Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission December 8, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 8, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Doug Eklof (Vice Chair), Steven Hawk (Chair), Craig Potaracke and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting)

 

Members Absent:  Bill Wilken

 

Staff Present: Planning Assistant, Debi Walker

 

Also Present: Ken Rittenhouse, Paula Colman, Meredith Clark, Alessandra Camealoss, Daniel Fierentini, Samantha We, Dan Kemper, Jesse Smith and Shelby Kaplan.

 

Citizen Comments:  As no one appeared to speak, Chair Hawk closed Citizens Comments.

 

New Business:

 

129 South Mulberry Street – Ken Rittenhouse on behalf of Gary and Judy Stansbury - Application #2014-177  Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a sixteen-foot (16’) long by forty-two inch (42”) tall white vinyl lattice screen to be installed to screen the air conditioning units facing West Elm Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Ken Rittenhouse. 

 

Discussion:

Ken Rittenhouse, 950 Old River Road, advised the Commission that he was speaking on behalf of the Stansbury family, and as a representative of John Klauder Landscape.  He would like to install a lattice unit to screen the air conditioning unit on the south side of the home.

 

Planning Assistant Walker indicated that staff was in support of this installation.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-177:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; as the project is consistent with other projects that have been approved in the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; as the proposed materials are appropriate in color, appearance, screen a modern air conditioning unit and is an upgrade to the home thereby upgrading the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the materials and design selected contribute to the vitality of a home improvements designed to screen a modern convenience, it contributes to the vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; that although the proposed replacement materials are modern, the appearance is consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby screening a modern convenience, the improvements protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-177 as presented.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.    Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-177:  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

123 East Broadway – Lee Anne Faler on behalf of Art @ 43023 - Application #2014-178:  Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

The request is for architectural review and approval of a window sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Paula Colman. 

 

Discussion:

Paula Colman, 123 East Broadway, advised she was a partner of Art @ 43023.  Ms. Colman noted that the Commission had a picture of the sign.  It was a little more modern in design, would be attached to a pole with a pendant light.  The light could be put on a timer.

 

Mr. Hawke advised that signs go dark in the Village at 10:00pm. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe asked about changing the Tickleberry Moon sign.  Assistant Planner Walker indicated the wall sign would be replaced.  As long as the same color and lettering would be used, the sign could be changed without GPC approval, the business owner would simply need to secure a sign permit from the Village Staff. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-178:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage is consistent, complimentary and similar in style to other signage within the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage has artistic merit and contributes to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and maintains the historical nature of the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure, which contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed signage is appropriate and timely for the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-178 with an amendment to include that the pendant lighting be extinguished at 10:00pm.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.    Roll call vote to amend Application #2014-178:  Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.   

 

Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-178, as amended:  Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-177: Ken Rittenhouse on behalf of Gary and Judy Stansbury, 129 South Mulberry Street, Lattice Screening of Air Conditioning Unit(s)   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 Section 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-177 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-177. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-177: Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

Application #2014-178: Lee Anne Faler on behalf of Art @ 43023, 123 East Broadway, 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, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs,  and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-178 as amended to turn off the pendant lighting at 10:00pm.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-178. Second by Mr. Potaracke. Roll call vote to approve Application #2014-178: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Potaracke (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member:

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse Bill Wilken from the December 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

There was not a quorum of members who attended the meeting to approve the minutes of the November 24, 2014 minutes.

 

Motion to approve Planning Commission Meeting dates for 2015:

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve the Planning Commission meeting dates for 2015. Second by Mr. Potaracke. Motion carried 4-0.

 

There were a number of Denison University students in attendance.  Mr. Hawk asked for questions and comments from the students.

 

Mr. Hawk declared the December 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment:  7:26pm

 

Next meetings:

Monday, January 12, 2015

Monday, January 26, 2015

Monday, February 9, 2015

Planning Commission November 24, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 24, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Chair), Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio).

 

Members Absent:  Mr. Eklof and Mr. Burriss.

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present:  Craig & Maureen Severson, Bruce & Lisa Westall, Sue Barton, Kathy Tatham and Fred Abraham.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

 

941 Newark-Granville Road – Craig & Maureen Severson - Application #2014-169

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for review and approval of a stone retaining wall along the driveway and within the right-of-way adjacent to the public sidewalk. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Craig Severson.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Craig Severson, 941 Newark-Granville Road, stated he wishes to have a low retaining wall to mitigate water drainage. Planning and Zoning Assistant Walker stated that in addition to Planning Commission review and approval the Village Council would need to grant a general use permit for this structure as well.   The wall is eleven inches in height, is similar to other walls in the area, and is constructed of a Brussels style concrete block type product. There were neither questions nor objections from the Board.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-169:

 

1)         Fences, Walls or Barriers.  No fence, wall or other artificial barrier shall be erected and/or constructed in this district without approval of the Planning Commission.  Approval shall be based upon review of an application as set forth in Section 1137.05 of the Codified Ordinances of Granville, Ohio.  Planning Commission review shall include type, location, height, compatibility with the area and such other features or characteristics as may be appropriate.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, it is compatible with the area.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-169 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-169:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

315 South Pearl Street – Bruce & Lisa Westall - Application #2014-172

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a new, two-story, single family home, driveway, sidewalk and rear deck.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Bruce & Lisa Westall.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Bruce Westall, 241 East Maple Street, stated his intention to build a single family home behind his present home along South Pearl Street.  The architectural style would be “steamboat” gothic and he researched the style to make sure it would fit in with Granville architecture. Mr. Hawk asked if the architect is licensed in Ohio and the answer was “Yes.”  Zoning and Planning Assistant Walker said that the BZBA had granted a variance for the northern side yard setback, due to the topography, under Application 2014-144.  She showed plans, elevation details and materials to the Board and indicated the proposed structure met the AROD requirements. The Board felt the home would be welcome in the historical district.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-172:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed home, driveway, sidewalk and deck are similar in style to other homes and projects approved in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed materials, design, colors and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, that as above in item b, the proposed design and materials contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed home, driveway, sidewalk and deck protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-172 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-172:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

230 South Mulberry Street – Kathy Tatham - Application #2014-173

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of seven (7) replacement windows. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Kathy Tatham.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Kathy Tatham, 230 South Mulberry Street, stated she would like approval to replace seven windows in her house.  The four downstairs windows are original and the three upstairs windows are old replacement windows.  She has lived in the home for 33 years and it was her grandparents’ home before that.   Zoning and Planning Assistant Walker stated that the replacement windows would preserve the structure, conserve energy and are consistent with the style of the house.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-173:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed replacement windows are similar in style to other projects approved in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, that as above in item b, the proposed design and materials contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE; the proposed replacement windows protect the home and therefore achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-173 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-173:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-169, Craig & Maureen Severson; 941 Newark-Granville Road; Landscape Modifications: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-169. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-169.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-172, Bruce & Lisa Westall; 315 South Pearl Street; New Single Family Home, Driveway, Sidewalk & 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-172. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-172.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-173, Kathy Tatham; 230 South Mulberry Street; Window Replacements:  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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-173. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-173.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Potaracke (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  Mr. Wilken made a motion to excuse Mr. Eklof and Mr. Burriss.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 3-0.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from November 10, 2014:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 10th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Potaracke seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

December 8, 2014

January 12, 2015 (Tentative)

January 26, 2015 (Tentative)

 

Mr. Hawk declared the November 24, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 10, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Eklof (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Chair), Mr. Burriss, Mr. Eklof, Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Mitchell, and Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio). 

 

Vote to elect Vice-Chair: 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to elect Mr. Eklof as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director.

 

Also Present:  Kevin Reiner, Anastasia Kakias, Marvin Rutter, Craig Severson, Maureen Severson, Michael Carey, Brenda Carey, Victor Terebuh, Patti Urbatis and Mike Urbatis.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Old Business:

130 South Mulberry Street - Kevin Reiner Design on behalf of Dan & Patricia Finkelman - Application #2014-124

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Removal of existing stone steps at the northeast corner of the home and replacement with sandstone veneer concrete steps and sandstone flagging;

2)         Installation of a one hundred forty-three (143) square foot sandstone patio; and

3)         Installation of a pea gravel patio area with sandstone border. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Eklof swore in Alison Terry and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Kevin Reiner, 130 S. Mulberry Street, stated the application was to remove unsafe steps and lay a 4 inch pad of concrete topped with a sandstone veneer finish.  He also stated that a 14’ in diameter round sandstone patio would be installed on a concrete pad topped with 2.25” sandstone with mortared joints. The sandstone finish would be compatible with the historical sandstone elsewhere on the property. Existing gravel in the patio area would be removed and replaced with pea gravel and a sandstone border.

The board asked Planner Terry if the proposed changes met criteria and she stated that they did.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-125:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other 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 materials are appropriate in color and appearance and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality of an historic home with historically accurate improvements and contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that although the proposed replacement materials are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improve the home with historically accurate materials and improvements which protect the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2014-124 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-124:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (absent).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Hawk arrived at the meeting at 7:12 p.m.

 

New Business:

119 East Elm Street – Anastasia Kakias; Aegean Ambitions - Application #2014-158

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a window sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Anastasia Kakias.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Anastasia Kakias, 185 West Church Street, stated she was looking at gaining approval for two (2) signs at her business location, a window sign and a sidewalk sign.

 

Planner Terry indicated both signs met the zoning code requirements.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-158:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does protect and enhance the business and structure.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-158 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-158:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

119 East Elm Street – Anastasia Kakias; Aegean Ambitions - Application #2014-159

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Anastasia Kakias.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-158 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-159:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does protect and enhance the business and structure.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-159 as submitted with the following conditions:  1) That the location of the sign shall be per Exhibit “A”; and 2) That the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-159:  Potaracke (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.


332 North Granger Street – Michael & Brenda Carey - Application #2014-160

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following modifications:

1)         Removal of a metal staircase to the second floor and associated hand railings surrounding a rooftop deck;

2)         Removal of an over-roof wood deck above the one-story addition at the rear of the structure;

3)         Removal of a door on the eastern elevations second floor;

4)         Removal of a window located near the southeastern corner of the second floor;

5)         Removal of an exterior light on the second floor adjacent to the door listed under item #3; and

6)         Replacement siding as needed to match existing vinyl siding.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Michael Carey.

 

Discussion:  

Mr. Michael Carey, 332 North Granger Street, stated he desires to enhance the property value with the improvements. 

 

Mr. Potracke asked why the window is being closed off.  Mr. Carey replied that the window was not originally part of the structure as seen in photographs dating back to 1925. The window would also interfere with his interior remodeling plans. 

 

Mr. Wilken stated that the siding should therefore run between the two remaining windows as a continuous siding rather that a piecemeal look, to which Mr. Carey agreed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-160:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is compatible with other new, renovated and old structures.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by restoring the structure to its previous appearance it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a residence it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-160 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-160:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

1820 Newark-Granville Road – Spring Hills Baptist Church - Application #2014-161

The property is zoned Planned Unit Development District (PUD).  The request is for approval of a minor revision to a PUD to allow for the following improvements, in association with the softball field:

1)         Four (4’) foot high chain link fencing, with a vinyl guard on top, to be located around the perimeter of the outfield and on both of the foul lines;

2)         Six (6’) foot high chain link fencing to be located on the north side of the softball field, adjacent to the foul line fencing. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Marvin Rutter.

 

Discussion:  

Mr. Marvin Rutter, 1820 Newark-Granville Road, stated how the proposed fencing would be constructed and Planner Terry clarified the zoning requirements.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-161:

 

(a)                A more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas and more convenience in the location of accessory commercial uses and services.   Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does lead to a more useful pattern of open space and recreation areas.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

(b)               A development pattern which preserves and utilizes natural topography and geologic features, scenic vistas, trees and other vegetation, and prevents the disruption of normal drainage patterns.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it does preserve and utilize the natural features.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

(c)                A more efficient use of the land than is generally achieved through conventional development resulting in substantial savings through shorter utility lines and streets.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed softball field fencing will not require or influence utility lines in the area of installation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

(d)       Commercial areas that: reflect the pedestrian scale and varied traditional architectural styles of the commercial downtown Granville: increase tax revenues to both the local schools and the Village, while minimizing costs to the Village for infrastructure acquisition and maintenance; and preserving or enhance, rather than harm, neighborhood, Village and Granville Township quality of life and property values.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed softball field fencing will be installed adjacent to and in conjunction with the existing recreational fields on the lower level of the parcel and is sited well within the Spring Hills Baptist Church property.  All other members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

(e)                A development pattern in harmony with land use density, transportation facilities, and community facilities objectives of the comprehensive plan.   Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, it is in keeping with this requirement.  All other members concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-161 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-161:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

120 East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-162

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a seventeen point five (17.5) square foot awning sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

Ms. Patti Urbatis, 120 East Broadway, stated the name of the business is changing and there would be new colors of cream and cabernet replacing the old colors.  The name change and color would apply to all four of the proposals.  Mr. Potracke asked if there would be any lighting added and Ms. Urbatis said “No”. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-162:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-162 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-162:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

120 East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-163

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a one (1) square foot window/door sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-162 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-163:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-163 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-163:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

120 ½ East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-164

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a two point six (2.06) square foot window/door sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-162 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-164:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-164 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-164:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

 

120 East Broadway – Patti Urbatis - Application #2014-167

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a fourteen point thirty-two (14.32) square foot sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Patti Urbatis.

 

Discussion:

See discussion under Application #2014-162 above.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-167:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it’s consistent with other signage in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is historically appropriate in its presentation.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a business it does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is consistent with historical signage and does achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-167 as submitted with the following conditions:  1) That the location of the sign shall be per Exhibit “A”; and 2) That the sidewalk sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours..  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-167:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Eklof recused himself from the next agenda item, as he is a neighboring property owner, and went to sit in the audience.

 

931 Newark-Granville Road – Victor Terebuh - Application #2014-151

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for review and approval of a three-rail horse fence, and stone pillars with a gate.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry, Victor Terebuh and Craig Severson.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Victor Terebuh, 308 Bryn Du Drive, stated his intent is to enhance the property and he was considering installing an automatic gate next spring.  Mr. Hawk asked if the automatic gate is addressed in the code and Planner Terry indicated there is nothing in the code which specifically regulates gates.

 

Discussion followed about lights on the stone columns, the brightness of the lights, localization of light, warmth and times the lights would be on.  Mr. Terebuh stated he would comply with whatever the Commission wants with the lighting. Mr. Hawk asked what would happen if there was a power failure with the gate and there was some discussion about how the fire department would be able to access the property. Mr. Terebuh indicated he would investigate those questions.

 

Mr. Craig Severson, 941 Newark-Granville Road, asked whether a real survey had been done of the property to ensure there would not be encroachment on his property.  He said he is not against the project but wanted to be on record as questioning the property line.  Planner Terry stated that the property owner had submitted drawings which were considered acceptable and that the planning office does not survey the property lines when inspecting post holes.  She also indicated if there was a potential encroachment issue it would be considered a civil issue, not a zoning issue. When asked if Mr. Terebuh had discovered any of the survey pins on the property he stated he had not.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-151:

 

1)         Fences, Walls or Barriers.  No fence, wall or other artificial barrier shall be erected and/or constructed in this district without approval of the Planning Commission.  Approval shall be based upon review of an application as set forth in Section 1137.05 of the Codified Ordinances of Granville, Ohio.  Planning Commission review shall include type, location, height, compatibility with the area and such other features or characteristics as may be appropriate.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it is compatible with the area.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2014-151 as submitted with the understanding:  1) That the project be contained within the boundaries of the property; 2)          That the light shall be contained within the property boundary; 3) That the light shall be a warm colors: and 4)  That the light shall be on a timer to be turned off between midnight and 2 a.m. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-151:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Eklof (Recused), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2014-124, Kevin Reiner, on behalf of Dan & Patricia Finkelman; 130 South Mulberry Street; Landscape Modifications: 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 Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-125. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-124.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Abstain).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-158, Anastasia Kakias Aegean Ambitions; 119 East Elm Street; Window Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-158. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-158.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-159, Anastasia Kakias Aegean Ambitions; 119 East Elm Street; Sidewalk Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-159. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-159.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-160, Michael & Brenda Carey; 332 North Granger Street; Remodeling: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1162, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-160. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-160.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #2014-161, Marvin Rutter, Spring Hills Baptist Church; 1820 Newark-Granville Road; Softball Field Improvements: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1171, Planned Unit Development District (PUD) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-161. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-161.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-162, Patti Urbatis; 120 East Broadway; Awning Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-162. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-162.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-163, Patti Urbatis; 120 East Broadway; Window/Door Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-163. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-163.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-164, Patti Urbatis; 120 ½ East Broadway; Window/Door Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-164. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-164.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-167, Patti Urbatis; 120 East Broadway; Sidewalk Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-167. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-167.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-151, Victor Terebuh; 931 Newark-Granville Road; Fencing, Pillars, Gates: 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-A (SRD-A) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-151. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-151.  Seconded by Mr. Potracke. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Abstain), Potaracke (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  None.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 27, 2014:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 27th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

November 24, 2014

December 8, 2014

 

Mr. Hawk declared the November 10, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m.

