Granville Community Calendar

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

 

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.