amendment will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the community. 

 

            Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's comment. 

 

(d)        Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.    There are no plans to develop this property at this point.  There is an existing sanitary sewer to the site, there is no water service. 

 

            Mr. Hawk stated the Planning Commission has heard no evidence to the contrary.  Each member of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Hawk.  

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2013-76 to Village Council.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-76:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

1833 Lancaster Road and Old River Road S.E. – Village of Granville – Kiwanis Club of Granville - Application #2013-82

The request if for a zoning amendment from General Business (GB) and Conservation District (C-1), the Granville Township zoning classifications, to Village Gateway District (VGD), the Village of Granville zoning classification.  The properties total approximately 2.68 acres. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Andy Crawford.   

 

Discussion:

Alison Terry explained how the Village came to request rezoning for these properties.  She stated several properties were not rezoned at the time the South Main Street properties moved to Village Gateway District.  Ms. Terry stated General Business District and Conservation District are the existing zoning classifications for this property within the township.  She stated the sanitary sewer line and water has already been installed on this property.  Ms. Terry stated this property does not have a zoning classification for the Village and falls under zoning for the Township. 

 

Andy Crawford stated Granville Kiwanis has joined in on the application so there is consistency with both properties.  Mr. Hawk stated this change is very logical and makes sense.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Criteria during their discussion of Application #2013-82:

 

(a)        Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.   The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area as a mixed use commercial site so the requested Village Gateway District complies with the comprehensive plan and is being utilized in an area where both the Planning Commission and Council envisioned its use as those strategic entrances to the Village. 

 

Adjacent Land Uses: The properties along the east side of Lancaster Road are used commercially, which is compatible to this proposed zoning, as follows:

 

1)         John Klauder & Associates:  landscaping business;

2)         Borough Co. Property:  retail shops and businesses;

3)         Barton & Kessler Property:  office building along the frontage     of River Road;

4)         1919 Lancaster Road:  office and retail building.

 

The properties along the west side of Lancaster Road are used both for commercial and residential uses as follows:

 

1)         Neal & Sue Hartfield:  Mid-Ohio Mechanical property;

2)         Helen Kasson:  residential use;

3)         Sybil Robertson:  residential use.

 

The residential uses are existing homes that are zoned commercially within the Granville Township zoning classifications as GB, General Business District.

 

Adjacent Zoning:  All of the properties located on the east and west sides of Lancaster Road, and along River Road, within Granville Township are zoned GB, General Business District which is a comparable zoning district to the Village Gateway District within the Village of Granville.

 

Appropriate Plans for the area

 

Granville Comprehensive Plan, July 18, 2012:

 

Mixed Use Neighborhood Center:  This category offers a denser mix of housing types and prices neighborhood, commercial stores, professional offices, and other workplaces in a pedestrian-friendly design that provides a sense of community.  While this type of development might include retail and services on a scale sufficient to accommodate those customers who would prefer to drive to the site, the major purpose of the development is to provide space for businesses that primarily serve the needs of the local neighborhood community.  The mixed use neighborhood may have a recognizable center and clearly defined edges, but it will generally be no more than a quarter mile from center to edge. These properties have no plans for redevelopment at this time and will retain all current usage.  In the future, these properties should be developed in accordance with the guidelines of the Mixed Use Neighborhood Center.  These properties will be zoned consistent with the Mill District properties to the south, Village Gateway District (VGD).

 

Mr. Hawk stated the rezoning classification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Village Gateway District.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Hawk.

 

(b)        Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow. The Village of Granville has committed to reserving easements on the property to allow for future right-of-way in the event that a new roadway system is necessary to allow appropriate ingress/egress to properties east of Lancaster Road and along River Road. 

 

            The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Staff's comments.   

 

(c)        Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.  The commitment of easements and right-of-way dedication, if required by the Village for a future public roadway, improves the public's health, safety and general welfare by providing for an appropriate roadway solution to offset increasingly congested traffic conditions along the Lancaster Road corridor. 

 

            The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Staff's comments.

                                   

            The development of this property within the Village will also remove existing on-site septic systems and wells, allowing for centralized water and sewer, which allows for better monitoring and compliance with newer Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.

 

The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Staff's comments. 

 

(d)        Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.  The Village has extended the main water and sewer lines to these Properties. 

 

            Mr. Hawk stated the proposal is consistent with the Granville Comprehensive Plan.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2013-82 to Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-82:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

 

128 West Broadway – Phil Claggett for Jeff Figler - Application #2013-64

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an air conditioning unit on the rear of the home and new ¾” electrical conduit on the west side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Ben Rader, and Phil

Claggett. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2013-64 from the Table.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Phil Claggett, Claggett Construction, apologized for the mix-up of not attending the last meeting because he thought another company was handling the approval process for technical aspects of the project.  He stated he is representing the property owner, Jeff Figler.  Mr. Claggett stated the property owner would like the air conditioning unit located on the north side of the home on the recommendation of the installer to shorten the line set.  Mr. Claggett stated the construction of the home on the north wing is concrete slab on grade.  He explained the installer has indicated the most economical way and most visually pleasing way to install the unit is to have it placed on the north side of the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked where the indoor unit is located.  Mr. Claggett stated it is right inside the north wall.  Mr. Hawk asked if there was any consideration in locating the new condenser unit adjacent to the existing units on the east side of the home.  Mr. Claggett stated if there was a conversation this would have been between the property owner and the installer.  Mr. Hawk questioned which portion of the home the air conditioning unit would serve.  Mr. Claggett stated the north wing.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if there is room for the unit to be installed next to the existing units.  Mr. Claggett stated he is unsure, but he believes there is room.  Mr. Hawk asked the location of the air handler.  Mr. Claggett stated it is just inside in the northeast corner of the home.  Mr. Mitchell questioned what is located outside of the north wing area.  Mr. Hawk indicated this appears to be a patio area.  Mr. Mitchell stated Ben Rader lives to the west of the property and he testified at the previous Planning Commission meeting that he is opposed to the proposed location of the air conditioning unit. 

 

Ben Rader, West Broadway, stated they prefer to see the unit located where the other air conditioning unit was because the proposed location doesn’t lend itself to being “neighbor friendly.”  He indicated the additional noise and aesthetics are detrimental to him. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated he is sympathetic to the line set length.  He questioned if the line would be long from the existing to the Northwest corner.  Mr. Claggett stated the Northeast corner is the location for a three season room, and this is not the most advantageous location for the property owner.  Mr. Mitchell stated it has come down to this issue being the property owner’s inconvenience or the neighbor’s inconvenience.  Mr. Claggett questioned if there could be a good compromise.  Ms. Hoyt suggested the unit be placed on the Northeast side of the structure and it wouldn’t be too visually negative around the corner from the porch.  She indicated she feels this is a fair compromise.  Ms. Terry asked if the already installed electrical conduit needs to be relocated.  Mr. Mitchell stated the conduit already installed on the west side is not attractive.  Mr. Hawk stated he is not in favor of the proposed location and he would agree to an installation in the Northeast corner of the structure.  Ms. Hoyt indicated she too is opposed to the proposed location of the electrical conduit given the neighbor’s testimony and its relation to his side porch. 

 

The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the electric conduit installed along the downspouts is not acceptable in the AROD district and this would need to be corrected.

 

Mr. Claggett indicated they would prefer a location that has the shortest line set possible.  Mr. Hawk stated the applicant can table the application if they want to come up with a different solution.  He stated it would appear the Planning Commission is not going to support the application as currently proposed and their suggestion is to place the unit in the “L” at the Northeast corner of the home.  Mr. Claggett agreed and stated he would like to move forward with a vote from the Planning Commission with the proposed changes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-64:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the proposed new location is better and compatible since it will be located in the rear of the home and will not be visible. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.  

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the facility can be used and the historical character maintained by installation of an air conditioning unit.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE an installation of an air conditioning unit allows for the structure to be used as past generations have used it.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-64 on the condition the applicant remove the installed conduit from the west side and place it on the north and east side of the home; the heat pump and air conditioning unit is to be located inside the “L” shape on the northeast side and the electrical conduit must be removed from the west and north sides of the home.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-64:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

107 North Prospect – Nick and Melanie Schott - Application #2013-72

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Jim Dumbold, and

Melanie Schott. 

 

Discussion:

Melanie Schott, 660 West Broadway, stated she is applying for a projecting sign for a new business to be located above the existing Village Barber’s location at 107 North Prospect Street.  Ms. Schott presented an example of the material used for the proposed signage.  She indicated she would like to have lighting for the sign and it would be on a timer that would shut off at eleven p.m (11:00 PM).  Ms. Schott indicated the lighting would be painted dark graphite gray with white lettering and a white border.  Ms. Schott stated she is requesting a one foot variance from the fourteen foot height placement requirement.  She explained the signage is not able to go on the front of the building fourteen feet high because of the existing roof structure on the first floor elevation.  She explained it would be optimal for aesthetics to place the signage fifteen foot off of the ground. 

 

Mr. Hawk asked for information regarding the business.  Ms. Schott indicated the space is 400 square feet, a single room with a bathroom and the entrance is through the barber shop to the second floor.  Ms. Schott stated she would also be meeting with the BZBA on July 11th to request a variance for parking.  The Planning Commission questioned the type of lighting used on the sign.  Ms. Schott stated they are proposing two sixty watt bulbs.  Ms. Schott stated the lighting would shine directly on the sign and she does not feel there would be any light pollution on the existing sidewalk.      

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2013-72:

 

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 FALSE, the main floor is elevated and elevates the business which then requires the height of the sign to be higher. All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

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. Hawk stated FALSE, there would be no beneficial use without the variance.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial.  Mr. Hawk stated FALSE.  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.  Mr. Hawk stated FALSE, it would not.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

(4)        Whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage). Mr. Hawk stated FALSE, it would not. All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUEAll other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  Mr. Hawk stated FALSE.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the spirit and intent of the Code would be upheld with the approval of this variance.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Mr. Hawk stated FALSE, they do not.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

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 there were no special conditions.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-72:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, the signage does seem to comply with other signs which have been approved, the font, style, etc.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Ms. Hoyt. 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt state TRUE, by using the space is does contribute to the building and the upgrading of the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Ms. Hoyt. 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, by using the space it does contribute to the vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members agreed with Ms. Hoyt. 

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, the proposed sign does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings. All other Planning Commission members agreed with Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-72 with a variance to increase the maximum height of a projecting sign from fourteen feet to fifteen feet and with the condition that the sign shall be turned off at 11:00 pm as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-34:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

126 South Main Street – Ben Justice Insurance, Inc. - Application #2013-77

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Ben Justice. 

 

Discussion:

Ben Justice, 126 South Main Street, stated that he would like to open up a State Farm insurance agency in town.  He stated his proposed signage is within the Village Ordinance by being just under twelve square feet.  Mr. Justice stated he is proposing a PVC light weight material to be used for the signage.  He explained the signage would be painted black with red and gold lettering and this is the customary signage recommended by State Farm for any historical district. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-77:

 

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

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the signage is consistent with comparable signage in this area. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-77 as submitted.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-77:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

126 South Main Street – Ben Justice Insurance - Application #2013-78

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Ben Justice. 

