Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 11, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Demarest (Village Council representative) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

 

Members Absent:  Mr. Burriss

 

Staff Present:  Michael King, Village Law Director; Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Frank Rosato, Andy Wildman, Jarrod Norton, Nick Oldford, and

Rob O’Neill.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-172, submitted by Jay Young, for the property located at 142 East Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a white wall sign with black lettering and logo.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion: 

Debra Yost, Village Planner, on behalf of Jay Young, stated:  that he will be expanding his space, and wants a new sign in place of the existing awning.  She stated that his request meets all the requirements of the district.

 

Mr. Klingler complimented the look of the sign, as well as other signage he has done.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application  #2017-172; Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District. 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall. 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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.

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke  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. 

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-172.    Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Potaracke (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)                 Application #2017-173 submitted by Jarrod Norton, on behalf of Ruoff Home Mortgage, for the property located at 321 East Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a white freestanding sign with a green and blue logo and lettering.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Jarrod Norton and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Jarrod Norton, Ruoff Home Mortgage, 321 East Broadway, stated:  that he is proposing a sign mounted to wood posts in front of the building.  He decided to do a one-sided sign because of the existing landscape.  The colors go with the corporate color scheme.  Mrs. Yost stated that the building was part of the Buxton Inn and has been a residence, but now is a business. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked about the setback for the sign.  Mrs. Yost said that all signage on the north side of East Broadway is located in the right-of-way, and that the color scheme is within the limitations of the Village Code. 

 

There was discussion about the existence of two flag poles, which cause the placement of the sign to look awkward.  Ms. Hoyt asked if anything could be done to make the sign look more historic.  Mr. Wilken asked if there had been consideration to putting the sign on the other side of the house.  Mr. Klingler suggested putting some landscaping around the bottom of the sign.  Mr. Wilken asked if the sign could be offset from the flag poles.  Mrs. Yost said that a motion could be conditional, based on the addition of shrubbery, and offered to work with the applicant to put landscaping around the sign, if that was the Planning Commission’s desire.  Ms. Hoyt asked if flag poles could be removed, but that suggestion was negated.  Michael King, Law Director, suggested talking to the property owner.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-173; Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr Potaracke stated True, the proposed sign its

Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 27, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

 

Members Absent:  Mr. Potaracke and Mr. Demarest (Village Council representative)

 

Staff Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Frank Rosato and Robert O’Neill

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None

 

Work Session: 

 

a.      Southgate Corporation, Review and feedback on Medical Office and Retail aspects of the development project at the northeast corner of Cherry Valley Road and Newark-Granville Road.

 

Discussion:

 

Frank Rosato described the changes that had been made in the proposed project since the work session in October [2017]:

  • Buildings were moved 50 feet further north from Newark-Granville Road to increase a green area paralleling Newark-Granville Road;
  • Townhouses were reconfigured to better organize vehicular access and work with the topography;
  • Two lots were added to the number of single-family estate lots;
  • Discussion specifically related to proposed retail uses such as coffee shop, pharmacy, restaurant
  • Medical office building will probably be first to be built; retail will follow, but will be tenant-driven;
  • Working on details related to architecture; possibility of elevations being presented at next meeting

 

Through discussion with the Commissioners, the following suggestions were made:

  • A two-story medical office building near Newark-Granville Road would make an architecturally impressive statement, or at least a building that appeared taller (like the newest Fackler building), whether or not it included an elevator; a two-story building would not have to change square footage, but would be a different footprint;
  • Since a walking trail is illustrated to the north and east of the large lot single-family, the addition of low-level lighting to the trail may be of benefit in terms of increased use and safety;
  • To pursue discussion with Granville Township Fire Department Chief Casey Curtis to better understand their requirements, in particular fire hydrant spacing;
  • Determine where services such as dumpsters and deliveries will be located;
  • Consideration given to creating the eastern driveway as a right-in-right-out;
  • Consideration given to the proposed tree lines/screening and the existing tree lines at Newark-Granville Road;
  • Concept that architecture can be used as “signage”;
  • Flip development so medical office buildings and retail are adjacent to already commercial buildings (Office Condos at Erinwood), which would protect the residential lots to the east;
  • Connection of the walking trail to Newark-Granville Road in order to make it  community-friendly;  make this neighborhood special; sidewalks sized appropriately;
  • Consideration given to the enhancement through plantings of storm water areas;
  • Design retail building in a manner other than rectangular to increase visibility and interest;
  • Consideration given to pedestrian traffic crossing Newark-Granville Road to access retail businesses;
  • Addition of elements associated with neighborhood parks – addition of more green spaces for the residents;
  • Possibility of two lots being designated as community garden plots, or one lot being mowed and being a place for contemplation and or play; creating a more neighborhood feeling;
  • Use creative ways to provide housing other than cookie-cutter 4-unit buildings, suggesting a barn-conversion look since that area was once part of the Bryn Du farm (?);
  • Need to extend sewer and determine how it will impact the Village.

 

Discussion Points: 

 

a.       Granville Housing Inventory, by Village Planner Debra Walker Yost, regarding housing stock in Granville and planning for housing in the future.

 

Planner Walker Yost provided each Commissioner with materials to peruse concerning the “missing middle” in Granville’s housing inventory, and asked them to be able to answer the following questions:

  • What does our housing inventory look like?
  • What are the gaps? Do we have a healthy balance of housing options?
  • Do the Commissioners have a working vocabulary concerning housing?
  • What is our collective vision for a balanced housing inventory? How will we achieve that vision?

 

Mrs. Yost mentioned that Granville had recently received an award for having the premier downtown in Ohio, and wants the Planning Commission to make sure that what they approve for development is in keeping with what Granville already has, and is also in keeping with its collective vision of the future Granville.

 

Motion to excuse absence, if necessary

 

Mr. Klingler moved to excuse the absence of Planning Commission member Mr. Potaracke.   Second by Mr. Burriss.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from November 13, 2017 Planning Commission hearings:

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from the November 13, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

December 11, 2017 (Last Meeting of 2017)

January 8, 2018

January 22, 2018 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:42 pm.

Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 13, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Young (GEVSD representative), and Mr. Demarest (Village  Council representative).

 

Members Absent:  None

 

Staff Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Chip Blanchard, Ryan Badger, George Martin, Jay Snyder, Gene Agaw, and Melissa Hartfield

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None

 

Consent Agenda:

 

a)                  Application #2017-150, submitted by Leslie McNemar, for the property located at 527 Newark-Granville Road.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a freestanding tenant panel sign.    The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.    Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-150.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-153, submitted by Jay Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches, for the property located at 115 North Prospect Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of the existing siding with aluminum siding.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Jay Snyder and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Jay Snyder, 2061 Jones Road, Granville, for Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches, 115 North Prospect Street, stated:  that the building needs new siding.  It currently has vinyl, and he wants to replace it with aluminum siding.  He added that the existing air conditioner will be replaced with a window unit or an interior unit.  Hays Home Improvement will do structural work, and Mickey’s Roofing will do the roofing.

 

Debra Walker Yost said that the request is well understood, and explained that Jay has a flat roof over a box window, which is tough to drain.  She added that the progress of the project will determine exactly what needs to be done.

 

Mr. Klingler asked where the air conditioner will be.  Mr. Snyder said that the air conditioner will be flashed in and sided over.  Mr. Klingler asked if the window air conditioner would be in the middle window.  Mr. Snyder said that the unit would be removed and replaced, but would not be in the existing location.

 

Mr. Wilken suggested a ductless air conditioner, and explained that they are used for air conditioning as well as heat, but are not a full air conditioning unit.  Mr. Snyder said he would investigate that. 

 

George Martin, 117 North Prospect Street, stated:  that there was previously a fire in the building, noting that water leaked into the building.  His concern was that the water problem be fixed, with water going away from the building, not towards it.

 

Mr. Klingler noted that the Staff Report comments mention only replacing the siding, and he was uncomfortable approving an air conditioning unit sticking out of a window.  Mr. Wilken agreed.  Mr. Snyder explained that part of the siding replacement would include replacing the air conditioning unit, and asked if Mr. Klingler would be comfortable with an indoor unit.  Mr. Klingler said he would if it were not visible.  Mr. Wilken said that there was no mention of an air conditioning unit on the application.  Mrs. Yost confirmed that the request makes no mention of a window air conditioning unit. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-153; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District. 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall. 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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. 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the application as submitted (the replacement of existing vinyl siding, associated flashing, and roof layer above the projecting window with aluminum siding over the entire east elevation.  The air conditioner will be addressed with another application).  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-153.    Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

b)                 Application #2017-158 submitted by Melissa Hartfield of Blanchard Construction, on behalf of Neal and Sue Hartfield, for the property located at 325 East Elm Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of an addition to the existing garage.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Melissa Hartfield, Chip Blanchard, and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Melissa Hartfield, 220 South Pearl Street, representing her parents and Blanchard Construction, noted that the proposed new structure would be a 2-bay garage, with an additional man-door on the side, matching the existing siding, trim, shingles, windows, and panels. 

 

Mrs. Yost said that she is pleased with the project and that the applicants’ submittal and attention to detail was greatly appreciated.  Mr. Wilken confirmed that everything seems to comply.  Mr. Klingler liked where the new addition will be.  Ms. Hartfield added that grade work will have to be done, the elevation for the new addition will be 8” higher, and an inset (setback of the new structure) will yield a nicer appearance to the project. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-158; Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)       Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District. 

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall. 

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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. 

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-158.    Potaracke (yes), Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

c)                  Application #2017-159, submitted by Ryan Badger of ADR & Associates, on behalf of Karl Schneider of Raccoon Creek Senior Living LLC, for the property located on Weaver Road (Lot 15, Township 2, Range 13).  The request is for recommendation of approval to Village Council for the rezoning of the property to Village Gateway District (VGD) once the annexation process is completed.  The property is currently zoned General Business (GB) under Granville Township’s zoning. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Ryan Badger and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Ryan Badger, with ADR & Associates, 88 West Church Street, Newark, said:  that annexation for the recently purchased property is in process, and the next step would be to rezone the property, as the intended use will be to build duplexes [as part of the Middleton facility]. 

 

Mrs. Yost said that the applicants will be required to ask for a Conditional Use for the proposed expansion of the assisted living facility.  She said the rezoning is an appropriate request, and that Staff is in full support.  Mrs. Yost confirmed that the Planning Commission would be recommending approval to Village Council subject to the annexation being complete. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-159; Chapter 1143, Amendments.

 

a)      Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed amendment is compatible to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.

 

b)      Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed amendment will not create an unnecessary increase in traffic on Weaver Drive, given its use.

 

c)      Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that, the proposed amendment will not adversely impact public health, safety and general welfare.

 

d)      Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, adequate infrastructure exists that will support the proposed expansion.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.    Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-159.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session: 

 

a.      The Pedestrian Pathway Plan Presentation, by Village Manager Steve Pyles, regarding potential pedestrian improvements throughout the Village.

 

Discussion:

Steve Pyles, Village Manager, explained that:  a prioritized Pedestrian Pathway Plan has been created, budgeted for in 2017 and 2018, and that he would like to get input before the plan is taken to Village Council. 

 

Mr. Wilken described the upcoming GEVSD revenue referendum and asked, if it should be defeated, if the Village will be able to provide necessary sidewalks.  Mr. Pyles mentioned that one feature of the plan is that it is proposing more safety.  He explained in detail seven of the proposed improvements for pedestrians, and related each one to the safety factor.  Concerning the mid-block crossing on Broadway, Mr. Wilken said that there are too many false positives there, and that the action-motivated detector there doesn’t work; he added that vehicles need to be more reliably warned.  Mr. Klingler agreed.  Mr. Pyles said he understands and will research the situation.

 

Mr. Klingler described the dangerous situation where New Burg and Burg Street intersect as a potential problem.  Mr. Pyles agreed, but said that it is outside the corporation; he will pass that on to the trustees. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked how this plan ties into what the State will be doing on South Main Street.  Mr. Pyles said the discussion is ongoing, and expanded on details.  The State of Ohio has approved an application to put crossing signals at Pearl Street and Broadway, as well as at the Main Street crossing.

 

Mr. Pyles elaborated on the remaining proposed projects on the Pedestrian Pathway Plan.  No further suggestions were made by the Planning Commission. 

 

There was discussion about adding sidewalks to suburban areas like Bryn Du.  It was agreed that such an endeavor would entail a very large expense for the Village.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-153:  Jay Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches; 115 North Prospect Street; Siding Replacement;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-153.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

b)         Application 2017-158; Melissa Hartfield of Blanchard Construction, on behalf of Neal and Sue Hartfield; 325 East Elm Street; Garage Addition; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-158.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote:  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

c)         Application 2017-159:  Ryan Badger of ADR & Associates, on behalf of Karl Schneider of Raccoon Creek Senior Living; Weaver Road (Lot 15, Township 2, Range 13); Rezoning; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-159.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.    Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from October 23, 2017 Planning Commission hearings:

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the October 23, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

November 27, 2017

December 11, 2017 (Last Meeting of 2017)

January 8, 2018

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved that the meeting be adjourned.   Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:09 pm.

 

Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 23, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Demarest (Ex-officio Village  Council representative).

 

Member Absent:  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Potaracke

 

Staff Present:  Michael King, Village Law Director; Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Muffy Chrysler, Steve Chrysler, Frank Rosato and Robert O’Neill

 

Citizens’ Comments:  none.

