Granville Community Calendar

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

 

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.