GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 28, 2013
Call to Order (by Chairman Ryan at 7:00 pm)
Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof (non-voting), Tim Ryan (Chair), Steven Hawk, Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair.)
Members Absent: Jack Burriss
Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director; Debi Walker; Planning & Zoning Assistant
Also Present: Jim and Joy Jung
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
221 West Broadway – Jim and Joy Jung - Application #2013-01
Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)
The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a pergola to be attached to the rear of the home, and two (2) freestanding trellises in the rear yard.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Debi Walker, Jim Jung, and Joy Jung.
Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated they have lost many of the trees that used to be in the rear yard of their home. Mr. Jung stated the trees used to block the sun from the south side. He explained they sought the advice from CR Construction on how to best keep the sun off the back section of their home and CR Construction suggested a pergola and trellis be installed. Mr. Jung stated he is proposing to use CS Construction in completing the project. Ms. Walker stated the applicant has received a variance from the BZBA for a side yard setback variance for the trellis. Mr. Hawk asked if the wood would be cedar. Ms. Walker stated yes. Mr. Mitchell asked if any of the work done on this project affects the structure of the home. Mr. Jung stated the trellis and pergola would fasten to the home, but not interfere structurally.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2013-01:
a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the application is consistent with other similar requests approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.
b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the materials are consistent with other materials used in this district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Hawk stated the proposal contributes to the livability of the home. All other Planning Commission members concurred.
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded this criteria was TRUE.
Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2013-01 as presented. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-01: Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Section 1157.14, 1163.03, 1169.03, and 1185.01.
Ms. Terry explained the proposed zoning code changes before the Planning Commission are a result of a joint meeting between the Planning Commission, Village Council, and the BZBA. She stated the focus on these changes is to remove inconsistencies in the zoning code and they are not major changes. Ms. Terry stated the first proposed code modification addresses ‘Accessory Structures’. This proposal was brought forward to address all residential zoning classifications within the Village consistently as it applies to Accessory Structures. She stated the proposed change would address the total number of accessory structures per property and the maximum size of accessory structures in the PUD zoning, including Erinwood and Bryn Du, the Suburban Business District zoning and the Village Gateway District zoning. Ms. Terry stated the accessory structures provision is already in effect for the Village Residential District zoning and Suburban Residential District zoning. Councilmember Johnson questioned if staff feels the existing code relative to accessory structures is solid for areas outside of the PUD. Ms. Terry stated yes.
Ms. Terry stated the second proposed revision involves the Planning Commission reviewing all new structures in the Suburban Residential District. Ms. Terry stated the Planning Commission currently reviews any new structure in the Suburban Residential District, but there are no criteria associated with these requests. She stated the Planning Commission simply addresses whether maximum lot coverage and setback requirements are being met. Ms. Terry suggested the review of new structures could be done administratively by Staff. She stated there are no architectural components associated with the review of such an application and the Planning Commission has often asked why applications such as this are before them. Ms. Terry explained the AROD criteria does come into play when an addition or remodel involves more than 20% of the primary structure. Mr. Mitchell questioned if Suburban Residential District criteria should be created for review of new structures. Ms. Terry stated this is certainly an option and staff could work with the Planning Commission to create the criteria. She added any new criteria would need to be defendable in a court of law. Mr. Mitchell questioned how other municipalities handle zoning areas like this outside of their historical area. Ms. Terry stated other municipalities do not apply architectural standards to areas outside of the core historical zone or architectural review area. Mr. Ryan stated he would not want to see AROD standards expanded beyond the core historical areas. He stated these properties have always been outside of the AROD and there is a mixed use and different architecture throughout the Suburban Residential District. Mr. Mitchell stated he could see Suburban Residential District standards being required at some point. Ms. Terry stated there are not many developable lots within the Suburban Residential District where new single family structures could be built. She added that anyone wanting to tear down an existing structure on a Suburban Residential District zoned lot must get approval from Village Council with a demolition permit and they must show their plans for the lot prior to the demolition being granted.
Ms. Terry stated the third proposed change to the code would be within the Institutional District. Similar to the Suburban Residential District proposed change, this code revision could allow staff to administratively approve new construction on Denison's campus. As in the Suburban Residential District there are no criteria for the Planning Commission to review, other than setbacks and lot coverage. She stated this would not affect the Denison University properties which are on the lower, Fine Arts Quad, as those properties are zoned differently.
Ms. Terry stated the fourth proposed change to the code would be to swimming pool requirements. She stated they are seeing more and more requests for swimming pools in the Village. Ms. Terry stated the current code requires a wall or fence must be installed "to prevent uncontrolled access", but does not specify the height of the required wall or fence. She explained she, Manager Holycross, and Law Director Crites discussed this provision several years ago and determined that all new swimming pool fences would be required to be installed at a minimum height of five feet. At that time, it was felt that the five foot height would adequately ensure the "health, safety, and welfare" of properties adjacent to a swimming pool. Ms. Terry stated that with the recent interest in swimming pool installations over the last few years, the required height has been questioned by property owners. Ms. Terry stated if someone was to apply for a permit with a fence or wall less than five feet in height, the Zoning Inspector could choose to deny the permit. The applicant could then appeal the Zoning Inspector's decision to the BZBA. Councilmember Johnson questioned if the exact height mattered, if the reason for having a fence is to keep people out. He indicated someone can climb over a fence if they want to, regardless of the height. Mr. Mitchell stated that he felt a five foot fence is more difficult to climb over than a four foot fence. Mr. Hawk stated the lockable covers are not sufficient in lieu of a fence surrounding a pool. Ms. Terry stated the Village might consider this issue in relation to both current and future property owners of homes with pools. She stated that even if a current owner is responsible in locking a pool cover, this does not always mean that a future home owner will be as diligent. She stated she sees this matter as a health, safety, and welfare issue for the Village.
Ms. Terry ended by stating she has estimated a 20% reduction in what the Planning Commission would review with these proposed changes.
Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council of the draft zoning code changes for sections 1157.14, 1163.03, 1169.03, and 1185.01 dated January 28, 2013. Seconded by Mr. Hawk
Roll Call Vote: Hoyt (yes), Mitchell (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Application #2013-01: Jim and Joy Jung, 221 West Broadway; Pergola/Trellis
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 Modifications, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-01 as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-01. Seconded by Mr. Hawk.
Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to approve absent Commission Member:
Mr. Hawk moved to approve excuse Jack Burriss from the January 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Motion carried 4-0.
Motion to approve meeting minutes for January 14, 2013:
Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from January 14, 2013 as presented. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 4-0.
(Mr. Hawk noted there are additional minutes from November that still need approval.)
Adjournment: 7:40 PM
Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 4-0.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013