 

Consent Agenda:

 

a)                  Application #2017-144, submitted by Mary and Chris Lucas-Miller, for the property located at 226 West Elm Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of a three-tab shingle roof with a dimensional shingle roof of the same color.    The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

            Mr. Klingler moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.    Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-144.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

b)                 Application #2017-138 (Amended), submitted by Denison University, for the property located at 211 West College Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a modification to the roofing materials for Burke Hall.  The existing slate roof is proposed to be replaced with the same roofing materials as the Performing Arts Center.  The property is zoned Village Institutional District (VID), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Discussion: 

Ms. Hoyt mentioned that the slate roof was replaced several years ago, and asked if it would be replaced again.  Mrs. Yost confirmed that they would be replacing the whole roof.  Mr. Wilken added that the existing materials are not in good condition and stated that, with the improvement, the roof will be the same as the Performing Arts Center.  Mr. Klingler said that he would be glad to have the two buildings match.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Mr. Klingler.    Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-138 (Amended).  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)               Application #2017-145, submitted by Erin Kirwin, for the property located at 110 East Elm Street, Unit A.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a five point thirty-two (5.32) square foot freestanding sign tenant panel on the South Main Street frontage of the building.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

b)              Application #2017-146 submitted by Erin Kirwin, for the property located at 110 East Elm Street, Unit A.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a three point fifty-five (3.55) square foot freestanding sign tenant panel on the East Elm Street frontage of the building.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Dr. Erin Kirwin and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Dr. Erin Kirwin, 110 East Elm Street, Unit A, stated:  that she is applying for new signage for her new practice.

 

Mrs. Yost stated that the signage meets all the requirements, and that each sign meet the requirements for the district. She added that there is still a lot of square footage remaining for the property [for signage].  Ms. Hoyt said that the colors and the font look good, and Mr. Klingler said that it was a nice-looking sign.

 

Mr. Wilken asked Law Director King if Application #2017-145 and Application #2017-146 could be addressed as one, or if the criteria needed to be addressed separately.  Mr. King said that they could be addressed at one time.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-145 and Application #2017-146; Chapter 1189, Signs, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Klingler stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District. 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Klingler stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall. 

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Klingler 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.

 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Klingler 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. 

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the applications as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote to approve Applications #2017-145 and #2017-146. Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

c)                  Application #2017-149, submitted by Marjorie Chrysler, for the property located at 212 Sunrise Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a fifty (50) inch horizontal rail fence on the rear of the property.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Marjorie Chrysler and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

Marjorie Chrysler, 212 Sunrise Street, stated:  that she had a new deck added to her house this past summer, and now would like to add a rail fence from the edge of the deck to the corner of the garage.  She added that it will be four (4) feet tall with a 2 by material top rail, stating that it will not impede the view and will contain their puppy. 

 

Mrs. Yost said staff is concerned about the routing the proposed fence takes resulting in a sharp angle near the garage as it appears that the fence does not follow the property line. She added that it has been her experience that the unfenced area might be used by the neighbors, and over time, the neighbors make the assumption that the property belongs to them. She also noted that the routing could create a maintenance challenge for the homeowners.  She said that staff would prefer to see the fence at a 90-degree angle.  Mrs. Chrysler said that there is a tree in the way of where staff would like to see the fence. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if fences were limited to 48 inches in height.  Mrs. Yost said that fences are restricted to a height of 72 inches in the side and rear yards. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked for confirmation that it would be a rail fence, and Mrs. Chrysler said that it would be rail fence.  Mr. Klingler said that he likes the look of the fence.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-149; Chapter 1187, Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Klingler stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Klingler stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall. 

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Klingler 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.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Klingler 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. 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-149.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes),  and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-145:  Erin Kirwin; 110 East Elm Street, Unit A; Freestanding Sign Tenant Panel on South Main Street;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-145.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

b)       Application 2017-146; Erin Kirwin; 110 East Elm Street, Unit A; Freestanding Sign Tenant Panel on East Elm Street; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-146.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

c)         Application 2017-149:  Marjorie Chrysler; 212 Sunrise Street; Fence Installation; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-149.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.    Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Wilken reminded the Planning Commission about the meeting on Oct. 24, 2017 at 9am with the Cherry Valley Road Study Group.  Mrs. Yost added that the meeting should be interesting, and welcomed any who might want to come. 

 

Work Session:  Southgate Corporation Conceptual Development Plan for the property located in the northeast corner of Cherry Valley Road and Newark-Granville Road; the focus will be on the medical office buildings only.

 

Discussion:

Robert O’Neill stated that Southgate Corporation has changed the plans somewhat as they were happy with the suggestions made by the Planning Commission on October 9, 2017 concerning bringing the parking lots together and putting similar buildings and facilities together.  He said that he made the office buildings more expansive and moved the retail space to the opposite (east) side.  He hoped to focus on the medical office area, as it would be the impetus to get started.  Mrs. Yost said that Bryn Du was constructed using multiple phases, and she thought it was a good idea to focus on just the medical office building aspects of the project as phase one.  Mr. O’Neill reminded the Planning Commission that Southgate Corporation is hoping to have the building open for occupancy one year from now. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked Mr. Demarest if he had any reactions to the proposed plan, but Mr. Demarest said he had none at this time. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if there is a minimum number of parking spaces required.  Law Director King said that he didn’t think that would be an issue, and that the developers should be fine.   Ms. Hoyt said, by changing the retail space, it looked like the parking and the trees are right beside the street, and that she would prefer seeing the space reconfigured.

 

Mr. O’Neill said that they wanted separation with the parking so that it doesn’t look like a massive parking lot.  He explained that, as the building nears Newark-Granville Road, parking backs up to parking, and that they tried to make the building act as a buffer. 

 

Ms. Hoyt said that she would like to see more green space between the medical building and the street.  Mr. Wilken said that it looks like trees are in the middle of Newark-Granville Road. 

 

Frank Rosato said that he thinks the trees will be okay, but agrees with Ms. Hoyt.  He will try to reconfigure things to the north to minimize that problem.  Ms. Hoyt said that she thought it was a large improvement from the original sketch. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if they would consider a low stone wall nearest to Newark-Granville Road in order to alleviate headlights at night.  Mr. Rosato said they might use low shrubs to block headlights.  Mr. Rosato confirmed that he wants the aesthetics to be attractive and will continue to refine the plans.  Admittedly, he said that he already met with doctors to pre-plan spaces inside the medical building. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if there would have to be a mandatory traffic study.  Mrs. Yost said that there would be.  Mr. Rosato said that a traffic study had been discussed, and that he also needs to decide about the sewer.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if there had been any thought about what the buildings would look like.  Mr. Rosato said that they would be single-story, but there were no design ideas yet. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked how the street would be lighted.  Mr. Rosato said he didn’t know exactly, but thought it would be dark, architectural, task lighting that would shine down on the roadway.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if there had been any thoughts about sidewalks in the office building area.  Mr. Rosato said it would be a pedestrian-friendly development, but didn’t have exact ideas yet.  He said a sidewalk would go around the building as well as from one building to another.  Possibly there would be a change in the look of the pavement, but it would look like one piece. 

 

Mr. Klingler said that the closeness to Newark-Granville Road is a concern for him, and added that he would not like it configured as per the diagram that was presented at the [Oct. 23, 2017] meeting.  He asked if it could be moved further north.  Mr. Rosato said that he needs to talk to the civil engineer because of the topography of the area.  He added that he would like to extend the road north, but said it’s a matter of a nuts-and-bolts discussion with the civil engineer, which hasn’t happened yet.  He added that he likes the ideas and suggestions made this evening.    Mr. Klingler said that his words are nice, but he would want to make sure that more details would be provided. 

 

Mr. Rosato said that architects are looking at the needs of the pediatric group, specifically getting parents and children into the medical office building from the parking lot.  He added that he will certainly be approaching the Planning Commission again with something that picks up on the design elements of the Village as well as providing a functional building.  Mr. Klingler said that it is really important what it will look like, especially from Newark-Granville Road. 

 

Mr. Wilken suggested that a little wiggle room might be gained if a row-house structure could be used rather than detached units.  Mrs. Yost addressed the storm water detention space, and wondered if it could be put under the parking area.  She added that she likes the configuration of the medical office building, but that more green space along Newark-Granville Road is needed.  Also, she addressed the lighting requirement in the Village, and suggested that it not be too bright.  She also asked if there were any utility lines at the rear of the property.  Mr. O’Neill said that there is a utility line along the east edge of the property, but it doesn’t connect to Erinwood.  Mr. Wilken said that he likes the basic layout of the office buildings, and mentioned that they look functional. 

 

Mr. Klingler asked what the lot sizes are in the rectangle.  Mr. Rosato said that they are 70 feet wide, but didn’t know the depth.  Mrs. Yost said that the lot size could help to generate a village feeling. 

 

Mr. O’Neill said he would like to move ahead, and asked if it would be acceptable to turn an architect loose on elevations and exteriors.  Mr. Wilken agreed, and suggested that elevation from Newark-Granville Road would definitely help.  Mr. O’Neill said that he will get engineering work started, and will also start with architectural designs.  Mrs. Yost said that Staff would like to see the engineer’s plans.

 

Motion to excuse absence, if necessary:

 

Mr. Klingler moved to excuse Mr. Burriss and Mr. Potaracke.   Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from October 9, 2017 Planning Commission

hearings:

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the October 9, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Motion carried 3-0.

 

Mr. Wilken said he likes this phase of the Southgate development, and mentioned that if they used the row house idea, it might gain space and be more attractive.  Mrs. Yost said they need to concentrate on the medical office area first.  She added that, as plans develop, more things will become evident.  Ms. Hoyt said that some developments have four-unit and eight-unit buildings, and wondered if possibly that might be more visually appealing.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if current regulations permit a medical building of more than 5000 square feet. 

 

Mr. Demarest asked when Southgate would make their first proposal.  Mrs. Yost said that they would most likely be very expeditious in presenting the next round of plans.  Mr. Wilken asked whether it might be before Christmas.  Mrs. Yost said that she thought that might be likely, as the intent is to have zoning done by April, 2018. 

 

Mr. Demarest said that it was great that they have a tenant for the medical space, but he is concerned that there might be more special accommodation for one tenant rather than the “90” families that would be living in the residential area.  Mrs. Yost consoled that she believed they will redirect their plan soon to address the needs of the proposed residential aspects of the project; that it was still very early in the projects life cycle.

 

Mr. Wilken said that he had looked at topographical maps, and the grade is not as bad as some streets in Granville.  He thought it looked like a 7% grade, which is within the limits; certainly less than the climb to Glen Tawel [in Bryn Du]. 

 

Ms. Hoyt said that they have done a good job moving the retail, but there are no exact dimensions available.  Mr. Wilken said that he was concerned about traffic contributing to future congestion on Newark-Granville Road.

 

Mrs. Yost stated that Steve Pyles, Village Manager, would have a pedestrian pathway review coming up at a Planning Commission meeting soon.

 

Meeting Announcements:

November 13, 2017

November 27, 2017

December 11, 2017 (Last Meeting of 2017)

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Klingler moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 7:59pm.

Planning Commission Minutes October 9, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 9, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Young.

 

Members Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Rob O’Neill and Frank Rosato

 

Citizens’ Comments:   None.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-141, submitted by Bill and Kathleen Reagan, for the property located at 424 East College Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of window replacements to the home.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner, stated that an approval was previously granted for demolition of a barn at the rear of the property and also for a porch renovation.  This request is for review and approval for replacement of all of the homes windows.  It is similar to other projects previously approved in the village.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-141; Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B); Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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. 

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-141.  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session:  Southgate Corporation Conceptual Development Plan for the Property located in the northeast corner of Cherry Valley Road and Newark-Granville Road: 

 

Debra Yost explained that the Southgate Corporation owns the property on the north side of Newark-Granville Road across the street from the present Fackler Country Gardens. They intend to develop medical office buildings at the front of the property, later adding housing of several types at the rear of the property at a later date.

 

Robert O’Neill, of the Southgate Corporation, stated that, of the 56 total acres that Southgate Corporation owns, 26-28 acres are able to be developed.  He hoped that the work session will help to vet a conceptualized plan for the property which would benefit Granville. 

 

He added that an established local pediatric practice is interested in moving to Granville, with strong interest in this location.

 

The plan illustrated a cluster of office buildings totaling 24,000 square feet in some combination; Mr. O’Neil went on to say that the layout was open for discussion. He mentioned that there would be four parts to the development:  (1) ranch-style cluster homes similar to The Colony, (2) townhomes, vertical in design with 4-5 homes per building, (3) lots for custom-built homes with a walking trail, and (4) a 10,000 square foot commercial/retail building with access from Newark-Granville Road; for the possibility of four businesses in the building. 

 

Mr. Wilken stated that he felt the mixed-use development to be a healthy thing, and as long as the price point is reasonable, he thought there seemed to be a good market for homes such as those proposed. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked for confirmation that three units would be looking at the back of retail shops.  Mr. O’Neill said that this third conceptual sketch shows exactly that, but that he is still studying that issue.  Ms. Hoyt also asked if there would be detached garages, as her preference would be an attached garage.  Mr. O’Neill said that he was thinking of using one-car garages, but said that the issue needs further investigation.

