GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 22, 2013
Call to Order: Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present: Councilmember Johnson (non-voting), Doug Eklof, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jean Hoyt, and Tom Mitchell (Chair.)
Members Absent: None.
Staff Present: Debi Walker; Asst. to Planning Dept, Mike King, Village Law Director
Also Present: Sherri Cummins, Tim Hughes, and Paul Pyle.
No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.
1205 Cherry Valley Road – Sherri Cummins/The Friends of Jesus Ministries - Application #2013-92
Planned Commercial District (PCD). The request is for review of the parking requirements for a Day Habilitation Center for persons with developmental disabilities, a Community Chapel, and a Counseling Center in relation to a commercial occupancy permit request.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Sherri Cummins.
Sherri Cummins, 14505 Fancher Road, Johnstown stated she is available to address any concerns by the Planning Commission.
Law Director King explained the reason why the application was before the Planning Commission. He stated this matter is before the Planning Commission because the zoning department had reviewed the code and noted there were no specific parking requirements for the proposed uses. He stated since the proposed uses are not listed in the code, the Code states that the number of parking spaces shall be established by the Planning Commission when the use is not specified. Law Director King stated the applicant is proposing to use the space for multiple functions, including a counseling center, occupational rehabilitation for developmentally disabled clients, and as a chapel one day per week. He stated it is up to the Planning Commission to decide how many parking spaces should be required for the proposed use. He explained it cannot be an arbitrary number and it has got to be an objective and fair explanation as to how they got to the number. Law Director King stated the Commission can consider some of the specific uses already set forth and listen to testimony presented this evening to come up with the best benchmark or closest comparison.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to articulate as best they can how the use is similar or dissimilar from the request. Law Director King stated once the Planning Commission establishes the number of required spaces there would be a subsequent analysis for this applicant on whether or not they can meet that number or if they do not meet the requirement, what options would be available. Deb Walker stated staff reviewed comparables in Section 1183 of the code and considered ‘Administrative Office Space’ because this could pertain to the counseling portion of the application. She stated ‘Administrative Office Space’ calls for 1 parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area, and this is the most generous designation in the code. Ms. Walker stated Ms. Cummins testimony should indicate if she plans to use the entire space. Ms. Walker stated the code specifies ten parking spaces for a Chapel/Church, and the applicant has indicated this function would occur on a weekday or evening and consist of maybe four people. Ms. Walker stated the applicant has indicated to staff they plan to have two part-time employees and they would not be there in tandem - one person in the day and one in the evening on alternate days. She encouraged the Planning Commission to review the email provided by Ms. Cummins indicating planned use of the space. Ms. Hoyt asked if the existing garage is considered parking spaces. Ms. Walker stated they could consider these if they do not have stacked parking behind them. She explained there is a hammerhead – and this is needed to turn around so you don’t have to back out onto Cherry Valley Road – which can be dangerous. Ms. Walker explained the client base frequenting the establishment would be delivered by Licking County Transit Authority bus and they will need room to maneuver. Ms. Walker explained the additional space for the hammerhead would be considered one parking space and the bus would pull into the other space and maneuver out. She stated Ms. Cummins has provided design standards that would be reviewed after a parking space number is in place. Ms. Walker stated staff is currently considering there to be three parking spaces already in place. The Planning Commission reviewed Ms. Cummins email (attached to the application), which indicates there would be two part time employees - working different days - one staff per day. The email indicated there would be different shifts Monday-Friday 8:00-3:00 and Tuesday & Thursday 3:00-8:00. Ms. Cummins indicated the chapel time would be one day per week with four participants and it is more of a bible study. Ms. Cummins stated they teach life skills to their clients, which ultimately help the community. She explained they get paid though the State of Ohio. Law Director King asked if the business is classified as a 501(c)3. Ms. Cummins stated yes, as a church. Councilmember Johnson asked if there is the potential for staff to overlap. Ms. Cummins indicated she must have one staff for every twelve people. She testified she does not intend to have over fifteen clients at any given time. Ms. Cummins agreed there could be two staff there for shift overlap or if they were to have up to fifteen clients present. Ms. Cummins stated two staff cars could park in the existing garage. Ms. Cummins testified the counseling hours would be after clients leave and there should not be any overlap. She stated some clients drive themselves. She stated there would not be staff present on Monday’s when she counsels from 3:00-8:00.