 

Discussion:

Ben Justice, 126 South Main Street, stated this application is for a sidewalk sign.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if the business previously located in this area had a sidewalk sign.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Planner Terry indicated the previous sidewalk sign was located within the tree lawn.  Ms. Hoyt questioned if this sign would be located in an area that would not be intrusive to pedestrians on the sidewalk.  She stated she measured the sidewalk in this area and it is only five feet wide.  Ms. Terry stated the signage could be placed in a location within the tree lawn that doesn’t create visibility concerns for vehicles exiting the building at 136 South Main Street. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-78:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated that the proposed sidewalk sign is consistent with similar sidewalk signs in the district.  Ms. Hoyt stated the look of the sign exceeds others in the area.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk and Ms. Hoyt.

 

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.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the vitality of a new business exists with the proposed signage.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.   

 

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

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-78 on the condition the applicant place the sign within the tree lawn, rather than the flowerbed and the signage be secured and placed indoors during non business hours.    Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-78:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

425 South Main Street – Julie Judge - Application #2013-79

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Jody Melfi.

 

Discussion:

Jody Melfi, 116 West Maple Street, stated she is presenting a sign that does not require a variance and is within the Village Ordinance on behalf of the property owner, Julie Judge.  Ms. Melfi stated the signage would be eight foot high and has three panels.  Ms. Melfi stated the panels would match the building and have white vinyl lettering and black satin framing.  She indicated the sign would not be lit.  Ms. Melfi stated the placement would be centered with the front of the building about 47 feet from the center of the road.  Mr. Hawk stated the sign had a very nice design and does fit the look for the train station.  Ms. Hoyt stated the signage is a nice compliment to the train station.  Other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed.  There were no specific sign criteria for the Planning Commission to review.  

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2013-79 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-79:  Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

1919 Lancaster Road – Mill District, LLC - Application #2013-80

Village Gateway District (VGD).  The request is for review and approval of a multi-use path along the frontage of the vacant property.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Karl Schneider.

 

Discussion:

Karl Schneider was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained the future building plans for the applicant and stated construction of some of the buildings would not occur until a tenant is secured. If this pathway is approved by the Village, the applicant has two years to finish the project and up to one year to start construction.  She explained the Village has asked the applicant to install a temporary pathway in this area to link the pathway that ends at Old River Road to the pathway at the Shurtz building property.  Mr. Schneider stated they are leaning towards asphalting the proposed pathway and not leaving it as a gravel/temporary path.  There were no specific criteria for the Planning Commission to review.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-80 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-80:  Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

 

332 East College Street – Josh and Lauren - Application #2013-81

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a six hundred (600) square foot rear wooden deck with handrails.     

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Josh and Lauren Fisher. 

 

Discussion:

Lauren Fisher, 332 East College Street, stated that they are outdoors a lot and want to build a large deck off the back of their home. 

 

Josh Fisher stated they want to maximize the use of their outdoor space.  Ms. Fisher stated there would be railings all the way around and she is proposing a simple design that would be two levels if you incorporate the back door elevation.  She stated the upper level of the deck would be at the same elevation as the existing porch.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the stone porch would be removed.  Ms. Fisher stated they would be covering up the concrete porch that has some stone along the edges of it. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if a more traditional look for the railing was considered.  Ms. Fisher stated yes and no, and she thought it was best to keep the design simple so it does not compete with any detailing on the home.  She stated she did not want to try and match the decorative details in hopes the deck wouldn’t look too modern with the home.  Mr. Eklof asked if the applicant is considering closing off the bottom portion of the deck.  The Planning Commission agreed the applicant would regret not enclosing this.  Ms. Fisher stated there are some areas in the elevation that would not need closed off, and they would consider landscaping or lattice to enclose the bottom portion.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he is unsure the deck as proposed is historically compatible with other new and renovated structures in the area.  Ms. Hoyt stated there are similar decks that have been installed in the Village.  Ms. Hoyt stated she believes if you can’t match trim exactly it is best to stay on the simple side.  Mr. Hawk asked the proposed finish of the deck.  Ms. Fisher stated they were planning to leave it as is with a sealant.  The Planning Commission discussed the decking and agreed it would be more fitting to matching the home if the deck were to be stained.  Mr. and Mrs. Fisher agreed they did not have a problem with staining the deck.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-81:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated the deck may not be consistent with most decks it does seem to be compatible with other outdoor structures seen in the Village. Mr. Eklof and Mr. Hawk agreed with Ms. Hoyt.  Mr. Mitchell stated it is not stylistically compatible with other new structures.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated it does not upgrade the historical character, but it does upgrade the use of the property.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the livability and vitality is improved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated the deck makes the primary structure more usable.    All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-81 on the condition the proposed deck be stained.    Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-81:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (no).  Motion carried 3-1.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

Other Business:

Application #2013-76: Denison University; 1375 North Pearl Street; Rezoning

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1143, Amendments and Chapter 1169, Institutional District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-76 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-76. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-82: Village of Granville/Granville Kiwanis; 1833 Lancaster Road and Old River Road S.E.; Rezoning

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1143, Amendments and Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-82 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-82. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

Old  Business:

Application #2013-64: Phil Claggett for Jeff Figler; 128 West Broadway; Exterior Modifications/Window Replacement

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 #2013-64 with stated conditions for approval listed above. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-64. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

New Business:

Application #2013-72: Nick and Melanie Schott; 107 North Prospect Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147, Variances, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-72 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-72. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-77: Ben Justice Insurance, Inc.; 126 South Main Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-77 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-77. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-78: Ben Justice Insurance, Inc.; 126 South Main Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-78 as submitted with conditions listed above.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-78. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

Application #2013-79: Julie Judge; 425 South Main Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1167, Community Service District and Chapter 1189, Signs, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-79 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-79. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-80: Mill District, LLC.; 1919 Lancaster Road; Pathway

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1173, Village Gateway District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-80 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-80. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-81: Josh and Lauren Fisher; 332 East College Street; Deck

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-81 with conditions listed above. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-81. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss from the June 24, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 10, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 10, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

Mr. Eklof moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 8, 2013

Monday, July 22, 2013

Monday, August 12, 2013

 

Planning Commission Minutes June 10, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 10, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting).  Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)

 

Members Absent:  None. 

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry; Village Planning Director

 

Also Present: Josh and Lauren Fisher, Ben and Nadine Rader, Rev. Stephen Applegate, Bill Hines, Dan DeGreve, Mr. and Mrs. Karaffa and Keith Myers.   

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

230 Summit Street – Faith Wilson- Application #2013-61

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of two (2) windows on the east side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Jarod Wilson. 

 

Discussion:

Jarod Wilson, Buckeye Lake, stated he is representing his mother, Faith Wilson for this application.  Mr. Wilson explained the request is a renewal from a former application his mother submitted years ago and didn’t follow through on.   Mr. Wilson stated the replacement windows would make the windows functional once again.  He explained no one would be able to view the windows from the street. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-61:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the application is consistent with applications for window replacement requests approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the request is consistent with being an historical upgrade to this zoning district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a residence it contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE the look of the windows protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations have lived.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.     

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-61 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-61:  Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

332 East College Street– Josh and Lauren Fisher - Application #2013-63

Village Residential District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a replacement roof, changing from asphalt shingles to a standing seam metal roof. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, and Josh & Lauren Fisher. 

 

Discussion:

Josh Fisher, 332 East College Street, stated they would like to replace the existing asphalt  roofing material with a charcoal colored standing seam metal roof.  Ms. Terry stated at times the Planning Commission has had questions pertaining to the look of the ice guards and ridges.   Ms. Fisher stated they are proposing a 40 year heritage metal roof to go over the existing asphalt shingled roof.  Mr. Fisher stated snow guard would be installed to protect the gutters.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed spacing between the ridges and seams.  Mr. and Mrs. Fisher stated they did not know the spacing.   Mr. Burriss stated really wide panels may not look right with the trim details associated with the home.  Mr. Hawk stated due to the submitted material, he believes the Planning Commission could assume the spaces are nine inches wide.  Ms. Fisher stated the proposed roof is very similar to the roof approved for a home on 234 West Elm Street.  Mr. Mitchell confirmed this would be the same roof approved for Dan Leavell’s home, and although the roof line is different the same caps and ridges would be utilized. Councilmember Johnson questioned if the applicant would be using an exposed fastener system.  Ms. Fisher stated yes.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the metal roof would go over the existing roofing material.  Ms. Fisher stated yes.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-63:

 

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 with Mr. Burriss. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the metal roofing is more appropriate historically than asphalt shingles. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

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

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

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-63 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-63:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

128 West Broadway – Phil Claggett for Jeff Figler - Application #2013-64

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an air conditioning unit on the rear of the home and new ¾” electrical conduit on the west side of the home. 

 

Discussion:

The applicant was not present to discuss this application.  The Planning Commission asked to hear any testimony regarding the application, but indicated they would have to table the matter until the applicant could be present.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant had started installing the air conditioning unit in the back of the home and there is an existing unit already located on the east side.   Ms. Terry stated the property to the west of the home is a residence and to the east is a business.  She explained there has not been any discussion on why the unit needs to be moved or separated from the existing air conditioning unit.   

 

Ben Rader, West Broadway (west neighbor), stated he and his wife are opposed to the proposed location in the rear of the home.  He stated they would not be opposed to a new unit going into the existing location on the east side.    Ms. Terry stated their testimony would be on record for consideration of the application at a future Planning Commission meeting. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to Table Application #2013-64.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2013-64:  Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

107 East Broadway – St. Luke’s Episcopal Church - Application #2013-65

Village Square District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of a minor amendment to the Final Development Plan to allow for a modular classroom to be located behind the main building.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Rev. Stephen Applegate, Keith Myers, and Dave Hostetter.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Terry stated the applicant has had discussion with Village Council regarding the expansion of the church.  She explained the proposed building will be located on property owned by the Village of Granville.  Ms. Terry stated Village Council has asked St. Luke’s to go through all required processes' for approval of the expansion.  Ms. Terry stated St. Luke’s has received a variance to reduce the required number of parking spaces from seven (7) to zero (0) for the addition.  She explained the addition would consist of a sunken courtyard, as well as a two-story addition to the church building.  Ms. Terry explained the addition would go to the existing wall and it ties into Opera House Park.  She stated the Tree and Landscape Commission has been asked to review St. Luke's landscape and walkway plans within the Opera House Park area since the T&L Commission is also working on improvements to the Opera House Park area.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant is proposing Owens Corning onyx black asphalt shingles for the roof.  She stated the same type of roofing material was approved to reroof the structure within the past year.  She stated the proposed gutters (aluminum white) would match existing gutters and they would be built into the eaves, so they cannot be seen.  She stated the proposed siding is five inch exposed beveled siding to match the existing structure.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant has not chosen the manufacturer for the doors, but they would be glass infill aluminum clad painted to match the other doors on the structure.  Ms. Terry stated the proposed windows are double hung wood.  She stated the applicant is proposing fixed wood shutters with a raised panel in Greek Revival style with iron or similar hardware to match existing.  She stated the window grills would be from Fortin Ironworks.  Ms. Terry stated the applicant would be using a three inch continuous roof vent with wide soffit venting.   

 

Daniel DeGreve, Meleca Architecture, stated they are proposing a 1088 foot addition, with 694 feet located on the main floor and the undercroft space.  Mr. DeGreve stated 673 feet would be incorporated in the unenclosed space.  He explained they would like to match the existing molding, which is on the perimeter of the building – architrave.  He stated they would use a simplified cornice to defer to what is on the existing building.  Mr. DeGreve stated the ridgeline would be 32 feet to match the existing roof line and this is harmonious with the existing structure.  He stated they are proposing the use of five inch profile clapboard siding to match what is on the south elevation of the building. 