 

Frank Rosato, partner of Robert O’Neill, stated that they had wanted to provide an initial conceptual plan for the Planning Commission, adding that the townhomes will probably have single attached garages so that people can drive into their residences, and other detached garages would be available.  He also agreed that he would not want to look at the back of a business from his back yard. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if they had considered, instead of cluster homes, apartments similar to those at Easton.  He explained that each unit has a one-car garage that is deep enough to hold two cars end to end, being more attractive than a 1950-style apartment.

 

Mr. Klingler applauded The Colony, but wished there could have been more individuality with the houses – a little less homogenized and a little more character and charm.  He added that those qualities are what Granville has, and are why people come here.  He was also concerned about the appearance of the townhouses.  Mr. O’Neill stated that each townhouse would be a two-story, narrow, vertical structure, and that they would be developed similarly to condominiums in terms of their ownership.  Mr. Klingler repeated that The Colony is pretty, but that all the houses look the same.  He referred to Sessions [Village], in Columbus.  He preferred that this [project] would not be like The Colony, and wondered if there would be a way to add interest to the layout of the streets.  Mr. Rosato said that, because of the topography, there probably would not be a way to change how the streets were laid out. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if they could have more flexibility or wiggle room by pushing the stand-alone homes further up the hill.  Mr. Rosato said that the road would be more expensive to do as Mr. Wilken had suggested.  Mr. Klingler said that, if everything was shifted, more green space on Newark-Granville Road would be seen.  Again, he said that his concern was what they would look like, and would they be unique.

 

Mr. Potaracke said that he echoed the comments about the cluster homes and rethinking of the plan. He suggested shifting the townhomes back from the road, which he thought would be more desirable.  He also suggested putting the retail up front so that they could get use out of it immediately.  He asked if the interest of the medical business’s is the trigger to move on this proposal, and was it prompting Southgate.  Mr. O’Neill said that the medical practice is a pediatric practice located adjacent to the Bloomberg Eye Center on West Main Street in Newark. He stated that the pediatric practice needs to relocate to a new location in one year, so Southgate Corporation needs approvals for their development by April, 2018.  He also admitted that the pediatric practice is a key driver, and that one medical business could attract other medical businesses. 

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if the cluster homes would be one story.  Mr. O’Neill said that they would. 

 

Mr. Burriss said that he didn’t find lots 37-41 to be acceptable, and would suggest moving them further back in the project.  Mr. Potaracke also suggested moving those lots up the hill.  Mr. Rosato stated that he was concerned about the single-loaded road dead-ending at the eastern property line.

 

Mr. Wilken mentioned that, in the Cotswolds in England, detached houses and 2-3 townhomes are put on the same lot.  Not that everything done in the UK can be done in the USA, but he thought that mixed-use could be less exact.  He wondered if they could take a different approach, keeping in mind a reasonable price point.  Mr. O’Neill agreed that possibly there should be continuity but not a cookie-cutter approach.  He said that his intent is to incorporate variety.  He added that The Colony originally had more spontaneity in mind, but that didn’t happen.

 

 

Mr. Wilken said that he thought it would be interesting to see more detail related to the interfaces.  Mr. Rosato said that he needed to give the designer photographs of the area, so that he could see the need for more room between the bike path and the homes. 

 

Mr. Wilken suggested that the principle buildings align so they are parallel to Newark-Granville Road, as turning the buildings at a slant would enhance the streetscape.  He added that the buildings were fighting the street, unlike Erinwood which parallels the street.  He also asked if the office park parking would be visible from Newark-Granville Road or only from within the development.  Mr. Rosato said that Newark-Granville Road makes the entrance to the medical offices difficult, and that the northwest corner needs work.

 

Mr. Wilken asked, with the entrance of the project opposite Cherry Valley Road, what they would do if the State of Ohio mandated a traffic light there.  Would it allow easier entrance, or would a traffic circle be better?  Mr. O’Neill said that he did not know that answer.  Mr. Rosato said that he likes the flexibility of having two ways in and out, as well as the separation for the commercial space.  Mr. Wilken said that the community has expressed concerns related to future growth impacting Newark-Granville Road. He appreciates traffic circles because they relieve stacking of traffic at key times.  He also added that, when Southgate Corporation comes back [to the Planning Commission], he would want to know what the proposed improvements would look like from Newark-Granville Road.

 

Mr. Burris stated that The 1810 House was previously located where the medical offices are proposed to be.  He likes the proposed mixed use; townhomes have the potential of being more affordable; cluster homes are becoming more popular and desirable.  He added that he needs to see more details.  Mr. Klingler reiterated that he wants to see what the townhomes would look like in order to know if he would like the idea.  Mr. O’Neill said that this first work session was concerned with plans general overview, and that more plans would be forthcoming.  Mr. Klingler applauded the fact that Southgate Corporation came to the meeting in order to have a work session, and Mr. O’Neill admitted that Mrs. Yost had suggested it. 

 

Mr. Wilken said that he wasn’t sure if he would want to buy a property within the development that looked at the back of commercial buildings.  Ms. Hoyt said that a tree buffer would help.  She added that this development will be different from what Granville is accustomed to seeing, and architecture will be an important factor.

 

Mr. Wilken stated that, in his opinion, it is not good to add more cul-de-sacs, and wondered if they would consider tying together the Erinwood condominiums with these proposed units, and then possibly with Fern Hill.  He said that would enable people to go from Jones Road to Fern Hill without getting out onto Newark-Granville Road.  Mr. O’Neill said that he didn’t think Erinwood would appreciate the increased traffic going through their property. 

 

Mr. Young asked how many units there would be and how many bedrooms the units would have.  Mr. O’Neill said the townhomes and the cluster homes would each have two bedrooms; the custom homes would have 3-4 bedrooms.

 

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-141:  Bill and Kathleen Reagan; 424 East College Street; Window Replacement; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-141.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote:  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Planning Discussion:

 

a)                  Cherry Valley Road Study/Task Force:  Mr. Wilken stated that he had sent the minutes from the Cherry Valley Road Study Group meetings to each Planning Commission member, and added that the next meeting would be Oct. 24, 2017.  He encouraged the Commissioners to submit their comments or concerns prior to the meeting.

 

Mrs. Yost said that, as the code is presently written, larger retail stores are simple not possible in the district.  Each tenant would have to have 6,000 square feet of space or less.  She added that given the square footage challenges, the study group is coming to the realization that most commercial ventures may simply not be the best fit for the district. Noting that there are natural resource assets and existing infrastructure in the form of the TJ Evans multi-use path, might the area be better utilized as recreational spaces with allied commercial endeavors.  She went on to add that several organizations that would most likely have formative opinions on the subject would be at the next meeting including the Licking County Parks District and Granville Recreation District.

 

Ms. Hoyt suggested the question be asked, “What can we not put there?” considering the water and wetlands, and that it would be nice to preserve things ecologically.  She wondered about walking trails.  Mr. Wilken stated that nothing could be built there because of the flood plain.  Mrs. Yost wondered about connecting this area with Raccoon Valley Park by way of an ‘Emerald Necklace’ or greenway corridor.  She introduced the proposed vehicular rotary/roundabout [at Reddington, Thornwood and River Road] currently in the planning stages by Newark and expected to be underway in 2020. Mrs. Yost added that the design intent for the improved Thornwood Drive would be to open the corridor to further commercial development south toward Heath and Hebron.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if there would be constant truck traffic.  Mrs. Yost said that there may be a possible increase in truck traffic headed north on Thornwood Drive and Newark-Granville Road in an attempt to travel north on State Route 661. She added that a traffic round-about at the Southgate property might slow and/or divert the increased traffic.

 

Mr. Potaracke suggested that, depending on how much the Cherry Valley Lodge bounces back commercially; we may want to have some mixed-use commercial that pig-tails with the lodge use.  Mrs. Yost said that there may be limited commercial viability in the areas in and adjacent to the floodplain on the west/southern side of South Cherry Valley Road.

 

Mr. Wilken stated the Mr. John Rosen, of Granville had bought the Cherry Valley Lodge. He added that plans for upgrades and improvements to the lodge are planned but a timeline is as yet unknown. He added that Mr. Rosen might be interested in commercial recreation endeavors, which is a huge thing in Ohio right now. 

 

Mr. Young wondered about the appetite for a pool or recreation center.  Mr. Wilken didn’t believe that a pool would be reasonable because of it only being used 2.5 months per year.  He added that there is a hunger for the homes being proposed by Southgate Corporation, and added that much land on the east end of the Village is open for development.  Mrs. Yost stated that it may be time to have a joint conversation between the Village and the School Board to determine how to move forward given the increasing pressure to develop parcels on the east side of the Village.

 

b)                 Sign Code Changes:  Planner Yost stated that sidewalk sign code revisions will be forthcoming with two possible options.  She asked for input from Planning Commission members on the subject.

 

c)                  Chickens in the Institutional District (ID):  Planner Yost mentioned that a high school student has asked about having chickens in the Institutional District, which encompasses Denison University, Granville Middle and High Schools and Welsh Hills School.  She added that it should it be considered as a code change, it would be best establish it as a conditional use, which is reviewable by the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals. She engaged Planning Commission members to share their thoughts on the subject with her. 

 

d)                 AirBnB/Short-Term Rentals:  Planner Yost stated that a property in Granville has asked if they may utilize their property as an AirBnB rental.  She explained that AirBnB’s presently pay no county bed taxes which could translate into lost revenue for Granville, that there may be health and  safety issues for people staying in uninspected spaces, and that there is a concern about people buying properties, turning them into full time AirBnB businesses, and impacting the already narrow long-term rental market in the area.  She asked the Planning Commission to think about the issue, and be ready to share their thoughts. 

 

Mr. Wilken mentioned that much rental property in Granville is absentee-owned.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from September 25, 2017 Planning Commission

hearings:

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from the September 25, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

October 23, 2017

November 13, 2017

November 27, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Mr. Klingler Second.   Motion carried. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:43 pm.

Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 25, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

 

Member Absent:  Mr. Potaracke

 

Staff Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Logan Boucher, Olivia Boucher, Kris Weese, and Steve Baldwin

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Old Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-129, submitted by Kristopher Weese, for the property located at 128 West Maple Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a shed structure.    The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Kris Weese and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Kris Weese, 128 Cherry Street, Granville, stated: that he was requesting the construction of an 8’ x 10’ shed, to be very near the west property line of his back yard.  He added that it will be a wooden structure, and that its purpose will be storage of lawn equipment.

 

Debra Walker Yost stated that Mr. Weese had received a variance to locate the shed 3’ from his property line, and confirmed that the Planning Commission would be looking at the shed architecturally. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-129; Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

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 other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

 

 

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, as other supplemental sheds, contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

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 members agreed.

 

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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-129.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-119 (Amended), submitted by Steven Baldwin of LEAN Home Remodeling, on behalf of Tad Heyman, for the property located at 235 North Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of an amended roof pitch for the previously approved addition to the home.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Steven Baldwin and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Steven Baldwin, 210 North Granger Street, Granville, stated:  that, at the previous meeting, Mr. Burriss was concerned with the slope of the roof, and that he had reexamined it and amended the application.

 

Debra Walker Yost said that she is concerned about a 3/12 roof pitch being on the north side of the house in terms of snow-loading in the winter, as well as being in the shade most of the day.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the north window nearest the addition would remain in tact, and if the roof would be shingles.  Mr. Baldwin answered “Yes” to both questions. 

 

Mrs. Yost asked if a standing seam roof had been considered, as it would make removal of snow much easier.  Mr. Wilken said that he was concerned with the slope and valley on the north side of the addition, which would retain snow, and eventually cause a leak.  He explained to Mr. Baldwin that snow is very common with Ohio winters, and he was worried about the roof pitch causing a problem.  He also suggested shaving a bit off of the window to make room for a steeper roof pitch.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the problem of snow would be eliminated with a standing seam roof.  Mr. Wilken said that a 3/12 roof pitch would still be a problem.  Mr. Burriss drew [for Mr. Baldwin] a possible suggestion of a gable over the north door, which might reduce the snow issue.  Mr. Wilken said that people in the northeast part of the United States don’t put gables on the north sides of their houses. 

 

Mr. Baldwin asked if a wire producing heat could be installed in the metal roof for help in melting snow on the roof.  Mr. Burriss was concerned about increasing the expense for the homeowner.  Mr. Wilken said that, in the northeast, people use ice guards for protection from snow falling off of a roof. 

 

Mr. Burriss said that he had no objections with the altering of the roof pitch, but that he was just concerned about the protection of the residents if snow should fall from the roof.  Mr. Wilken suggested using a membrane under the roof to eliminate any trouble.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-119; Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

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 other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed. 

 

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 and improvement of the area and the District overall, and are not detracting.  All members agreed.

 

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 members agreed. 

 

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 members agreed. 

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the amended application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-119 (Amended).    Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

b)                 Application #2017-133 submitted by Drew and Rachel Menzer, for the property located at 128 Cherry Street.  The request is for review and approval of landscape modifications to include the removal of a deck structure and installation of a bluestone patio.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Drew Menzer and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Drew Menzer, 128 Cherry Street, Granville, stated:  that his house currently has an elevated deck and, for safety reasons, he would like to take it out and replace it with a stone patio.  He added that the size of the patio would be about the same as the deck.

 

Mr. Klingler said that he likes the look of the stone, and asked if Mr. Menzer would be using bluestone.  Mr. Menzer said that what he would be using would not be as shiny as the picture appeared, but confirmed that it is pieces of stone.  Mr. Burriss said that it would be more in keeping with the original house than the existing deck.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-133; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

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 other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed. 