 

Planning Commission Minutes October 27, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 27, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Swearing in of Planning Commission Member:  Craig Potaracke

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair), Mr. Burriss, Mr. Eklof, Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Mitchell, and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting, ex-officio).

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Alison Terry, Planning Director, Debi Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present:  Ben Rader, Nadine Rader, Paul Jakob, Jean Hoyt, Kathryn Raker, Richard Pinkerton, Sharon Sinsabaugh, Carrie Mumma, Zach Matek, James Jung, Sarah O’Donnell, Madion Vanscoder, and Daniel Fiorentini.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

130 South Mulberry Street - Kevin Reiner Design on behalf of Dan & Patricia Finkelman - Application #2014-125

 

Planner Terry indicated the applicant has requested this application be tabled.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2104-125.  Mr. Wilken seconded.  Roll Call Vote to table Application #2014-125:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Other Business:

Note: This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals will be permitted to speak regarding the review of this proposed Zoning Code revision.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revision, to amend Section 1159.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to uses within the Village Residential District (VRD) and Village Business District (VBD).

 

Planner Terry stated that there were two modifications within the Village District Code, one to the Village Residential District (VRD) and one to the Village Business District (VBD) section. In the Village Residential District code section the proposal is to move the non-profit uses from a permitted use to a conditional use (designated on the schematic as colored in yellow and bordered in green).  This affects the properties currently designated as educational, civic, religious and social. 

 

Planner Terry indicated the Village Business District (VBD) code section proposal would be to allow for conditional use approval for two-family residential. She went on to explain that several years ago the Planning Commission had discussed a similar change within the Village Business District to allow for two-family and multi-family uses.  At that time, the Planning Commission wanted to place restrictions on where residential uses would be allowed within what they termed the “Core Business District.”  The Planning Commission’s concern centered around businesses on the main thoroughfare switching over to a residential use on the first floor which would break up the synergy of the commercial area.  The green bordered area on the schematic provided a visual for where two-family occupancy would be allowed only on the second floor.  Outside of the “Core Business District” area there could be first floor and upper floor residency if approved by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals, but only on a case by case basis. 

 

Parking was discussed among Commission members following questions by Ms. O’Keefe and Mr. Wilken.  Planner Terry explained parking is still required and would be a stipulation of conditional use approval.  Planner Terry explained that in some cases a conditional use code may reduce the parking problem.  New properties are required to have four spaces for a two-family dwelling.  Some structures are grandfathered in terms of parking spaces, so a residential use might actually be a reduction in the parking required for this use. 

 

Mr. Mitchell expressed support for the two-family residential conditional use, citing examples of cities and towns that have a first floor business use and a second floor dwelling use that tends to support the businesses below. 

 

Chair Mitchell opened the floor for discussion. 

 

Paul Jakob, 115 West College Street commented that the existing dwellings in Granville were traditionally for larger families and was concerned that houses may be split.  He stated that he would like to have the board consider the intent of the original code when written, considering culture, history, etc. and that it should be revised on its merits, not as a blanket approval. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, expressed concern that there was a property in town wanting to turn a building into some kind of sports museum.  His concern was to preserve the historical aspect of the district.  If the code was modified to change the non-profit section from a permitted use to a conditional use, it might make it harder for such ventures. Additionally, unwanted changes would increase traffic pressure on the streets in the affected districts.  Mr. Rader pointed out that non-profit businesses are not always “not for profit.” Law Director King commented that non-profit does not indicate non-commercial, and that the code change would have the intent of making a change to this use more difficult and would seek a balance so that criteria would be more stringently satisfied.  Mr. Hawk asked if this would create a problem for the Village and Law Director King said there would be no problem. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked when a residence would become a rooming house if a two-family building was subdivided into a four-family dwelling. Planner Terry and Law Director King stated that this could not occur due to the language in the code.  Multi-family (three units or more) would not be allowed within the Village District.  Some discussion ensued as to the character of the homes in the district, citing incidences where double occupancy homes have actually reverted to single family dwellings (i.e.: the clockmaker’s house). Planner Terry explained that the Planning Commission would still have to approve any changes to the dwellings, under the Architectural Review Overlay District criteria, on a case by case basis.

 

The draft language from the 2010 proposed code modification would eliminate the phrase “and multi-family residential” and reference “two-family residential” only.  Mr. Mitchell asked Law Director King if he agreed with the proposed 2010 language and Mr. King replied, “yes.”

 

Jean Hoyt, 117 Locust Place, read a statement considering the Granville district value and expressed support for the Village Residential District code change. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend to the Village Council approval of the proposed zoning code revision to Section 1159.02 with the language contained in the draft dated 9/15/2010 as it relates to two-family residential uses only.  Mr. Hawk seconded.  Roll Call Vote to recommend to the Village Council approval of the proposed zoning code revision to Section 1159.02:  Wilken (No), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-1.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  None.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 14, 2014:  Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 14th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

November 10, 2014

November 24, 2014

December 8, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the October 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 14, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair), Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio), Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD) Mr. Wilken (arrived at 8:01 p.m.), Mr. Eklof, Mr. Burriss (arrived at 7:07 p.m.) and Mr. Mitchell (Chair). 

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Staff Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planner and Michael King, Law Director.

 

Also Present:  David Bussan, Joe Galano, Jennifer Valenzuela, Julio Valenzuela.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Old Business:

 

221 South Mulberry Street–Travis & Sarah Landry—Application #2014-113

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of slate shingles and replacement with ‘Timberline’ asphaltic dimensional shingles in the Williamsburg Slate color on the front and back of the second story roof.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the ratification of Application #2014-113.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve the ratification of Application #2014-113:  Wilken (Absent) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

420 East Broadway – David Bussan —Application #2014-114

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a concrete sidewalk and replacement with a Unilock concrete paver walkway with granite inset; and installation of two (2) Unilock ‘Brussels Block’ retaining walls.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the ratification of Application #2014-114.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. 

 

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve the ratification of Application #2014-114:  Wilken (Absent) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

 

317 West Broadway – Joe Galano —Application #2014-120

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the rear accessory structure which includes the expansion of the first floor footprint and a second story addition. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Joe Galano.

 

Discussion: 

Joe Galano, 317 West Broadway stated he was planning on reducing the size of the art studio and taking the addition straight back.  Mr. Hawk asked if the plan was approved and if it conformed with zoning requirements.  Mr. Galano said that it did and the neighbors also approved of it.  Variances were granted at the last BZBA meeting. Planner Terry read off the materials list and described the appearance of the house from the street as a reduced T-shape roofline.  Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Burriss and Mr. Hawk questioned and discussed the front elevation’s carriage style doors; whether the windows will be double hung; will the green roof match the rest of the roof and the vertical board and batten siding giving a barn siding appearance. Construction is planned to begin in January or February of 2015.  There were no comments or questions from the audience.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-120:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition is similar in style to other structures in the District and the front structure on the lot.  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 addition is historically complementary to the other houses in the District and does in fact achieve this.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition contributes to the vitality of an existing accessory structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed addition does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-120 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-120:  Wilken (Absent), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

203 East College Street, Suite A – Jennifer Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC —Application #2014-125

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for review and approval of the parking requirements for a commercial certificate of occupancy for a fitness use.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Jennifer Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Jennifer Valenzuela, 203 East College Street, Suite A, stated that it was her understanding that two parking spaces were grandfathered in. Mrs. Valenzuela discussed the fact that there would be a bicycle rack for 12 bicycles and classes would go on throughout the day, each class lasting from 45 minutes to 1 hour each.  Mr. Valenzuela felt that many participants in classes would be Denison students who would walk from campus.

 

Joe and Demaris Rosato expressed concern over the lack of parking in their residential neighborhood. They stated that they had been given no notice of the zoning board meeting and only attended because they saw the sign posted in front of the business building.  They felt other neighbors would have attended the meeting had they been notified.   

 

The Commission had a discussion regarding the Rosato’s right to speak on this application, as they did not receive a letter of notice regarding the hearing.  Mr. Burriss made a motion that the Rosato’s be allowed to speak as interested parties.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Wilken (Absent), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (No) and Mitchell (Yes).Motion passed 3-1.

 

The Rosato’s stated that when they purchased their home two and one half years ago and restored it there was no business in the building at 203 E. College.  Had they known multiple businesses would be occupying the building they would not have purchased their property.  They expressed concern also that E. College allows cars to be parked for 72 hours on the street, and even though they have a driveway, it is cumbersome to pull each car in and out to let one another out and visitors would not be able to find parking close to their home. 

 

The commission members asked Planner Terry as to the code requirements for parking had this been a new building. Planner Terry stated the two available spaces were grandfathered in before code was established.  Commission members discussed concern for property improvement and tenants of the business.  Planner Terry added that if the bottom floor business tenants were anything other than restaurants Mr. Valenzuela may be required to apply for a parking spaces variance.  Discussion followed concerning the lack of downtown parking.  Mr. Mitchell asked the Commissioners if they felt three spaces were required or if they were inclined to reduce the three space requirement.  Mr. Hawk asked if the Commission was able to require a variance. 

 

Mr. Valenzuela commented that he owned property on Linden place that could provide extra parking spaces if needed.  Mr. Potaracke questioned if tenants of the apartments on Linden place would have precedence over other people for parking.  Mr. Mitchell expressed concern that if compromise was allowed in this case it would set a precedent for other businesses to lower the requirement. Planner Terry commented that two spaces were already technically grandfathered, the applicants would be required to obtain a variance for one more.  Mr. Eklof asked about putting up signage on the Linden place spaces but expressed concern that that as a solution would still not keep people from parking on the street. Discussion followed about the pros and cons of living in the Village.  There was a brief discussion about creating permit parking in this area such as in the West College Street area.  Mr. Rosato asked about the possibility of permits and Planner Terry stated Council determines all permit parking areas within the Village.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-125 as submitted, with the condition that there shall be at least 3 parking spaces required for this use.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-125:  Wilken (Absent), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

130-142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-127 The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior building lighting.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Julio Valenzuela, 815 North High Street, Columbus, stated that he has been granted State and Federal Tax Credits to develop the building at 130-142 North Prospect.  He had originally thought he might put a sign on the building designating it as "The Warner Building" in honor of the original livery business that existed there historically, but has since abandoned the idea.  He stated that he needs approval from the Village, as well as State and Federal approvals for the exterior building lighting.  Discussion ensued about the type of fluorescent lighting beneath the black awnings which would illuminate the awnings without creating an unattractive or harsh lighting.  Other types of lighting include a recessed type of lighting no brighter than 60 W LED.  Hours of lighting would be basically from dusk to dawn.  Gooseneck lighting would be on a timer. 

 

Mr. Burriss commented on the warmth of the lighting color and brightness, referencing the harshness of light at the old Harold's Dairy Bar.  Mr. Valenzuela stated the State and Federal permits require unobtrusive lighting.  Lighting inside the businesses would need to be somehow regulated.  Per the schematic, Light Fixture A would be decorative, a warm tone not to exceed 75W and would be on a timer.  Light Fixture B would be on a primary dusk to dawn with a dimmer.  Light Fixture C would be a safety sconce style light. Light Fixture D would be operated by the tenant. Light Fixture F would be the fluorescent light facing upward under the black canvas awning.

 

Mr. Burris expressed a desire for continuity in the lighting.  Mr. Wilken concurred.  Mr. Mitchell would like the building light fixtures to be consistent and not their operation under the control of the tenants. Mr. Valenzuela stated he could put that into the lease agreement.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the fluorescent lighting would function with one bulb and referenced the overly bright lighting that first graced the Bryn Du Polo Field.  Mr. Mitchel asked to add to the approval that all lighting be controlled by the building owner, and that the applicant install different fluorescent lighting at half the lumens per light as initially discussed.  Mr. Hawk and other Commission members concurred that the intensity, temperature and color must match the D style light fixtures.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-127:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting is similar in style to other lighting within the commercial 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 building lighting restores and upgrades the character of the building.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr.Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting contributes to the vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed building lighting is historically appropriate and does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-127 as submitted with owner control of the exterior lights, flexible control of the fluorescent brightness and continuity of the color, warmth, and temperature of the lighting.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-127:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

132 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-128  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

The Planning Commission decided to review all of the proposed signage as one package, to vote once on the standards and criteria by considering all signage at the same time, and to make individual motions for the approval of each separate sign application.

 

Planner Terry stated that the BZBA had granted variances to approve the signage at the October 9, 2014 Hearing. Mr. Potaracke inquired whether the signage would be consistent across the project.  Mr. Valenzuela stated yes; the style would be standing stainless letters at the edge of the girder awnings; and perpendicular blade signs with a 2 (two) foot projection.  Mr. Wilken asked about the inside signage. Mr. Valenzuela stated it would be subject to approval by the Commission on a case by case request.  Planner Terry indicated such signage would need to be less than eight square feet and less than fifteen percent (15%) of the window area. Signage would also be subject to building owner approval including the State and Federal Tax Credit project criteria.  Mr. Hawk commented it must be tastefully done.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-128:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-128 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-128:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

136 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-129  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-129:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-129 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-129:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

140 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-130  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-130:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-130 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-130:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

134 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-131 The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-131:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-131 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-131:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

138 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-132  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-132:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-132 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-132:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-133  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a ten (10) square foot canopy sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-133:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-133 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-133:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-134  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) foot projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-134:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-134 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-134.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-134:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

203 East College Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-135  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) foot projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-135:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-135 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-135:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

130-142 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations —Application #2014-140  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an eight (8) foot projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Julio Valenzuela.

 

Discussion: 

Reference the Planning Commission’s discussion for Application #2014-128 above.

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-140:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage is consistent and complimentary and is similar in style to other signage within 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 signage does contribute to the improvement and upgrading of a commercial structure and does in fact achieve this by being consistent.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage contributes to the continuing vitality of a commercial structure which contributes to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed signage does protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-140 as submitted, with the same criteria as applied under Application #2014-128.   Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-140:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

423 East College Street– John Noblick on behalf of Scott Kennedy —Application #2014-145  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of the attached one-story garage and replacement with a six hundred and eight (608) square foot two-story addition on the eastern side of the home. 

 

Discussion: 

The applicant asked that the application be tabled.

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2014-145.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to table Application #2014-145:  Wilken (Yes) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked to recuse himself from the meeting as he was the next applicant on the agenda.

 

303 South Main Street– Tom Mitchell—Application #2014-146  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of three-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with three-tab asphalt shingles in a slate-look, either Owens Corning Devonshire or Berkshire series in a dark gray color, on the second story roof structure and Qualiform Metal standing seam roofing on the one-story addition in a red color.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Tom Mitchell.

 

Discussion: 

Tom Mitchell, 303 South Main Street, stated he would like to revise the metal roof color to forest green and use the Berkshire shingle.  Existing gutters would be utilized and the roof would have raised ridges with a gray painted metal cap and valley.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-146:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed roofing materials are consistent with other new and renovated structures within this 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 roofing materials upgrade the historical character of the property and the surrounding area.  All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed roofing materials contribute to the vitality of a residence therefore contributing to the continuing 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.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the roofing materials protect an existing structure and enhance the example of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

All other Planning Commission members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-146 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-146:  Wilken (Yes) Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Recused).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Mitchell rejoined the Commission at the table.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

 

Application #2014-113, Travis & Sarah Landry; 221 South Mulberry Street; Roof Material Modification: 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-113. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-113.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Hawk (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Burriss (Yes), and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-114, David Bussan; 420 East Broadway; Sidewalk and Retaining Wall Improvements: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-114.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-114.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-120, Joe Galano; 317 West Broadway; Garage Addition:  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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-120. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-120.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-125, Jennifer Valenzuela; Fly Method Cycle, LLC; 203 East College Street, Suite A; Parking Requirements for a Fitness Use:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-125, as detailed in the motion of approval. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-125.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-126, Leigh Brennan; A Place to Call Om; 203 East College Street, Suite B; Parking Requirements for a Fitness Use:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-126, as detailed in the motion of approval. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-126.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-127, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 130-142 North Prospect Street; Exterior Building Lighting:  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 Business District (VBD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-127. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-127.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-128, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 132 North Prospect Street; Canopy Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-128. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-128.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-129, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 136 North Prospect Street; Canopy Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-129. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-129.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-130, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 140 North Prospect Street; Canopy Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-130. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-130.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-131, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 134 North Prospect Street; Canopy Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-131. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-131.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-132, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 138 North Prospect Street; Canopy Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-132. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-132.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-133, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 142 North Prospect Street; Canopy Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-133. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-133.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-134, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 142 North Prospect Street; Projecting Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-134. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-134.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-135, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 203 East College Street; Projecting Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-135. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-135.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-140, Julio Valenzuela; Urban Restorations; 130-142 North Prospect Street; Projecting Sign:  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 Business District (VBD), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  and Chapter 1189, Signage and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-140. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-140.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Application #2014-146, Tom Mitchell; 303 South Main Street; Roofing Materials Modification:  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 Residential District (VRD)  and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-146. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-146.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Recused).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  No members absent.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 8, 2014:  Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from September 8, 2014.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Abstain).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 22, 2014:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from September 22, 2014.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Eklof (Abstain), Burriss (Abstain), Wilken (Abstain), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 2-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

October 27, 2014

November 10, 2014

November 24, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the September 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 22, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair), Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting, ex-officio), Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD) and Mr. Mitchell (Chair).