 

Don Hostetter, Chair of the Tree and Landscape Commission, explained they have been working on Opera House Park.  He stated the Project Manager, Jim Siegel has reviewed the plans proposed by Luke’s Church and they have a future meeting with them for more discussion.  Mr. Hostetter stated they feel overall this would be a good project for the Village, but they do need to discuss some of the plans St. Luke’s has for Opera House Park so they can compare them with the Tree and Landscape Commission’s plans for this area. 

 

The Planning Commission discussed the walkway paths and determined their final location ought to be approved by Village Staff after initial review by the Tree and Landscape Commission. 

 

Mr. Hawk stated the nicely prepared application provided all of the details necessary for their consideration and he commended the applicant on this very historical and stunning expansion.  Mr. Burriss agreed and indicated the expansion is very appropriate to the structure. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-65:

 

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 with Mr. Burriss. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the church plans for the structure are more historical and a great improvement.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the livability is improved and the surrounding park area is also improved.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the proposal is more appropriate historically then the current view from the proposed elevation.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-65 with the condition the final plans for plantings and walkways are reviewed and agreed to by the Tree and Landscape Commission and Village Staff.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-65:  Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-61: Faith Wilson; 230 Summit Street; Window Replacement

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 #2013-61 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-61. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2013-63: Josh and Lauren Fisher; 332 East College 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 #2013-63 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-63. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Application #2013-65: St. Luke’s Episcopal Church; 107 East Broadway; Exterior Modification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review and Overlay District, Chapter 1159, Village Square District, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2013-65 to the Village Council..

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-65. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

Motion to Appoint Vice-Chair to the Planning Commission:

Ms. Terry stated Tim Ryan has resigned from the Planning Commission due to a recent move out of the Granville community.  She stated Tom Mitchell automatically becomes the new Chairperson. 

 

Mr. Burriss nominated Stephen Hawk as the Vice-Chair to the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt

 

Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (abstain).  Motion carried 3-0.  Stephen Hawk is appointed as Vice-Chair to the Granville Planning Commission. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 28, 2013:

Postponed for review by the Village Law Director

 

Adjournment:  7:45 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 24, 2013 (Mr. Burriss indicated he cannot attend this meeting.)

Monday, July 8, 2013

Monday, July 22, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes May 28, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 28, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.

 

Members Present: Jean Hoyt; Tom Mitchell, Vice-Chair; Tim Ryan, Chair; Councilmember Johnson (non-voting).

 

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss; Steven Hawk; Doug Eklof (non-voting). 

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present:  Jeff McInturf, Kirk Combe, Mary Ann Stone, Bill Troy, Brett Black, Andrew and Monica Doud, Eleanor Cohen, Jason Adamkosky, Sharon Sellitto, Bob Lundfeld, Jack Lucks, Tim Rollins, Karl Schneider 

 

Citizens’ Comments:   No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

1820 Newark-Granville Road  – Granville Christian Academy - Application #2013-38, Modified  Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request is for review and approval of a modular unit to be utilized by the Granville Christian Academy as a temporary classroom.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, Kirk Combe, Mary Ann Stone and Bill Troy.    

 

Discussion:

Jeff McInturf, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, stated the church and Granville Christian Academy (GCA) have selected a modular unit and have presented pictures to the Commission.  This would be a temporary structure and GCA was looking at a four-year lease for this particular modular unit.  GCA is proposing this as a short term fix, while they investigate long term solutions to their overcrowding. He indicated GCA may be looking at other locations for future growth.  The proposed unit has T-111 siding currently painted a two-tone tan color, but GCA is willing to paint it if the Village would prefer a different color.  He stated they have shown landscaping surrounding the unit and have tried to take into account the most immediate neighbors view shed of this area.  They have not specified the type of trees/shrubs but are open to suggestions for the evergreen screening.  He showed views of the proposed wooden handicap ramp and indicated it would closely match the look of the existing wooden walkway from the school to the playground at the rear of the property.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked about the type of roof material on the proposed unit.  Mr. McInturf indicated it would be a rubber roof.

 

Kirk Combe, 133 Wicklow Drive, stated he will have one of the most direct views of this proposed modular unit.  He fears the school will install this unit and then decide they need more modular units and he will end up looking at a bunch of modular units from the rear of his home.  He's concerned with overcrowding of this school and with the proposed "temporary" status of the unit.  He asked why they can't put the proposed modular unit in the front of the church and Granville Christian Academy instead of in his back yard.

 

Mary Ann Stone, 125 Wicklow Drive, stated she won't really see it from her home.  She has contacted several realtors and they have all informed her that the proposed unit will not affect her property value.

 

Mr. McInturf stated the proposed location will have the least impact when compared with all of the other areas GCA studied.  The easiest placement would be along the eastern edge of the church's property, which would be directly adjacent to the Wicklow Drive neighbors.  The church and GCA do not want to locate it there.  He also indicated the unit will not have plumbing.

 

Tim Ryan stated putting the unit in the front yard, as Mr. Combe suggested earlier, would put the unit closer to the northern neighbors.  He was not in support of that option.

 

Jean Hoyt asked what the height of the landscape screening would be and the type.

 

Planner Terry indicated evergreen trees were typically installed at a five foot to six foot height.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated if the modular unit was only going to be there for four years, the unit would not be screened during the time it's there anyway.  He asked if there would be any bathrooms in the modular unit.

 

Mr. McInturf stated no bathrooms are required.  GCA would utilize the main building for bathrooms.

 

Mr. Combe asked if any of the Planning Commission members had visited the site.  And if so, had any of them visited it from the second story rear windows of the neighboring homes.

 

The Planning Commission members all indicated they had visited the site, but had not viewed the area from any second story window of homes located on Wicklow Drive.

 

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Combe if he was opposed to this particular unit or any building.

 

Mr. Combe responded that he is opposed to any structure in the rear of the church's property.

 

Ms. Stone asked whether a mound could be installed along the property line as neighbors have requested.

 

Planner Terry indicated this issue had been discussed with the Village Engineer and any further mounding along this property line, south of the existing mound, could cause additional flooding to the Wicklow Drive area.

 

Bill Troy, 109 Wicklow Drive, stated he is a former firefighter and he was concerned to hear that kids would be located in this structure without the benefit of sprinklers, water supply or bathrooms.  He asked whether GCA had contacted the Fire Department about this issue.

 

Mr. McInturf indicated the church and GCA have contacted the Fire Department and there are no issues with the unit being placed on this property with no water supply.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if any conditions should be imposed for this application.  The other Planning Commission members agreed there should be some additional conditions discussed for inclusion in a recommendation to the Village Council.

 

Mr. Ryan asked about the total height of the proposed unit. 

 

Mr. McInturf indicated the total height would be approximately eleven (11') to twelve (12') feet.  He also indicated they would be willing to paint the unit and to put in any landscape which the Planning Commission prefers.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned Mr. King whether there could be any limitation on the four year lease provision.

 

Mr. King indicated the Planning Commission could recommend a four year term to the Village Council and then he could clarify whether this could be imposed by the Village prior to the next Village Council meeting.

 

Mr. McInturf indicated he was hesitant to have an exact time restriction placed on the proposal, especially if the church, GCA, neighbors and the community approved of the modular unit being in place longer than a four-year span.

 

Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan stated they would prefer to see a sunset provision put in place for this temporary structure.

 

Mr. King again indicated that a sunset provision would be acceptable since this was proposed as a temporary solution by the property owners.

 

Mr. McInturf indicated he would prefer some flexibility with the time frame.

 

Mr. Combe stated he objects to the churches proposed "flexibility", and that the church and school keep pushing the boundaries as it applies to the use of the property.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned adding a barrier along the eastern property line.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant wanted to put in additional modular units in the future, would it have to come back to the Planning Commission and Village Council.

 

Planner Terry indicated yes, any additional units proposed would have to be reviewed by both Planning Commission and Village Council.

 

Mr. Ryan asked if there were any architectural standards the Commission needed to review with this application.

 

Planner Terry indicated there were no architectural standards within the Planned Unit Development District (PUD).

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-38, as modified:

 

a)                  A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and more convenience in the location of accessory commercial uses and services.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, various areas have been studied and this seems to be the most appropriate location.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)                  A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation, and prevents the disruption of normal drainage patterns.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, he does not feel it impacts the view from the neighbors, however any structure in this area could be seen by adjoining neighbors.  Ms. Hoyt indicated she didn't feel there would be a negative impact.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ryan.

 

c)                  A more efficient use of the land than is generally achieved through conventional development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utility lines and streets.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, there are limited utilities proposed to the unit.  Mr. Ryan and Ms. Hoyt concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

d)                  Commercial areas that: reflect the pedestrian scale and varied traditional architectural styles of the commercial downtown Granville; increase tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance; and preserving or enhance, rather than harm, neighborhood, Village and Granville Township quality of life and property values.  The Planning Commission concluded this criteria was not applicable to this application.

 

e)                  A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities objectives of the comprehensive plan.  Mr. Mitchell indicated he did not feel this proposal met with the intent of the comprehensive plan.  Mr. Ryan agrees with this use, and indicated that this type of temporary use has been allowed previously for Granville Schools.  He was concerned that this be a temporary use only.  Ms. Hoyt concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Village Council approval with the additional provisions: 1) That the building is limited to a four-year time frame from the date of occupancy; and 2)      That additional landscaping is included in the project, per Village Council, and as presented additionally by the applicant.  Second by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-38, Modified: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

311 East College Street – Andrew and Monica Doud - Application #2013-50

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a rear accessory structure.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Brett Black. 

 

Discussion:

Brett Black, 2579 Pleasant Crest Court, stated the homeowners would like to demolish the existing one-story garage.  They will be reducing the overall lot coverage with the removal of this structure, some other hard surface areas and once the new proposed structure is approved.  He indicated the Granville Historical Society has submitted information indicating the structure has no historical relevance.  He also indicated the garage is in bad shape and is currently leaning. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-50:

 

a)                  The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

b)                  The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)                  The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general. Mr. Ryan stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)                  The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2013-50 to the Village Council as presented.  Second by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-50:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

311 East College Street– Andrew and Monica Doud - Application #2013-51

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure (two-car garage), addition of a new concrete driveway, service walk and turn around, and the addition of a fence in the rear and side yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Brett Black.

 

Discussion:

Brett Black, 2579 Pleasant Crest Court, stated the applicant wants to install a black powder coated aluminum, wrought iron look alike, 48-inch high fence in the rear yard.  He also indicated that the foundation description in the Staff Report is inaccurate, it should state poured footings with standard buff colored split face block above.  Mr. Black explained the site plan, areas with existing and new asphalt, the removal of hard surfaces and the location and style of the new garage.  He indicated there will be Shake siding on the front gable end only.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the garage will face the street now.  Mr. Black indicated yes, but at the back of the lot.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the garage doors will actually look like the color renderings which have been presented by the applicant.  Mr. Black stated yes, very similar.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-51:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, it improves the subject property and improves and upgrades the historical character.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it replaces an old structure and therefore contributes to the continuing vitality. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.   Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, by replacing an old structure it does protect and enhance the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-51 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-51:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes),.   Motion carried 3-0.

 

331 East Broadway – Charles and Eleanor Cohen - Application #2013-54

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing (10 x 16) wood deck and associated fence/railing and the construction of a replacement (10 x16) deck with associated fence/railing.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Eleanor Cohen.