 

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 and improvement of the area and the District overall, and are more in keeping than a deck.  All members agreed.

 

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 members agreed. 

 

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, and are more in keeping than a deck.  All members agreed. 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-133.  Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

c)                  Application #2017-135, submitted by Kevin Rose, on behalf of Family Catering and Concession LLC (d.b.a.Weathervane Kettle Corn),  for the property located at 226 East Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a suspended sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

Mr. Wilken said he had one question:  where would the sign hang.  Mrs. Yost said that it would be above the stairs and to the left.  She added that a projected sign was previously approved, but it was not good for the business owner, as they needed more visibility for traffic on Broadway.  The business owner ceased using the previously-approved sign, and Mrs. Yost assured the Planning Commission that this new sign would be within the maximum square footage requirement.

 

Mr. Wilken said that the sign meets the qualifications, but wondered if the shape of the sign could mirror the existing Goumas sign, with cut-out corners.  Mrs. Yost agreed with that suggestion.  Mr. Wilken said that the text might have to be altered slightly.  Ms. Hoyt said that she thought that would be more consistent with what is already there.  Mr. Klingler said that he thought cut-out corners would be more attractive than the sign illustrated on the application. 

 

Mr. Burriss said that he would be concerned with head clearance.  He added that the porch is not original to the building, and was not done as well as it might have been.  He agreed with the others about the altered design of the sign.

 

Mr. Wilken said that the sign would be within reach if someone wanted to touch it with their hand.  Measurements from the ground were discussed, and it was agreed that the size of the sign would be okay.  Mr. Burriss said, with the request to change the corners, could the Planning Commission also approve a longer sign than had been requested, just in case the applicant wanted to mirror the existing Goumas sign.  Ms. Hoyt said that she thought it would be good if they were the same. 

 

Mr. Wilken addressed Mrs. Yost, asking that she make sure the applicant knows that the sign would be approved with the stipulation that it mirrors the existing Goumas sign.  Mrs. Yost agreed.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-135; Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), and Chapter 1189, Signs.

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Burriss stated True, the proposed improvements, with the changes, are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

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, with the changes,  are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

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 members agreed.

 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Burriss stated True, the proposed improvements, with the changes of shape and materials, are consistent and historically correct with other projects previously approved in the district, thereby protecting the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members agreed. 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the application as proposed, with the stipulation of the flexibility of length and altering the sign corners mirroring the existing Goumas sign.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-135.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

d)   Application #2017-136, submitted by Logan and Olivia Boucher, for the property located at 305 East Maple Street.  The request is for review and approval of a replacement air conditioning unit which includes relocating the unit.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Olivia Boucher and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Olivia Boucher, 305 East Maple Street, Granville, stated:  that she currently has a huge air conditioning unit, and wants to get a new and smaller unit, and move the location of it to the side of her house which would be beside the neighbor’s fence.

 

Mrs. Yost said that, regarding the images provided, the location will be on their property.  She added that the fence is a property-line fence on Mr. Steven Michael’s property, and that everything was okay with the application.

 

Mr. Wilken said that today’s air conditioners are more quiet than they used to be, but wondered if there are windows on either house near where the unit would be.  Mrs. Boucher said that it would be beside the neighbor’s garage and their own living room.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if there had been a letter from the neighbor, and if a variance would be needed.  Mrs. Yost said that there had been no letter, and no variance would be needed.

 

Mrs. Boucher said that there were good relations with her neighbor, Mr. Michael.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-136; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

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 other projects approved in the District, as other AC units had been approved.  All members agreed.

 

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 and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed. 

 

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 members agreed.

 

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 street, and the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members agreed.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-136.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)         Application 2017-129:  Elizabeth Hall; 223 North Granger Street; Roof Replacement; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-129.  Second by Mr. Klingler.  Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)    Application 2017-119 (Amended); Steven Baldwin of LEAN Home Remodeling, on behalf of Tad Heyman; 235 North Pearl Street; Modified Roof Pitch; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-119 (Amended).  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

c)    Application 2017-133:  Drew and Rachel Menzer; 128 Cherry Street;

       Patio Installation; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and

       Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-133.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

d)     Application 2017-135:  Kevin Rose, on behalf of Family Catering   and Concessions LLC (d.b.a. Weathervane Kettle Corn); 226 East Broadway; Suspended Sign; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-135.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

e)      Application 2017-136; Logan and Olivia Boucher; 305 East Maple Street; A/C Unit Replacement and Relocation; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-136.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse absence, if necessary:

 

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Potaracke.   Second by Mr. Klingler.

Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from September 11, 2017 Planning Commission

hearings:

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from the September 11, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Wilken reported to the Planning Commission members that there will be a change in regulations per Mr. Cauchon’s comments at the previous Planning Commission meeting.  He imagines something will be forthcoming. 

 

Mr. Wilken also reported about the Cherry Valley Road study from three previous meetings:

  • Keith Meyers gave a review of regulations that govern the area;  the Village of Granville was concerned with various ideas that would be inappropriate for Granville
  • Four people who know real estate well were in attendance, and their qualifications were reviewed:  Robert O’Neill, Steve Lehman, Park Shea and Nick Oldford
  • Bill Habig talked about development of Cherry Valley Road; All thought it should be mixed-use or Planned Unit Development
  • They talked about the west side of the area (which is wet) as a possible park, but no one spoke about the financial aspect of developing the area in that manner
  • The area isn’t important commercially, but it is important symbolically
  • Mr. Wilken will distribute minutes from the meetings when he gets them
  • The next meeting is scheduled for Oct. 7, and ideas are encouraged from GPC members
  • Mrs. Yost will be meeting with representatives from other municipalities during the daytime, and welcomed input from the Planning Commission members
  • The Village wants what is best for the community of Granville, but the area is not ideal for commercial development
  • The area the study is concerned with is less than 18 acres

 

Mr. Wilken reported that the Cherry Valley Lodge has been purchased by John Rosen.  If the plans are able to proceed, the water park shell will remain, but will be gutted, and the space will be developed as conference and convention space.

 

Mr. Wilken spoke concerning Granville’s tax-base problem, saying that it has not grown in past years.  He added that he thought a multi-family unit would help the tax base. 

 

Mrs. Yost said that she would like the Planning Commission to envision what they would like to see in the future, and what they would like to see happen in the Cherry Valley Road area.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there had been feedback from current businesses.  Mr. Wilken said that the feedback is negative, referring to the decrease based on the county’s assessment, reports of decreasing income, etc.  He said that maps will be distributed at the next meeting so as to better understand the area.  Mrs. Yost said that there will be brainstorming session at the next meeting, as there will only be one application to discuss.

 

Meeting Announcements:

October 9, 2017

October 23, 2017

November 13, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Burriss moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Motion carried. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:12pm.

Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 11, 2017 7:00pm Minutes

 

Call to OrderMr. Wilken (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:oop.m.

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, and Ms. Hoyt.

 

Member Absent: None

 

Staff Present: Michael King, Village Law Director; Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present: Mollie Prasher, Steve Pyles, Dennis Cauchon

 

Citizens' Comments:

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway,  Granville,  read, from The Granville Codified Ordinances, Chapter 135, concerning the Planning Commission, stating that: "In addition to the power and duties provided in Section 8.01 of the Charter and as established by Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall:

(a)   Report to Council at least annually on the physical needs of the Municipality;

(b)   Prepare a long term capital improvement program for Council approval and annually submit to the Manager cost estimates on capital improvements, which should be included in the annual  budget, among other  things.

 

Mr. Cauchon encouraged the Planning Commission to uphold this 1965 law, especially since the Commission includes such gifted and talented members.

 

Mr. Burriss interjected that he did not recall ever submitting the aforementioned reports since he has been a member of the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Cauchon said that Bird and Bull, who does engineering work for the Village of Granville, actually does cost estimates. He added that he thinks Granville is behind the times as to adding bike lanes and pedestrian improvements, and that it would not be too late to propose capital improvements for 2018.

 

Concerning the 2021 bridge work on Route 37, he things the Planning Commission needs to submit their thoughts about what it will look like, integrating their plan and design with Bird and Bull for the big picture.

 

Old Business:

 

a)         Application  #2017-1.1.2,  submitted  by Elizabeth  Hall, for the property located at 223 North Granger Street. The request is for architectural review and approval of a roof replacement. The existing shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with a black Qualiform metal roof (standing seam style). The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review

                                     Overlay District (AROD).

 

  Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

Discussion:

Mr. Wilken stated that the Planning Commission has no control over the color of the roof the applicant wants. Michael King, Village Law Director, recommended that the application be moved to the Consent Agenda.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Klingler. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-112. Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

NewBusiness:

 

a)         Application #2017-122, submitted  by Mollie Prasher, on behalf  of the Village of Granville, for the property located at 141 East Broadway. The request is for architectural review and approval of window replacements for the store-front windows located on the property. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing  in  of Witnesses:   Mr. Wilken swore in Mollie Prasher and Debra Walker Yost.

Discussion:

Mollie Prasher explained that all the other windows for the Village Offices Building were replaced with vinyl-clad Pella windows a few years ago. She explained that the 80" x 25" window on the ground floor will become two windows with mullions, and the windows will match those that are currently on the second floor.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the front door was slated to be replaced. Ms. Prasher said that both doors will eventually be replaced. She added that, if Joann Geiger with Reader's Garden were to not renew their lease, there may be possibilities to use that space by the Village for further offices. Mrs. Debra Yost stated that, with the new windows on the second floor, it is definitely warmer. Ms. Prasher added that new windows will make a big difference to the Village Offices and to Reader's Garden.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if a vestibule could possibly be designed where the front door is now located. Ms. Prasher said that, with the short porch, it would be difficult. She said the area could be enclosed with doors on the east and west sides of an  enclosed structure, but that would have to be done after Joann Geiger of Readers Garden were to not renew their lease.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the windows on the South Prospect Street side had been replaced. Ms. Prasher said that all the other windows have been replaced.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application

#2017-122; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD); Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District. All members agreed.

 

 

 

 

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Klingler. Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-122. Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

b)         Application  #2017-129  submitted by Kristopher  Weese, for the property located at 128 West Maple Street. The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a shed structure. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

                                                 Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Wilken stated that the shed structure is proposed to be closer to the property line than what is allowed. Mrs. Debra Yost said that the property has changed hands, and that a garage that was planned to be built was not executed. She added that the new owners would like to add a shed three (3') feet from the lot line instead of building a garage, pending a necessary variance approval for the side yard setback reduction.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if a garage was previously approved (for Lot 11) to be closer to the lot line than what is allowed. Mrs. Yost said yes, it was.  Mr. Burriss said that he recalled that it would have been in a similar position to what is now being requested, and would have been more like an arbor, as well as being on or very near to the lot line. Mrs. Yost noted that buildings that are built back-to-back frequently promote mildew, as well as confined spaces.

 

Mr. Wilken said that, even though a garage was previously approved, if someone else builds a garage with a shed that is tight to the neighbor, he thinks the issue should go to the BZBA. Mr. King stated that the Planning Commission only has jurisdiction concerning AROD criteria, and the BZBA only has jurisdiction concerning variances.

 

Mr. Burriss asked what would happen if a shed was approved and the next owner wanted a garage; would the shed have to be removed?  Mr. King said that the whole process would have to begin anew. Mrs. Yost said that two accessory structures are allowed on a single property, but only one of them may be more than 144 square feet.

 

 

 

 

Ms. Hoyt mentioned that a neighbor near her house has a structure with messy surroundings, and she would suggest not approving the application. Mrs. Yost reminded the Planning Commission that their focus is on the architecture of the proposed shed.

Ms. Hoyt asked if the homeowner did not want to come to the meeting. Mrs. Yost said they had been advised that their attendance would be required. Ms. Hoyt asked if the applicant is open to placing the shed in a different location. Mrs. Yost said that the proposed location was the preferred location of the applicant.

 

Mr. Wilken suggested tabling the application because of questions that need to be answered.  Mr. Burriss said that he would like to see where the buildings are on Lot 11.

 

Mr. King noted that, by the time the application might come back to the Planning Commission, the applicant would have already been to the BZBA. Mr. Wilken said that he would be interested in the BZBA's determination.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to table the application. Seconded by Ms. Hoyt. Roll Call Vote to table Application #2017-129. Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-112: Elizabeth Hall; 223 North Granger Street; Roof Replacement; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-112. Seconded by Mr. Potaracke. Roll Call Vote: Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes). Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

b)                  Application 2017-122; Mollie Prasher, on behalf of the Village of Granville; 141 East Broadway; Window Replacement; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-122. Seconded by Mr. Klingler. Roll Call Vote: Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from August 28, 2017 Planning Commission hearings:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the minutes from the August 28, 2017 Planning Commission hearings. Seconded by Mr. Klingler. Motion carried 5-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

September 25, 2017

October 9, 2017

October 23,  2017

 

Mr. Wilken asked the Planning Commission to ponder the message delivered by Mr. Cauchon under Citizen's Comments. Ms. Hoyt asked if the aforementioned responsibilities could be part of the regular meeting. Mrs. Yost said that problem solving

 

 

 

 

 

as it related to the needs of the community could be done, and then shared with Village Council.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the 2021 bridge [over State Route 16] had already been designed. Steve Pyles, Village Manager, said that they are doing a Phase-One design. Ms. Hoyt asked if ODOT would be open to suggestions concerning aesthetics. Mrs. Yost said that she thought they would be open to the idea of design upgrades, however the Village would most likely be responsible for them financially. Mr. Wilken mentioned that ODOT has rules to that effect.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if there are photos for the proposed bridge. Mrs. Yost suggested the possibility of having a meeting with ODOT to see images and to learn of their progress with the project. She added that pathway connections had briefly been discussed but nothing of any certainty had been defined.

