Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2015

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 13, 2015

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. Eklof, Mr. Burris and Jackie O’Keefe, (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Tim Klingler (ex-officio member, GEVSD, Non-Voting)

Staff Present: Deb Walker, Planning and Zoning Assistant, Michael King, Law Director, Alison Terry, Planning Director and Steve Stilwell, Village Manager

 

Also Present:  Keith Eschbaugh, Jean Schorger Brown, John Noblick, Rod Talbott, Randy Talbott, Charlie Hartman, David English, Tod Frolking, and Dennis Cauchon.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

 

226 East Broadway – Jared Eschbaugh – Application #2015-146The 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 Keith Eschbaugh and Deb Walker.

 

Discussion:

Keith Eschbaugh, 226 E. Broadway, Granville, Ohio, on behalf of Ila’s Popcorn, requested approval of an A-frame sidewalk sign which he brought with him to show to the board.  The sign is a black chalkboard type.  It would be put out in the daytime and secured inside at business closing.  It would be situated between the house and sidewalk. 

 

Staff approves of the sign, as it will be located as illustrated and secured when the business is not open. There were no questions from the Commission.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2015-146:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed improvements are consistent with the style and architecture of the home and the surrounding area.  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 improvements contribute to the upgrading of the home and therefore 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 proposed design and materials are consistent and therefore 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, the proposed improvements are consistent and historically correct with other projects previously approved in the district, thereby protecting the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application # 2015-146 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2015-146:  Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes), and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

324 West Elm Street – Jean Schorger Brown – Application #2015-147:  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 six (6’) foot high wood privacy fence in the eastern side yard\ and a thirty (30”) inch picket fence in the eastern side yard with gate.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Jean Schorger Brown and Deb Walker.   

 

Discussion:

Jean Schorger Brown, 324 West Elm Street, said she was submitting the application for the fences as described. 

 

Mr. Hawk asked if these were replacement fences or new.  Ms. Brown answered yes. Mr. Hawk asked if a survey had been done.  Ms. Brown answered yes she knows where the property lines are. 

 

Mr. Klingler remarked that the proposed fence is attractive and fits the style of the house.  Staff is in favor of the fence.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2015-147:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed improvements are consistent with the style and architecture of the home and the surrounding area.  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 improvements contribute to the upgrading of the home and therefore 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 proposed design and materials are consistent and therefore 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, the proposed improvements are consistent and historically correct with other projects previously approved in the district, thereby protecting the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application # 2015-147 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Eklof.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2015-147:  Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

135 West Maple Street - Charlie Hartman - Application # 2015-148: 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 installation of a new air conditioning unit, replacement garage door and installation of chimney caps.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Charlie Hartman and Deb Walker.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Charlie Hartman, 135 W. Maple, would like to install a replacement air conditioning unit on the West side of the house.  The current A/C unit is on the South side of the house and Mr. Hartman would like to do a renovation of that area in the future.  He would also like to replace the 1980 deteriorating garage door and install stainless chimney caps - one round for the hot water heater, and two square for gas fire place chimneys. 

 

The Staff approves of the project.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2015-148:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed improvements are consistent with the style and architecture of the home and the surrounding area.  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; proposed improvements contribute to the upgrading of the home and therefore 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 proposed design and materials are consistent and therefore contribute to the livability and therefore 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; the proposed improvements are consistent and historically correct with other projects previously approved in the district, thereby protecting the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application # 2015-148 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2015-148:  Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

125 East College Street – John Noblick for Rod Talbott - Application 2015-149: The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). The request is for exterior modifications and improvements: New second floor sunroom addition, standing seam metal roofing, entire structure, New gutters and downspouts, change of siding from vinyl to polymer shake-look, entire structure, vinyl replacement windows first and second floors, glass block windows in east and west side of basement, new upper deck with railing, replacement exterior staircase including landing, new lattice screening panel beneath exterior staircase landing, replacement of existing concrete block first floor stoop rear of structure with masonry block with concrete finish, installation of hand-rail system on new stoop and staircase, remove and replace existing concrete patio with stamped concrete patio, installation of gravel between existing concrete driveway runners.  

 

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Hawk swore in Deb Walker and John Noblick, later in discussion Rod and Randy Talbott were sworn in.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Noblick, 372 Shamrock Lane, Newark, stated that the installation of gravel between existing concrete runners is already in existence.  He explained that the stamped concrete patio will be dark gray and will resemble slate.  The roof may have to be raised to replace the windows with vinyl windows.  The back of the house has a flat metal roof.  Existing sleeping quarters on the second story with a flat roof is only six feet (6’) high and is not habitable by Licking County standards.  The standing seam roof will be dark bronze in color.  The old staircase on the back of the house was removed as hazardous and will be replaced with a new staircase.  Windows will match existing openings. 