 

Members Absent:  Mr. Bill Wilken, Mr. Eklof, and Mr. Burriss.

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant and Michael King, Law Director.

 

Also Present:  Travis Landry and David Jon Ulmer.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

221 South Mulberry Street–Travis & Sarah Landry—Application #2014-113

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of slate shingles and replacement with ‘Timberline’ asphaltic dimensional shingles in the Williamsburg Slate color on the front and back of the second story roof.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Travis Landry.

 

Discussion:  

Travis Landry, 221 South Mulberry Street, stated the projects intent is for the removal of an existing slate roof that may be original to the house from the 1920’s. Mr. Landry further offered that the slate would be replaced with dimensional shingles that would give the appearance of slate. The proposed shingles would be installed on the upper front and upper rear portions of the roof. Discussion took place as to the existing materials on the front and rear porch roofs; Mr. Landry explained the nature of the materials, roof slope and condition of those materials. There were no additional questions for the applicant.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-113:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the project is similar to other roofing projects approved in the District in which slate roofs have been replaced with dimensional shingles.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, any project that protects and upgrades a home with architecturally appropriate materials within the District, improves and upgrades the District overall. Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, by protecting the vitality of a home within the District with historically accurate improvements, you contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations livedMr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed project protects a home that has been on the site since the 1930’s, thus protecting the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-113 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-113:  Wilken (Absent) Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes). Voting was 2-0 in favor of approval. Application requires a ratification vote at the October 14, 2014 Hearing.

 

420 East Broadway – David Bussan —Application #2014-114

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a concrete sidewalk and replacement with a Unilock concrete paver walkway with granite inset; and installation of two (2) Unilock ‘Brussels Block’ retaining walls.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Jon Ulmer.

 

Discussion: 

Jon Ulmer, 2960 Silver Street, stated that he was representing Dave Bussan, property owner, who was unable to attend as he was traveling. Mr. Ulmer stated that Mr. Bussan wanted to make improvements to the landscape in front of the home which would include two low retaining walls and a new paver walkway from the sidewalk to the front steps of the home. Mr. Hawk inquired whether the driveway would be impacted by the project. Mr. Ulmer stated no, the driveway will not be affected.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked for Staff comments. Ms. Walker offered that the Village right-of-way along East Broadway is rather significant.  So, a portion of the proposed replacement walkway is located within the right-of-way. Mr. King added that Village Council is requiring improvements of this nature within the Village right-of-way, to obtain a General Use Permit. Mr. King further stated that he felt Councils request to obtain such a permit, albeit a delay for applicants, was a best practice for the Village. There were no further questions from the Commissioners.

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-114:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects and materials that have previously been approved in the District. Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. 

Mr. Hawk stated TRUE, the proposed materials are appropriate in color and appearance and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall. Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Hawk  stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality of an historic home within the  District, and inasmuch contribute to the vitality of the District overall. Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations livedMr. Burriss stated TRUE, that the proposed materials appearance are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improve the home with historically accurate materials and the improvements it protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Mitchell concurred with Mr. Hawk.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-114 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-114: Wilken (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Eklof (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes). Voting was 2-0 in favor of approval. Application requires a ratification vote at the October 14, 2014 Hearing.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Application #2014-113, Travis & Sarah Landry; 221 South Mulberry Street; Roof Material Modification: 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-113. 

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-113.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Hawk (Yes), Eklof (Absent), Wilken (Absent), Burriss (Absent), and Mitchell (Yes).  Voting was 2-0 in favor of approval. Application requires a ratification vote at the October 14, 2014 Hearing.

 

Application #2014-114, David Bussan; 420 East Broadway; Sidewalk and Retaining Wall Improvements: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-114.  Voting was 2-0 in favor of approval. Application requires a ratification vote at the October 14, 2014 Hearing.

 

Mr. Hawk  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-114.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. Eklof (Absent), Burriss (Absent), Wilken (Absent), Hawk (Yes) and Mitchell (Yes).  Voting was 2-0 in favor of approval. Application requires a ratification vote at October 14, 2014 Hearing.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  Mr. Hawk moved to approve the absence of Bill Wilken. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. All in favor vote; Motion carried 2-0.

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the absence of Doug Eklof.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. All in favor vote; Motion carried 2-0.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the absence of Jack Burriss. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. All in favor vote; Motion failed 0-2.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 8, 2014:  Members present were unable to approve Meeting Minutes from September 8, 2014.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

October 14, 2014 (Tuesday)

October 27, 2014

November 10, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the September 22, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 8, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair), Mr. Burriss, Mr. Eklof, Mr. Wilken, Councilmember Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio) and Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD).

 

Members Absent:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair).

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Greg and Angela Walter, and John Noblick.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

410 North Granger Street– Greg & Angela Walter —Application #2014-110

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of wood plank decking and replacement with composite decking on the rear porch. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Greg Walter.

 

Discussion:  

Greg Walter, 410 North Granger Street, stated the project is intended to replace deteriorating wood decking with composite decking in a dark slate grey. Mr. Hawk inquired if Staff had any comments on the application. Ms. Walker stated Staff was in full support of the project and the applicants’ intention to upgrade and preserve their outdoor living space. Planning Commissioners had no further questions for Mr. Walter.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-110:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other 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 materials are appropriate in color and appearance and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality of an historic home with historically accurate improvements and contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations livedMr. Burriss stated TRUE, that although the proposed replacement materials are modern, their appearance are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improving the home with historically accurate materials and improvements it protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-110 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-110:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

131 West Broadway – John Noblick on behalf of Russ & Melissa Bow —Application #2014-111 The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of dimensional asphaltic shingles and replacement with Owens Corning “Devonshire” slate-look asphaltic shingles on the second story and single story areas, including the garage. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and John Noblick.

 

Discussion: 

John Noblick, on behalf of Russ and Melissa Bow, stated his clienst have chosen to replace the existing shingles on the home located at 131 West Broadway with Owens Corning slate-look asphaltic shingles in ‘Devonshire’ brown. Mr. Burriss inquired about the nature of the ridge caps proposed for the project. Mr. Noblick stated yes, there will be ridge caps that match the shingle materials proposed. Mr. Hawk asked if the gutters and downspouts will remain. Mr. Noblick stated, yes, the existing gutters and downspouts will remain. Mr. Johnson inquired as to the close cut valley pattern? Mr. Noblick stated that the pattern would be woven.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-111:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other 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 new shingle style and color give the appearance of historically accurate materials and are appropriate to the primary structure, and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality and livability of an historic home with historically accurate improvements and contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations livedMr. Burriss stated TRUE, that the proposed materials appearance are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improving the home with historically accurate materials and improvements it protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-111 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-111:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

334 East Broadway –Tim Riffle on behalf of Denison University—Application #2014-112

The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of wood double hung windows with vinyl double hung windows on the lower level of the north, east, south and west facades. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker.

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Walker stated the applicants’ intention, as she understood it, is to replace the first floor windows of the structure with the same model vinyl double-hung windows as installed on the upper floor approximately two years ago. Mr. Wilken stated that he was in favor of the project with the condition the replacement windows be identical to the windows installed on the upper floor project. There were no further questions from the Commissioners.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-112:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other 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 improvement is appropriate to the primary structure and is a continuation of the same renovations begun on the upper level of the structure thereby contributing to the upgrading of the structure and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality of a major public historic structure with historically accurate improvements and contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations livedMr. Burriss stated TRUE, that the proposed materials appearance are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improving the structure with historically accurate materials and improvements it protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-112 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-112:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Application #2014-110, Greg & Angela Walter; 410 North Granger Street; Deck Material Modification: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-110. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-110.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-111, John Noblick on behalf of Russ & Melissa Bow; 131 West Broadway; Roof Material Modification: 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-111. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-111.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-112, Tim Riffle on behalf of Denison University; 334 East Broadway; Windows Material Modification: 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 Business District (VBD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-112. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-112.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  Mr. Eklof moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Burriss seconded. All in favor vote; Motion carried 4-0.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from August 25, 2014:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 25th Planning Commission Meeting, as amended by Mr. Eklof.  Mr. Eklof seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

September 22, 2014

October 14, 2014 (Tuesday)

October 27, 2014

 

It was noted that Mr. Wilken will be unable to attend the September 22, 2014 meeting.

 

Mr. Hawk declared the September 8, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes August 25, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 25, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair); Mr. Eklof; Mr. Wilken, Councilmember Ms. O’Keefe (non-voting, ex-officio).

 

Members Absent:  Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD), Jack Burriss and Tom Mitchell (Chair).

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Kelly (Mike) Bethel, II.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

318 E. College St. – Kelly M. Bethel, II —Application #2014-107

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an asphalt driveway and replacement with concrete and the removal of wooden garage doors and replacement with Amarr Classica Collection steel carriage house style doors. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and Mike Bethel.

 

Discussion:  

Mike Bethel, 318 East College Street, stated the aging asphalt drive has deteriorated to a point where it is crumbling. Water from the driveway on the north end runs directly toward the carriage house doors and foundation causing water to pool and drain near the carriage house doors. As a result of the drainage situation the carriage house doors require replacement as well. Mr. Bethel described the proposed new doors and a visual was provided via the PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Hawk then asked Ms. Walker if the project had commenced. Ms. Walker responded that it was her understanding that the project had been started. Mr. Bethel offered that the project had been started and that he was unaware of the need to receive a permit for the project in that he was not expanding the paved area overall. There were no further questions.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-107:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the new carriage house doors chosen and the installation of a concrete approach to the carriage house are appropriate to the primary structure and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, that  as above in item b, the materials selected contribute to the vitality of an historic home with historically accurate improvements, in as much, contribute to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations livedMr. Wilken stated TRUE, that the proposed materials appearance are consistent with the architecture of the area and thereby improving the home with historically accurate materials and improvements it protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Wilken. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-107 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-107:  Wilken (Yes), Eklof (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Application #2014-107, Kelly M. Bethel, II; 318 East College Street; Site Modifications and Remodeling: 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (ARPD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-107. 

 

Mr. Eklof  moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-107.  Seconded  by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote:  Eklof (Yes), Wilken (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve the absences of Mr. Mitchel and Mr. Burriss.  Second by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 3-0.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from August 11, 2014:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve the minutes from the August 11th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Eklof seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

September 8, 2014

September 22, 2014

October 14, 2014 (Tuesday)

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.

 

Mr. Hawk declared the August 25th, 2014 Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m., seeing no further business before the Commission.

Planning Commission Minutes August 11, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 11, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Councilmember Jeremy Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio), Jack Burriss, Doug Eklof, Bill Wilken and Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD).

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Joseph Rosato and Demaris Rosato, Frank Rosato, Deborah Barber, Jay Callendar.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

217 E. College St. – Joseph & Demaris Rosato —Application #2014-100

The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements:

Front of the Home:

a)         New railing along both sides of the front porch steps to match the railings on the porch;

b)         New six (6’) foot wide limestone steps;

c)         New six (6’) foot wide Unilock Hollandstone paver sidewalk from the concrete steps to the public sidewalk;

Back of the Home:

a)         New concrete sidewalk and seventy-two (72) square foot concrete patio area;

b)         Two (2) new air conditioning units;

c)         New four foot one inch (4’1”) high wood, dog eared, fence section to screen refuse container area.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Joseph Rosato.

 

Discussion:  

Joseph Rosato, 217 East College Street, stated there were two new front limestone steps with a paver walk in the front.  Then in the back there’s essentially a sidewalk connecting the driveway to the back door.  There are also two new air conditioning units as well.

 

Mr. Burriss stated that the improvements looked good overall, but that the Planning Commission usually requires air conditioner screening.  Would the applicant be willing to add a piece of fence, similar to the screening of the trash receptacles with fencing. Mr. Rosato indicated that he would have concerns with the air circulation to the units with any type of screening.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there would be room to screen the units on the west side.  Mr. Rosato indicated that there are actually trees along that side of the property that provide a natural screen for the units. Mr. Mitchell indicated that it looks like there is a lawn area there instead of trees.  Mr. Burriss stated that if everyone else is okay with it, then he’s okay; he’s concerned that the Commission has required screening for other air conditioning units and he wants there to be consistency.  Mr. Burriss was thinking the applicant could add another piece of fencing to screen the units. Mr. Burriss stated again that he was fine with the units if the other Commissioners think it’s adequately screened.

 

Ms. Walker stated that a portion of these improvements, in the front of the property, will require approval from the Village Council for a General Permit, to allow for the encroachment into the right-of-way.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-100:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the project is similar to other projects approved in the District.  All other 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 materials chosen and their application are appropriate to the primary structure and contribute to the upgrading of the home and the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that by contributing to the vitality of an historic home with historically accurate improvements, it contributes to the vitality of the District overall.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, that by improving the home with historically accurate materials and improvements it protects the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-100 as submitted with the understanding that the improvements on the front of the home receive a General Permit approval from the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-100:  Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes), Wilken (Yes) and Eklof (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

420 North Granger Street – Deborah Barber – Application #2014-104

The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) since the addition is an expansion of more than twenty (20%) percent of the gross livable area.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a rear one-story addition and carport. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Deborah Barber.

 

Discussion:

Deborah Barber, 420 North Granger Street, stated that she felt the application sufficiently covered her request.

 

Chair Mitchell asked for Ms. Walker to explain the massing of the structure. Ms. Walker discussed the interior layout of the home and indicated the Staff was concerned with the north elevation, as there were no windows contained within this long elevation.  Otherwise, Staff is in favor of the application.

 

Chair Mitchell stated that he can see why there were no windows in the hallway, but why weren’t there any put within the master bedroom area.  Ms. Barber indicated her reasoning for not including windows.

 

Mr. Burriss discussed the gables and the possible addition of a trellis on the elevation to break up some of the horizontal finish which was proposed.  He also discussed the addition of awning windows to allow light within the rooms, and a trim detail helps repeat what’s going on in the front of the home.

 

Ms. Walker indicated that the carport will need to have a variance granted by the BZBA in order to be constructed as it does not meet the setback requirement.

 

Mr. Burriss questioned having the rear door open out instead of opening in.  This will not allow the applicant to install a screen door or storm door.  He stated the applicant would be able to modify it to have it open in instead, and would not be required to have it reapproved by the Commission.  He said that it would essentially have the same look he just wanted the applicant to consider this as she designs her home so that it’s functional.  He indicated most residential doorways don’t open out.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-104:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the District. The Planning Commission 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 materials and details are consistent with the existing detailing on the original portion of the house.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by continuing to contribute to the vitality of a home within the District it contributes to the vitality of the District overall.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by using materials that are appropriate to the original structure the addition protects and enhances the existing house and surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2014-104 as submitted with the stipulation that the changes and inclusions on Exhibit “A” and “B” be executed and that the applicant receive approval from the BZBA for the variance request.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-104:  Hawk (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Application #2014-100, Joseph & Demaris Rosato; 217 East College Street; Site Modifications and Remodeling: 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 Residential District (VRD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (ARPD) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-100. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-100.  Seconded  by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Mitchell (Yes), Eklof (Yes) and Wilken (Yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-104, Deborah Barber; 420 North Granger Street; Rear Addition: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-104 as submitted. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-104 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):  No members absent.

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from July 14 and July 28, 2014:

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 14th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. seconded.  Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Mitchell (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 28th Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. seconded.  Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

August 25, 2014

September 8, 2014

September 22, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried.

Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 28, 2014

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Councilmember Jeremy Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio), Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting, ex-officio) and Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD).

 

Members Absent: Doug Eklof, Bill Wilken.

 

Staff Present:  Deb Walker, Planning & Zoning Assistant.