 

Mr. Burriss mentioned that the Village of Granville had no say when lights were added on Route 37. Mr. Wilken stated that ODOT has cut the community of Granville in two several times in the past years, naming Morse Road, the south end of Cherry Valley Road, and River Road. He wondered how many more times we want to be cut in half.

 

Ms. Hoyt suggested commenting to ODOT concerning the aesthetics of the Village. She added that she is concerned about doing cost estimates, as proposed in the Citizen's Comments. Mr. Wilken said that all we can do is to say, "It looks good" because the Planning Commission is not qualified to do more than that. Mrs. Yost said that the legislation that was cited was passed in 1965, and now community projects are far more complex.  She added that it makes no sense to burden the Planning Commission with cost estimates. She also said that Item A of the cited passage is important to the Village of Granville, because the Planning Commission's opinions are important.

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Burriss moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Motion carried.

 

Adjournment:   Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 7:38pm.

Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 28, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, and Ms. Hoyt.

 

Member Absent:  None.

 

Staff Present:  Michael King, Village Law Director

 

Also Present:  Charles Prince, Steve Pyles, Kip Payne, Todd Parker, Nate Speiser, Corky Morrow, Art Morrow, Rebecca Pack, Dave Cholewa, Dan VanNess, Kevin Bennett, and Steve Baldwin.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Old Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-112, submitted by Elizabeth Hall, for the property located at 223 North Granger Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a roof replacement.  The existing shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with a black Qualiform metal roof (standing seam style).  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Michael King, Village Law Director, stated:  that the applicant had requested that the application be tabled. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to table application #2017-112.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-116, submitted by Granville Township Board of Trustees, for the property located at 347 East Maple Street.  The request is for review and recommendation of approval to Village Council for the structural demolition of the structure located on the property.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Art Morrow, Corky Morrow, Dan VanNess and Rebecca Collen Pack (?).

 

 

 

Discussion:    

Dan VanNess, 3923 Morse Road, gave a history of the property in question:  it came up for auction; the Township decided to try to purchase it in case the need would arise to add on to the Sexton Building in the future; they are wanting to tear the building down, plant grass, and move the fence; the property will be open space for a while.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked about the condition of the property.  Mr. VanNess said that the house was in poor condition.  He added that the property had been sold at auction for $88,000.00, that the lot was 39 feet wide, a bathroom was made from a closet, and it had been extended 3 or 4 times.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the Township would have a use for the house.  Mr. VanNess said that they would not have a use for it, and added that the roof is sagging, and in poor condition.

 

Mr. Wilken said that the Granville Historical Society has stated that there is no historical value to the house.

 

Rebecca Collen Pack? (unidentified participant from the rear of the room), 343 East Maple Street, asked about the plan for the property’s timeline.  Mr. VanNess said that demolition would occur this fall, and the basement would be filled in this fall, also.  Ms. Pack asked if the tree on the property would come down.  Mr. VanNess said that the tree is on the property line, and he will talk to the neighbors about the issue.

 

Art Morrow, 736 Mt. Parnassus, stated:  that he was representing a land owner, his wife, and said that he was in favor of the demolition.  He added that he recommended redoing the entrance to the cemetery, and that he was encouraged about the plans and recommends that the Planning Commission to approve the application. 

 

Michael King, Village Law Director, mentioned to the Planning Commission that the Architectural Review criteria do not apply to this application, and added that the questions relating to AROD need not be answered. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-116; Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition.

 

a)                  Removal of the structure shall not inappropriately interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right-of-way.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the removal of the structure will not inappropriately interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right-of-way.  All members agreed.

 

b)                  The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  All members agreed.

 

c)                  The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  All members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-116.    Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

b)                 Application #2017-117 submitted by Charles Prince, on behalf of Doug and Lisa Cholewa, for the property located at 1007 Newark-Granville Road.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a porch remodeling.  The existing porch was destroyed by a fallen tree during a storm.  The proposed porch will be built on the existing footprint.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A), and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Charles Prince and Doug Cholewa.

 

Discussion:

Charles Prince, 4143 Pleasant Chapel Road, stated:  that he had given plans for the remodel to Mrs. Yost, Village Planner. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if the porch design would be the same as it was before the tree fell on it.  Mr. Prince said that it would not.  Mr. Wilken said that he had some trouble understanding the plan as it appeared in his documents.  Mr. Prince said that the porch will be 11’ x 18’6”, with two steps all around the porch.  Mr. Potaracke clarified the plans for Mr. Wilken. 

 

Michael King, Village Law Director, said that there would be no criteria-related questions to be answered.  He added that, if the design was approved by the Planning Commission, the application only needed approval.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if more regulations would have been needed if more damage had been incurred [by the fallen tree].  Mr. King said that, in that case, there would have been more regulations, but added that the Village tries to make the process as straightforward as possible with situations such as this one.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-117; Chapter 1163, Development and Design Guidelines, and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-117.  Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

c)                  Application #2017-118, submitted by Todd Parker of F5 Design/Architecture, on behalf of Nathan and Sadie Speiser, for the property located at 129 West Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of an additional window on the west side of the house, and an elevated deck structure at the south (rear) side of the house.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Todd Parker.

 

Discussion:    

Todd Parker, AIA, 108 West College Street, stated:  that, as construction commenced at 129 West Broadway, the owners desired to change the plans originally approved regarding windows on the west side of the house.  He added that, looking at the rear of the house, the door has no landing, and the owners decided to build a deck with wooden rails.  They would coordinate the railing with the trim of the house.  The owners will also clean up the landscaping. 

 

Mr. Burriss stated that the addition of the window is an improvement.  Mr. Wilken said that the addition of a deck does not raise any questions.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-118; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the    Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-118.  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Wilken noted to Mr. Parker that there would be a two-week delay before any work could begin.

 

d)         Application #2017-119, submitted by Steven Baldwin of LEAN Home Remodeling, on behalf of Tad Heyman, for the property located at 235 North Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a home addition which would extend part of the north side of the house (facing Summit Street) an additional forty-two (42) inches.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Steven Baldwin.

 

Discussion:    

Steven Baldwin, 210 North Granger Street, stated:  that Mr. Heyman would like a first floor bathroom with a shower, and that the proposed addition will allow for that. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked if there would be a change in the slope of the roof.  Mr. Baldwin said that there would not be a change in the slope.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be enough height for a door without changing the slope.  Mr. Baldwin replied that there would be enough, because the foundation will drop down.  Mr. Burriss said that he likes the roofline. 

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if a bathroom would be added.  Mr. Baldwin replied that the current half-bath would be expanded to a full bathroom, which would be including a mudroom. 

 

Ms. Hoyt asked for clarification of a picture that she was looking at, asking if a specific door would be removed.  Mr. Baldwin said that the windows and door would be kept, but would be upgraded.  Ms. Hoyt stated that the addition of a half-bath improves the house value.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-119; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)       Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed. 

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed. 

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote to approve Application #2017-119.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

(As the physical copies of the Findings of Fact could not be located) Mr. Potaracke moved to approve all the Findings of Fact pending signatures.  Second by Mr. Klingler.  All were in favor.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

a)         Application 2017-116: Granville Township Board of Trustees; 347 East Maple Street; Structural Demolition; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria, pending signatures.

 

b)         Application 2017-117:  Charles Prince, on behalf of Doug and

Lisa Cholewa; 1007 Newark-Granville Road; Porch Remodeling;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria, pending signatures.

 

c)         Application 2017-118: Todd Parker of F5 Design/Architecture, on behalf of Nathan and Sadie Speiser; 129 West Broadway; Window and Deck Addition; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria, pending signatures.

 

d)         Application 2017-119: Steven Baldwin of LEAN Home Remodeling on behalf of Tad Heyman; 225 North Pearl Street; Home Addition; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria, pending signatures.

 

Motion to excuse absence, if necessary:   None.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from August 14, 2017 Planning Commission

hearings:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the minutes from the August 14, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

September 11, 2017

September 25, 2017

October 9, 2017

 

Township Trustee Dan VanNess addressed the Planning Commission.  He explained that the Township is looking to construct a new fire station in the near future, adding that the existing site, which is 80 years old, is constrained.  He said that the functionality of the fire station is first priority, and added that there are several issues, including parking and staging.  He added that the only way to make room for a new fire station at the existing location would require removing two older brick houses on East College Street.  He asked the Planning Commission how they feel about the issue.

 

Michael King, Village Law Director, recommended to the Planning Commission that they be careful of their responses, as it might be taken as preliminary support or opposition to the issue.

 

Mr. VanNess asked what the Planning Commission would think about the proposal of keeping the fire station downtown or moving it to South Main Street.  He also asked if, considering response time, etc., the Planning Commission thinks the Township should put more room where the fire station is currently located, or move it to South Main Street. 

 

Mr. Wilken said that, while he has been on the Planning Commission, unless homes are unsafe, he has had a problem with demolition.  He explained that, regarding the South Pearl Street demolition, there was concern related to affordable housing.  The demolition was approved because it made the surrounding property more historically accurate, and the demolished house had no historical value.  Demolishing the house at 207 South Pearl Street was approved, but it was not an easy decision. 

 

Mr. Burriss said that the fire station issue is a challenge to the community because the two historic brick houses are significant to the Village of Granville, and there would be safety issues about which the Village would need to be concerned.  He added that the Planning Commission needs to be concerned about what would go on the location of the current fire station.  Mr. VanNess confirmed that the Township owns the two brick houses.

 

Mr. Burriss said that the demolition of the current fire station is more complicated than demolishing a 1950’s ranch-style house.  He suggested that Mr. VanNess come in for a work session, having the Planning Commission look at the proposal for a new fire station.  He reminisced about the location of the fire station before its current location (on South Main Street where ReMax Realty is now located). 

 

Ms. Hoyt added her personal opinion that she hears every siren, and residents living near the current fire station are concerned.  She noted that there seem to be more sirens lately, adding that she has lived in Granville since the 1960’s.  She mentioned that the Planning Commission would have to carefully consider the use of the space, and that she thought the functionality of the fire station would increase with a move.  Mr. VanNess mentioned that the increase in emergency calls has been due, in a large part, to Kendal and Middleton.  Ms. Hoyt added that she thought a fire station would be more accessible if located outside the historic Village.

 

Mr. Klingler said that he understands the service area of the fire station is 8 miles north of the Village and 3 miles south of the Village.  Mr. VanNess agreed, but added that most of the calls are from Kendal and Middleton.  Mr. Klingler said that he agrees with Mr. Burriss about safety and response time being of top priority, and asked if response time was promoted by a move.  He added that he has a soft spot for old buildings, noting the two 1820’s brick houses, and that it would be difficult to see those come down.  He repeated that safety should come first, and also doing what makes sense.

 

Ms. Hoyt asked if Alexandria is losing their fire department, and if so, will Granville expand.  Kevin Bennett, Township Trustee, replied that Granville provides mutual aid to Alexandria. 

 

Mr. Potaracke said that he echoes the opinions about needing a fire station providing the best functionality, and wanted to know what the plan would be for vacating the spot now occupied by the fire station.  Michael King, Village Law Director, said that the current site is owned by the Village, and that the process would have to play out per the code and regulations.  Mr. Wilken asked to what extent the Planning Commission has responsibilities about the above-mentioned process.  Mr. King said that it depends on the plan, and added that the Planning Commission will have input on the fire station no matter what the location might be. 

 

Mr. VanNess said that he appreciated the insight of the Planning Commission, and values their opinions.   Mr. Wilken said that, if the Township wants to submit a proposal, he suggested requesting a work session.  Mr. VanNess reiterated that the Township believes the functionality of the South Main Street location would be better than keeping the fire station where it is, but they must look at what would take care of the facility during demolition, etc.  He added that he wants to be thorough.

 

Mr. Burriss asked what the process would be to rezone the brick houses back to residential.  Michael King said that it would depend on whether they were zoned conditional use; he thought they could be zoned back to residential.  Mr. Burriss said that he would want to look at that issue.  Mr. Bennett said that the Granville Historical Society would never recommend tearing down an historic house. 

 

At this point, Kip Payne (unidentified), who had been at the entire meeting, asked what had happened with Elizabeth Hall’s application.  Michael King said that it had been tabled.  Mr. Payne asked what that meant.   Mr. King explained that it had been delayed until the next meeting.  Mr. Payne asked when the next meeting would be, and what would happen if Ms. Hall’s roof started leaking before that meeting.  Mr. King told him the date of the next meeting, and suggested that Mr. Payne call Mrs. Debra Yost, Village Planner, because he thought she would be able to help him take care of the situation.

 

Returning to the discussion about the fire station, Ms. Hoyt asked if there would be a community discussion.  Mr. VanNess said that the community is always invited to attend meetings.  He added that the Township will be considering the possibility of leasing for storage as well as for location of the emergency vehicles.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the Township has plans for both locations.  Mr. Bennett said that the township trustees have already voted to move the fire station, but that voting [by the public] about the whole situation will be in the future.  He added that this process has been going on for 12 years.  Mr. VanNess said that very rough architectural plans are being drawn up currently. 