 

Discussion:

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, stated she wanted to replace her existing deck which is redwood with Timbertech decking and a cedar fence railing.  The deck would be the same style and dimensions as the previous deck, just rebuilt with new materials.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-54:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's replacing a dilapidated structure.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

c)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-54 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-54:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason Adamkosky - Application #2013-55Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements:

1)                  Covering an existing patio with a roof and support columns;

2)                  Adding an exterior fireplace and outdoor grill counter;

3)                  Addition of tiered stone retaining walls to the rear of the patio; and

4)                  Enclosing the current carport, returning it to a garage use.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Jason Adamkosky.

 

Discussion:

Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street, stated he is proposing covering the previously approved patio.  Creating retaining walls for landscaping with the walls tapering into natural grade at each side of the home; enclosing the carport; creating pedestals at the base of the steps which will be wrapped in a stone veneer with a stone cap and will match the existing foundation; the porch structure will also have pedestals supporting the white columns; the proposed porch roof will have the same roof pitch as the carport, just elevated; there will be a grilltop/countertop on the east side with granite counters; the western side will be walled with a block fireplace and masonry covered in veneer; they will be reusing a sill plate from the house as a mantel; the carport will be enclosed with Hardie-plank siding with 2 windows on the west; the eight foot seven inch (8'7') garage door closely matches the previous wood garage door; adding powder coated steel railing on the porch and steps; there will be skylights in the roof of the porch and the shingles on the roof will be the same as the rest of the house.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked questions regarding the carport enclosure.

 

Ms. Hoyt indicated she felt the application seems "exhaustingly" complete.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-55:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's a continuation of improvements.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's an upgrading of an historical home.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, it enhances the surroundings in which past generations lived.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-55 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-55:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2013-56Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the structural demolition of a one-story detached garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Sharon Sellitto.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated her detached garage is in bad condition, the garage doors are too narrow, the concrete floor is deteriorating the garage leans. She would like to have permission to tear the garage down and build a new structure in its place.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-56:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general. Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Village Council approval of the demolition of the garage located at 215 South Cherry Street.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-56:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2013-57Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for review and approval of the construction of a new two-car garage with carport.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Sharon Sellito.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated this is a replacement for the garage she'll be tearing down.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be vinyl siding on the structure.  Ms. Sellitto stated yes, the same as a portion of her existing home.  Ms. Hoyt asked if this structure would be larger than the existing structure.  Ms. Sellitto indicated yes the structure is slightly larger with the carport.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked why the applicant was using a 2:12 roof pitch on the new structure.  Ms. Sellitto responded to replicate the previous structure.  Mr. Mitchell indicated the structure would be more attractive with a shingled roof rather than a rubber roof.  Ms. Sellitto indicated she wouldn't be opposed to a different roof pitch on this structure.

 

Mr. Johnson asked how high the sidewalls would be compared to the front wall.  He indicated it would look strange if the walls weren't modified with a roof pitch change.

 

Mr. Mitchell withdrew his suggestion of a pitched roof.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-57:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated TRUE, it's compatible with other structures which have been approved.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Ms. Hoyt.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, it's basically the same footprint.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, with a similar structure it does achieve this.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-57 contingent upon the BZBA variances being granted and on Village Council approving the demolition.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-57:  Ryan (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Work Session - Metropolitan Partners, Columbus Road & Weaver Drive Site:

 

Planner Terry reviewed the proposed Assisted Living Concept for the Columbus Road and Weaver Drive property.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the parking area can be filled since it's in the floodplain.  Planner Terry indicated it could not be filled, only cut and fill within the floodplain area would be allowed. 

 

Jack Lucks, 35 North 4th Street, Columbus, indicated the site was originally quarried and then filled in.  He presented proposed elevations and indicated they were trying to break up the façade of the structure. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked how many units there would be at this facility.  Mr. Lucks indicated there would be approximately 88 total.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if there would be nurses on staff.  Mr. Lucks indicated yes, there are 20 full-time employees during the day and 8 full-time employees at night.

 

Mr. Lucks indicated this project would be a joint venture between the Assisted Living Group and Metropolitan Partners.  He stated this use would not be a traffic generator, therefore he didn't see the need for a full-blown traffic study.  He indicated there are typically fourteen visitors/day and ten to twelve percent of the residents would have vehicles.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if they would need to file a Certificate of Need. Metropolitan Partners indicated no.  Mr. Johnson asked about the HVAC system and whether there would be the need for any type of exterior features. Mr. Johnson inquired about where they plan on providing storm water detention and/or retention areas on the site.  Planner Terry indicated they could look at utilizing the floodplain area portion which is not in a conservation easement area.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if they would be utilizing Hardie-plank siding.  Mr. Lucks answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked about the remaining commercial area to the frontage of Columbus Road.  Mr. Lucks indicated there is enough room for two (2) Outparcels up front, but they have no intention of developing them at this time.

 

Mr. Lucks indicated the Assisted Living owners had an excellent facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana called Park Place.

 

Tim Rollins, 35 N. 4th Street, indicated marketing studies have been completed for this facility and it is sized right to meet the needs of the area.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned if this was a for-profit or not-for-profit facility.  Mr. Rollins indicated this is a for-profit facility.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-38: Jeff McInturf, on behalf of Spring Hills Baptist Church, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, Modular Unit

 

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development District, and hereby recommends to Village Council approval with the additional provisions:  1) That the building be limited to a four-year time frame from the date of occupancy; and 2) That additional landscaping be included in the project, per Village Council, and as presented additionally by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-38. Second by Ms. Hoyt.

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-50: Andrew and Monica Doud, 311 East College Street, Structural Demolition

 

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2013-50 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-50.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  

 

Roll call vote:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-51: Andrew and Monica Doud, 311 East College Street, New Detached Accessory Structure, Concrete Driveway, Service Walk and Fencing in Rear Yard

 

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 #2013-51 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-51.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-54: Charles and Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, Removal and Replacement of Existing Deck with New Deck and railing

 

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 #2013-54 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-54.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-55: Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street,  Cover Patio Roof, Carport Conversion to Garage, Retaining Walls, Fireplace

 

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 #2013-55 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-55.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

 

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-56: Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, Structural Demolition

 

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2013-56 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-56.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  

 

Roll call vote:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-57: Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, New 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-57 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-57.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  

Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to excuse Jack Burriss and Steven Hawk absences:

Mr. Ryan moved to excuse the absence of Jack Burriss and Steven Hawk.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 13, 2013:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the minutes from May 13, 2013 as presented.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment:  9:30pm

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, June 10, 2013

Monday, June 24, 2013

Monday, July 8, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2013

 

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 13, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call To Order:  Mr. Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss; Steven Hawk; Jean Hoyt; Tom Mitchell, Vice-Chair; Tim Ryan, Chair; Councilmember Johnson (non-voting); Doug Eklof (non-voting) 

 

Members Absent:  None

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planner and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: Eric Shonebarger, Charles Hartman, Tim Klingler, Todd Parker, Kathleen Triveri and Virginia Cope 

 

Citizens’ Comments:   No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

312 North Pearl Street  – Shonebarger General LLC on behalf of Gloria Pack - Application #2013-42

Village Business District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal and replacement of existing siding, installation of new rubber roofing and the installation of three (3) new windows on the kitchen area at the rear of the home.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Eric Shonebarger.     

 

Discussion:

Eric Shonebarger, Shonebarger General LLC 477 Glen Eagles Drive, stated he would be replacing three kitchen windows, replacing the siding with six-inch exposure Hardie plank with four-inch window trim and a new rubber roof.

 

Planner Terry indicated the application was fairly simple and straight forward.  The plans were well done and depicted all expected work.

 

Mr. Burriss asked the intended color of the corner boards.  Mr. Shonebarger indicated the corner boards would likely be the siding color (charcoal gray) with the window trim remaining white.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-42:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application was consistent with other renovations approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members 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 was consistent with other uses already in this district and continued to maintain the historical character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house improve the vitality of the house and therefore increase the vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the new roof and windows help to preserve the house for future generations.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-42 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-42: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

135 West Maple Street – Charles Hartman - Application #2013-43

Suburban Residential District - B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of porch railing and installation of wooden lattice below the front porch. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Charles Hartman. 

 

Discussion:

Charles Hartman, 135 West Maple Street, stated he wanted to remove the porch railing and replace the existing lattice work.  He indicated that he had spoken with the Licking County Building Department regarding the requirements for a railing.  A railing was not needed on a porch less than thirty inches in height from ground level.  He also intended to replace the lattice work at the base of the porch. 

 

Planner Terry indicated the application was complete and the proposed changes would improve the appearance of the house.

 

Mr. Mitchell indicated it was not within Planning Commission’s authority to enforce building code regulations, just to review design.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant was planning to remove the other railing along the side of the porch.  Mr. Hartman indicated he had considered such, but the height was thirty-four inches and would require a railing.  However, he indicated that he had thought about building up the earth by four inches in this area so he would be able to remove the railing.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the GPC should grant an approval to remove the railing and allow the applicant to decide whether or not to remove the railing later.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-43:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application was consistent with other renovations approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members 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 was consistent with other uses already in this district and restored the historic character of the house thus maintaining the historical character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house improve the vitality of the house and therefore increase the vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the restoration to a more appropriate appearance helps to preserve the house for future generations.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-43 as submitted with the provisiom that the applicant can remove all railings.  Second by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-43:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

120 East Elm Street– Tim & Kathy Klingler - Application #2013-44

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of twenty-five (25) replacement windows.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Tim Klingler. 

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, stated that he wanted to replace all of the windows in the home.  He would be installing all new Jeld-Wen, simulated divided light windows.  The new windows will closely resemble the old windows.  The second floor window will be a little larger to allow for egress.

 

Mr. Hawk asked if the windows would be six over six.  Mr. Klingler indicated in the affirmative. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the basement windows would be different.  Mr. Klingler indicated the basement windows would have the same configuration.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the windows would have screens.  Mr. Klingler indicated he preferred the look of the windows without screens.  If he decided he needed a screen, he would use non-permanent screens.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-44:

 

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 renovations approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members 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 and upgrading the windows restores the home’s historic look and maintains the historical character of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house will continue to increase the vitality of the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-44 as presented.  Second by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-44:  Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), and Hawk (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

508 West College Street – Todd Parker - Application #2013-48

Suburban Residential District - B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) as it is more than 20% of the gross livable area.  The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the 1910 Bungalow home inclusive of a new kitchen, mud hall, garage and master suite. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Todd Parker, Kathleen Triveri and Virginia Cope.

 

 

Discussion:

Todd Parker, 508 West College Street, stated that he would be updating and improving the home to accommodate room for his family.  He would also be adding an addition that would include a kitchen, mud room entrance and a two-car garage with a master suite above.  He indicated that the addition would be buried into the hillside.  The house would be painted uniformly using a gray palate keeping the existing wood shingles.  A Hardie beveled siding would be used with all new windows and smooth Hardie panel trim.  The outside kitchen wall would be clad in synthetic stone as well as the outdoor kitchen.  There would be minimal lighting. The roof would be replaced on the entire house, removing the existing skylights.  A new asphalt driveway would be installed using some concrete pavers.

 

Planner Terry indicated because the proposed addition was more than twenty percent of the existing structure, it required architectural review approval instead of just administrative approval.  The application met all of the set back and lot requirements.  It met all height regulations.  The detached garage would not be considered under this application review, as it was a detached structure not a part of the addition.