 

Also Present: Bruce & Lisa Westall, Lee Beall, Ann Truesdell, Thomas Bradley, Ben & Nadine Rader, Joe Longabaker.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

241 East Maple St. – Bruce & Lisa Westall—Application #2014-95

The property is located at 241 East Maple Street, is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for a lot split to divide the existing fifteen thousand eight hundred thirty-three point eighty-eight (15,833.88) square foot lot into two parcels totaling eight thousand six hundred thirty-five point fifty-one (8,635.51) square feet for Tract 1 and seven thousand one hundred ninety-eight point thirty-seven (7,198.37) square feet for Tract 2. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Bruce Westall

 

Discussion:  

Planning & Zoning Assistant Walker indicated the request meets all standards and criteria for the proposed lot split. There were no additional comments or discussion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-95:

 

(1)        All lots of the resulting subdivision are contiguous to a dedicated public street right-of-way for such distance as is required by the applicable zoning district.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application does meet this requirement.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

(2)        No opening, widening or extension of any road, street or other public way is involved.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application does not involve any opening, widening or extension of any road, street or other public way.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

(3)        No more than five (5) lots, each of which meet established criteria for development, result after the original tract is completely subdivided.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, only two (2) lots total are involved to meet this criteria.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

(4)        The request for subdivision is not contrary to platting, subdividing or zoning regulations of the Municipality.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the request is not contrary to platting, subdividing or zoning regulations of the District.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-95 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-95:  Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

121 East Broadway – Granville Dental – Application #2014-89

The property is located at 121 East Broadway and is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (VROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a rooftop gas heating/electric cooling unit and removal of existing ground air conditioning unit to the east of the rear door.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Joe Longabaker.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Hawk asked if there are any other air conditioning units on that area of the roof.  Mr. Longabaker said there are not.  Mr. Hawk then asked if the proposed unit could be seen from the rear parking lot.  Mr. Longabaker replied yes, part of the unit would be visible and noted the unit is larger than the present furnace.  Mr. Hawk also asked for confirmation that the proposed unit would replace the current unit located on the ground.  Mr. Longabaker confirmed that the present ground unit would no longer be needed and would be removed.   

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2014-89:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 to remove a ground unit and replace it with a rooftop unit is consistent with other projects which have been approved in the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of a business is improved therefore it contributes to the continuing vitality of the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by removing the unit from the ground and installing it on the roof it does achieve this.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-89 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-89:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

212 East Elm Street – Lee Beall – Application #2014-78, Amended

The property is located at 212 East Elm Street and is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (VROD).  The amended request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a 36” high picket fence with gates in the front and side yards within the right-of-way.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker and Lee Beall.

 

Discussion:

Planning & Zoning Assistant Walker noted that the proposed fence is an improved incarnation of the current fence.  Mr. Hawk asked Mr. Beall why the fence needs replacing.  Mr. Beall replied that fence is rotted and the posts are loose in the ground.    It was also noted that because the fence is located in the Village Right-of-Way, the request will have to go to Village Council the second meeting of August for further review.   Mr. Beall asked why so many approvals are needed for an exact replacement.  Ms. Walker replied that if just the rails were being replaced, it would be considered a matter of simple maintenance.  But because the posts need replacing, the additional approvals are needed. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Amended Application #2014-78:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 fences which have been approved in the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual property is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the installation of a more durable fence does achieve this.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-78 as amended and submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Amended Application #2014-78:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

110 North Mulberry Street – Luikart Heating & Cooling for Kappa Kappa Gamma Sorority – Application #2014-88, Amended;

The property is located at 110 North Mulberry Street, is zoned Village Residential District (VRD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The amended request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of three (3) new air conditioning units (systems); one on the north side and two in the front yard, adjacent to the structure, facing West Broadway.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Mitchell swore in Deb Walker, Tom Bradley, Ann Truesdell and Ben Rader.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Bradley noted that neighbors of the Kappa Kappa Gamma house asked for consideration of Option #2, to place the proposed units on the South side of the house facing West Broadway.  Mr. Hawk asked if relocating the units would affect their functioning.  Mr. Bradley said it would not. 

 

Ben Rader, 128 West Broadway, a neighbor owning property adjoining the Kappa Kappa Gamma house, expressed concern for the noise created by three units, and asked if it would be possible to utilize one big unit instead of three.  Mr. Hawk replied that the Commission is concerned only with the application as proposed and presented.  Mr. Hawk also inquired about the landscaping required to screen the units from view. 

 

Ann Truesdell, 110 North Mulberry Street, representing Kappa Kappa Gamma, indicated that sketches had been prepared to show the design of the landscaping. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Amended Application #2014-88:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 air conditioner requests which have been approved in the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual property is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by upgrading an existing structure in the District it does achieve this.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-88 as amended and submitted with the understanding that the landscaping materials be reviewed and approved by Planning Commissioner Burriss..  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-88 as amended and submitted:  Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Application #2014-95, Bruce and Lisa Westall, 241 East Maple Street; Lot Split Request:  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1113, Procedure for Plat Approval and Chapter 1159, Village Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-95. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-95.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Mitchell (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-89, Joe Longenbaker with Sullivan Builders, on behalf of Granville Dental; 121 East Broadway; Rooftop Mechanical Unit Installation & Removal of Ground Air Conditioning Unit: 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 #2014-89 as submitted. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-89 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-78, Amended – Lee Beall—212 East Elm Street; Fencing in the front and side yards within the right-of-way:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the amended 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 #2014-78 as amended.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-78 as amended.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Mitchell (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-88, Amended, Thomas Bradley, Luikart Heating & Cooling on behalf of Kappa Kappa Gamma Sorority, 110 North Mulberry Street; Air Conditioning Units on the North and South Sides of the Structure:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Criteria.  The Planning Commission found the amended 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 #2014-88 as submitted. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-88 as amended.  Second by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Mitchell (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Mr. Wilken and Mr. Eklof from the July 28, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from July 14, 2014:

There was no quorum from that meeting, so approval was not possible

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

August 11, 2014

August 25, 2014

September 8, 2014

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried.

 

Adjournment: 7:50 p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 2014

 

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 14, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Councilmember Jeremy Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jack Burriss, Bill Wilken and Craig Potaracke (non-voting, ex-officio GEVSD). 

 

Members Absent:  Tom Mitchell (Chair), Dough Eklof

 

Staff Present:  Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael King, Law Director.

 

Also Present:  Chris and Debbie Fiedler, Sharon Sellitto, Jason Adamkosky, Katie Richards, Mike Davis, Tom Bradley, Kathy Wilkin, Ann Truesdell and Brooke Datz.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

203 Cherry Street – Chris and Debbie Fiedler - Application #2014-84

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a paver patio in the rear yard adjacent to the detached garage.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry, Chris and Debbie Fiedler.

 

Discussion:

Debbie Fiedler, 203 Cherry Street, stated she is requesting approval of a paver patio in the rear yard to measure 20 X 30 feet.  She also noted that the proposed patio will be slanted to the east (into the Fiedler’s own backyard) in order to avoid drainage issues with adjoining properties.

 

 Planner Terry stated that some excavation had already been carried out in preparation for the project, and that all setback requirements had been met.

 

Sharon Sellitto, 215 Cherry Street, appeared and stated she is a neighbor of the Fiedlers on Elm Street. She presented photographs purporting to show rain runoff into her yard.  She suggested that if a drain was installed, it would prevent runoff onto the Sellitto property. She also noted the Sellitto property is downhill from the Fiedlers and expressed concern for future drainage problems.

 

Debbie Fiedler responded, stating that some drainage issues had been observed during initial excavation, so the project was halted.  She stated a drain will be added to the project.  She also stated that additional dirt and rock will be included to improve the slope and drainage. 

 

Jason Adamkosky, an Elm St. neighbor and the builder/contractor for the project appeared and confirmed the project is on hold pending approval by the Commission.  Mr. Hawk requested assurance that if runoff occurs after the project is complete, Mr. Adamkosky make the necessary corrections.  Mr. Adamkosky replied that he would make the necessary corrections.

 

Sharon Sellitto was asked if the proposed addition of a drain and extra dirt and rock to improve the drainage pattern satisfied her concerns.  She responded that they did. 

 

Mr. Hawk concluded the discussion by proposing the condition that the neighbors meet and mediate any problems after the project is complete.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-84:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 patios that have been approved in the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual property is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded this was TRUE. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-84 as submitted with the condition that the drainage issues be addressed to the neighbors’ satisfaction.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-84:  Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Wilken (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

 

 

224 “Unit E” East College Street –Katie Richards - Application #2014-85

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a staircase, from the upper rear deck to the ground, in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Katie Richards.

 

Discussion:

Katie Richards, 1034 West Broadway, is speaking on behalf of the owners of 224 “Unit E” East College Street.  She stated the applicant is requesting approval of the installation of a staircase from the upper rear deck to the ground below.

 

Ms. Richards stated that there is no present access to the upper deck.  She indicated the staircase would require about 45 square feet of space and would be constructed of materials consistent with the deck. 

 

Arnie Joseph, Treasurer of the East College Condominium Association appeared and asked if the Condo Association would be responsible for the upkeep of the proposed staircase.  Mr. Hawk responded that the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over that issue.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-85:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 staircase projects that have been approved in the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual residence is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded this was TRUE. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-85 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-85:  Burriss (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Wilken (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

230 East Broadway – Interim Health Care- Application #2014-86

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Mike Davis.

 

Discussion:

Mike Davis of The Kessler Sign Company of Zanesville spoke for Interim Health Care and stated he is requesting approval of the installation of a projecting sign. 

 

Mr. Davis confirmed that the proposed sign would be the same as the existing sign width and would appear in the same red, black, and white colors. 

 

Alison Terry reported the proposed sign would be slightly larger than the previous sign, but meets all requirements of the Village Code and no variance is required.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the width of the black borders were consistent with the sign dimensions. Ms. Terry answered the border is consistent.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-86:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 signs that have been approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual business is improved, as well as the entire district..  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded this was TRUE. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-86; as submitted with the stipulation that the border on the sign match in size and color the borders on the other two (2) projecting signs.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-86:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

317 West Elm Street – Jason Adamkosky - Application #2014-87

Village Residential District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a stone retaining wall on the east side property line and the installation of stone steps with black railing in the eastern side yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk  swore in Alison Terry and Jason Adamkosky.

 

Discussion:

Jason Adamkosky, 317 West Elm Street stated he is requesting approval of the installation of a stone wall, steps and railing along the eastern property line.

 

Mr. Adamkosky stated the proposed “farmhouse” stone wall will be approximately 40 inches in height.  He also indicated a drain will be installed to improve and help manage runoff.  He noted the wall is partly on a neighbor’s property.

 

Mr. Hawk asked if there is anything in writing about the part of the wall being on a neighbor’s property.  Mr. Adamkosky said there was not, but that it was a good idea and he would follow up on Mr. Hawk’s suggestion.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-87:

 

e)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

f)                   Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the request is consistent with other projects that have been approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

g)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the vitality of an individual business is improved, as well as the entire district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

h)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded this was TRUE. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-87; as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-87:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

110 North Mulberry Street – Luikart Heating and Cooling, Inc. - Application #2014-88

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of three (3) air conditioning units in the side and rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Alison Terry and Tom Bradley, Luikart

Heating and Cooling, Ann Truesdell.

 

Discussion:

Tom Bradley, of Luikart Heating & Cooling Inc., stated he is requesting approval of the installation of three air conditioning units. The request is to install air conditioning units at the Kappa Kappa Gamma House, located at the corner of North Mulberry Street and Broadway.  Two options were developed, one to locate the units to the east of the house, and a second option to locate the units to the south of the house, facing Broadway.  They are also proposing locating one unit on the north side of the house as well.

 

Planner Terry indicated that the neighbors to the east of the house are worried about the noise level of the units. 

 

Mr. Bradley stated that the Broadway option was developed to address concerns of neighbors to the east.  Ms. Terry stated that if the air conditioning units were placed on the Broadway side of the property, screening would be required.

 

Ann Truesdell, a board member of Kappa Kappa Gamma, stated that the upstairs of the house currently has only window air conditioners, and that the upstairs apartment becomes “unbearably hot” in the summer months. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if there was any way the proposed air conditioning units could be placed in the attic.  He was advised by Ms. Truesdell that there is no attic in the structure.. 

 

Mr. Burriss expressed concern for the neighbors to the east and asked if there is anything that can be done to quiet the units.  Mr. Bradley responded that a reinforced fiberglass mounting pad could be used instead of concrete.  He also stated rubber vibration pads could be used. 

 

Mr. Johnson (non-voting, ex-officio) asked if any consideration had been made of costs regarding the choice of location.  Mr. Hawk responded that no such consideration had been made.

 

Mr. Burriss expressed a preference for Option #1 – locating the units to the north and east side of the house. 

 

Ms. Terry said the units would be screened from anyone driving down Mulberry Street. Mr. Wilken noted that Evergreens are already in place to help screen the view.  Mr. Hawk also expressed a preference for the north location. Mr. Wilken approved the north option with the assurance of adequate screening.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-88:

 

i)                    Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the air conditioning units are consistent with other projects previously approved.   The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

j)                    Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the removal of window air conditioning units and replacement with ground units is appropriate.   The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

k)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to a residence it does contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

l)                    Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by removing the window units and replacing them with ground units it does achieve this.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-88; as submitted, with the condition that the units be placed on the north side and the east side (Option #1) with appropriate screening to be approved by the Village Staff.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-88:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Other Business:

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions to enact Chapter 719, Sections 719.01, 719.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.08, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11 and 719.12 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Mobile Food Truck Standards

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove from the table the proposed zoning code revisions to enact Chapter 719, Sections 719.01, 719.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.08, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11, 719.12.  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call to remove from the table the proposed zoning code revisions to enact Chapter 719, Sections 719.01, 719.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.08, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11, 719.12: Motion carried.

 

 

Discussion by the Planning Commission and Village Staff:

 

Mr. Burriss recommended sending to Village Council the following recommendations:

 

  • The annual vendor fee be set at $200
  • The distance between a food truck and an operating restaurant be set at 250 feet instead of 500 feet.
  • Food trucks could be located on properties that are ¼  acre  or greater, instead of ½ acre
  • Inclusion of three sections (outdoor seating, refuse collection, and grease disposal.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council of the proposed zoning code revisions to enact Chapter 719, Sections 719.01, 719.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.08, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11, 719.12 with modifications as indicated above.  Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call to recommend approval to the Village Council of the proposed zoning code revisions to enact Chapter 719, Sections 719.01, 719.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.08, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11, 719.12: Motion carried.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions to amend Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Transportation Corridor Overlay District Standards

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove from the table the proposed zoning code revisions to Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05. Seconded by Mr. Wilken. 

 

Roll Call Vote to remove from the table the proposed zoning code revisions to Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05:  Hawk (Yes), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes).Motion carried 3-0.

 

Discussion by the Planning Commission and Village Staff:

 

Planner Terry reviewed the two (2) concerns that were raised by the Commission at the last meeting and indicated that the language regarding the Wendy’s drive access had been modified and the language regarding the Traffic Impact Study had been removed from the text altogether.  The Commission agreed with the changes proposed by the Staff.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council of the proposed zoning code revisions to Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05. Second by Mr. Wilken. 

Roll Call to recommend approval to the Village Council of the proposed zoning code revisions to Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05: Motion carried.

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02, 1171.02, 1173.02 and 1175.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Mobile Food Truck Standards

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to remove from the table the proposed zoning code revisions to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02, 1171.02, 1173.02, 1175.02:  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call to remove from the table the proposed zoning code revisions to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02. 1171.02, 1173.02, 1175.02: Motion carried.

 

Discussion by the Planning Commission and Village Staff:

 

Planner Terry discussed where the Mobile Food Trucks were being proposed in each of the Zoning Districts and discussed possible locations.  The Commission agreed with the recommended Districts presented by the Village Staff.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council of the proposed zoning code revisions to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02, 1171.02, 1173.02, 1175.02. Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call to recommend approval to the Village Council of the proposed zoning code revisions to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02. 1171.02, 1173.02, 1175.02.   Motion carried.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-84: Chris & Debbie Fiedler; 203 Cherry Street; Paver Patio

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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-84, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-84. Second by Mr. Burriss. Motion carried.

 

Application #2014-85: Katie Richards; 224 East College Street “Unit E”; Rear Staircase. 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 #2014-85, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-85. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried.

 

Application #2014-86: Kessler Sign Company/Interim Health Care; 230 East Broadway; Projecting Sign. 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 #2014-86, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-86. Second by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-87: Jason Adamkosky; 317 West Elm Street; Stone Retaining Wall, Stone Steps with Railing. 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 #2014-87, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-87. Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2014-88: Thomas Bradley/Luikart Heating & Cooling, Inc.; 110 North Mulberry Street; Three Air Conditioning Units. 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 and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-88, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-88. Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Hawk (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Member (if necessary):

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse Mr. Eklof and Mr. Mitchell from the July 14, 2014 Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Motion carried.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from June 23, 2014:

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the June 23, 2014 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried. 

 

Meeting Announcements - next meetings:

July 28, 2014

August 11, 2014

August 25, 2014

 

Adjournment:  9:05 PM

Mr. Hawk moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Wilken. Motion carried.

Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 23, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Tom Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Craig Potaracke (non-voting), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Bill Wilken and Doug Eklof.