 

Ms. O’Keefe asked if the home had been a two family dwelling at one time.  The answer was yes, at one time, but because time has passed it has lost that nonconforming status. 

Randy Talbott stated that the aim is to maintain an historic look with the best quality products. 

 

Assistant Planner Walker said that the VBD allows for 70% lot coverage. 

 

Mr. Noblick explained that the original structure was a barn that had been added to several times.  The roof raising was a late breaking decision.  He indicated a portion of the front porch is in the public right of way, so the owners will need to get a general use permit from the Village Council. 

 

Rod Talbott explained that the reason for the change in the roof plan was that several valleys were going to create leakage issues, so they changed the plan to prevent that. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked if shutters could be added to the right side of the West elevation to make it more aesthetically pleasing.  Rod Talbott explained that they will be trying to add a garage and carriage house next year, but that they could add shutters for now. 

 

 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2015-149:

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed improvements are similar in style 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, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area 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 proposed design and materials contribute to the livability of the home and therefore 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. Burriss stated TRUE; the proposed design and materials are consistent and historically correct with other projects previously approved in the District and therefore achieve this.  All other members concurred with Mr. Burriss.

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to approve Application #2015-149 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2015-149:  Burriss (Yes), Eklof (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Other Business:

 

Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revision, to amend Section 1135.01 and Section 1169.02 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Definitions and Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Institutional District (ID).

 

Discussion: 

 

Mr. Hawk declared this is a public hearing on these zoning code reviews.  He clarified that any recommendations to Council would be based on what is appropriate for Granville, not what is appropriate for any particular property. 

 

Planner Terry stated the Board has received a request from Denison to modify the conditional use section of the Institutional District zoning classification which could allow for a larger solar energy production facility. 

 

Law Director King and Steven Stilwell indicated the Village doesn’t currently have a definition of solar energy in the Zoning Code.  A solar energy production facility can have a larger combination of panels.  Solar energy equipment and voltage is part of these provisions. 

 

Law Director King indicated the Village received a letter from Denison on Sept 8, 2015, stating they were working with Granville Township to amend the Township’s Zoning Code in relation to solar energy.  Denison is asking for solar to be recognized as an accessory use in the Institutional District.  This is an opportunity to clarify this and to clarify that the proposed solar use is accessory use.  In looking at other areas to define the term solar energy production facility it was found that this would service an institution (Denison), eliminate their dependence on electric companies, but also clarifies that the production of electric cannot become a commercial use on a property (to make money.)  Conditional accessory use criteria concerns what the effect would be on neighbors, surrounding properties, etc. 

 

David English, 138 N. Main, Granville, was there as a representative of Denison.  He said he agreed with Law Director King and indicated the Township was considering the issue. 

 

Jim Cooper, 334 West Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated he was also representing Denison and the action on the proposed ordinance would not affect the common pleas court case.  It will be decided as it stands. 

 

Mr. Eklof made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council for the proposed revisions to the Codified Ordinance section 1135.01 and 1169.02, as proposed.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), motion passed 3-0.

 

Option 1: Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revision, to amend section 1121.01 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Required Street Widths and Right of Way Widths in the Subdivision Regulations; and

 

Option 2: Review of Proposed Zoning Code Revision, to amends Section 1105.01, 1117.02, 1117.03, 1117.04 and 1121.01 of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio Pertaining to Definitions and Required Street Widths and Right of Way Widths in the Subdivision Regulations. 

 

Discussion on Option 1 and Option 2 Proposed Zoning Code Revisions:

Planner Terry explained that with Option 1 there is a section of the Code that allows the Village Council to grant deviations from the infrastructure requirements (roadway widths, right-of-way widths, sidewalks, etc.). In the last sentence of Section 1121.01, the code states that in no case may sidewalks, etc. be less than that of the county requirements.  The current proposal from the Frolking’s is to remove this requirement completely.  Planner Terry indicated the current code provision sets a standard, other than the Village’s, which should be maintained.  She went on to state that Staff is recommending this sentence not be eliminated completely, but instead, modified to allow for up to a 20% reduction.  Each request for such deviation would then be reviewed on a case by case basis.  