 

Kathleen Triveri, 220 Thresher Street, expressed concern about the clear-cutting of trees and the hillside.  The lot was not a flat lot and needed the trees to stabilize the hillside.  She felt the clear cutting would worsen the existing water run-off problem.  She was also concerned about the visibility of the driveway from her home.  It would no longer be a hidden drive. 

 

Virginia Cope, 510 West College Street, expressed concern about the modern character of the design.  It was not aesthetically appropriate to the rest of the neighborhood.  She also expressed concern about the future stability of the hill, erosion issues and how water run-off would impact her lot.  She also commented about a new pin installed four feet into her yard.  Was that pin supposed to be a new lot marker as it was not in the location of the previous two survey pins.  She was concerned that this new pin marked a new property boundary border, which would mean the set back allowances would be incorrect.  She also expressed concern about the reduction and blockage of her current view shed with the proposed brick wall.  She felt additionally that the house was too big for the neighborhood.

 

Planner Terry responded that the Village had no code requirements that prevent a resident from removing trees from private property.  The applicant was in contact with Village staff regarding the potential for stormwater run-off and the applicant would be responsible for preventing run-off and maintaining current storm water drainage.  Any problems involving survey results would be a civil issue that would need to be resolved between the two parties.  The Planning Commission would be responsible for reviewing massing, scale and design issues involving the proposed addition. 

 

Todd Parker, 508 West College Street, indicated that he was in contact with the Village Service Director about removing trees in the Village right-of-way that were currently dead.  Most of the other trees removed from his property were dead or hollow in the middle.  Mr. Parker also indicated that he would have Smart Survey come back out to the lot and review and/or re-mark the property line.  The intent of the retaining wall in the plan was to maintain the embankment and to prevent erosion.  The wall would be attractively landscaped and should not be an obstruction.

 

Mr. Mitchell expressed concern about setback issues after the discussion of property pin placement.  Planner Terry indicated that a survey was completed by the applicant by a registered survey company indicating all property lines.  There was not an issue with setbacks.  Should an issue be discovered, the applicant would need a variance from the BZBA.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked Mrs. Cope if she had a survey.  Mrs. Cope indicated that she did have her original survey from 2002 and another from 2006.  Mr. Hoyt commented that the applicant’s design did not support the architectural standards for the historic character of the house or the area.  The design plan was too modern.  She was also concerned about the 3,800 square foot size as it was larger than others in the area.  Planner Terry indicated that it was a large addition, but there was another large addition in process on West Broadway to the Galano residence. 

 

Mr. Hawk asked the size of the stationary windows.  Mr. Parker indicated three foot by six foot.  Mr. Hawk asked the difference in size of the existing house and the house with the addition.  Planner Terry indicated the current house was 2,082 square feet and the addition would be 2,652 more square feet.  The detached garage footprint was 544 square feet.

 

Mr. Ryan reiterated that if not for the more that twenty percent increase, this application would not be before the Planning Commission.  Planner Terry affirmed his comment.

 

Mr. Parker indicated that he had reviewed the Village’s Code regarding massing.  He indicated that by cutting into the hill he hoped to reduce the massing impact and make the project more environmentally sensitive.  He indicated that he elected to leave the driveway as currently designed.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if there would be overhangs, gutters and downspouts and if the large glass areas were functional windows or just glass.  Mr. Parker indicated that the overhangs would be minimal, the gutters and downspouts would be black and the windows would be functional casement windows.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he had concerns about the scale of the addition, but burying the addition would help lessen the impact.  Mr. Burriss discussed the various schools of thought regarding whether additions should mimic the existing architecture or be different to denote the addition.  Mr. Parker indicated that by copying the siding shingles on the new addition, it would help maintain a consistent feel.  Mr. Burriss commented that the plan was an elegant solution to a design issue and that by making the addition different from the existing house, the plan was following the design aesthetics proposed by the National Historic Trust.

 

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he was concerned about the tall, skinny detached garage and the total massing.  Planner Terry indicated that the garage could not be considered as is was not part of the review application.

 

Councilmember Johnson asked if the north evaluation of the retaining wall changed or maintained the same height.  Would there be shrubbery or landscaping?  Additionally, the addition being added was twelve feet east of the existing corner.

 

Mr. Ryan commented that Mr. Parker would be responsible for containing any run-off during the construction and would need to gain permission for tree removal within the right-of-way, which he would be doing during his meeting with Service Director Hopkins.  Mr. Parker will check the survey information and pin placement.  The height and massing issues would be addressed by this Commission as part of the architectural design review.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-48:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the application is consistent with the other Hoffman house renovation, other renovations in the district as well as other new homes.  The property has a large lot size and maintains the bungalow look.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Ms. Hoyt stated FALSE.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the diverse architectural elements of the new addition upgrade an older structure while maintaining the existing structure, providing a new, interesting and unique character in the district.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss.  Ms. Hoyt stated FALSE.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE the improvements to the house with the contrasting styles would enhance the vitality of the District. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk, Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss indicated TRUE by maintaining the original home and improving the property with the addition it will make improvements for future generations. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Hawk, Ms. Hoyt and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-48 as proposed.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2013-48:  Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (no), Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 4-1. 

 

Review of Code Amendments

 

Planner Terry reviewed the proposed Code amendments with the Commission that were discussed during the April 22nd meeting. 

 

Section 1143 will clean-up existing language to maintain a consistency of language throughout the Code.

 

Section 1162, regarding demolition, will also clean-up existing language for consistency and specifically outline the Granville Historical Society’s position regarding providing opinions regarding demolitions.

 

Section 1189, regarding the sign code, changes the processes for securing a sign variance moving the approval process from the Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, adding a fee to the process and modifying the review of signs from a Commission review to an administrative review.  Planner Terry indicated that if a sign met all criteria, an administrative approval could be given with any variance requests going to the BZBA.  After discussion during the previous meeting, issues involving sidewalk/sandwich board signs were pulled from the update.

 

The Commission discussed the issues involving the changes to the sign portion of the Code.  The GPC was in agreement that the most appropriate place for sign variance reviews was with the BZBA.  Additional discussion about the merits of taking sign design approval away from the Commission was reviewed.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to recommend the Code changes as presented with the following modifications:  a) the GPC will continue to review all sign design of signs that meet all criteria; b) the administration of variances for signs be a responsibility of the BZBA.  Second by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll call vote to approve Village Code amendments:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes) and Ryan (yes).   Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-42: Shonebarger General LLC on behalf of Gloria Pack, 312 North Pearl Street, Window Replacement, Siding, Rubber Roof

 

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-42 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-42. Second by Mr. Hawk. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Application #2013-43: Charles Hartman, 135 West Maple Street, Wood Lattice Installation

 

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 1163, Suburban Residential District-B, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-43 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-43.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  

 

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

 

Application #2013-44: Tim and Cathy Klingler, 120 East Elm Street; Window Replacement 

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 #2013-44 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-44.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  Roll call vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 5-0. 

Application #2013-48: Todd Parker, 508 West College Street, Addition 

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, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-48 as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-48.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  Roll call vote:  Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (no).   Motion carried 4-1. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 8, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 22, 2013 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 22, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 22, 2013 as presented.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

Adjournment:  9:00pm

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Next meetings:

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Monday, June 10, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes April 22, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 22, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Doug Eklof (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, and Jean Hoyt.

 

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director.

 

Also Present: Tim Klingler, Xue Gao, Brenda Boyle, Kirk Combe, Diane Curtis, Phil Claggett, Michaelann Sheetz, Marvin Rudder, John Uibel, and Jeff McInturf. 

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

127 East Broadway – Xue Gao/Dragon Village- Application #2013-34

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for a new sidewalk café area and associated tables, chairs, and umbrellas. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Xue Gao. 

 

Discussion:

Xue Gao, 127 East Broadway, provided a diagram with the proposed location of the tables on the sidewalk.  Ms. Terry stated the proposal shouldn’t cause a problem and is consistent with what has been approved on this side of the street.  Ms. Terry stated the grids on the sidewalk have been measured so the applicant can see the placement.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be two chairs per table.  Ms. Terry explained there are two tables that allow seating for four people and the other tables seat two.  Mr. Burriss asked if the seated area would be denoted with planters in some way.  He stated in the past they have requested businesses to put planters at the corners and he thinks they should be consistent.  Ms. Terry stated the previous planters have not been approved by the Planning Commission and they are indicated by Council in the Resolution.  Ms. Terry explained the Planning Commission would be making a recommendation to Village Council for this application.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-34:

 

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 sidewalk cafe requests approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members 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.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the sidewalk café would add to the vitality of the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

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

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2013-34 to Village Council and to have the addition of planters denoted to identify the corners of the sidewalk café area.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to recommend approval of Application #2013-34:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

120 East Elm Street– Tim & Kathy Klingler - Application #2013-35

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a 36” picket fence with gates in the front yard and right-of-way. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Tim Klingler. 

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, stated he would like to install a small picket fence.  He stated the proposal is very similar to the fence he previously installed at the Clock Maker’s home on the same street.  Mr. Klingler clarified there would only be one gate and not several gates as noted on the application.  Mr. Klingler stated the inset is six foot (6’) wide and two feet (2’) deep.  He stated he plans to use treated lumber and paint the fence white.  Mr. Klingler explained the hinges would be as shown in the picture with a weighted closing apparatus.  Mr. Burriss asked if the gate would align with the front door.  Mr. Klingler stated yes.  Mr. Burriss later questioned if there is enough room to do any landscaping.  Mr. Klingler agreed and stated he may need to change the width of the gate to be somewhere around three to four feet.  He stated this would then make the inset seven to eight feet wide.  Ms. Terry stated approval of the application would be a recommendation to Village Council because of the encroachment in the right of way. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-35:

 

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 for fences in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed fence is appropriate for this style home and age of the home.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the livability is improved by the installation of a fence.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the applicant has supplied a photograph of the home when a fence was once in place.  He stated the addition of the fence is historically appropriate since a fence was once located in the same location.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Application #2013-35 to Village Council and for the width of the inset to be seven to eight feet (7’- 8’) wide, to allow for a three to four foot (3’- 4’) wide gate.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-35:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

128 West Broadway – Phil Claggett for Jeff Figler - Application #2013-36

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of thirty-eight (38) vinyl replacement windows. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry and Phil Claggett.

 

Discussion:

Phil Claggett, 825 North 21st Street, Newark, Northpoint Ohio Architecture, stated he is representing the property owner, Jeff Figler.  Mr. Claggett stated they would like to replace 38 windows on the home and each would be the same size, type, and function as the windows which currently exist.  Mr. Claggett stated they are proposing simulated divided light vinyl windows in white.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would still be pairs of double hung windows.  Mr. Claggett stated yes.  Ms. Terry stated the windows are being custom fit to the existing frames.  She explained the change of material is the only reason this application is before the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the storm windows would be removed.  Mr. Claggett stated yes.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the trim would remain the same.  Mr. Claggett stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the attic window is also being replaced.  Mr. Claggett stated yes it would be replaced with the exact same style.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-36:

 

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 with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the removal of the aluminum storm windows means a previous appearance to the home is being restored.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

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

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the window replacement restores the home to the original look.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-36 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-36:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

1820 Newark-Granville Road – Spring Hills Baptist Church - Application #2013-38

Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request is for review and approval of a minor amendment to the Final Development Plan to allow for a modular classroom to be located behind the main building.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, Marvin Rudder, Brenda Boyle, Kirk Combe, Diane Curtis, and John Uibel.