 

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: None.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

410 North Granger Street-Greg & Angela Walter- Application #2014-70

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of three-tab asphalt shingles and replacement with Atlas Roof 'Pinnacle Pristine' shingles in Hearthstone. Photographs of all four (4) elevations were submitted by the applicant. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Mr. Greg Walter of 410 North Granger Street

 

Discussion: Mr. Walter stated he was replacing his roof.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-70:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with other projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the replacement of the roof is historically appropriate and will upgrade the historic character of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, upgrading the home does enhance the vitality of the structure and the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 


 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the roof is historically and architecturally appropriate and the Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.  

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-70 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-70: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes), Mr. Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

130 East Broadway – Kessler Sign Company/Village Core Fitness; Carrie Messner - Application #2014-73  Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a door sign to be located on the front elevation. The applicant submitted a drawing of the proposed door sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Ms. Terry, Ms. Messner of 544 Mount Parnassus Drive and Roger Kessler of 170 Pinehurst Drive

 

Discussion:  Mr. Kessler on behalf of Ms. Messner stated they are proposing putting a two (2) square foot door sign on the front door of 130 East Broadway. The proposed sign will be constructed of a Sintra material with painted graphics. The proposed sign will be painted white, teal blue, tan and black.

 

Ms. Terry stated that 130 and 132 East Broadway are both owned by Greg Ream. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-73:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with other projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed sign contributes to the improvement and upgrades the historical character of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed sign             will contribute to the vitality of the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Wilken stated TRUE and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.  

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approval Application #2014-73 as submitted. Second by Mr. Hawk.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-73: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes)and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

130 East Broadway – Kessler Sign Company/Village Core Fitness; Carrie Messner -Application #2014-74  Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a one point eight three (1.83) square foot projecting sign that will be constructed of a double faced Duraply material with painted graphics to be located on the front elevation, first floor, next to the door of 130 East Broadway and hanging on the existing black bracket. The applicant submitted a drawing of the proposed projecting sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Ms. Terry, Ms. Messner of 544 Mount Parnassus Drive and Roger Kessler of 170 Pinehurst Drive

 

Discussion:

Mr. Kessler stated the proposed double faced sign will be a half (1/2) inch thick and made of a hard synthetic plastic that looks like wood.  Ms. Messner stated that the front door will be painted black.

 

Ms. Terry stated the proposed application does not require a variance. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-74:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent and compatible with other applications approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, advertising the business will upgrade the historical character of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, contributes to the continuing vitality of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.  

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-74 as submitted. Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-74: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes). and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

132 East Broadway–Kessler Sign Company/Village Core Fitness-Carrie Messner-Application #2014-75

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a seventeen point three (17.3) square foot wall sign to be located on the front elevation, above the existing canopy/awning.  The applicant is proposing installation of individual Sintra letters painted and attached to the face of the building.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Ms. Terry, Ms. Messner of 544 Mount Parnassus Drive and Roger Kessler of 170 Pinehurst Drive.

 

Discussion: Mr. Kessler stated the lettering on the proposed front elevation wall sign will be above the coffee house canopy on the wood part of the structure. The wood will be left gray.  Mr. Kessler indicated they have adjusted the total size of the sign from seventeen point three (17.3) square feet to fifteen point nine (15.9) square feet to meet the maximum size requirements.

 

Ms. Terry stated that originally the applicant was suggesting placing the sign above the windows.  However, Staff felt the signage was going to be too high on the building and suggested moving the proposed wall sign to the proposal before the Planning Commission. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-75:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent and compatible with other applications approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)          Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the signage will hopefully contribute to the business and the village. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the signage will contribute to the vitality of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the elements being used are historically appropriate and the Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.  

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-75 with the condition that the sign shall not exceed 16.69 square feet and the background would remain gray and not be painted white as originally proposed. Second by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-75: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

273 East Maple Street– Steven & Grace Michael -Application #2014-76

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements:

1)         Replace existing brick and treated lumber sidewalk with concrete, from the front door to the driveway;

2)         Replace the paver stepping stones on the side of the garage with concrete;

3)         Replace existing five-inch (5”) gutters with six-inch (6”) white aluminum seamless gutters; and

4)         Replace storm door with Larson white ‘Classic Elegance’ full view storm door with brushed nickel hardware and double bevel glass. 

The applicant submitted photographs of the walk from the drive to the door, stepping stones at the side of the garage, gutters and the existing storm door.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Ms. Terry and Mr. Michael of 273 East Maple Street

 

Discussion: Ms. Terry stated the application meets all the requirements and the applicant is using standard replacement material.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-76:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent and compatible with other applications approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE by improving the property, it improves and upgrades the historical character of the village.   The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, by improving the property, will contribute to the vitality of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the elements being used are historically appropriate and the Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.  

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-76 as submitted. Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-76: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

212 East Elm Street-Lee Beall & Maija Bamford- Application #2014-78

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing vinyl fence and replacement with Fiberon fencing in the color of weathered pine in the side, rear and front yards. A forty-eight (48’) foot long section of privacy fence will be installed along the western property line. This section will begin approximately twenty (20’) feet from the southern property line; fifteen (15’) feet behind the southernmost elevation of the house. A second section of fencing will be installed in an ‘L’ shape beginning near the garage crossing the stone patio area, turning south and running approximately twenty (20’) feet. This leg of the ‘L’ will be approximately (4’) feet off the edge of the shared paver drive. The fence sections will be located in the rear and side yards of the property and will be six (6’) feet in height meeting this requirement (Refer to Applicant submitted Site Plan).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Ms. Terry and Mr. Beall of 212 East Elm Street

 

Discussion: Mr. Beall stated he is proposing replacing existing fence in the side, rear and front yards. He stated he is proposing a privacy fence along the western property line. The fence is compatible with other fences on other properties. The picket fence will be white and the privacy fence will be a natural color.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-78:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with other projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the fence is of the historically appropriate nature and will upgrade the historic character of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the proposed fence will enhance the vitality of the structure and the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Wilken stated TRUE, the fence is historically and architecturally appropriate and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Wilken.  

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-78 as submitted. Second by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-78: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

131 West Broadway-John Noblick on behalf of Russ & Melissa Bow- Application #2014-79

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a six (6’) foot tall cedar privacy fence to be located as follows:

1)         Replacement of an iron gate and fence in rear south yard;

2)         Installation along the rear south yard;

3)         Replacement of and iron gate and fencing in the eastern side yard; and

4)         Replacement of generator fencing along northeast corner of the home.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Ms. Terry and Mr. Noblick of 130 Bolen Road, Newark

 

Discussion: Mr. Noblick stated he is speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Bow. He will be replacing the iron gate and fence in the south rear yard and eastern side yard and replacing the generator fence in the front. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-79:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with other projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the fence is of the historically appropriate nature and will upgrade the historic character of the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the proposed fence will enhance the vitality of the structure and the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Eklof stated TRUE, the fence is historically and architecturally appropriate and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Eklof.  

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application# 2014-79 with the condition that the generator fence not exceed five (5) feet. Second by Mr. Hawk. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-79: Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Proposed Zoning Code Modifications

 

The Planning Commission reviewed proposed zoning code modifications to Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  Tom Mitchell questioned why there was still an alternate access for the Wendy’s parcel included in the language.  And why the language stated the access point was strongly encouraged instead of required.  Mike King and Alison Terry reviewed this language with the board and indicated they would review this language further.  The Planning Commission also questioned the language regarding Traffic Impact Studies and why this was necessary to include in the TCOD.  Mike King indicated it was clarification language for a potential applicant who would be reviewing this section in reference to Chapter 1195.  Mr. King indicated the language could remain or be removed and that it wouldn’t eliminate the need for a Traffic Impact Study, applicants would still need to refer to Chapter 1195.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed proposed zoning code modifications to Chapter 719, Mobile Food Trucks.  The Planning Commission asked about a per day permit fee to allow for income for the Village since these businesses would not pay property taxes like the brick and mortar businesses.  Alison Terry indicated they were still considering permit fees in relation to this use and would investigate what makes the most sense.

 

The Planning Commission decided to table the zoning code changes pending further clarification from Village Staff on several of the items discussed during the hearing.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table the proposed zoning code changes. Mr. Wilken Second the motion.  Mr. Hawk (yes), Mr. Eklof (yes), Mr. Wilken (yes), Mr. Mitchell (yes).  Motion passed 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-70: 410 North Granger Street-Greg & Angela Walter; Re-Roofing  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-70, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-70. Second by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes) Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-73: 130 East BroadwayKessler Sign Company/Village Core Fitness; Door Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-73, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-73. Second by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-74: 130 East BroadwayKessler Sign Company/Village Core Fitness; Projecting Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-74, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-74. Second by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-75: 132 East BroadwayKessler Sign Company/Village Core Fitness; Wall Sign

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-75, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-75. Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-76: 273 East Maple StreetSteven & Grace Michael; Replacement of sidewalk, paving stones, gutters and storm door

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-76, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-76. Second by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes),  Wilken (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-78: 212 East Elm StreetLee Beall & Maija Bamford; Privacy Fence with Gate in Rear & Side Yards

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 #2014-89, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-78. Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote: Hawk (yes), Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes) Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2014-79: 131 West BroadwayJohn Noblick on behalf of Russ & Melissa Bow; Cedar Privacy 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-79, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-79. Second by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve a member’s absence:  Jack BurrissMr. Eklof moved to approve Jack Burriss’ absence.  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for June 9, 2014:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from June 9, 2014 as presented.  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:07 PM

Mr. Eklof moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wilken Second.  Motion carried 4-0.  Mr. Mitchell declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned.

 

Next meetings:

Monday, July 14, 2014

Monday, July 28, 2014

Monday, August 11, 2014

Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 9, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Doug Eklof, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Bill Wilken and Craig Potaracke (non-voting)

 

Staff Present: Planner Alison Terry and Law Director Mike King

 

Also Present: Stephanie Kuntz, Chris Kuntz, Ned Roberts, John Klauder, Jeremy Johnson, Pete Confar, Mark Keith, Sara Lee, Molly Thurlow-Collen, and James Browder.

 

Citizens’ Comments

As no one appeared to speak, Chair Mitchell closed Citizens Comments.

 

New Business:

 

125 West Elm Street – Stefanie and Chris Kuntz - Application #2014-60

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a 48” picket fence with gates in the rear and side yards and lattice work below the rear deck.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Stephanie Kuntz. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Mitchell confirmed with the applicant that the finished side of the fence would be faced toward the neighbor.  The applicant responded in the affirmative.

 

Planner Terry asked the applicant if the fence would abut the arbor on the south side of the structure.  The applicant responded in the affirmative.

 

Planner Terry advised that a portion of the arbor was on the applicant’s property.  Both homeowners were trying to resolve that issue.  Mr. Hawk asked if the Planning Commission approved the arbor.  Planner Terry indicated the Planning Commission did approve the arbor, but was not responsible for evaluating surveys to assure that property lines were accurate. 

 

Mr. Hawk asked what materials would be used for the lattice work under the deck.  Mrs. Kuntz responded that vinyl lattice would be used and a Timber Tech product would be used for the decking.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-60:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence is consistent with similar projects approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is in keeping with the architecturally historic nature of the Village.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvement of the residence contributes to the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the fence is an architectural element consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-60 as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-60: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

344 Summit Street – Ned Roberts on behalf of Chris Diebold - Application #2014-68

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of deteriorating stone steps and replacement with wood steps on the front of the home.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Ned Roberts. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Roberts indicated that he was carpenter for this project.  The stone steps being removed were not original to the house and were now so deteriorated that they were unsafe, especially in the winter time.  The steps would be removed and replaced with solid wood steps in the same footprint.  The sides, base and riser would be made of wood, while the treads would be Timber Tech.  The final steps would be painted grey to match the house.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the steps would have any hang over.  Mr. Roberts stated that there would be a ¾” overhang on the front and sides of the steps.  The steps would be 1” thick.

 

Mr. Mitchell commented that the historical accuracy of these new wooden steps would not be as accurate as the sandstone steps.  Mr. Wilken commented that many of the original homes would have had wooden steps.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-68:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the steps and materials are stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been approved in the district.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that other houses in the same time period have steps of similar materials and nature.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by adding to the safety of the steps and improvement of the house it contributes to the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is protecting the physical surroundings by using appropriate materials and improving the safety of the steps.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-68 as presented.  Second by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-68: Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

204 West Broadway – John Klauder Associates on behalf of Denison University - Application #2014-69

Village Institutional District (VID) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a bluestone patio and two bluestone walkways in the west gardens.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and John Klauder. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Klauder was asked by President and Mrs. Wineberg to restructure the private family patio at Monomoy Place.  The existing brick patio is sinking and breaking up.  The new design would be an irregularly shaped bluestone for the patio and two smaller walkways to an air conditioning unit and the faucet.   The walkway to the faucet on the front of the home was added after the submission of the original application.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the newest drawing provided was different from the original drawing provided in the packet.  Mr. Klauder responded in the affirmative.  The new drawing has changes to the types of landscape plants, which would not impact this application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-69:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District? 

            Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed patio materials are consistent with similar projects approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the patio is in keeping with the architecturally historic nature of the Village.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by improving the vitality of the residence that improves the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the patio is an architecturally, historic element consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-69 presented.  Second by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-69: Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Old Business

 

314, 334, 384 East Broadway – Robertson Construction Services, Inc. - Application #2014-33

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of exterior remodeling and site modifications.

 

Exterior Modifications to the Granville Inn:

1)       Roofing: Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) single-ply roofing on the second and third floors;

2)      Roof flashings:  New flashing will be copper at the slate locations;

3)      Siding:  Stucco, painted with a heavy dash finish and the color close to sandstone;

4)      Windows:  Pella architect series, double hung and casement styles per elevations;

5)      Doors:

         a.   Removal of existing second story window and replacement with a single door and

               sidelights on the western elevation of the carriage house for the purpose of

               emergency egress;

         b.   Carriage House Garage Doors:  Removal of existing doors and replacement with

               custom painted wood doors with an operable decorative surface hinge;

6)      Trim & Mouldings:  Wood trim painted dark brown;

7)      Dormers:  New dormers on the third floor east and west elevations;

8)      Railings:

         a.  Back of Carriage House:  Black painted galvanized metal handrail;

         b.  West side of Carriage House:  Black painted galvanized metal handrail;

         c.  East side of Granville Inn:  Black painted galvanized metal handrail;

9)      Outdoor Dining Fence Enclosure:  36” high wrought iron metal fencing painted

         black;

10)    Awning:  Removal of awning over the outdoor patio area;

11)    Metal wall surrounding rear mechanical units:  Centria product, opaque metal screen

12)    Stone wall at the eastern stairway to the basement:  Repurposed ashlar sandstone

         with cap and ornaments from the existing stone wall on the property which is being

         removed

13)    Area Well (East Elevation):  Hot dipped galvanized, non-slip rectangular grate,

         flush with grade;

14)    East Elevation:  Metal exhaust louver on third floor

15)    North Elevation:  Second floor relocation of an existing wood louver; and

16)    Rear Elevator Shaft:  Stucco finish with metal coping at the top of the shaft, no

         exterior access.

 

 

 

Site Modifications to the Granville Inn and College Town House Properties:

1)          Fence:  (Along the north property line of the College Town House) Combination of low stone wall and wood fencing;

2)          Pedestrian Walkway from East parking lot at the College Town House to the front

entrance of the Granville Inn:  Broom finished concrete;

3)      Granville Inn Carriage House front courtyard:  Concrete with broom finish and a    

         two course brick inlay detail (8”);

4)      Granville Inn East Service Drive:  eliminated and returned to lawn area;

5)      College Town House New Service Drive and Parking Areas:  Broom finished

         concrete;

6)      Wall:  Removal of a section of the north-south wall between the Granville Inn and

         College Town House;

7)      Parking lot and pedestrian lighting:  ‘Granville’ prismatic glass acorn top with leaf

         ballast casting, metal halide lamp on a 12’ Charleston cast aluminum pole painted

        ‘Granville’ dark green;

8)      Ground/Building Lighting (Granville Inn): Black metal halide, Kim Lighting; and

9)      Raised elevation within the entry drive of the Granville Inn:  Raised grade at the

         entrance to allow for handicap accessible entry.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Jeremy Johnson, Pete Confar and Mark Keith.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Confar provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed renovations to the Granville Inn.  He indicated ideas suggested at the previous Planning Commission work session were incorporated into this presentation.  The site plan was still the same with a new access point coming from the College Town House to the back of the Inn.  The former narrow eastern driveway would be removed.  Other parking areas would stay the same with new striping and lighting.  A request was being made for approval of two versions of the parking site plan:   1) the driveway grade would be raised five-feet (5’) allowing the drive and entrance to the Inn to be on one level; 2) a version where the driveway and grade would remain as is.  The request was for approval of both options from the Planning Commission that way the Ohio Historic Preservation Office could also review both options and determine which was more appropriate historically.   Receiving approval of each version would allow for a decision from the OHP office as well as an evaluation of the cost of each version by the development team.  The change in the driveway grade was to make access to the Inn as ADA compliant and convenient as possible both inside and out.

