Granville Community Calendar

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.

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.