 

Discussion:

Jeff McInturf stated he is representing Spring Hills Baptist Church for this application.  Mr. McInturf explained the church originally had a modular building donated to them.  However, many issues arose with the structure and they had to scrap using the donated modular building at the last minute.  Mr. McInturf apologized to the Planning Commission for not being as prepared as he would like to be.  He later explained they are in a time crunch to have something in place by the beginning of the next school year (August).  Mr. McInturf distributed an example of two modular units.  He explained the units come in standard size framed construction on a steel frame.  Mr. McInturf stated it is their intention for this structure to be temporary, but could be installed for up to as many as five years. The space would be utilized by Granville Christian Academy, which has experienced significant continual growth since 1997.  Mr. McInturf stated they started with 282 students and they now have concerns regarding maintaining student to teacher ratios.  Mr. McInturf stated the unit would add two classrooms (possibly art and music) to accommodate the school.  Mr. Ryan stated he would like to see the actual unit being proposed along with a landscaping plan.  Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission would be reviewing the criteria, such as how does the proposal fit with the architecture and style of the existing building and how is landscaping used.  She indicated there are no plans for entrance to the structure such as a ramp or stairs.  Ms. Terry stated Planning Commission would make a recommendation on the application to Village Council.  Mr. McInturf stated the landscaping plan will ultimately depend on where the building would be located.  He explained they feel the best location is on the driveway across from the sanctuary.  Mr. McInturf stated the building would sit on piers and they would need to install a ramp with one landing.  Mr. Hawk asked how utilities would be installed.  Mr. McInturf stated they would bore under the parking lot and the building is somewhat self-contained with HVAC.  He went on to say there would not be water facilities in the building.  Mr. McInturf stated they would be willing to install landscaping (perhaps white pines) so the neighbors to the east would not be looking at the building.  He stated there are not any neighbors impacted to the west.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there have been any comments sent to the Village by neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated she had one person write a letter, but this is not admissible unless they appear in person or have an attorney appear on their behalf.  Mr. Hawk asked if the proposed size of the building is 24’ x 68.’  Mr. McInturf stated yes.  Mr. Ryan reiterated he would like to see plans for the actual building and the layout before making a recommendation to Village Council.  Ms. Hoyt agreed and stated they also need to determine if the proposal is architecturally compatible.  Mr. McInturf stated he would work on getting a final plan.  He stated the building would have wood siding and they plan to paint it white to match their existing building.  Mr. McInturf later indicated they may look at doing a permanent addition to the church or even relocating the school at some point if their student numbers continue to increase.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the siding is t111.  Mr. McInturf stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated as far as the fenestration pattern goes, he prefers the look of the second building on the submitted paperwork.  He stated anything the applicant can do to ensure the building looks less like a trailer is preferred.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant knows which manufacturer they are going with.  Mr. McInturf stated no. 

 

Diane Curtis, 129 Wicklow Drive, stated she received notice of the application and her husband’s name was spelled incorrectly.  Ms. Curtis stated they are opposed to the plan because it is a modular unit that doesn’t fit in the zoning district.  Ms. Curtis stated they would likely not be opposed if it was not a modular.  Ms. Curtis explained their property has pine trees between them and the church parking lot.  She stated the lower branches from these trees were recently cut and they now we have a full view of the parking lot.  Ms. Curtis stated they feel this could negatively affect their property value because it's a modular unit.  Ms. Curtis also indicated she has been a realtor in the community for some time.   

 

Kirk Combe, 133 Wicklow Drive, stated he is very much opposed to a trailer being installed within his sight line.  He stated they live where the berm ends and they have a direct view to the parking lot.  Mr. Combe stated the proposal would depreciate his property value.   

 

Brenda Boyle, 133 Wicklow Drive, stated she is an original homeowner in the neighborhood and they have watched the development of the school, parking lot, stairs to the lower fields, and the development of a catch basin now filled with weeds.  Ms. Boyle stated she is not confident the church would do an adequate job in concealing the building.  She explained the neighbors have requested that trees be installed and this hasn’t happened.  Ms. Boyle stated the existing trees in place will never be large enough to make any difference.  Ms. Boyle stated she “has a lack of confidence in the church’s ability to treat its neighbors’ responsibly."  Mr. McInturf stated they have tried to make their site attractive and they have a busy church.  He explained they have offered to install a privacy fence.  Mr. McInturf stated the lower limbs of the trees that were cut were full of poison ivy and they were advised to do this.  He stated they have done a lot of tree pruning because they have large mature trees.  Mr. McInturf stated they are willing to work with their neighbors.  He also stated there are modular units in Granville and all across the country. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked the neighbors what the church could do to help solve the homeowner's issues if this application were approved.  She questioned if installing fencing or adding more landscaping would suffice.  Mr. Combe stated he would request a berm with plantings.  He stated they are willing to work with the church, but they are also trying to protect their property values.  Ms. Terry questioned if a berm would cause water to backup onto the neighbors property.  Mr. Combe stated there would need to be a gap for water to go through.  He added they would not be in favor of a privacy fence because they like the openness.  Ms. Curtis stated she has a berm, but it doesn’t help because the trees are not mature.  She stated fences are not part of the neighborhood and are not fitting.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant looked at other locations on the lot for placement.  Mr. McInturf stated they did look at other locations, but the proposed location is the most secure for children crossing the parking lot.  He added this is the less intrusive location for neighbors.  Mr. McInturf stated other areas resulted in fire code issues.  Mr. Ryan stated he is not opposed to the proposed location.  Ms. Hoyt suggested moving the building to allow some additional room for landscaping.  Mr. McInturf stated moving the building 10-15 feet to the west would not be a problem, and would allow them to accommodate additional landscaping. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2013-38 so the applicant can get additional information for exact placement and landscaping plans and to allow Spring Hills Church to have an opportunity to meet with neighbors’ to address concerns  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #2013-38:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Other Business:

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1143.04, 1162.01, 1162.02, 1162.03, 1162.04, 1162.05, 1189.01, 1189.05, 1189.09, 1189.11, 1189.12.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Terry explained these are additional zoning code changes as a result of a joint meeting with Village Council last year and they are meant to streamline the code.  Ms. Terry stated Section 1143.04 is being revised because it is not consistent with other sections in the code.  Ms. Terry stated there would be some cleanup with the language in Section 1162.01/Structural Demolition.  She explained there is need for clarification regarding ‘public meetings’ and ‘public hearings’.  She stated there is reference to having discussion on ‘advisory opinions’ and clarification that the Granville Historical Society is not required to render an opinion on a structural demolition application.  Ms. Terry stated Council can vote on a structural demolition application even if an opinion is not provided by the Historical Society.  Ms. Terry stated Section 1189 deals with Signage.  She stated the Planning & Zoning Committee and staff have questioned why sign approvals go to the Planning Commission if they meet the criteria of the code.  She went on to say it has also been discussed that all variances are granted by the BZBA, except for signs, which are reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry stated one suggestion has been to have all variances for signage go to the BZBA and for applicants to pay a variance fee.  Ms. Terry stated there is no fee for variance requests for signage at this time.  Ms. Terry stated another issue with signage is sidewalk signs.  She stated there has been discussion about removing sidewalk signage altogether from the Code.  She stated she realizes this could be controversial.  Mr. Ryan agreed and indicated he would like a full representation from Planning Commission before they make any recommendation to Village Council.  Mr. Burriss also asked Ms. Terry to research what other communities are doing with sandwich board signs, specifically Hudson and Dublin.  Ms. Terry stated another recommendation was to mandate the way a sidewalk sign has to appear.  She explained there are multiple suggestions and the board would need to gather all ideas and weigh in on what they feel would work the best.  Mr. Eklof stated there could be a disadvantage to a new business coming into town if they are not allowed the same signage as neighboring businesses.  He stated for instance the new owner of Bella Restaurant would have neighboring businesses with more signage up and down the street.  Mr. Ryan agreed this could be an issue for new businesses and unfair.  Ms. Terry stated all businesses are allowed up to four signs as the code reads today.  Ms. Terry indicated she would have Law Director King further look into alternative options.  Ms. Terry stated the proposed zoning code changes would also include cleanup language for the temporary signs.  Mr. Burriss stated he was recently in Savannah, GA and noticed sidewalk signs painted on the sidewalk.  He questioned if this is addressed in the Village Code.  Ms. Terry stated no. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table discussion of the zoning code changes.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Table making a recommendation to Village Council on the proposed zoning code changes:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-34: Dragon Village; 127 East Broadway; Sidewalk Cafe

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 recommends approval of Application #2013-34 to Village Council, with modifications.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-34. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-35: Tim and Kathy Klingler; 120 East Elm Street; Exterior Modifications/Fence

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2013-35 to Village Council, with modifications.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-35. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2013-36: Phil Claggett for Jeff Figler; 128 West Broadway; Exterior Modifications/Window Replacement

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 #2013-36 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-36. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Tom Mitchell from the April 22, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for March 11, 2013:

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the minutes from March 11, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0 (Mr. Hawk abstained because he did not attend that meeting.)

 

April 8th minutes – still need to be approved - no quorum.

 

Adjournment:  9:00 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, May 13, 2013 (Melanie Schott indicated she cannot attend this meeting and Mollie Prasher would be filling in.)

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Monday, June 10, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes April 8, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 8, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

           

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting). Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)

 

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Jean Hoyt. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept.

 

Also Present: Tim Klingler, Thomas and Laura Evans, Jeremy and Susan King, Art Chonko, Richard Downs, Will Castle, James Browder, and Marilyn Goumas.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

120 East Elm Street – Tim Klingler - Application #2013-19

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of replacement windows on the west façade and French doors on the north façade. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Tim Klingler, 120 East Elm Street, explained the nature of the proposed project.  Mr. Klingler stated he would be removing windows and installing two sets of French doors that enter the kitchen area.  He explained the window on the west façade would match the existing wood windows on the home.  Mr. Klingler showed a picture of the proposed window with a window box being at the same height as the other window located on the same side of the home.  Mr. Klingler stated the existing window is already smaller than the other window on the same side, so this would not be a change.  Mr. Klingler stated the area where the window is located is part of the 1930’s addition to the 1800’s home.  Mr. Hawk stated the window box is a nice look.  Ms. Walker stated staff is in full support of the proposal and indicated the project is historically accurate for the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked why the window on the west façade would be shorter.  Mr. Klingler stated this is due to the sink/counter height.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-19:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district.  He added the flower box is a nice detail to add to the window.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

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

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, having a family living in the home contributes to the vitality of the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

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 #2013-19 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-19:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

316 Welsh Hills Road – Jeremy and Susan King - Application #2013-20

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of an addition to the principal structure.  The property is subject to the Architectural Review Overlay District criteria because the proposed addition is more than 20% of the gross livable structure.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Jeremy and Susan King, and Richard Downs. 