 

Planner Terry then discussed all of the code sections that would be addressed under Option 2, as requested by the Frolking’s.  The proposed modifications become much more complex and would affect all small scale future residential development in the Village. She went on to discuss the proposed public street changes, the more closely defined service streets, alleys, and public right of way.  Two (2) cross-sections of potential public street and right-of-way width modifications was reviewed and discussed in relation to access for public management vehicles and emergency vehicles. 

 

Brian Coghlan, Bird and Bull Engineering firm, Village Engineer, expressed concern over narrower roadway proposals.  The Police department and Fire Chief share the same concerns regarding parking enforcement issues and emergency access.

 

A letter from Board member Wilken was read into the record by Mr. Hawk.  Mr. Wilken is opposed to any reduction in code widths especially in the congested Village.  He said he has experienced such things in small towns elsewhere and it created a parking nightmare. 

Mr. King discussed the legal and policy changes proposed by the Frolkings.  An obstacle in the current Code relates to local category road widths.  He indicated currently Village Council can grant a variance, but cannot approve a reduction that is less than the county code.  Possible changes could be to create a new category of road specific to what is wanted – as outlined in Option 2.  Another change could be to amend the restrictions on the granting of variances below the County standards.  Is that smart?  The GPC is not here to make changes specific to the Frolking’s properties.  If the Village Council provides more latitude to make changes to variance procedures, it still cannot go below more than 20% of the county regulations.  Option 3 would be to make no changes at all to the Code.

 

Discussion then revolved around various areas of the community that are currently problematic in relation to traffic and parking. Creation of a private road would mean that multifamily units could be built on private roadways instead of public roadways.  Curb profiles were discussed as Granville requires a straight curb.  Angle bump out parking was also discussed as a problem because of interference with sidewalks, utilities, trees and lawns. 

 

Engineer Coghlan indicated these are the reasons codes have evolved. Columbus street width regulations are 26 feet minimum.  More discussion followed regarding on-street parking, delivery vehicles, appliance trucks, garbage trucks, moving trucks and emergency vehicles. 

 

Engineer Coghlan pointed out that historic roads are narrower and are difficult to maneuver through at times.  Such streets in Columbus neighborhoods are now one way for that very reason.   He said he could not endorse a narrower width for new roads.  He stated a twenty-two (22’) foot road will act like a construction zone.  Disallowing parking will become an enforcement issue.  Emergency and other vehicles would not be able to negotiate.  Snow removal and other vehicles previously discussed would have an issue.

 

Tod Frolking, 605 W. Broadway, Granville, said their proposal would only have nine (9) homes using the road. 

 

It was mentioned again that if someone had a party there would be significantly more traffic and parking enforcement problems.  Mr. Hawk stated the Board was not dealing with the Frolking property with these variances. 

 

Mr. Frolking contended the Board was and he wants it left to the Village Council. 

 

Mr. Klingler suggested that passing Option 1 would allow the Village Council to decide whether variances should be granted for individual properties. 

 

Mr. Eklof also favored Option 1.  The staff indicted there were also supportive of Option 1. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council for the proposed revision to the Codified Ordinance section 1121.01, Option 1, as proposed.  Mr. Eklof seconded.  Burriss (yes), Eklof (yes), Hawk (yes), motion passed 3-0.

 

 

 

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

a)         Application # 2015-146; Jared Eschbaugh, on behalf of Ila’s Gourmet Popcorn; 226 East Broadway C; Sidewalk SignApprove 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, Signs and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-146. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve for Findings of Fact for Application #2015-146.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote Burriss (Yes), Eklof (Yes), Hawk (Yes), Motion carried 3-0.

 

b)         Application #2015-147; Jean Schorger Brown 324 West Elm Street; Fencing: 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), Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) and Chapter 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-147.

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-147.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote Burriss (yes), Eklof (Yes), and Hawk (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

c)         Application #2015-148; Charlie Hartman; 135 West Maple 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 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-148. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-148.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

d)                  Application 2015-149; John Noblick on behalf of Rodney Talbott; 125 East College Street; Remodeling and 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 Business District (VBD) and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2015-149. 

 

Mr. Eklof moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2015-149.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Eklof (Yes), Burriss (Yes) and Hawk (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Members:  Mr. Eklof made a motion to excuse the absence of Bill Wilken and Craig Potaracke.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Burriss (yes), Eklof (Yes) and Hawk (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

October 26, 2015

November 9, 2015

November 23, 2015

 

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

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 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.