Granville Community Calendar

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.

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.