 

Discussion:

Jeremy and Susan King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, stated the addition would add a master bath and small laundry room to the home, as well as a basement.  Mr. King stated the basement addition is why the project exceeds the 20%.  Mr. King stated Richard Downs would be completing the work on the addition that stems from the left section of the home.  He stated all of the new materials would match the existing materials on the home.  Mr. King stated they would be using six inch (6”) reveal siding with black and white shutters.  He explained his application depicts they would be using divided light windows, but this is incorrect in the paperwork.  Mr. King stated the new windows would match the existing windows on the home.  Ms. Walker stated all of the setback requirements have been met for this application.  She stated the proposal is a good match to the existing architecture.  Mr. Hawk asked the age of home.  Mr. King stated it is early to mid 1950’s and the house was added onto two times.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not see any controversy with the proposed application and the addition is in keeping with the original structure.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the proposed building massing and proposed 7/12 roof pitch was in keeping with existing homes in the same zoned district. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-20:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed addition is consistent with the existing home and previous additions to the home.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposal is in keeping with the 1950’s home.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the livability is improved upon with the proposed addition.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

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 #2013-20 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-20:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

226 South Main Street – Thomas and Laura Evans - Application #2013-27

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a photovoltaic solar array (solar panels) to be installed on the south side of the roof on the detached accessory structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker, Thomas and Laura Evans, and Richard Downs.

 

Discussion:

Thomas Evans, 226 South Main Street, stated Richard Downs and Jeremy King were instrumental in helping with the proposed project.  Mr. Evans stated the view from Main Street would not show any sign of a solar array.  He stated the array would cover 2/3 of the rear roof. Mr. Evans stated the cable from the array to the home would be buried along the lot line with a meter up near the porch.  Mr. Evans explained the cemetery is above the elevation of the roof of the garage.  Ms. Walker stated staff is in support of the application as proposed due to the location and minimal visibility from South Main Street.  She stated the proposal allows for upgrades to the home and it is appropriately placed.  Ms. Walker added that if the geography or the terrain were different, there could be a different stance by staff.  Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Evans has a picture of the panel.  Mr. Evans stated there would be a total of ten (10) panels. 

 

Jeremy King, 316 Welsh Hills Road, stated he has the same panels (total of 11) located on this home and there is a picture of them included within his application.  Ms. Walker explained the Planning Commission is charged with determining if the AROD criteria has been met for this request.  Mr. Hawk questioned if there are other solar panels located within the AROD district.  Mr. Walker stated yes there are some on the Karaffa home on North Pearl Street.  Mr. Ryan stated there was some debate on this because they were installed prior to Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Ryan stated there is nothing in the Village Code that speaks to solar panels.  Mr. Hawk questioned if the amount of electricity wattage is 2.5 kw.  Mr. Evans stated yes, 2.5 kw per hour would be produced. 

 

Richard Downs, contractor for the Evans and resident of Granville Township, stated the application for solar panels should be viewed very similarly to an application for a satellite dish or air conditioning unit.  Mr. Downs stated solar panels can be removed at any time and they do not impact the structural integrity of any structure.  Mr. Downs stated the appearance of solar panels is subjective.  He went on to say he has visited Village Council and requested to have them put something concrete in the code pertaining to solar panels.  Mr. Downs stated it is his anticipation that in 50-100 years solar panels will be a part of Granville’s history and this type of application is so important to our community.  Mr. Downs stated should these structures (solar panels) fail – the original integrity of the home is not compromised.  Mr. Ryan asked if all neighbors were notified about the application.  Ms. Walker stated yes and they did not receive any responses back from these notices. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-27:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Mitchell stated this house has passive solar and he thinks the addition of the panels is compatible with itself.  Mr. Mitchell added he wouldn’t mind if the panels were more visible and they can be removed without affecting the structure itself.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, the proposal adds to the character of this being a solar home.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

 

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

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell stated
TRUE, the original structure is preserved with the addition of solar panels.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-27 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-27:  Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

College Street/North Main Street Intersection – Art Chonko/Denison University - Application #2013-28

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a commemorative plaque on the western brick column at the main entrance to campus. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, stated this is a straightforward application for a commemorative plaque to name ‘President’s Drive.’  Ms. Walker stated the application, if approved by the Planning Commission, would require a variance to increase the maximum size from four square feet (4) to five point three three (5.33) square feet.  Councilmember Johnson questioned why this application is being viewed as a freestanding sign.  Ms. Walker stated the property where the signage will be located is zoned residential.  She explained incidental signage is not allowed in this zoning district so they had to view the signage as a freestanding residential sign.  Ms. Walker stated legal counsel has thoroughly reviewed this application and made the recommendation for approval.  Mr. Hawk stated it does not make sense that this parcel is not zoned Institutional.  Planning Commission agreed.  Ms. Walker indicated she would make note of this.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2013-28:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE. 

 

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 going from 4 square feet to 5.33 square feet. 

                       

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE. 

 

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

 

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 there were no special conditions.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-28:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent with similar signage located at Denison University.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the plaque will list previous presidents at Denison University.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the plaque will list previous presidents at Denison University.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the plaque will list previous presidents at Denison University.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the variance from four square feet (4) to five point three three square feet (5.33).  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Variance:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-28 as proposed with a variance to increase the total square footage of the freestanding sign from four (4) square feet to five point three three square feet (5.33).  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-28:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

122 North Pearl Street – James and Emily Browder - Application #2013-29

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a forty-two-inch (42”) high picket fence in the rear yard. 

 

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

 

Discussion:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated the proposed picket fence would be located in the rear yard and be cedar stained.  He explained the fence would run on the north and west side of the rear yard and would have a gate.  Mr. Ryan asked if the fence would be stained on both sides.  Mr. Browder stated yes.  Mr. Hawk questioned if a taller fence was considered.  Mr. Browder stated yes, but they like the neighborly feel of the village so they chose to do a four foot (4’) fence.  Mr. Browder indicated he had discussion with his neighbor’s (Newkirk’s) regarding his plans and they seemed to support his request.  Mr. Browder also indicated he is still having paint chips come off the wall owned by the Granville Inn and there have been no changes regarding his previous attempts to have this addressed.  Ms. Walker stated staff is in support of approving the application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-29:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, the proposed fence is consistent with similar fences in the same zoning district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Mitchell stated TRUE, the proposed fence is an upgrade in the historical district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell.

 

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. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-29 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-29:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

113 North Prospect Street – Marilyn Goumas - Application #2013-30

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

 

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

 

Discussion:

Marilyn Goumas, 113 North Prospect Street, stated the signage would be located in the rear of the building.  Ms. Walker stated a previous variance was granted for signage on this property, but this additional sign would result in the need for a new variance.  She explained a variance was previously granted to go from 33.75 total square footage in signage to 41.81 square footage of signage.  Ms. Walker stated the new request to allow the additional sign in the rear would be for 46.185 total square feet.  Ms. Walker stated the rear signage is allowed by code, but the applicant would need to change their existing sign package to be less square feet.  Ms. Goumas stated they are unable to change the  awning sign.  Ms. Goumas stated the rear sign was used at a previous location for $500 and they believe it looks very nice.   She added they were not aware that the Planning Commission oversees signage even in the rear of the business.  Mr. Ryan questioned if the signage is already in place.  Ms. Goumas stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there is signage in the rear for other businesses.  There was a question as to whether or not Everest Gear had signage in the rear.  Ms. Walker stated she would have to check.  Mr. Hawk asked if patrons use the rear entrance or is it used for employees.  Ms. Goumas stated patrons frequently use the rear entrance of the business.  Mr. Mitchell stated the whole area of the sign is the reason for the variance and this is an additional variance on top of a variance already granted for this location.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant has looked at decreasing the size of the sign so an additional variance is not needed.  Mr. Mitchell stated he does not see a big need for granting a variance to put a sign in the rear of the building.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan agreed.  He stated there is an Ordinance that says the applicant can have 33.75 square footage of signage for their business.  Ms. Goumas stated she also had another question for the Planning Commission – she asked why the Planning Commission doesn’t allow changeable copy signage.  Mr. Ryan explained the Planning Commission follows what is in the Village Code and changeable copy signage is currently not listed as an allowable type of signage in the Code.  He stated this would be a question for Village Council because they determine the Code.  The Planning Commission indicated the applicant could also change the size of their sidewalk sign to allow for the signage in the rear of the building, but this would be at the expense of the business owner.  The Planning Commission indicated they would review the criteria for this application, but it appears the applicant does not have much support to grant an additional variance for this property.  Mr. Hawk stated there are two Planning Commission members not at the meeting so the applicant could choose to have the application tabled and voted on when the additional Planning Commission members are in attendance.  Ms. Goumas questioned if the sign could stay up until the vote is taken.  Mr. Ryan stated the signage was not supposed to go up until the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated Ms. Goumas could discuss this matter with staff.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant has three choices regarding the application – a vote, a withdrawal, or tabling the application.  She explained the applicant could choose to review their entire sign package and change sizes to allow for the square footage of the rear sign if they so choose.  Ms. Goumas ultimately decided to have the application voted on this evening as presented.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2013-30:

 

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, other businesses in this district have rear entrances.  He stated he does not see any peculiar circumstances.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Hawk. 

 

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 FALSE, there is beneficial use of the property without the variance.    Mr. Mitchell stated there would be beneficial use of the property without the variance.    Mr. Ryan stated the sign is located in the rear and the applicant states that customers utilize the rear door.

 

(2)        Whether the variance is substantial. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE, the proposed variance is substantial due to the second request for a variance for this property location. 

                       

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE. 

 

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

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  Mr. Ryan stated TRUE, the tenant was aware they needed a variance for the previous signage allowed on this property.  The property owner indicated they were not aware approval was needed to place signage in the rear of the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Ryan. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed the predicament could be feasibly obviated if the applicant changed their existing sign package. 

 

(7)        Whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be required to be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated TRUE.  Mr. Ryan stated FALSE, the zoning ordinance does not allow this signage without a variance.  Mr. Mitchell stated FALSE, the variance is not justified because there are other means to justify the situation. He stated not granting the variance is not an injustice.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan agreed. 

 

c.         That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.  Each member of the Planning Commission stated FALSE – they do result from the actions of the applicant.

 

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

 

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 there were no special conditions.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-31:

 

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

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the proposed signage does not contribute to the historical character when located in the rear of the building. 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the proposed signage does not contribute to the vitality of the district if located in the rear of the structure. 

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  TMr. Mitchell stated FALSE, the additional signage does not enhance this building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny the request for a variance to increase the maximum total sign area for a business from 41.81 square footage of signage to 46.185 based on review of the variance criteria.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to deny the variance as presented:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Variance is denied. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny Application #2013-30 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Deny Application #2013-30:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.  Application #2013-30 is denied. 

 

744 Burg Street – Will and Mary Castle - Application #2013-31

Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A).  The request is for review and approval of a detached two-car garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Will and Mary Castle

 

Discussion:

Will and Mary Castle, 744 Burg Street, stated he has submitted an application to demolish the existing structure (garage).  He stated the proposal for a new garage has proportions that are appropriate with the existing home.  Mr. Castle stated the proposed garage would have a walk out basement with a shop and a sliding barn door.  Mr. Castle stated the garage would have lap siding painted to match the existing home.  He added the roof and trim would also match the home.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the back wall of the of the home is in line with the back wall of the proposed garage. Mr. Castle stated yes.  Ms. Walker stated there is not criteria to review for the SRD-A zoning. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2013-31 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk. 

 

Mr. Mitchell later amended his motion to be contingent upon receipt of a demolition permit from the Village.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.   

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-31:  Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-19: Tim Klingler; 120 East Elm Street; Window Replacement

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 #2013-19 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-19. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-20: Jeremy and Susan King; 316 Welsh Hills Road; Addition

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 #2013-20 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-20. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-27: Thomas and Laura Evans; 226 South Main Street; Solar Panels on 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-27 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-27. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-28: Denison University; College/Main Street; Commemorative Plaque

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 1189, Signs, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-28 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-28. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-29: James and Emily Browder; 122 North Pearl Street; Fence

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifcations, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-29 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-29. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-30: Marilyn Goumas/Goumas Candyland; 113 North Prospect Street; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be inconsistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1147 Variances, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189, Signage, and hereby denies Application #2013-30 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-30. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-31: Will and Mary Castle; 744 Burg Street; Detached Garage

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 #2013-31 as submitted by the applicant. 