 

The Planning Commission was not in support of the proposed location of handicapped parking in the overflow lot.  They wanted the handicapped parking moved to its current location near the entrance.  The Commission felt that any other location would create customers undo distress.  Possible alternative suggestions were made by the Commission. Mr. Confar indicated that the current handicapped parking spaces were not sized to code.  The OHP indicated that they wanted the staggered, median parking to remain the same.  Currently, handicapped individuals must park and maneuver around three sides of the building to access the handicapped entrance.  The new configuration would either allow the handicapped individual to be dropped off level with the entrance, if the entry way grade version was approved, or to park and cross a portion of the parking lot to a new handicapped entrance ramp behind the front door area.  Handicapped parking would not be viable near the entrance if the increase graded entrance were approved because the parking would then be on a slant.  Reconfiguring the median parking area to make it ADA complaint and compliant with the Village code may not be permitted by the OHP.  If the parking spaces were maintained at their current location, made ADA and code compliant, it would require a variance and several parking spaces would be lost.  The median area would also need to be reconfigured. It was suggested that the Granville Inn, in years past, offered to valet park cars for patrons who just pulled up to the entrance and honked.  The Commission asked that the architect check with the OHP to see if closer handicapped parking could be accommodated should the graded entry way not be selected.  The Commission acknowledged that the architect and Robertson Construction had taken most of their suggestions and comments into consideration already and explained the rationale behind the decisions presented.  The Commission recommended that consideration be given by the Granville Inn management to accommodate parking through a valet service for handicapped individuals.  

 

Mr. Confar indicated that several wall designs were generated to shield the new parking lot at the rear of the building.  The designs included a six-foot tall, straight wall with timbers, a straight, wall with stone, a step down wall with timbers and a step down wall with stone.   A variance could be required for at least one of the options because the fence and retaining wall combination would extend above the total six-foot limit.  Adjacent homeowners Sara Lee and Molly Thurlow-Collen expressed their concerns that without an extension of a wall, they were concerned about trash, noise and people coming onto their property.  The homeowners expressed their support for the step down wall with a timber base, located five-feet from the property line. They also requested that landscaping be provided to shield the fence.  The Commission recommended the step down wall with the timber base.  The homeowners agreed.  It was also determined that western Arborvitae should be installed on the northern side of the wall to shield their view of the wall on the homeowner’s side of the property.  The Commission and homeowners agreed. 

 

Mr. Hawk questioned the difference in foot-candles from one parking lot to another as one parking lot will be brighter than another.   Mr. Confar indicated that the goal was not to use too many poles and lights.  The larger lot was working with 1.5 foot-candles.  In the western parking lot, there were currently four poles and the staff was struggling to reduce the number of poles to two poles, causing a difference in lighting.  They were looking at different wattage to make the lighting more uniform.  Mr. Hawk indicated that he would like to see the lighting more uniform.  Mr. Confar indicated that they hoped to use lights and wattage to maintain equal lighting levels.  Mr. Mitchell suggested using shielded globes to diminish light pollution. 

 

Regarding elevations, Mr. Confar indicated that there were no changes from the previous submittal to the south elevations.   There were changes made to the west elevation.  The emergency egress was originally shown as being predominately interior with the exit at the back side of the building with a walkway to the front.  Due to Planning Commission discussions, changes were made to return to an emergency exit similar to the existing metal stairway exit.  The elevated exit stairway would still be used with an exit door and ends at the other side of the stone wall.  Mr. Wilkin questioned the use of an elevated exit as the Planning Commission required St Luke’s to use something more attractive than an elevated, metal stairway.  Mr. Confar indicated that the internal exit intruded into the neighbor’s backyard.   Planner Terry indicated that this exit impacted an adjoining neighbor.  Mr. Browder agreed with the elevated design; however, he expressed concerns with other items.   He was concerned about light emanating from the hallway through the exit doorway, the exterior lighting emanating from the rooms, the “X” bracing on the stairway frame and the design of the windows and door.  Mr. Confar indicated that the design of the windows and door would be the same as the remaining building and was being dictated by the OHP.  The exit door would have a window, but the window could be translucent, which would diminish the light that shone through.  The windows would have curtains on the interior and the door could also have a curtain.  The “X” bracing on the stairway was needed to provide stability to the stairway.  However, Mr. Confar indicated that he would check the design to see if bracing was needed or if a horizontal bracing could be utilized. 

 

Mr. Burriss suggested that three stone piers be added to the wrought iron fence design around the front patio.  Mr. Confar agreed with that suggestion.  However, he indicated that the piers would have to meet OHP approval.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he thought there was a photograph showing such piers from earlier in the twentieth century.  Mr. Confar stated that such a photograph would be helpful in presenting this request to the OHP.

 

The Commission thanked Mr. Confar, Mr. Keith and Mr. Johnson for their thorough and well done presentation.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-33:

 

a)                                   Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District

            Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed renovations and additions are consistent with similar

            projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated the renovations and additions are in keeping with the architecturally historic nature of the Village.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the renovations and additions to a major social and economic member of the community add to the vitality of the community.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the additions and extensive restoration of the Inn is consistent with the way past generations lived in Granville.    All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-33 presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-33: Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-60: Stefanie & Chris Kuntz, 125 West Elm Street, Picket 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 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-60 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-60. Second by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-60: Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-68: Ned Roberts on behalf of Chris Diebold, 344 Summit Street, Wood Step Installation    Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-68 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-68. Second by Mr. Eklof.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-68: Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-69: John Klauder Associates on behalf of Denison University, 204 West Broadway, Patio Installation   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 Institutional District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-69 as amended to include the additional bluestone walkway to the faucet.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-69. Second by Mr. Burriss.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-69: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Old Business:

 

Application #2014-33: Robertson Construction Services, Inc. on behalf of the Historic Granville Inn, 314, 334, 384 East Broadway, Exterior Remodeling   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 Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District,  Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-33 as amended:

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-33. Second by Mr. Eklof.

Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-33: Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).   Motion carried 5-0.

 

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 Code revisions.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table review of the code revisions.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1176.04 and 1176.05 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to the Transportation Corridor Overlay District Standards

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to enact Chapter 719,  Sections 719.01, 719.02.02, 719.03, 719.04, 719.05, 719.06, 719.07, 719.09, 719.10, 719.11 and 719.12 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Food Truck Standards

 

            Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1159.02, 1167.02, 1169.02, 1171.02, 1173.02 and 1175.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Food Truck Standards

 

Motion to approve minutes:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission meeting minutes.  Second by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:40 PM

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, June 23, 2014

Monday, July 14, 2014

Monday, July 28, 2014

 

Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 

May 27, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Hawk (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.

 

Members Present: Council Member Jackie O'Keefe (non-voting), Craig Potaracke (non-voting), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Jack Burriss and Doug Eklof

 

Members Absent: Tom Mitchell and Bill Wilken

Staff Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning & Zoning

Also Present:  Sharon Sellitto, Jodi Schmidt and John Klauder

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments

 

New Business:

225 South Mulberry Street-Sharon Sellitto- Application #2014-61

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a 48" high picket fence with gates in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Sharon Sellitto

 

Discussion:

Ms. Sellitto of 2157 Cherry Street, Granville, Ohio stated she is putting a fence in the backyard of the property located at 225 South Mulberry Street. The fence will tie into the neighbor's fence with the neighbor's consent. It is compatible with the surroundings and fits in with the neighborhood. There will be a fence directly off the back porch.

 

Ms. Walker stated that the fence meets all the requirements of the district, will be cedar and painted white at a later date.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-61:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village            District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent             with other       projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village            District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the fence is of a historically appropriate nature and      will upgrade the historic character of the district. The Planning Commission concurred       with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the             proposed fence will enhance the vitality of the structure and the district. The Planning         Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations     lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the fence is historically and architecturally appropriate.    The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application# 2014-61 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-61: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

218 East Maple Street – Jim & Jodi Schmidt - Application #2014-62

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of existing gutters and replacement with new 6" aluminum gutters on the rear of the home; and the removal of existing asphaltic shingles on the upper rear flat roof and replacement with rubber roofing.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker Jodi Schmidt

 

Discussion:  Ms. Schmidt stated they are replacing a 20 year old roof. When they recently power washed their house, several shingles flew off. The roofer recommended solid sheets and a rubber roof. The three (3) top shingles will be the same and dark black gray, which will match the shingles.

 

Ms. Walker stated that the applicant will also be upsizing the gutters from 4" to 6" and the downspouts will also be upsized.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-62:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village            District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent             with other       projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village            District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, preserving the home with the improvements and the            upgrades will add to the historic character of the district.  The Planning Commission     concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, a dry       house will contribute to the vitality of the district.  The Planning Commission concurred       with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations     lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, a dry home that will last is helping to achieve that goal        and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application# 2014-62 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-62: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

141 East Broadway, Village of Granville-John Klauder Landscaping on behalf of The Granville Village-Application #2014-63

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of landscape improvements to Village Hall including the following:

1)         Installation of ornamental iron-style fence sections along the building east             elevation and at the entrance to the public parking lot behind Village Hall;

2)         Modifications to the existing concrete planter adjacent to the public sidewalk and             between existing stairs to Village Hall and Reader's Garden; and

3)         Installation of one (1) small concrete footing within an existing planting bed to serve as           anchorage for garden urn/pedestal combination.

            The applicant has provided a site plan illustrating the proposed Village Hall landscape improvements.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Mr. John Klauder

 

Discussion:

Mr. Klauder of 30 Old Farm Road, Granville, on behalf of The Village of Granville, stated he was approached by staff to upgrade the exterior of The Village Hall. Mr. Klauder stated that Debi Walker was a tremendous asset in assisting with the design criteria. He stated that he had three (3) criteria that he tried to abide by. The first included simplicity, the second low maintenance and lastly the "wow" factor. Mr. Klauder stated the proposed fence will be recessed in, continue down to the kiosk, continue down on the other side of the basement steps providing an 18" opening on both sides and continue to the rear parking lot. The fence will mimic the existing fence. Mr. Klauder stated there will be modifications to the existing concrete planter adjacent to the public sidewalk and between the existing stairs to the Village Hall and Reader's Garden. It will consist of the removal of the existing half-round 6" curb-style planter edge, and form approximately a 14" high half-round plinth style base to which the Medici urn and pedestal will be mounted. Mr. Klauder stated there will be a 12" square concrete footing within the existing planting bed at the front of the building, centered on the western most window, which will serve as the anchorage for a Williamsburg urn/pedestal combination. The hope is that this urn makes a statement. There will be an additional urn by the police entrance. There will be two (2) different types of urns used, a Williamsburg Colonial Urn and an Italian style. The plantings will be simple and the flowers will make a statement.

 

Mr. Burriss was concerned as to what material the concrete plinth, where the proposed urn/pedestal will sit on, will be made of? He suggested that there be a border around the concrete plinth on the top so it takes away from blending in with the steps and it will also frame the planter. Mr. Burriss further suggested that there be some type of lighting on the urns/pedestals, possibly behind the urns.

 

Mr. Potaracke was concerned about securing the urn/pedestals.

Ms. O'Keefe was concerned about the barrier around the urn/pedestal being too big allowing people to sit on it. She also wanted to know who would be providing the maintenance and whether the rear parking lot would be resurfaced.

 

Mr. Klauder stated that there will be no footer on the urns by the window and the police station. He was unsure at this time if drilling holes into sandstone for anchorage would be feasible. Mr. Klauder stated he was unsure whether the existing lighting works. He was unsure who would provide the upcoming maintenance and that the rear parking lot would be resurfaced after this project was complete. He stated that the parking lot would be a low maintenance, functional space, which would complement the color of the building with mulch, sandstone boulders and some perennials. Mr. Klauder stated that the brick walkway would be replaced by sandstone slabs.

 

Ms. Walker stated in the winter time, there will be greens of some type planted in the urn/pedestals. Ms. Walker stated that the urn/pedestals will be secured by weight and anchored.  They will anchor all the tops of the urn/pedestals and the urns/pedestals will also be silicone sealed. She further stated there will be a live feed for possible lighting. Ms. Walker stated that The Planning Commission only needed to approve three (3) items: the fence sections, the concrete plinth at the front of the building and the sandstone walkway.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-63:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village            District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent             and      compatible with other applications approved in the district. The Planning Commission    concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village            District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the use of the fence sections and appropriate urns will             hopefully contribute to the village. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr.    Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the             landscape improvements will contribute to the vitality of the district. The Planning             Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past             generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the elements being used are historically             appropriate and the Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-63 as detailed during Planning Commission discussion, and as follows:

1)         Approval of three (3) freestanding newel posts;

2)         Troweled smooth edge and scored field per Exhibit ‘A’ for the concrete plinth style base     between the stairs along East Broadway as directed and approved by Staff;

3)         Anchorage as approved by Staff of the ‘Medici’ urn/pedestal combination to the concrete          plinth base and to each other (parts);

4)         Installation of a three (3’) sandstone slab on gravel base approximately 12” square to         which the Williamsburg urn/pedestals will be secured (as approved by Village Staff);

5)         Relocation of electrical stub at concrete plinth for future back lighting;

6)         Relocation of electrical stub and fixture in ‘Readers Garden’ planting bed to allow for up- lighting of existing Serviceberry.

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-63: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-61: Sharon Sellitto; 225 South Mulberry Street; Picket Fence with Gates  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 #2014-61, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-61. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-62: Jim & Jodi Schmidt; 218 East Maple Street; New Gutters on the Rear of the House & New Rubber Roofing on the Upper Rear Roof

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 #2014-62, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-62. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-63: Village of Granville; 141 East Broadway, Ornamental Iron Fence Sections, Modifications to Concrete Planter Between Stairs on East Broadway, and One (1) Small Concrete Footing within Planting Bed Adjacent to East Facade 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 #2014-63, as submitted by the applicant and with conditions as addressed in the Findings of Fact.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-63. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve member absences:  Mr. Tom Mitchell and Mr. Bill Wilken

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve absent members Tom Mitchell and Bill Wilken; seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for May 12, 2014:

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the minutes from April 14, 2014 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 3-0. 

 

 

Adjournment:  8:12 PM

 

Mr. Hawk declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned.

 

Next meetings:

 

Monday, June 9, 2014

 

Monday, June 23, 2014

 

Monday, July 14, 2014

Planning Commission Minutes May 12, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 12, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

 

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Doug Eklof, Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Bill Wilken and Craig Potaracke (non-voting)

 

Members Absent:  Jeremy Johnson

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker; Assistant to Planning Department

 

Also Present:  Alysa Reinoehl, Keith Keegan, Monique Keegan, Nate Willison

 

Citizen Comments:  As no one appeared to speak, Chair Mitchell closed Citizens Comments.

 

New Business:

 

223 North Granger Street – Alysa Reinoehl - Application #2014-55

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval to remove five (5) wood windows and replace with vinyl windows; and to remove one (1) vinyl window and replace with a vinyl window in a different configuration.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker and Alysa Reinoehl. 

 

Discussion:

Ms. Reinoehl indicated her desire to replace windows on the first floor of her home.  There were no questions from the Planning Commission members regarding the application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-55:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed replacement of windows is consistent with similar projects in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the replacement of windows is an improvement in materials that will upgrade the Village District. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvement of the residence will enhance the vitality of the District.   All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated the appearance of new and intact windows will enhance the physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-55 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-55: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

446 East Broadway – Keith and Monique Keegan - Application #2014-58

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the installation of a new steel window to be located on the east side of the building.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker, Keith Keegan and Monique Keegan. 

 

Discussion:

Mr. Keegan indicated that the original window applied for in the application had dimensions of 48” x 40”.  They were able to salvage a steel-clad window with a ventilator that would allow for emergency egress.  However, the size of that window was 75” x 40” and 52” above ground level.  This window was still in keeping with the appropriate style and design of the building.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the sill detail would be the same as the other windows.  Mrs. Keegan indicated that the window would be centered on the block so there would be a sill inside and outside, just like the other windows. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-58:

 

a)               Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated that the materials and use of detail are stylistically compatible and consistent with other structures that have previously been approved in the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

b)               Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing an architectural window that will be an asset and humanizes the structure and is appropriate to the district. All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

c)               Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated that by enhancing a structure in the District, the overall vitality of the District is enhanced.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

d)               Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated that the window is an appropriate addition and is architecturally compatible with the existing physical surroundings.  All other Planning Commission members concurred.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-58 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-58: Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session, 527 Newark-Granville Road, Signage

Submitted by Nate Willison on behalf of Willison Investment Strategies located at 527 Newark-Granville Road.  The request is for review and feedback of two possible sign options.

 

Mr. Willison provided three possible options for signage for his new business.  Option A was to attach his sign to the existing sign post.  Option B was to erect a second freestanding sign.  Option C was a projecting wall sign.  Mr. Willison preferred Option B as it was more attractive and provided some direction to the entrance to his business, which was at the back of the building.

