Granville Community Calendar

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

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.