Mr. Mitchell stated at this time Ms. Cummins can have up to twelve clients with one staff member. He asked if there is ever anyone else in the building. Ms. Cummins stated she is the Executive Director and she does do paperwork in the building until it is time for counseling. Mr. Mitchell asked how many could potentially drive to the chapel service. Ms. Cummins stated four cars. Ms. Walker stated Village staff considered a parking space needs to be 10' x 20', and this is how they established there are three spaces versus four. Mr. Eklof asked if parking could be considered in a grassy area. Ms. Walker stated the parking area would have to be expanded and pavement could be required. She explained there is a threshold on whether it's required to be paved or gravel.
Law Director King explained the limitation with the applicant adding parking to the front of the building since this zoning district does not allow for parking in the front of buildings. He stated any additional spaces would have to be behind the building and there is a lot of property to the back of the building. He added that the applicant may need to obtain an easement for driveway access or they could consider shared parking with the neighboring property, or even a drive through garage scenario. Law Director King explained all of the options could be reviewed after the number of parking spaces is determined by the Planning Commission. Ms. Walker indicated both neighboring properties to this property have rear parking lots. The Planning Commission discussed the number of classrooms. Councilmember Johnson stated staff has indicated there are five classrooms. Ms. Cummins stated it would depend on what is being considered as a classroom. She indicated there are potentially two classrooms. Law Director King stated all of the circumstances can be considered when determining the amount of spaces needed, including that the client base will be dropped off and picked up by public transportation. Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant has plans to finish the basement. Ms. Cummins stated not presently because of the difficulty getting handicapped individuals in the lower space. Mr. Hawk questioned how many parking spaces were required at their previous location. Ms. Cummins stated many were available to them. Councilmember Johnson indicated the establishment currently has higher functioning clients requiring one staff person per twelve clients. He indicated this ration could change if they have clients with more needs. Ms. Cummins agreed she has no way of knowing what type of client she may get. Ms. Hoyt asked Ms. Cummins how many spaces she feels she needs to operate. Ms. Cummins stated three parking spaces. Mr. Mitchell questioned how the three spaces in the front are grandfathered in if this is a request for a new use of the property. Mr. Mitchell stated based on the testimony and the number of classrooms and potential for staff – he is comfortable with five parking spaces. Law Director King stated the Planning Commission is to connect the use with the parking burden and come up with a number given the specific information given to them and the circumstances that are in place for this situation. Law Director King stated the Planning Commission can take all of the testimony into consideration, such as staff not being there at certain times. Mr. Mitchell stated he is in agreement that the proposed use is not in line with a church or school, but it’s the closest analogy they have to go by. He agreed the use is actually a day habilitation/counseling center.
Mr. Hawk made a motion that given the stated business plan and proposed client load the Planning Commission shall require three (3) parking spaces for Application #2013-92 - the property located at 1205 Cherry Valley Road. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2013-92:
Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Hoyt (yes), Eklof (yes), Mitchell (no). Motion carried 4-1.
Finding of Fact Approvals:
Application #2013-92: Sherri Cummins/The Friends of Jesus; 1205 Cherry Valley Road; Parking Requirements
Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.
The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2013-92 as submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2013-92. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.
Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hoyt (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (no). Motion carried 4-1.
Motion to approve meeting minutes for July 8, 2013:
Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from July 8, 2013 as presented. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 5-0.
Adjournment: 8:07 PM
Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Motion carried 5-0.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
September 9, 2013