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-31. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jack Burriss and Jean Hoyt from the April 8, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  8:35 PM

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, April 22, 2013

Monday, May 13, 2013

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

 

Planning Commission Minutes March 11, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 11, 2013

     7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

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

 

Members Absent:  Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Steven Hawk and Tom Mitchell. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept.

 

Also Present:  Sam Dodge

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

221 East Broadway – Alfie’s Wholesome Food - Application #2013-15

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Sam Dodge. 

 

Discussion:

Sam Dodge stated that he would like to install a wall sign on the ‘Counting House’ building for his new business Alfie’s Wholesome Food.  Mr. Dodge stated the sign would be dark gray with white lettering.  Mr. Burriss inquired as to how far the sign would project from the building given the proposed location and the relationship to an existing architectural detail. Mr. Dodge stated the wall sign would project approximately six inches (6”), would not interfere with the existing architectural detail, and would not violate the overhang of the building.  Mr. Burriss agreed the signage would look better if it were not flat against the building.  Mr. Burriss asked if the previously approved storm door would be the same color as the sign.  Mr. Dodge stated the door would be painted black.  Ms. Walker stated staff had reviewed the application and the request met with all Village Signage requirements.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-15:

 

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

 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the signage is consistent with historical signage documented and used in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated true, by hopefully contributing to the vitality of a business within the district, we contribute to the vitality of the District overall. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated true, the signage is historically accurate in terms of size, color, and style, and contributes to the physical surroundings in which past generations have lived. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-15 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-15:  Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

221 East Broadway – Alfie’s Wholesome Food - Application #2013-16

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Sam Dodge. 

 

Discussion:

Sam Dodge was available to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Walker stated the signage request met with all Village Sign Code requirements. Mr. Burriss asked if the projecting sign would have a frame or border edge. Mr. Dodge stated he wanted to maximize the image and felt that by adding a border it would reduce the overall impact of the proposed graphic.  Mr. Burriss suggested a frame could be added around the perimeter of the sign without reducing the size of the illustration.  Mr. Burriss stated that by adding a border, all of the proposed signage for this business would be consistent.  Mr. Burriss explained that the Planning Commission has required borders on signage for businesses in years past.  Mr. Eklof asked if the signage is viewable on both sides.  Mr. Dodge stated yes.  Ms. Walker inquired as to the viability of adding a thin black metal frame around the sign similar in detail to the sidewalk sign as an agreeable solution. Mr. Dodge agreed that an inch border around the projecting sign would be appropriate. Mr. Burriss asked if the signage would be free-moving on the bracket arm.  Mr. Dodge stated yes.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-15:

 

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

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, by being historically accurate in character the sign contributes to the historical character of the District overall. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated true, by hopefully contributing to the vitality of a business within the district, we contribute to the vitality of the District overall. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated true, the signage is historically accurate in terms of proportion, size, color, and style, and contributes to the physical surroundings in which past generations have lived. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2013-16 with the condition the projecting sign have a finished black border edge consistent with the sidewalk sign.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-16:  Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

221 East Broadway – Alfie’s Wholesome Food - Application #2013-17

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Sam Dodge. 

 

Discussion:

Sam Dodge was present to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss inquired as to the location of the proposed sign; Mr. Dodge suggested an ideal location would be on the west side of the pedestrian alleyway.  Mr. Eklof asked about the location of the existing gallery sidewalk sign.  Mr. Dodge stated he would be on the opposite side of this signage, rather than placing the two sidewalk signs side by side.  Mr. Burriss stated he would prefer to not see the signage sign by side.  He stated he believed the location of the gallery sidewalk sign was specified in the approval.  Ms. Walker stated she could check on the Gallery ‘M’ approved sidewalk sign location.  Mr. Burriss stated the proposed location by the applicant would be fine if it does not create an ingress and egress problem.  Mr. Ryan asked if the signage would be removed daily.  Mr. Dodge stated yes.  Mr. Ryan inquired as to the proposed hours of Alfie’s.  Mr. Dodge stated 7:00 AM to 2:00 PM.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-17:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated true, the sidewalk sign is consistent with similar requests approved in the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, there is historic evidence of sandwich boards of this nature having been used in the District. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated true, the signage allows the business to be have greater visibility, and by hopefully contributing to the vitality of a business within the District, you contribute to the vitality of the District overall. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated true, there have historically been sandwich board signs used in the District, thereby protecting examples of the physical surrounding in which past generations have lived. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

  

Ms. Hoyt made a motion to approve Application #2013-17 with the condition the signage location is moved to the west side of alley-way.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-17:  Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-15: Alfie’s Wholesome Foods; 221 East Broadway; Wall Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189 Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-15 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-15. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-16: Alfie’s Wholesome Foods; 221 East Broadway; Projecting Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189 Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-16 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-16. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2013-17: Alfie’s Wholesome Foods; 221 East Broadway; Sandwich Board Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1189 Signage, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-17 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-17. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Steve Hawk from the March 11, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for February 25, 2013:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from February 25, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Additional Information:

Ms. Walker stated at the February 25, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant Sam Dodge had requested and received approval of a full glass storm door for his business.  She stated the Planning Commission requested that staff contact the Building Code Department regarding the applicability and safety of the full glass door as it relates to this commercial business.  Ms. Walker stated she had contacted the Licking County Building Department and they had visited the business location regarding other issues.  She stated the applicant had been in conversation with the LCBCD and they had provided an email to him stating they would not take issue with the use of the storm door, and for the record, the glass in the approved door is tempered glass.    

 

Adjournment:  7:30 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Monday, April 8, 2013

Monday, April 22, 2013

Monday, May 13, 2013

Planning Commission Minutes February 25, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 25, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting).  Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, and Jean Hoyt.

 

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Dena McKinley, Sam Dodge, and James Browder.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

James Browder, 122 North Pearl Street, stated he is property neighbors with the Granville Inn (314 East Broadway.)  He stated there is a wall in the rear of his property and he has been experiencing problems with paint chips coming off the wall and landing throughout his back yard.  Mr. Browder stated he has a child and a dog that cannot have full use of the yard because of this problem and he is concerned it is a health and safety matter.  Ms. McKinley stated she is aware of the problem and has had several discussions with Mr. Browder.  She stated the problem is that they have water infiltration from the edges of the roof inward, but the roof is ok and the interior is dry.  Ms. McKinley stated they have some severe erosion at the ends and corners of the roof and this is causing severe problems.  She estimated the repair to be around $600,000-$700,000.  Ms. McKinley stated potential purchasers of the Inn are looking at the problem and they have had contractors review the matter.  She stated they have been told repainting the wall won’t do any good until the water issue is remedied.  Mr. Browder stated the wall on the other side has been recently painted and looks good. He stated he realizes the Inn is in Receivership, but he contacted the property owners prior to them going into Receivership about this same issue.  Ms. McKinley stated she could have maintenance pick up any paint chips, but they are not able to fix the problem at this time due to finances.  Mr. Browder stated the wall is falling over onto his property.  Ms. McKinley stated she would disagree the wall is falling over and the last time she checked it was structurally sound.  Mr. Burriss asked if Mr. Browder is aware of the chemical makeup of what is coming off the wall.  Mr. Browder stated he has not had this tested but would look into it.  Mr. Ryan suggested the two parties work with the Village to remedy the matter and the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction with this type of situation.  Ms. Walker stated this could turn out to be a civil matter and the Village is not able to make a determination if the paint chips are a health and safety matter.  She stated Mr. Browder could contact the Licking County Health Department if he feels this is a health and safety issue.  Mr. Burriss asked when the building was last painted was the wall in question was included?  Ms. McKinley stated she did not know.  Mr. Browder stated there has been no attempt to paint the wall since he has lived on the property.   

 

New Business:

314 East Broadway – Granville Hospitality, LLC - Application #2013-05

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a replacement awning over the dining patio area and replacement awnings for windows facing East Broadway.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Dena McKinley. 

 

Discussion:

Dena McKinley, Granville Hospitality, 314 East Broadway, stated she filed an insurance claim because of the damaged awning.  She presented the proposed replacement awnings and indicated they would like to replace matching awnings on seven smaller windows located on the west side of the building and alcoves.  Ms. McKinley stated the fabric would match for each window.  She stated the work being done is to make the framework more structurally sound.  Ms. McKinley indicated the proposed framework is rated to be left up year around.  Ms. Walker stated staff received the additional details requested and the application meets all necessary requirements.  Mr. Hawk asked who is doing the project and is it a Sunbrella fabric.  Ms. McKinley stated ‘Capital City Awnings’ and the fabric is a 1940s Sunbrella fabric that they feels blends in good with the stonework at the Inn.  She indicated the scallop being used for the edging is called ‘Old 33’ in the brochure.  Mr. Burriss stated he applauds the return of the stripe.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-05:

 

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

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.  He stated the new awnings are more historically correct than the ones they replaced.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the business vitality is enhanced.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the awning replacement replaces something that has always been in place on the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-05 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-05:  Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

221 East Broadway– Alfie’s Wholesome Food - Application #2013-06

Village Business District (VSD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a storm door on the main entry door to the structure; and the installation of a vent on the eastern façade of the structure. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Sam Dodge. 

 

Discussion:

Sam Dodge, 221 East Broadway, stated he is proposing an all weather Anderson 3000 Series storm door that would increase light and air flow.  Additionally, he explained they would like to add an exhaust fan to circulate air from the kitchen because there is not any ventilation.  Mr. Dodge explained they would be moving the existing oven to the back of the store.  He stated the space was used more for production in the past, but they would like to have the area be more of a customer environment.  Ms. Walker stated all requirements have been met for this application.  She stated there had been some recent discussion regarding the full glass door and she stated they would need to see if the proposed door meets safety requirements.  Mr. Burriss stated it is possible someone could walk through the glass door.  Ms. Walker questioned if some sort of guard needed to be installed across the door.  Mr. Dodge stated the door would open outward.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the glass being used is tempered glass.  Mr. Dodge was unsure, but stated the cut sheets state it is double-pane glass.  Mr. Burriss asked if the door would be painted white to match the building.  Mr. Dodge stated yes and stated the door would be lined up with the transom above the door.  The Planning Commission agreed staff could work with the applicant on ensuring the proposed door meets Building Code requirements for safety. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-06:

 

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 storm doors in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the door is protecting a historic structure and the style is architecturally pleasing.  Mr. Burriss stated the painted white door and vent will enhance the structure.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated true, the livability is improved for a business in the district.   All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

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 #2013-06 with the condition the applicant obtain approval for the glass/plexiglass from the Licking County Building Code Department to ensure that it meets all commercial requirements; and that Staff will work with the applicant to be certain the hardware meets the requirements..  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-06:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2013-05: Granville Hospitality; 314 East Broadway; Awnings

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 #2013-05 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-05. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Application #2013-06: Alfie’s Wholesome Food; 221 East Broadway; 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 #2013-06 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-06. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the February 25, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for February 11, 2013:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from February 11, 2013 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment:  7:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, March 11, 2013

Monday, April 8, 2013

Monday, April 22, 2013

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.