 

Assistant Planner Walker indicated that Option B would require a variance from the BZBA as there was already a freestanding sign located on the property.  The other two options would not require a variance. 

 

The Planning Commission indicated their support for Option B, the freestanding sign.  They felt that was more appropriate and attractive.  Mr. Burriss suggested painting the entrance door the same color of the sign to identify the entrance better.

 

Mr. Wilken commented that he had serious concerns about the Village sign code.  He indicated that it was a gross imposition to require a $250 fee for a variance and make an applicant wait two months for a sign.  He questioned what the process was to change the sign code. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

 

New Business

Application #2014-55: Alysa Reinoehl, 223 North Granger 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 #2014-55 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-55 as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-55: Hawk (yes), Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2014-58: Keith and Monique Keegan, 446 East Broadway, Add a Steel Window    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, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-58 with the selected window size of 75” x 40” with the window being 52” above grade level.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-58. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-58: Mitchell (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve the April 28, 2014 minutes:

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the April 28, 2014 minutes of Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Mr. Wilken continued the discussion of how the sign code could be amended to be more business friendly.  The Commission explained the process of amending the Village code, discussed the recent amendments to the sign code and Planning Commission and BZBA’s role in those decisions.

 

Adjournment:  7:24PM

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Monday, June 9, 2014

Monday, June 23, 2014

Planning Commission Minutes April 28, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 

April 28, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Tom Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Council Member Jackie O'Keefe (non-voting), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Bill Wilken, Jack Burriss and Doug Eklof.

 

Members Absent:   None.

 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: Jeremy Johnson (Robertson Construction), Peter Confar (Acock & Associates),

Seth Patton, Art Chonko, Sara Lee Odor, Molly Thurlow-Collen, Steve Brown, Ken Rittenhouse and Devin Koser.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

107 North Prospect Street-Steve Brown; Village Barber- Application #2014-40

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a porch style fabric awning measuring forty-two inches (42") wide with a thirty-six inch (36") projection, a thirty-two inch (32") drop with a six inch (6") box face and four inch (4") straight loose valance over the front door.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Steve Brown

 

Discussion: Mr. Brown stated his application is for an awning above his front entry door and has provided the commission with photographs.

 

Ms. Terry stated the awning is basically for inclement weather and the staff recommends approval of this application.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-40:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village            District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent             with other       improvements approved in the district. The Planning Commission             concurred with Mr.    Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village            District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the improvements are appropriate and             upgrade the     historic elements on the property. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the             proposed awning is consistent with the style of the building, will enhance the vitality of         the structure and the business.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr.Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past             generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, preserving the entry way to the barber             shop enhances the physical surrounding.  The Planning Commission concurred with             Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application# 2014-40. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-40: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

221 South Mulberry Street – Ken Rittenhouse from John Klauder Landscaping on behalf of Travis Landry - Application #2014-41

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements:

 

1)           Brick paver patio (Readingrocks' Payerlock 'Oxford' Series in Ottawa Creek II);

2)         Two foot (2’) high stone walls with stone steps nearby (Briar Hill cut                   sandstone);

3)         Wood steps adjacent to the home (Treated wood, painted white after one (1) year;

4)         White picket fence surrounding the rear landscaped area;

5)         An eight foot (8’) by twelve foot (12’) pre-fabricated storage shed (gable-end style             garden shed); and

6)         a Picket Fence and Gates Forty-eight inches (48") in height, treated wood,             painted white after one (1) year, three (3) gates at forty-eight inches (48") wide.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Ken Rittenhouse

 

Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse of 950 Old River Road, Granville, stated he is appearing on behalf of Mr. Landry. He will be responsible for the brick patio, stone walls, fence, gates and the storage shed.

 

Mr. Hawk inquired as to the color of the shed.  Mr. Rittenhouse stated the shed will be the exact color as shown in photograph.

 

Ms. Terry stated the proposal meets all lot coverage and setback requirements.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-41:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village            District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent             with other       projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village            District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the style of landscaping and the             materials being used are historically appropriate. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the             residential structure contributes to the vitality of the district.  The Planning Commission    concurred with Mr.Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past             generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the landscaping is achieving that goal             and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application# 2014-41. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-41 : Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes) , Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

230 East Broadway, Suite 250-Devin Koser; Farmers Insurance- Application #2014-42

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of a 2.5 square foot tenant panel sign to be attached to the bottom of the existing projecting sign, which will be made of wood and will be black and dark grey on a white background.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Devin Koser

 

Discussion: Ms. Terry stated this application is to add a panel to the existing projecting sign. Previously, there were three panels approved however, one of the tenants has moved locations so there are only two panels currently.  The applicant is proposing adding a slightly larger panel to the bottom of the projecting sign.  Replacing the sign at a larger size will still meet the maximum size requirements and the proposed sign matches the remaining signage.

 

Mr. Koser stated the colors of the sign are black and dark grey on a white background.  Mr. Hawk stated he liked the way the new sign will fit with the other signage. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-42:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village            District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent             and      compatible with other applications approved in the district. The Planning             Commission    concurred with Mr. Burriss.

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village            District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, it will hopefully contribute to the business and the            village. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the sign     does contribute to the vitality of the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with     Mr.Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past             generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the proposed sign is historically             appropriate and helps enhance the physical surroundings. The Planning Commission    concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application # 2014-42 to the Village Council. Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-42: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Burriss (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session:

 

Jeremy Johnson and Pete Confar on behalf of The Granville Inn - Application #2014-33

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry, Jeremy Johnson, Pete Confar, Sara Lee Odor and Molly Thurlow-Collen

 

Discussion: Mr. Confar stated that there were five (5) tasks they hope to accomplish with this project. First they want to keep with building code compliance and put in a sprinkler system. They want to put in an elevator, which would help make it ADA accessible. Second is the sustainability of the Granville Inn, blending the 21st Century and making it profitable. They would like to add nine (9) additional guest rooms to the third floor, renovate the hardware, but keep the charm. They want to continue to respect the charm of the building. They are working side by side with the Historic Preservation Office to maintain the historical charm of the inn. They would like to get more parking on site by adding parking on the College Townhouse property. The narrow drive between the Granville Inn and the College Townhouse will be removed. They are proposing a sidewalk in front of the Granville Inn and site lighting. They would like to get rid of dead end corridors for safety reasons. They will not be replacing any windows.

 

Mr. Wilken stated he was concerned with any future LED lighting, especially lighting with a blue tint, which would make the Granville Inn look like a prison. Mr. Confar assured the Commission that the lighting will be appropriate.

 

Mr. Burriss stated he was concerned that the dumpsters would become visible once a portion of the stone wall is removed. He also wanted to know if the mechanical equipment, located on the north side of the structure, would be removed or concealed because it can be viewed by neighbors.  Mr. Johnson stated that the dumpsters will be concealed with landscape materials between the dumpsters and the roadway and the mechanical equipment will remain.

 

 

Ms. Odor stated she was a neighbor of the Granville Inn and had some concerns with the renovations. First, she was concerned about the additional parking spaces on the back of the property. She stated there was nothing substantial between the parking spaces and their backyard. She was concerned for the safety of the other neighbor’s small children. Second, she was concerned with the stone fence, which separates the property lines. She wanted to make sure it would be substantially higher than six (6) feet. Third, she was concern with the transformer pad which is located only inches from her backyard. She believes the transformer pad should be moved closer to the commercial structure. Fourth, she wants to ensure that the wall structure will not compromise her property. Lastly, she is concerned about the proposed parking lot lighting affecting her home and bedrooms, which are located in the rear of the property.

 

Ms. Collen stated she was also a neighbor of the Granville Inn and had concerns about the renovations. She stated that she wants to have the sandstone wall continued along the entire length of the commercial property to screen the new parking areas from her property.

 

Mr. Hawk asked if there would be a back-up generator. 

 

Mr. Wilken stated he was concerned with distance between the proposed handicap parking areas and the structure.  He believed the distance from the handicap parking spaces for a single driver would be too far from the entrance of the building.  He also had concerns regarding the surface of the proposed sidewalk in the winter time and whether it would be too slick.

 

Mr. Johnson stated that they are working closely with AEP on the transformer pad issues and looking into a back-up generator. They will continue to look into the handicap parking issues.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-40: Steve Brown; 107 North Prospect Street; Fabric Porch Awning 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 #2014-40, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-40. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-41: Ken Rittenhouse of John Klauder Landscaping on behalf of Travis Landry; 221 South Mulberry Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2014-41, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-41. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes),Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

Application #2014-42: Devin Koser; 230 East Broadway, Suite 250, Farmers Insurance; Tenant Panel Sign 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 #2014-42, as submitted by the applicant.

 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-42. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Motion to approve members absences:  None

 

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for April 14, 2014:

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from April 14, 2014 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0. 

 

 

Adjournment:  8:37 PM

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned.

 

 

Next meetings:

 

Monday, May 12, 2014

 

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

 

Monday, June 9, 2014

Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 

April 14, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Council Member Jeremy Johnson (non-voting), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Bill Wilken, Jack Burriss and Doug Eklof.

 

Members Absent: Mr. Tom Mitchell

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning & Zoning and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: Joseph and Demaris Rosato,

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

204 South Pearl Street– Brandon Lackey- Application #2014-15(Amended)

Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for amended architectural review and approval of the removal of the following improvements to the existing detached garage:  Removal of existing side-by-side garage doors and replacement with a new double overhead steel door; Addition of a Therma-Tru door, no window, flat panel design on the west facade of garage; and Removal of existing gutters and downspouts and replacement with 6" half-round galvanized gutters and downspouts (no amendments). The manufacturers' cut sheets have been submitted by the applicant.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Brett Black

 

Discussion: Mr. Black, of 2579 Pleasant Crest Court, Newark, Ohio stated he was standing in for Mr. Lackey, as he was hired to do the framework on the garage. In the original application the request was for two (2) eight foot (8') wide garage doors; however, they would not fit without removing the side walls. The amended request is for two (2) overhead garage doors. The applicant also changed the man door on the side of the garage from a Dutch door to a Therma-Tru door, which is more cost effective.

 

Ms. Walker stated that the changes are architecturally appropriate. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council on Amended Application# 2014-15.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote to Approve Amended Application #2014-15: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

New Business:

185 West Church Street-Anastasia Kakias; Aegean Ambitions- Application #2014-27

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The property is located at 119 East Elm. The request is for architectural review and approval of a Commercial Occupancy Permit to change the use from a retail shop to a fitness related business, specifically belly dancing.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Anastasia Kakias

 

Discussion: Ms. Kakias stated her application is to request additional parking spaces for her business. There are only a couple of spaces in front and she would like to utilize the rear parking spaces.

 

Ms. Walker stated the parking requirements allow for one (1) parking space per 180 square feet and Ms. Kakias business is 400 square feet, which would allow for an additional three (3) parking spaces. Currently there is no business occupying the first floor, so parking is not an issue at this time.

 

Mr. King stated that the Planning Commission only has to determine parking spaces for this establishment. Mr. King concurred with Ms. Walker that the parking requirements allow for one (1) parking space per 180 square feet, which would allow for three (3) spaces for this business.

 

Mr. Hawk inquired whether there had been any complaints about parking at this location.

 

Ms. Walker stated there had been no complaints.

 

Mr. Eklof inquired as to how many clients Ms. Kakias could accommodate in her classes. Ms. Kakias stated she has five (5) students currently and hopes to have up to ten (10). She stated majority are within walking distance.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application# 2014-27 to the Village Council. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-27: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

315 East Elm Street – Bill Kirkpatrick and Anna Nekola - Application #2014-30

Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of the existing wood clapboard siding and the installation of HardiPlank Cementitious replacement siding. The applicant proposes the use of the following materials:

Siding:

Siding, Body of House: HardiePlank, clapboard-style, 4" reveal, light blue/gray in color, 'Light Mist';

Siding; North & East Gables: 'HardiPlank', half-rounds or scalloped pattern, medium blue/gray in color, 'Boothbay Blue', and

Trim: 'HardiTrim', color too be arctic white

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Bill Kirkpatrick

 

Discussion: Mr. Kirkpatrick stated his application is for the replacement of the existing siding due to it being very old and water is coming through the siding. He stated the roof is intact and will remain as is. He brought samples of the colors they will be using for the siding, which matches the light blue of the entire house.

 

Ms. Walker stated Mr. Kirkpatrick's application request is architecturally appropriate and happy they are able to do the improvements.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-30:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent                         with other renovations approved in the district. The Planning Commission                                     concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the               Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the materials are historically                          appropriate along with the fish tale detail. The Planning Commission                               concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE,               the protection of the structure from water issues is contributing to the vitality of the                         district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, replacement of the siding that's                         deteriorating helps enhance the physical surroundings and The Planning                         Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council on Application# 2014-30. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-30: Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

129 North Plum Street– David Kratoville- Application #2014-31

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of a non-functional chimney; and the removal of a section of slate roofing on the southwest side of the uppermost roof and replacement with slate-look asphaltic shingles.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Mr. Kratoville

 

Discussion: Mr. Krotoville stated he currently has three (3) types of roofing materials and lots of slope areas. They have been fighting water damage issues in the hallway, children's bathroom and master bathroom. All the water issues are in the same general area in the house. He stated his application is for a request to remove the chimney, since the water is coming from this section. The chimney is not used. Mr. Kratoville stated the slate will be pulled up in the chimney section to find the source of the leak. This section of the roof is not visible from the street.

 

Mr. Burriss inquired whether the ridge cap detail will remain.

 

Ms. Walker stated her office was contacted by the roofer and they were told the ridge cap would go back after the work was complete. Staff is all in favor of protecting this structure

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-31:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent                         with other renovations approved in the district. The Planning Commission                                     concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the               Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the replacement materials will give a             good visual and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE,               replacing the leaky roof will contribute to the vitality of the district.  The                                     Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, keeping water out of the structure                     helps enhance the physical surroundings and The Planning                                                            Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council on Application# 2014-31.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-31: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes), and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

129 South Mulberry Street– Gary and Judy Stansbury- Application #2014-34

Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of a covered porch roof and the construction of a new screened porch with a new foundation, concrete floor and new roof structure on the western side of the home; and the removal of an existing three-tab asphaltic shingle roof and replacement with dimensional asphaltic shingles.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and John Noblick

 

Discussion: Mr. Noblick, Newark, Ohio stated he was standing in for Mr. and Mrs. Stansbury. The application is for a request to put a solid roof and foundation on the porch. The trim will be white, which will be consistent with the house. The entire roof will be replaced and the screen for the porch will be charcoal in color. There will be a screen door, but no storm door.

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-34:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the application is certainly consistent                         with other renovation projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission                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 materials of the proposed                         porch contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character and             The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE,               contributes to the vitality of the district.  The Planning Commission concurred with                         Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the materials proposed are more                historically correct and help enhance the physical surroundings. The Planning                     Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council on Application# 2014-34. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-34: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

217 East College Street– Joseph and Demaris Rosato - Application #2014-35:  Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a new detached accessory structure that measures twelve (12') feet by sixteen (16') feet total; in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Hawk swore in Debi Walker and Joseph Rosato

 

Discussion: Mr. Rosato stated he would like to build a shed in the rear of his home. He stated he has no access to the rear of the structure to place or store any lawn materials or equipment. All the materials will match the home and he will use a standard size door and put in one (1) window on the shed. The shed will be painted the same color as the house.

 

Ms. Walker stated thankful it was sited outside of the setbacks as to avoid having to visit the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-35:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent                         with other projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission                             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 certainly consistent with                         accessory type and does allow for storage which will instill the historic character.                   The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr.  Burriss stated TRUE,               contributes to the vitality of the district and the Planning Commission concurred                         with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the accessory structure of this type                 does protect and enhance the physical surroundings and The Planning                              Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approved Application #2014-35. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-35: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

209 East Elm Street– Michael and Ashlin Caravana - Application #2014-39:  Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a section of privacy fence, in the rear yard, along the western property line.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker and Ashlin Caravana

 

Discussion: Ms. Caravana stated they would like to replace their existing, 20 year old fence because it is falling down. They will replace with a double sided, cedar fence. They will eventually stain the fence a faded wood color, but not to make it look painted.

 

Mr. Burriss inquired whether the double sided fence will look like the same on both sides.