 

Mr. Wilken said that this had been a good opportunity for the Village and the Township to talk.  Mr. VanNess added that neither of the historic brick houses have kitchens.

 

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Klingler moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Motion carried. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:02pm.

 

Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

August 14, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Wilken (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

 

Member Absent:  Mr. Burriss

 

Staff Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Anita Carroll, Arnold Joseph, Gail Crumb, Steven Michael, Joe Day, and James Browder

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Consent Calendar:

 

a)                  Application #2017-102, submitted by Art Sayre, on behalf of James Browder, for the property located at 346 North Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of window and roof replacements.  The current 3-tab shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with charcoal-colored, dimensional shingles.  Ten (10) windows are also proposed to be replaced on the south and west elevations and will be replaced with Pella, double-hung, white vinyl windows with internal grids.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application #2017-102 as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote.  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

b)                  Application #2017-110, submitted by Anita Carroll, on behalf of Granville Public Library, for the property located at 217 East Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a radon mitigation system.  The radon mitigation system is proposed to be installed on the west side of the building.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application #2017-110 as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.  Roll call vote.  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

c)                  Application #2017-111, submitted by Anita Carroll, on behalf of Granville Public Library, for the property located at 122 South Prospect Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of replacement windows.  The proposed windows will be Jeld Wen Siteline clad, double-hung, and will replace all existing double-hung windows on the structure for a total of fifteen (15) windows.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Mr. Wilken swore in Anita Carroll and Debra Walker Yost.

Discussion:  Mr. Klingler said, since the house is historic, that he suggested using simulated, divided-light windows. 

Anita Carroll, 670 King Avenue, Newark, Ohio, stated:  that she will verify which windows were priced and might resubmit the application.  She added that the cost estimate might vary in price from what was on the application.  Mr. Klingler reiterated that he would prefer to see simulated, divided-light windows on the house.

Debra Walker Yost confirmed for the record that Mrs. Carroll will verify what was priced on the application.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application #2017-111, with the stipulation that Mrs. Carroll will verify the exact window that was priced.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote.  Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

d)                 Application #2017-113, submitted by R.J. and Kristina Nicolosi, for the property located at 315 South Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a thirty-six (36) inch wrought-iron styled fence.  The proposed fence will encompass the west side and rear yards.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application #2017-113 as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll call vote.  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-107 submitted by Arnold Joseph, on behalf of the East College Street Condo Association, for the property located at 224 East College Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the front stoop stairs.  The existing sandstone stairs are proposed to be replaced with composite steps.  The proposed stair location is within the Village right-of-way and will need a general use permit from Village Council.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Arnold Joseph and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

Arnold Joseph, 224 East College Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  that the sandstone on the front steps was disintegrating, so the basement was sealed and the steps were replaced with a composite material.  He added that the new steps extend 2” farther than the old sandstone steps. 

Mr. Klingler stated that the property is much improved and looks very nice.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-107; Chapter 1159, Village District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-107.  Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Wilken asked Mrs. Yost to explain to the applicant what the Village Council needs to do, since the steps are in the right-of-way.  Mrs. Yost explained to Mr. Joseph that, if the steps needed to be removed for any reason, it would be at the East College Condo Association’s expense.  She added that the Mollie Prasher, Clerk of Council will notify Mr. Joseph about what needs to be done.

 

e)                  Application #2017-105, submitted by Thomcon Renovations, on behalf of James and Susan Day, for the property located at 338 East College Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a barn remodeling which will retrofit the existing barn into a garage.  The remodeling will include elevating the loft floor of the barn and restructuring the roof line.  Proposed exterior modifications will be blended into the existing building.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Joe Day, Tom Matthews (via cell phone), and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

James Day, 338 East College Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  that the main renovation of the barn will be to the roof, [garage] door and windows.  The exterior will remain original, but raised 1 foot; the door will look like a barn door, but will act as a garage door; the barn will be pole barn construction on the inside, and the barn will have a steel roof.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked what the ascent into the garage would be.  Mr. Day said that the ascent will be natural.

 

Ms. Hoyt applauded Mr. Day for renovating the barn instead of tearing it down and building a new garage.  Mr. Young also applauded Mr. Day for the same reason. 

 

Mr. Klingler said that he especially likes barns and thinks it is nice to save a structure, if possible.  He also applauded Mr. Day for his investment of time and effort.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if there would be an effort made to replace the rotten boards around the base of the barn.  Mr. Day said that they would replace any boards that needed to be replaced.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-105; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-105.    Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

a)      Application #2017-112, submitted by Elizabeth Hall, for the property located at 223 North Granger Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a roof replacement.  The existing shingle roof is proposed to be replaced with a black Qualiform metal roof.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

In Ms. Hall’s absence, Debra Walker Yost, explained that the roof is failing, and Ms. Hall wants to install a metal roof, as illustrated in the picture.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if the whole roof would be replaced, including the overhang.  Mrs. Yost said that the metal would be put over the entire roof.  She added that she did not know the exact intentions of Ms. Hall, but the overhang would only be a matter of about 10 square feet. 

 

Mrs. Yost clarified that the application was not placed under the Consent Agenda because of Ms. Hall’s choice of color.  Mrs. Yost said that her concern was that a black roof might become an issue given the understanding that the third floor may become a play room and storage, and the area might become overheated should a black roof be selected.

 

Ms. Hoyt said that a house near the fire station recently had a black metal roof installed.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked what Staff would recommend for color.  Mrs. Yost stated that she would suggest a darker gray or charcoal.  She added that note acknowledging that she and Planning Commission are unable to dictate the color choice of the roofing material, but that it was simply a concern based on understanding the future use of the attic area.

 

Mr. Wilken stated that he remembered a previously approved bright red metal roof, and said that the color is intense.  He thinks that shingles have more grace than metal.  He added that he is expecting complaints from neighbors regarding roof color selections, and wonders if the Planning Commission needs to establish guidelines when considering roof colors.

 

Mr. Klingler asked if the Planning Commission is allowed to dictate color choices.  Ms. Hoyt said that the Planning Commission can’t dictate colors on houses, and that extends to roof materials. 

 

Mr. Wilken suggested that the application be tabled.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to table the application as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to table Application #2017-112.  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-105:  Thomcon Renovations, on behalf of James and Susan Day; 338 East College Street; Barn Remodeling;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-105.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes),  Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)         Application 2017-107; Arnold Joseph, on behalf of the East College Street Condo Association; 224 East College Street; Sidewalk Sign; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-107.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

c)         Application 2017-112:  Elizabeth Hall; 223 North Granger Street; Roof Replacement; this application was tabled pending further research.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from July 24, 2017 Planning Commission

hearings:

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the July 24, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

 

Motion to excuse absence, if necessary:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Burriss.   Second by Mr. Klingler.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

August 28, 2017

September 11, 2017

September 25, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Motion carried. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 7:39 pm.

 

Mr. Wilken recognized the departure of Mr. Montgomery as the ex-officio member representing Village Council.  He expressed appreciation for Mr. Montgomery’s tenure on the Planning Commission, and wished him the best in his new venture. 

 

Mr. Montgomery said that it had been a pleasure working with the Planning Commission, and he believes Granville benefits from such people who are willing to contribute their time to be a part of such a board.  He added that Granville is a great model for community involvement, that his experience in Granville had been a great one, and thanked the Planning Commission for their recognition.

 

Debra Walker Yost offered a special dessert in recognition of Mr. Montgomery’s final meeting on the Planning Commission.

 

________________________________                    ____________________

Bill Wilken, Chair                                                                   Date Approved

 

Submitted by Cathy Klingler and Debi Walker Yost

Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 24, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

 

Staff Present:   Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Luke Vohsing, Kristen Black, and Jay Snyder

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None

 

Consent Calendar:

 

a)                  Application #2017-95, submitted by Tim and Jill Dunham, for the property  located at 319 Summit Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a paver patio between the driveway and the side entrance to the home along the western elevation, and the removal of an obsolete set of concrete steps on the eastern elevation of the home.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda  Application #2017-95 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Roll call vote.  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-96, submitted by Kristen Black for the property located at 907 Newark-Granville Road.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a five foot (5’) tall iron fence paralleling the existing hedgerow along the front property line, with a double gate at the sidewalk.  The fence will be installed outside of the Newark-Granville Road sixty-foot (60’) wide right-of-way.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A), and is located within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Kristen Black and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Kristen Black, 907 Newark-Granville Road, stated:  that she would like to install a five-foot (5’) wrought iron style fence with an automatic gate behind [to the north] the shrubs in her front yard. She added that the fence would provide security for the property and would mirror the neighboring property [to the west].

 

Mr. Potaracke asked her to clarify if the neighbor’s fence [to the west] is wrought iron in front and wood on the sides.  He also asked how her fence would tie into that of the neighbor.  Ms. Black answered that the neighbor’s fence is wrought iron in front with wood on the side, and that there are stone pillars between the properties to which the fence would attach.

 

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that 42” is the maximum height allowed for a fence in the front yard, and that if Ms. Black was committed to a 60” fence, she would be required to obtain a variance from the BZBA for height.  Mrs. Yost added that the right-of-way on Newark-Granville Road is 60 feet in total width, and strongly encourage installing the fence outside of the right-of-way, specifically at least 30’6” into her property.  Otherwise, Ms. Black would need to get a General Use Permit from Village Council.

 

Mr. Klingler asked if the fence at the “Kennedy house” [the neighbor’s house] is within the right-of-way.  Mrs. Yost said that she did not have a precise understanding of the distance from the centerline to the Kennedy House fence, but in the case of the applicant’s fence, the 30-foot right-of-way would be just behind the shrubs.  Ms. Black stated that her fence would be in line with the neighbor’s fence.  Mr. Klingler asked if Ms. Black would be in the right-of-way if she stays in line with the neighbor’s fence.  Mrs. Yost said that she would have to measure to be exactly certain.  Mr. Klingler asked if Ms. Black would be required to obtain a General Use permit for that fence location.  Mrs. Yost said that she probably would, and added that it would take approximately and additional 4 plus weeks. 

 

Mr. Burriss advised that the fences of the two properties would not have to be in line with each other, as both fences would not be visible together, since one would be hidden by shrubs.  Mr. Klingler advised that Ms. Black’s fence would be more complimentary to her house if it were not in line with the neighbor’s fence.  Mr. Burriss added that the hedge will hide the fence.  Mr. Klingler advised that mowing between the hedge and the fence might be problematic.  Ms. Black stated that there is landscaping immediately behind the hedge. 

 

Mr. Wilken stated that it will be Ms. Black’s choice as to how she wants to proceed. 

 

Ms. Hoyt stated that the fence would be a nice improvement, would be appealing, and would serve Ms. Black’s purpose. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the application as proposed, with the noted Staff comments about the owner needing a variance for height.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-96.    Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Mr. Burriss added that the house was built by an early female graduate of Denison University.  Mr. Wilken added that the house was affectionately called “the Sargent house” for a previous owner.

 

b)                 Application #2017-101 submitted by John Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches, for the property located at 115 North Prospect Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a steel and vinyl sidewalk sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in John Snyder and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

John Snyder, 2061 Jones Road, stated:  that his proposed sidewalk sign will be a stop-gap measure, as the previously approved projecting sign is taking more time and money than was expected.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the proposed sidewalk sign would have the look of being framed.  He stated that previously approved sidewalk signs were required to have the look of being framed.  He added that the look of a frame could be painted, and could easily be tied in with the color scheme of Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches.  Mr. Snyder agreed to that request, adding that a dry-erase board wouldn’t hold paint, but the look could be achieved with the possibility of a metal frame.  Mr. Burriss added that the framed look is not in the regulations, but that it has been done in the past and presents a more finished look.  Mr. Snyder asked if he could use aluminum.  Mr. Burriss said that he was merely requesting a finished-edge look.

 

Mr. Wilken asked, for the purpose of pedestrians with disabilities, if thought should be given to the location of sidewalk signs in respect to a uniform distance from the buildings they advertise.  Mrs. Yost agreed with that suggestion. 

 

Mr. Young asked what might cause Mr. Snyder to remove his business’s sidewalk sign.  Mr. Snyder replied that, if the Village decided to withdraw sidewalk signs, he would not want to have invested a lot of money in his sign.  He added that, since the approved projecting sign is taking longer than he had expected, he wanted to have a sign visibly advertising his business.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-101; Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), and Chapter 1189, Signs.

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed. 

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed. 

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the application as proposed, with the addition of a frame.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-101.  Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Burriss (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Debra Walker Yost confirmed to Mr. Snyder that his sidewalk sign is to be removed from the sidewalk and stored inside when his business [Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches] is not open.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-96:  Kristen Black; 907 Newark-Granville Road; Fence Installation;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-96.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote:  Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes),  Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

b)         Application 2017-101; John Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches; 115 North Prospect Street; Sidewalk Sign; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-101.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

Motion to approve Minutes from July 10, 2017 Planning Commission

hearings:

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the minutes from the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Motion carried 5-0.

