Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2013

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

January 14, 2013

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Ryan, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, and Jean Hoyt.

 

Members Absent:  Doug Eklof (non-voting) and Tom Mitchell. 

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Stephen Larsen and Larry and Vee Hottle.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

126 East Broadway – Bella Restaurant/Stephen Larsen - Application #2012-173

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

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Stephen Larsen. 

 

Discussion:

Stephen Larsen, 1194 Newark-Granville Road, stated he has reduced the total signage for this business, and will now just have an existing sandwich board sign and then is proposing a canopy sign.  He later indicated he would come back to the Planning Commission for approval of a neon "open" sign.  Mr. Larsen stated the previously existing neon "open" window sign was removed because it was not very visible.  Ms. Walker stated staff has determined there are two different store fronts for the building – DaVinci Lounge and Bella Restaurant.  She stated the operating hours rarely overlap. 

 

Mr. Larsen stated when the time comes he will come back to the Planning Commission to request different signage for DaVinci Lounge.  Ms. Walker stated the size of the signage for DaVinci could be determined by a measurement on the width of the building and incorporating the square footage from the second floor.  Mr. Larson stated they do not have much room on the door for signage for DaVinci Lounge.  Ms. Walker stated a projecting sign could be an option.  Mr. Larsen indicated he may come back for approval of the neon "open" sign, because one of their biggest problems is having people know when they are open.  Mr. Hawk stated the Planning Commission had granted approval of the neon signage for a period of six months.  He stated the signage is still being used (delinquent by two months) and he is not inclined to approve either sign until the applicant adheres to the original request by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Larsen indicated he was asked by the Planning Commission to come back with a more artistic "open" sign.  Mr. Larsen stated the existing neon open signage doesn’t tell people they are a restaurant.  Mr. Larsen stated he is working with a neon contractor in Columbus for a new design.  He later clarified there would be a total of three signs - canopy, neon, and sandwich board signage. 

 

Mr. Ryan stated it doesn’t make sense that a variance is required for this application since there are examples of canopy signs up and down the street with multiple colors.  Councilmember Johnson questioned the variance and said it is confusing because the existing square footage is 33.5 square feet.  Ms. Walker stated the applicant meets the square footage requirement and the sign is within the allowable amount of signage for the store front. Ms. Walker stated the variance would be from the number of colors on the signage and it's only for the Green B and red lettering.  Mr. Hawk questioned if staff is mistakenly determining this application as a canopy sign, rather than a marquee sign.  He stated as he reads the definition in the code of a marquee sign – this matches closer to what the applicant has presented.  He asked for a further explanation from staff because this is a permanent rooflike structure expanding beyond the wall of the building.  Mr. Hawk made a motion to have the application further reviewed by staff for the definition of a marquee sign.  The motion was not seconded.  Mr. Ryan stated the application could also qualify to meet the definition of a wall sign.  Ms. Walker stated staff ruled out a wall sign designation because the code says that a wall sign has to be within twelve inches of the wall face.

 

Mr. Ryan stated he feels this is an add-on to the building and it could be removed at any time without affecting the building structurally.  Mr. Larsen agreed and indicated a few rods hold up the canopy.  Mr. Burriss stated the design aspect appears to be a canopy with the square corners.  He stated a marquee sign would be like a theatre sign with a wider rounded presentation.  Mr. Hawk indicated he is not in support of approval of the proposed signage because he feels staff should further review the sign classification designation to the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed and read aloud the following Variance Criteria during their discussion of Application #2012-173:

 

a.         That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts.  Mr. Ryan, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Burriss stated TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated some of the other canopies in the district are canvas canopies and the applicant is requesting a sign for a canopy that is a structural canopy that is suspended and has existed for some time.  Mr. Burriss stated the color pallet is historically appropriate.  Mr. Hawk disagreed and stated FALSE.

 

b.         That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulties for the owner of the property.  The factors to be considered by the Board in making this determination are:

 

(1)        Whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance.  Mr. Ryan, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Burriss stated TRUE.  Mr. Burriss stated the presentation is more consistent with other signage approved in this zoning area.   Mr. Hawk stated FALSE.

 

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

                       

(3)        Whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, it would not substantially alter the neighborhood.

 

(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, it would not affect the delivery of governmental services.

 

(5)        Whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE.  Mr. Larsen indicated he does not own the property, but Mrs. Fuller does. 

 

(6)        Whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed FALSE, the property owner's predicament could not be obviated through some other method. 

 

(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, the special conditions and circumstances do not 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.  Mr. Burriss stated the red and green on the doors should match the same colors used in the signage to present overall consistency. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-173:

 

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 signage 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 font and presentation are consistent with other signage used 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 signage allows for continued 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 approve Application #2012-173 to have the color of the signage (red and green) to match as close as possible to the painted doors for the overall presentation; and to grant a variance to increase the number of colors on the canopy sign from one to two. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-173:  Burriss (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (no), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-1. 

 

224 East Elm Street – Larry and Vee Hottle - Application #2012-190

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a decorative iron fence in the front yard. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Deb Walker and Larry and Vee Hottle. 

 

Discussion:

Larry Hottle, 224 East Elm Street, stated that he purchased the fence from Tom Mitchell.  Mr. Ryan questioned if all of the setback requirements have been met for this application.  Ms. Walker stated yes.  She added the fencing is architecturally appropriate.  Mr. Hawk and Mr. Ryan stated they really feel the fence defines the yard and looks impressive. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2012-190:

 

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 fence is historically appropriate for 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 livability and vitality are improved.   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 #2012-190 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2012-190:  Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2012-173: Stephen Larsen/Bella Restaurant; 128 East Broadway; Canopy 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 1189, Signage, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-173 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-173. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.

 

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

 

Application #2012-190: Larry and Vee Hottle; 224 East Elm Street; Fence

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter, 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2012-190 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2012-190. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

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

 

Motion to approve absent Planning Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to approve excuse Tom Mitchell from the January 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for December 10, 2012:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from December 10, 2012 as presented.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Ryan abstained).

 

Adjournment:  7:40 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 28, 2013

Monday, February 11, 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.