 

Ms. Caravana stated the boards will be sandwiched together and look the same on both sides.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-39:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the application is certainly consistent                         with other fence projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission                         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 for the proposed fence is             certainly consistent by instilling the historic character. The Planning Commission                         concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr.  Burriss stated TRUE; the                         livability contributes to the vitality. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr.                      Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, a fence of this type is appropriate and                      The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approved Application #2014-39 with the condition it will be stained in the future. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-39: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2014-15: Brandon Lackey; 204 South Pearl Street; Exterior Modifications Amended

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 #2014-15, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-15. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-27: Anastasia Kakias; 119 East Elm Street; Commercial Occupancy Permit 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-27, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-27. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-30: Bill Kirkpatrick and Anna Nekola; 315 East Elm Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2014-30, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-30. Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-31: David Kratoville; 129 North Plum Street; Exterior Modifications

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 #2014-31, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-31. Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-34: Gary and Judy Stansbury; 129 South Mulberry Street; Addition

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 #2014-34, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-34. Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2014-35: Joseph and Demaris Rosato; 217 East College Street; 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 #2014-35, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-35. Seconded by Mr. Wilken. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

New Business:

Application #2014-39: Michael and Ashlin Caravana; 209 East Elm Street; Fence 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 #2014-35, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-35. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve member absences: Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Burriss moved to approve and seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for March 10, 2014:

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the minutes from March 10, 2014 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes) and Hawk (yes). Motion carried 4-0. 

 

 

Mr. Wilken stated he was concerned with the size of parking spaces located on East Elm Street in that some vehicles are oversized and hang out of the space blocking the view of oncoming traffic.

 

 

Ms. Walker stated the code does not address these issues at all; however, will speak with Alison Terry and the Chief of Police.

 

 

Adjournment:  8:02 PM

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned.

 

 

Next meetings:

 

Monday, April 28, 2014

 

Monday, May 12, 2014

 

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

 

Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 

March 10, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Council Member Jeremy Johnson (non-voting), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Bill Wilken, Jack Burriss and Doug Eklof.

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning & Zoning and Michael King, Law Director

 

Also Present: Julio Valenzuela, Debi Hartfield and Mary Frazell.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

 New Business:

 

130-138 North Prospect Street– Julio Valenzuela of Urban Restorations- Application #2014-18: Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of exterior modifications including: new windows, new fabric awnings, new suspended metal canopies, removal of existing greenhouse enclosure on the southern facade and replacement with new wood framed enclosure, and new steel doors on east facade.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to remove Application #2014-18 from the table and Mr. Burriss seconded.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker and Julio Valenzuela

 

Discussion: 

Mr. Valenzuela of Urban Restorations, for 130-138 North Prospect Street, is requesting architectural review and approval of exterior modifications. Mr. Valenzuela is proposing a major renovation outside and inside of the building located on North Prospect Street. They have been approved for a historic tax credit project by U.S. Department of Interior. They met U.S. standards of historic preservation. They are replacing existing windows with more historically accurate windows. Mr. Valenzuela provided a photograph of windows to reflect the historic windows that used to be in the building. All the awnings will be replaced with fabric and steel awnings on the west and north elevation. The applicant will be recovering the awnings with either navy or black fabric. The steel awnings will be attached to the brick. On the south elevation, the awning over the window will be replaced completely.

 

Mr. Wilken inquired about the canvas awnings and how they’ll weather.  Mr. Valenzuela stated he could not provide assurance about replacing weathered awnings; however, he has a good reputation of the upkeep of properties in the community.

 

Mr. Valenzuela would like to replace all smoked, tinted window glass with clear glass along the first floor store fronts. Mr. Valenzuela will leave all existing doors.

 

Mr. Wilken inquired about the signage on the second floor. He wanted to know if a tenant occupied those spaces, would they be allowed to post signs from the windows or building. Mr. Valenzuela stated there would be no signage on the second floor and if a tenant requested such, he would bring it before Planning Commission. Mr. Wilken questioned the signage as indicated on the elevations.  Mr. Valenzuela indicated the signage was suggestive only, but was not ready for approval by the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Burriss inquired about whether there would be aprons on the canopies and if there would be lighting. Mr. Valenzuela stated there would be no aprons on canopies and no lighting above canopies.

 

Mr. Wilken inquired about the ventilation system for any restaurants occupying the spaces in the building. Mr. Valenzuela stated there was only one (1) restaurant that was a possible tenant and the ventilation will go through the roof.

 

Mr. Valenzuela stated that their plans are to be completed with the project in June/July.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-18:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent                         with other projects approved in the district. The Planning Commission                             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 certainly consistent by             instilling the historic character. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr.                Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the                         vitality is contributed to with the proposed improvements to the property. The                  Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE and The Planning Commission                         concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approved Application #2014-18. The motion was seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-18: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

New Business:

327 West Maple Street-Debi Hatfield- Application #2014-24

Suburban Residential District (SRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements: Second story addition on the northwestern side of structure; new two car garage addition on the eastern side of structure with a 1:2 roof pitch; removal of asphaltic shingle roofing and replacement with standing seam metal roofing with ice guards; removal of existing siding and replacement with board and batten siding; and removal of all existing windows and replacement with Jeld-Wen wood windows.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker and Debi Hartfield

 

Discussion:

 

Ms. Hartfield introduced the project and stated she was open to feedback from The Planning Commission. Her intention is that both the house and rental property have a cohesive materials pallet. She stated there would be no changes to the chimney located on the north elevation. She intends to pull out the center front window on the upper level to make it appear more like a bay window. Similarly, she stated she intends to re-install a pair of existing doors (currently being utilized separately) on the Maple Street elevation as the front doors. She described the doors as having been crafted together as a pair originally.

 

Ms. Hartfield stated that the garage was intended to be an enlarged/over-sized one (1) car garage, not a two (2) car garage, as stated in the application. She stated that after consideration, she felt that the garage could only go on the eastern side of the structure to achieve her desire to have a connected garage. She further stated that it was the only place that was both aesthetically pleasing and easily accessible from the street and the homes interior. Commission members shared their concerns over the removal of the homes eastern elevation; the most architecturally significant and attractive elevation, in order to locate the proposed garage. Ms. Hartfield shared her understanding of the fact that the elevation challenges were severe. Mr. Mitchell urged Ms. Hartfield to review the property again in an attempt to find a different, workable location for the garage. Mr. Burriss suggested the possibility of an underground garage option as has been done on other properties in Granville.

 

Mr. Hawk and Mr. Burriss were both concerned that the proposed changes to the house presented in the elevations were not preserving the unique historical elements of the existing house. They went on to express that the proposed changes essentially made the house more likely to fit in a suburban neighborhood. They shared their opposition to the use of board and batten siding stating it was not an historically accurate materials selection.

 

Mr. Burriss expressed strong concern regarding the removal of the front porch, as most of the historic homes in the Village have the unique aspect of porches; he encouraged her to retain them as she considers her remodeling project. The Planning Commission agreed they wanted her to preserve as many of the essential historic elements of the house as possible as she moves the project forward.

 

The Planning Commission suggested it may be very advantageous for Ms. Hartfield to work with an architect in order to accomplish her goals for the project and capitalize on the unique historic features of the house.

 

After further lengthy discussion, the applicant and the Planning Commission agreed to table the application until further notice.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application # 2014-24. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to table Application #2014-24: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

129 West College Street – Mary Frazell & Rob Cathcart - Application #2014-26

Village Business District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing wood deck measuring approximately 200 square feet and replacement with a new, slightly expanded wood deck measuring approximately 284 square feet with 36" high hand railings on the western and southern sides.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker and Mary Frazell

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Frazell of 129 West College Street is requesting approval of the removal of an existing wood deck and replacement with a new wood deck.

 

Mr. Hawk questioned whether the wood would be finished.  In the past, Planning Commission has required some type of weatherproofing. Ms. Frazell stated she has not decided what they will do with the treated pine.

 

Mr. Burriss complimented the applicant on the railing design.  Ms. Walker stated that the applicant is well within the 10 foot setback requirement.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-26:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent                         with other renovations approved in the district. The Planning Commission                                     concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the               Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE and The Planning Commission                         concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE,               improving the safety and vitality of the proposed new deck and railing helps make                         the deck feel more architectural in contributing to the vitality of the district.  The                  Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, replacement of the deck that's                                     deteriorating helps enhance the physical surroundings and The Planning                                 Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council on Application# 2014-26 with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-26: Hawk (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-18: Julio Valenzuela; 130-138 North Prospect Street; Exterior Modifications

 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 #2014-18, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-18. Seconded by Mr. Burriss. Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0. 

 

New Business:

Application #2014-26: Mary Frazell; 129 West College Street; Replacement Wood 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 hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-26, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the finish will be applied within one year.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-26. Seconded by Mr. Eklof. Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), Wilken (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for February 24, 2014:

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from February 24, 2014 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

 

Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 24, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. 

Members Present: Council Member Rob Montgomery (non-voting, Ex-Officio Village Council Representative), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Bill Wilken, Jack Burriss and Doug Eklof. 

Members Absent: None. 

Staff Present: Alison Terry, Village Planning Director 

Also Present: Brandon Lackey 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

New Business:

204 South Pearl Street– Brandon Lackey- Application #2014-15

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)  The request is for architectural review and approval of the following improvements to the existing detached garage:

1.         Removal of existing garage doors and replacement with new overhead steel doors;

2.         Addition of an aluminum Dutch door on west facade of garage; and

3.         Removal of existing gutters and downspouts and replacement with 6" half-round             galvanized gutters and downspouts. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry and Brandon Lackey 

Discussion: 

Mr. Lackey of 204 South Pearl Street is requesting approval of the following improvements to the existing detached garage: Garage Doors (north elevation)-Two (2) 9'w x 7'h Wayne-Dalton Model 6600 Carriage House Series insulated steel garage doors. Panel design to be 'Somerset'; window configurations to be 'Stockton III'; hardware to be 'Aspen'.    Man Door (west elevation)-Solar Innovations, Inc. all aluminum frame Dutch-style door with aluminum 'London' hardware; painted to match structure. Doors split 50/50 with an ousting configuration. Gutters and Downspouts-6" half-round galvanized gutters with 4" round downspouts; galvanized finish to remain unpainted. Mr. Lackey stated there will be no slab or step out of the man door because there is already pavement in this location. 

Ms. Terry stated the garage is detached from the house. Looking at the image provided, the garage doors are currently off center and Mr. Lackey would like to put new doors on and center them. The man door will be on the west side of the garage because that is where you enter the house. Mr. Lackey will be painting the entire house and garage, but is unsure of the color at this point. The garage gutters will also be replaced to match the gutters on the home. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-15: 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 certainly historically appropriate and consistent with other improvements in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, by contributing to the vitality of a structure it contributes to the vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                           generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.  

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2014-15. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-15: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0. 

New Business:

Julio Valenzuela of Urban Restorations- Application #2014-18

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The applicant requested that the application be tabled, pending the submittal of additional information.

Mr. Hawk made a motion to table Application #2014-18. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve tabling of Application #2014-18: Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0. 

New Business:

221 East Broadway – Anne-Sara Odor for Wisp, LLC- Application #2014-19

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a circular, one-point-three-nine-five (1.395) square foot wall sign. The applicant has submitted an image of the proposed sixteen inch (16") diameter wall sign superimposed on the wall to the right of the business entrance and facing west. The proposed sign will be constructed of wood with a white background, charcoal grey lettering and border. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry 

Discussion: 

Ms. Odor of 221 East Broadway, for Wisp, LLC, was not present at the hearing. 

Ms. Terry stated on the left side of the front entrance of the building there is a memorial plaque. The new wall sign is proposed to be located on the right side of the front entrance. The sign will be made out of wood and painted white with charcoal grey lettering and a border (see image on border provided by applicant).  The sign will be attached to and flush with the building. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-19:

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the simplicity is consistent and contributes to a new business. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, hopefully the vitality of an individual business is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                      generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.  

Mr. Wilken made a motion to approve Application #2014-19. The motion was not seconded and Mr. Mitchell stated the motion failed for lack of a second vote. 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2014-19 with the condition that the top of the proposed circle sign be in line with the top of the memorial plaque that is on the left side of the entrance to the building and be horizontally symmetrical. Mr. Eklof seconded the motion.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-19: Hawk (no), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-1. 

New Business:

221 East Broadway – Anne-Sara Odor for Wisp, LLC- Application #2014-20

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign for the location known as the Woodshed at Robbins Hunter Museum  (The applicant has submitted an image of the proposed sidewalk sign and the staff provided the photograph). The applicant is requesting approval of a 24" wide by 36" high sandwich board sidewalk sign at the intersection of the East Broadway sidewalk and the pedestrian way. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Alison Terry 

Discussion: 

Ms. Odor of 221 East Broadway, for Wisp, LLC, was not present at the hearing. 

Ms. Terry stated the proposed sign is the same sign as they had across the street (2 ft. x 3 ft.). They are moving it to the new location. Ms. Terry recommended that the sign be removed during non-business hours. 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-20: 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission 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 certainly consistent with other sandwich boards approved in the district and contributes to a new business. The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the                         vitality of an individual business is improved, as well as the entire district.  The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past                                  generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE and The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.  

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2014-20 as submitted with the condition the signs shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-20: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-1. 

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

New Business:

Application #2014-15: Brandon Lackey; 204 South Pearl Street; Improvements to the existing 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 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2014-15, as submitted by the applicant. 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-15. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote: Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0. 

New Business:

Application #2014-19: Anne-Sara Odor; 221 East Broadway; One-point-three-nine-five (1.395) square foot wall sign.

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 #2014-19, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the circle sign by in line with the top of the plaque, which is located on the left side of the entrance of the door and must be horizontally symmetrical. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-19. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.   Roll Call Vote: Wilken (yes), Eklof (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-1.  

New Business:

Application #2014-20: Anne-Sara Odor; 221 East Broadway; Sidewalk sign.

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 #2014-20, as submitted by the applicant with the condition the sign shall be removed and secured indoors during non-business hours. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-20. Seconded by Mr. Wilken.  Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (no), Wilken (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 4-1.

Motion to approve meeting minutes for February 10, 2014: 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from February 10, 2014 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Motion carried 5-0. 

Adjournment:  7:38 PM 

Mr. Mitchell declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned. 

Next meetings: 

Monday, March 10, 2014 

Monday, April 14, 2014 

Monday, April 28, 2014

 

Planning Commission Minutes February 10, 2014

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 

February 10, 2014

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Mitchell (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

 

Members Present: Council Member Jeremy Johnson (non-voting), Tom Mitchell (Chair), Steven Hawk (Vice-Chair), Bill Wilken, Jack Burriss and Doug Eklof.

 

Members Absent: None.

 

Staff Present: Debi Walker, Village Planning and Zoning.

 

Also Present: Kara Gallagher and Nasie Gallagher for Moe's Original Barbecue.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

128 East Broadway – Kara Gallagher for Moe's Original Barbeque- Application #2014-14

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of an outdoor sidewalk cafe' area. The applicants are proposing two (2) options for the cafe' seating (Applicant submitted supporting photographs of proposed cafe' furniture):

 

Option A: Three (3) custom-crafted 6 feet long picnic tables with red umbrellas; three (3) two-tops with chairs placed along the buildings' facade; and six (6) elevated wooden planters to screen and enclose the space; or

 

Option B: Three (3) two-tops round cafe' style tables with chairs placed along the buildings' facade; five (5) four-top round cafe' style tables with four (4) chairs each; three (3) to four (4) red umbrellas; and six (6) planters to demarcate the cafe' space.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Debi Walker and Kara Gallagher

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Gallagher of 128 East Broadway, for Moe's Original Barbecue, stated they are requesting approval of an outdoor sidewalk cafe' area. Ms. Gallagher stated they prefer "Plan A"; however, will go along with whatever the committee suggests. Ms. Gallagher stated her father and brother-in-law will be making the proposed picnic tables either out of cedar or white oak. They will secure the picnic tables and planters at closing time with chains, like the other restaurants in the area. The restaurant will close at 9 p.m., Monday through Saturday, Sundays will close at 8 p.m. and the upstairs bar area will close at 1 a.m. Ms. Gallagher stated they had purchased the planters from Bella, but cannot locate them, so they need to be built. Her father will be constructing the planters as well. Ms. Gallagher agreed with the committee that the planters will be no taller than the picnic table height. Ms. Gallagher stated they are shooting for a March 10th grand opening.

 

Ms. Walker stated the picnic tables are supposed to be removed by October 31st, unless an extension is submitted and approved for a December 31st removal date.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2014-14:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the                  Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the application is certainly consistent                         with similar requests approved in the district. The Planning Commission                         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 certainly consistent with             other outdoor sidewalk cafe's in the district and contributes to a new business. The             Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE, the             vitality of an individual business is improved, as well as the entire district.  The             Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past             generations lived. Mr. Burriss stated TRUE and The Planning Commission             concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council of "Plan A" on  Application #2014-14. Seconded by Mr. Burriss with the condition the enclosed planters are no taller than the picnic table height.

 

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2014-14: Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2014-14: Kara Gallagher; 128 East Broadway; Outdoor sidewalk cafe' area.

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 #2014-14, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2014-04. Seconded by Mr. Eklof.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Wilken (yes), Hawk (yes) and Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve meeting minutes for January 27, 2014: 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the minutes from January 27, 2014 as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

 

Adjournment:  7:35 PM

 

Mr. Mitchell declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned.

 

 

Next meetings:

 

Monday, February 24, 2014

 

Monday, March 10, 2014

 

Monday, April 14, 2014

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.