 

Discussion Point:  Granville Christian Academy Future Plans:

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that, before the evening’s meeting actually began, Mr. Wilken had brought up the increase in traffic that the modular units proposed for Granville Christian Academy would cause.  With the addition of the modular units, there is a strong possibility that most of the 200-300 students would be brought to school in a car.  She added that the entrance and exit to the proposed location of the modular units would be through the parcels located within the Village, and that modifying the previously approved plan under PUD would require review by Planning Commission and ultimately Village Council.  She reiterated that Mr. Wilken thought the Planning Commission should send a letter to Granville Christian Academy regarding its concerns.  Mrs. Yost wondered if letters should be sent by the Planning Commission or by individuals, suggesting that the Village stay as neutral on the matter as possible.

 

Mrs. Yost said that she would like to have a study done regarding all of Newark-Granville Road concerning future development, adding that a third lane in the middle of Newark-Granville Road would “kill” the aesthetics of the view.  She proposed that a study be done early in 2018.

 

Mr. Wilken said that he likes the idea of writing a letter.  Mrs. Yost said that she would like to discuss that thought with Law Director King.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if Granville Christian Academy had considered building a school in another location.  Mr. Wilken replied that they had considered a property near Dow, but that the township trustees didn’t like that idea as the proposed location could be utilized by a taxable entity.  Mr. Wilken also noted that Granville Christian Academy originally said two years ago that they did not expect to be where they now are, and that the Township wouldn’t require the details that the Village requires. 

 

Mr. Montgomery asked, regarding the traffic impact, if traffic would exit from the property that is already in the Village.  Mrs. Yost replied that she would need to know exactly how the traffic will exit.  Mr. Wilken stated that this question was mentioned at the township meeting a few weeks earlier, and they dismissed the concern, but he thinks the situation needs to be evaluated. 

 

Mr. Montgomery asked if the use of the proposed location becomes overuse, and asked if it would be in violation of the current zoning regulations.  Mrs. Yost said that, in order to have the increase in traffic move through the parcel currently zoned PUD, a modification to the existing approval for the school would be required, adding that perhaps there is a need to have the school conduct a traffic study.  Mr. Montgomery asked if Law Director King is looking to see if the extra traffic would be allowed. 

 

Mr. Burris said that the situation with Welsh Hills School is different because there were several discussions, and because traffic was not as big an issue as with Granville Christian Academy.  Mrs. Yost stated that GCA’s plans changed from the plans presented in the most recent discussion, and that they never asked the Village if the current proposal was a possibility. 

 

Mr. Wilken said that the problem with GCA’s location is different from Welsh Hills’ because (1) the entrance doesn’t align with Jones Road which makes traffic difficult, and (2) GCA anticipates students using the facility at the Bryn Du Mansion for sports activities which will involve pedestrian traffic.  Mrs. Yost suggested that maybe GCA could be convinced to align their driveway with Jones Road. 

 

Mr. Wilken suggested that, instead of sending them a letter, maybe Granville Christian Academy should be invited to a work session with the Planning Commission regarding traffic, and also “copy” the Township.  He also added that a neighbor of the school believes that the modular units will be there permanently, and added that he wonders if the school has decided to move the modular units to the rear of the church because the Village doesn’t like them there. 

 

Mr. Young suggested that Granville Christian Academy should be notified of Village Code regulations.

 

Meeting Announcements:

August 14, 2017

August 28, 2017

September 11, 2017

 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 7:47pm.

Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 10, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler,                  Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

 

Member Absent:  Ms. Hoyt

 

Staff Present:  Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Steve Pyles, Daniel D. Bonar, Martha D. Bonar

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None

 

Consent Calendar:

 

a)                  Application #2017-88, submitted by Mary Morales-Rivera for Day Y Noche,  located at 134 East Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of four (4) AC units on the roof of the building.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve Consent Agenda application #2017-88.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Roll call vote.  Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Potaracke (yes), and         Klingler (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-90, submitted by Daniel Bonar for the property located at 237 West Elm Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval for the replacement of the existing slate roof structure with a standing seam, steel roof.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Daniel D. Bonar, Martha D. Bonar and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

Martha D. Bonar, 237 West Elm Street, stated: that the requested project is to replace a 103-year-old slate roof, and that she and her husband want a green, standing seam roof as a replacement.

Debra Walker Yost stated: that the cost of replacing a slate roof is unreasonable for most people, and that the standing seam that the Bonars selected is one of the better products offered by the company they are using.  She added that standing seam roofs are common in the historical district of the Village, and that she believes that they are a cost effective solution.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if, considering historical accuracy, a standing seam roof would have been seen on houses.  Mr. Burriss said that, around 100 years ago, similar structures in the area would have had standing seam roofs. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked the Bonars if they had priced slate shingles.  Mr. Bonar said that they priced asphalt shingles for the porch roof, which are 25 years old.  Because the porch is already a soldered, metal roof, it will stay as it currently is. 

 

Mr. Klingler said that a standing seam roof could be painted green, and expressed his favor towards standing seam roofs.  He added that a standing seam roof has a great look, and that it would be appropriate for the Bonars’ house.  He also added that he has had standing seam roofs put on structures, and that he would suggest the Bonars considering installing snow guards, as well.  Mr. Bonar acknowledged the suggestion, and thought that might be a good idea because of the slant of the roof.

 

Mr. Wilken suggested that the Bonars check on snow guards.  He asked if the Village Code requires the Bonars to have plywood on the joists before installing a standing seam roof.  Mr. Bonar said that, if it needs to be done, they will do it.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-90; Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that any upgrading to a roof as well as the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)                 Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the application.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2017-90.   Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Wilken (yes), and Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

 

a)                  Application #2016-67 (resubmitted), resubmitted by Clay Graham, on behalf of Uberburger, for the property at 138 East Broadway (upper level).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that she had asked Chuck Whitman about the time lapse between the operation of the Soup Loft and Uberburger.  Mr. Whitman had related, via email, that the period was less than one month.  For that reason, the variance concerning the second sidewalk sign will carry with the property.  She added that Mr. Graham will have to apply to the BZBA for permission for a variance to increase to the total square footage allowed for the structure at 138 East Broadway to allow for the additional square footage sidewalk sign will require.

 

Mr. Wilken said that he sees no reason why this application cannot be approved.  His suggestion was that it be approved with the stipulation that the total square footage for the business be brought into compliance with the Village Code. 

 

Mr. Potaracke said that he would actually be okay with no sidewalk sign.

 

Mr. Montgomery asked how the 2008 application complied with the variance.  Mrs. Yost stated that, in 2008, variances were reviewed and granted by the Granville Planning Commission.  At that time, the Planning Commission wanted to make things work for applicants. Giving the example of the Soup Loft, she added that many things were approved.

 

Mr. Montgomery said that he felt it is up to the BZBA to decide if “enough is enough”, based on the 2008 variance, and what Uberburger is asking for.

 

Mr. Wilken said that he didn’t think the Soup Loft had a hanging sign.  Mr. Potaracke said that the Soup Loft sign was inside the Whit’s establishment.

 

Mrs. Yost said that Clay Graham has exhausted the allowable signage square footage for the building with his projecting sign.  Mr. Wilken stated that there is no method to deny the application.  Mrs. Yost agreed, and suggested that the BZBA handle the issue as they deem appropriate.

 

Mr. Burriss said that he likes the smaller size of the sidewalk sign, and mentioned that he believed the aim was to make all the sidewalk signs the same size.  He reiterated that he likes the smaller sign, but didn’t particularly like the shape.  Mrs. Yost stated that the sidewalk sign would not be a trapezoidal shape as it appears in the provided image; it just appeared that way because of using the Photoshop program.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2016-67 (resubmitted); Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), and Chapter 1189, Signs.

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, other than the frame color, the proposed sign is consistent with other signs approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)     Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that the proposed materials, design and appearance do not take away from, are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)     Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)     Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke stated he would not actually disagree that the proposed sign is consistent and historically correct with other signs previously approved in the district, thereby protecting the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the resubmitted Application #2016-67 with conditions that the sidewalk sign be removed at the end of the business day, that it is stored inside, and that the BZBA decides that the sidewalk sign complies with the signage code.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Roll Call Vote to approve Application #2016-67 (resubmitted).  Burriss (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)                  Application 2017-90:  Daniel Bonar; 237 West Elm Street; Replacement Roof;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-90.  Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Klingler (yes), Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), and Potaracke (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)                 Application 2016-67 (resubmitted):  Clay Graham on behalf of Uberburger; 138 East Broadway (upper level); Sidewalk Sign;  Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-67 (resubmitted).  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote:  Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Potaracke (yes), and Klingler (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse absence:

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to excuse the absence of Ms. Hoyt.    Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from June 26, 2017 Planning Commission hearings:

 

Mr. Montgomery said he would like to make an amendment to the minutes.  Specifically on page 5, the 4th paragraph, second to the last sentence, it should be stated that he said, “If a business wants to have tables outside, maybe they should not have a sidewalk sign”, instead of just a sign, as the minutes read. 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the June 26, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements:

July 24, 2017

August 14, 2017

August 28, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Klingler moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 7:27pm.

 

Planning Commission Minutes June 26, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 26, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes (Amended)

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Wilken (Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.

Members Present:  Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, and Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council).

Member Absent:  Mr. Potaracke and Mr. Young (ex-officio GEVSD)

Staff Present:  Michael King, Village Law Director; Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

Also Present:  Dennis Cauchon, Clay Graham and Kevin Goudy

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Consent Calendar:

 

a)         Application #2017-84, submitted by Tom Mitchell for the property located at 303 South Main Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of landscaping changes, including the installation of an arbor.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Consent Agenda application #2017-84 as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote.  Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Klingler (yes), and Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)        Application #2017-86, submitted by Jenna Altomonte for the property located at 335 Summit Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a forty-eight (48) inch cedar wood, dog-eared fence encompassing the rear yard.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Consent Agenda application #2017-86 as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Roll call vote.  Burriss (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Old Business:

 

a)         Application #2016-67 (resubmitted), resubmitted by Clay Graham, on behalf of Uberburger, for the property at 138 East Broadway (upper level).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

 

 

 

Discussion:    

 

Michael King, Law Director, stated:  that this application could either be approved or denied, as it was a resubmittal of a request from September, 2016.  He explained that a variance was granted in 2008 to increase the number of sidewalk signs allowed from one (1) to two (2) for the building where Uberburger is located.  He added that the variance can run with the property, but doesn’t have to.  He mentioned a Protection Cause, but explained that the Sunset Provision on non-conforming use is what is to be considered with this case.  A variance was granted in 2008 for an additional sidewalk sign, but the questions are the date when Uberburger took over the property, and how long the time was between operation of The Soup Loft and Uberburger. 

 

Mrs. Debra Yost explained:  that the Village doesn’t have records that show when the Soup Loft ended business, and Staff will need to contact the building owner who rented to Uberburger. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if the applicant could be asked to submit proof of when he took over.  Mr. King said that he didn’t think the burden should be placed on the applicant.  If the date cannot be pinned down, he thinks the Village should presume that Uberburger is within the 12-month period.  He added that Mrs. Yost should contact the building owner.

 

Mr. Montgomery asked about the history of the applicant’s various requests, specifically what had been approved and withdrawn.  Mrs. Yost said that, in 2015, Mr. Graham applied for commercial occupancy.  She added that prior to that, he did minor renovations dating back to 2015.  Mr. King stated that the sidewalk sign application was submitted in 2016.  Mrs. Yost added that the application pending in 2016 was for a projecting sign, a window sign and a sidewalk sign.  She added that the applicant was told, at that time, that he would need to apply to the BZBA regarding the total square footage of signage allowed for the 138 East Broadway structure.  At that point, the applicant withdrew his sidewalk sign application.

 

Mr. Wilken stated that, based on his memory, the gap of more than 12 months did not exist. 

 

Mr. Montgomery asked if there is a rule as to how long an applicant can wait after submitting an application.  Mr. King said that, erring on the side of caution, he thought the Village should look at the original application and assume that the timing is acceptable.  Mrs. Yost said that she will contact the building owner for the timeline [mentioned above].

 

Mr. Wilken confirmed that, if the variance is in use, the BZBA still needs to approve the square footage provision.  He asked how the panel felt, and suggested tabling the application. 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to table the application.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.    Roll Call Vote to table Application #2016-67 (resubmitted).  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (yes), and Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

 

 

 

 

New Business:

 

a)         Application #2017-82, submitted by Kevin Goudy for the property located at 288 South Granger Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval for exterior modifications including the addition of two (2) skylights, an awning window, and a domed cover for an attic fan.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Kevin Goudy and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:    

 

Kevin Goudy, 288 South Granger Street, stated:  that he did a major renovation in 2005, and that now he is ready to convert an upstairs room to a bath.  The bath needs light and air, and that is the reason for the 5-transom window [proposed on the south elevation].  He added that structural considerations contributed to the size and location of the window.  He reiterated that he is applying for two (2) skylights, one (1) roof vent, and one (1) window. 

 

Mrs. Debra Yost stated:  that it seems perfectly logical for Mr. Goudy to ask for this project to be granted. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-82; Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B).

 

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 other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed. 

 

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 and improvement of the home and the District overall.  All members agreed. 

 

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 members agreed.

 

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. He added that the appropriate ventilation supports the structure, which protects the physical surroundings.   All members agreed. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the application as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-82.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (yes), and Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

a)      Application 2017-82:  Kevin Goudy; 288 South Granger Street; Exterior Modifications; Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-82.  Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote:  Burriss (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), and Wilken (yes). Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse absence, if necessary:

 

Mr. Burriss moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Potaracke. Seconded by Mr. Klingler.

Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from June 12, 2017 Planning Commission hearings:

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the June 12, 2017 Planning Commission hearings.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Planning Discussion:

 

a)         Sidewalk Sign Regulations: 

 

Mrs. Debra Yost stated:  that she and Jonathan Miller, Assistant Village Planner, have researched sidewalk signs, and have found that Medina, Ohio seems to be most similar to Granville.  She mentioned the information that was placed in the Commission members’ binders and noted the point that they also have buildings with short frontages.  She read a few of Medina’s regulations, and asked if the Planning Commission would consider using something similar to the regulations of Medina. 

 

Ms. Hoyt stated that she didn’t believe Whit’s and Kussmaul would be able to comply, as they do not have long enough frontage. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked if Whit’s and Uberburger using a combined sign could be a possibility.  He added that the challenge is that some businesses have no frontage and really need a sidewalk sign, and that using Medina’s regulations might raise issues.  He also stated that some businesses need sidewalk signs for their daily specials, and asked if that information could be placed on window signs instead of on the sidewalk. 

 

Mrs. Yost stated that, with putting daily specials on window signs, the number of window signs allowed per structure might have to be increased.  Ms. Hoyt suggested that possibly two businesses could split one sign.  Mrs. Yost added that, in constrained areas, she believed fair share and fair treatment are needed.  Ms. Hoyt confirmed that using one sign for two businesses would certainly eliminate congestion. 

 

Mrs. Yost asked who would pay for the sign, if two businesses were sharing it.  Mr. Wilken said that possibly the landlord should pay for it. 

 

Mr. Montgomery asked if the Soup Loft had a sidewalk sign.  Several Commission members said in unison, “Yes”.   He asked if it was small.  Mr. Wilken said that the Soup Loft didn’t have a hanging sign [as Uberburger does].  Mrs. Yost noted that, in each member’s packet, members can see the approved variance of 2008.

 

Mr. Montgomery stated that the right-of-way is for pedestrians.  He asked if the Village should really allow café restaurants to use a portion of the right-of-way as well as affect the visual appearance of the Village.  He believes there is an overuse of signs, with the example of a 14-foot property having signs as well as tables.  He suggested the possibility that, if a business wants to have tables, maybe they should have no sidewalk signs.  He added that he is supportive of advertising, but doesn’t like the clutter.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the towns considered in the research restrict certain businesses from having sidewalk signs, i.e. banks.  He added that, regarding combined signs, the question arises of who pays for a sign change when signs are shared and one business leaves.  He noted the frequency with which businesses change in Granville.  He also stated that he has been to communities where sidewalk signs are only for restaurants, not for dentists, banks and real estate companies. 

 

Mrs. Yost said that she would broaden the research.  Mr. Burriss suggested looking into Bangor, Maine, which was investigated years ago when McDonalds wanted to occupy the location where CVS is now located. 

 

Mr. Wilken also suggested looking into two communities: downtown Huntington, New York, which is a “restaurant capital”, and Rhinebeck, New York, which is similar to Granville.  Mr. Burriss also suggested investigating Dublin, Ohio.  Ms. Hoyt suggested Miami, Ohio, as well as Yellow Springs, Ohio. 

 

Before proceeding to other items on the agenda, Mrs. Yost addressed Clay Graham, since he had not been in attendance at the time his application was addressed.  She said that she would contact the building owner for the dates of the Soup Loft closing and the opening of Uberburger. 

 

Mr. Wilken briefly explained to Mr. Graham the legal issue that had been discussed.  Mr. Graham said that he signed the lease on July 2, 2015.  Mrs. Yost said that the date reflected less than one year from the Soup Loft’s closing.  Mr. Graham confirmed that fact.  Mrs. Yost explained to Mr. Graham that the application had been tabled.

 

b)     Utility Mapping: 

 

Debra Yost stated:  how much she appreciated the work of Jonathan Miller in regard to the mapping he has been doing.  She explained that she, Jonathan Miller, Terry Hopkins, Larry Fruth and Matt Robinette met, discussing how to integrate all existing utility mapping into one GIS based mapping feature.  They have come up with a plan, and there will be a soft launch by the end of August, 2017.  She emphasized that the exact dimensions of pipes will be known, as well as their locations in an effort to avoid future problems.   She added that all utility departments will be able to enter data in a timely fashion as well as accurately, and that it will be called “One Map”.  She also added that a hand-held GPS unit will be purchased if the Village Council will allow that expenditure. 

 

Mr. Wilken applauded the use of technology tools for getting work done efficiently. 

 

Mrs. Yost further stated that there will be an environmental committee meeting in July, specifically for the purpose of “greening the code”.

 

Mr. Wilken stated that the Village Council approved the formation of a committee for studying the zoning of the South Cherry Valley Road area. 

 

He also stated that there will be a township hearing on July 9, 2017 concerning revising the zoning of the property adjacent to Granville Christian Academy that currently exists in Granville Township.  GCA’s desire is to locate modular classrooms on the parcel as plans develop to construct a permanent structure in the future.  He mentioned that water and sewer concerns would ensue.  Mrs. Yost stated that several Village Staff member would be attending that hearing.

 

Meeting Announcements:

July 10, 2017

July 24, 2017

August 14, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:

 

Mr. Klingler moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.    Motion carried. 

 

Adjournment:  Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 7:49 pm.

 

Planning Commission Minutes June 12, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 12, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council), and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

Member Absent:  Mr. Potaracke

Staff Present: Michael King, Law Director; Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Helen Sunkle, Ryan Badger, Todd Parker, Jack Lucks, Karl Schneider, and Jay Snyder

                            

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Consent Calendar:

 

a)                  Application #2016-41 (amended), submitted by Brian Parsley and LeAnn Parsley, for the property located at 204 North Granger Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval for the addition of windows in the gable ends of the garage structure.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.  Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote:   Wilken (yes), Burriss (yes), Klingler (yes), and Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)                  Application #2017-74, submitted by Adam and Vanessa Himes for the property located at 1174 Newark-Granville Road.  The request is for review and recommendation of approval to Village Council for the rezoning of the recently annexed property from Single Family Residential (R1) under Granville Township Zoning to Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A) under the Village of Granville Zoning.

Swearing in of WitnessesMr. Wilken swore in Debra Walker Yost.

 

 

 

Discussion:

 

Michael King, Village Law Director stated: this is a request related to a zoning recommendation, the subject residential lot which was recently annexed because of issues with related to the existing septic system, that has reached the end of its service life. The property owners need to access the Village sanitary sewer. He added that the use of the property is not changing, and there will be no construction or expansion.  He stated that the best zoning district would be Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A), as that would be consistent with surrounding properties.  Mr. Wilken asked if it was anticipated that there would be more annexations in the area of Newark-Granville Road.  Mr. King that there probably would be more [given the aging septic fields utilized by properties in the vicinity], but that there are none on the immediate horizon.

 

The Planning Commission considered the following factors pertaining to Application #2017-74, Chapter 1143, Amendments:

 

            a)         Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning                           and to         appropriate plans for the area.

                        Adjacent Land Uses:   The properties to the west and north are residential (single-                         family) properties.  To the east and south, the properties are also                                                      residential, but outside of the        Village of Granville’s boundary.

Adjacent Zoning:  The property to the west is zoned as Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A), the same zoning designation this application seeks to obtain.  The property to the north is zoned as Planned Unit Development (PUD).  To the east and south, the property is zoned R-1 in the Granville Township jurisdiction. Appropriate Plans for the area;  The Granville Comprehensive Plan of 2012 illustrates the future use of this parcel and adjacent parcels as Urban Residential, a category that is in agreement with the requested zoning amendment (Refer to Exhibit B:  Plate 10, Eastern Planning Area).

 

                        Granville Comprehensive Plan, July 18, 2012:  Suburban Residential: 

 

Within the Village, the Suburban Residential land use designation establishes areas for single-family residential development of a lesser density as a transition to the surrounding Township rural setting.  Suburban Residential includes up to 2 single-family homes per acre, and possibly townhomes at 2 to 4 units per acre.  Where municipal water and  sewer are not available, the maximum density should be no more than one unit per 1.6 acres.  Examples of this designation include the Bryn Du Woods, Erinwood, and Fern Hill subdivisions and some adjacent undeveloped acreage.  The applicant is proposing an assigned zoning designation of Suburban Residential District-A (SRD-A), which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this land use category (Refer to Exhibit B:  Plate 10, Eastern Planning Area). 

b)     Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow.  Assigning the            proposed zoning designation will not affect the access and traffic flow, as the          property is already developed and has been operating as a residential property.

 

   

c)         Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.  The proposed amendment will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the community.    

        

            d)         Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general             expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.  The property is already     developed with water service connection.  The property does not have sanitary access and intends to connect to the sanitary sewer line that runs east and west, just north of the                          property on Newark-Granville Rd.  There are no plans to develop the property any        further.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve Application #2017-74 as submitted.   Seconded by Mr.       Klingler.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-74:  Burriss (yes), Klingler                  (yes), Hoyt (yes) and Wilken (yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.   

 

b)         Application #2017-76, submitted by Todd Parker, on behalf of Nathan and Sadie Speiser, for the property located at 129 West Broadway. The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of the existing windows and one (1) door on the east addition to the home, and the installation of four (4) sets of new windows and the reinstallation of the existing exterior door as the result of an interior remodel which relocates the kitchen to the east side of the first floor.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Todd Parker and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Todd Parker, P.O. Box 86, New Albany, Ohio, stated:  that the Speiser’s application is for a simple project:  a kitchen remodel and switching the kitchen to the other side of the house.   The need to shorten windows and eliminating a door on the south side would make the heights all match on the outside.  He added that the paint will remain the same, and that the casement windows are just being shortened.

Debra Walker Yost statedthat Mr. Parker has Staff’s full support, and that this application is similar to other projects in the Village.

Mr. Burriss asked if it had been considered, on the south elevation, to make the windows all the same size.  Mr. Parker said that he was trying to limit construction. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2016-76; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD). 

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 other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

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 and  improvement of the area and the District overall, although he had a concern about the shorter windows.  All members agreed.   

 

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 members agreed.   

 

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, although the new windows would not have been as they are submitted.  All members agreed. 

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the application as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-76:  Klingler (Yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (Yes), and Burriss (yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Findings of Fact:

 

Application #2017-74; Adam and Vanessa Himes; 1174 Newark-Granville Road; Rezoning: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-74. Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Roll call vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (yes) and Burriss (yes).    Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Application #2017-76; Todd Parker, for Nathan and Sadie Speiser; 129 West Broadway; Extensive Modifications to East and Southeast Elevations of Existing Home: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria. 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-76. Seconded by     Mr. Klingler.  Roll call vote:  Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Burriss (yes), and Wilken (yes).     Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Work Session:

            1)        Karl Schneider, on behalf of Middleton East Cottages, for the property located        at 1500 Weaver Drive.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the Middle Garden Cottages Phase 3.  The property is zoned Village Gateway District (VGD).

 

Jack Lucks stated that he is trying to lay out Phase 3 and the triangle piece of the Middleton East Cottages:  28 duplex pieces, each with 2 bedrooms, 1 ½ baths and the garages split between 2 units.  He added that the target audience for these cottages is 80-plus years old, and residents could use the bike path as well as Middleton when they needed to do so.  Mr. Wilken asked what was being proposed for the property and the triangle.  Mr. Ryan Badger stated that the buildings will be similar in elevation.  Mr. Karl Schneider added that no driving would be necessary for residents, so the schools would be helped but traffic would not be impacted.  Mr. Wilken asked if residents would be cooking for themselves.  Mr. Schneider said that they could, if they so desired, or they could go to the dining room at Middleton. 

Mr. Wilken asked what would be done if residents had driving problems.  Mr. Lucks said that they would be picked up.  He added that each unit would be equipped with safety and communication tools for all residents, in case of emergency.  Mr. Wilken asked if the Cottages would merit a crosswalk.  Mrs. Yost stated that it was hoped that people would use the shuttle system, but would look into it.  Mr. Schneider added that the Cottages can be for active people or for those not as mobile, and he hoped that residents could continue to rent their unit for the rest of their lifetime.  Ms. Hoyt stated that she thought the plan looks good, as the whole Middleton complex has all along. 

Mr. Klingler mentioned that the garage roofs looked flat, and asked if they had shed roofs, and also asked how they would drain.  Mr. Schneider said that the roofs are basically flat with a slight slope so it will drain.  He added that the model is the same as the facility in Grove City.  He added that it would be landscaped the same as Grove City, as well, to buffer the noise of the freeway.  Mr. Klingler said that he likes the design, but his only concern would be the roof looking as if it attaches.  Mr. Schneider said that a railing could possibly be put on the flat roof, like a ballistrade.  Mr. Klingler said that he likes that idea because it would be like “icing on the cake”, and would make it look more finished.  He also compared it to Monticello, with which Mr. Schneider agreed. 

Mr. Montgomery asked, regarding the written summary of the project, if zoning would prohibit these units being sold off.  Mr. King said he would have to look into it.  Mr. Schneider said that the law of economics would probably prohibit anyone being able to afford to buy them, considering all the benefits that would be included.  Mr. King said that it might be a conditional use issue.  Ms. Hoyt asked what the target rent would be for each unit.  Mr. Schneider said that it would be $3000 per month.  Mr. Wilken said that, considering all the services offered, that would not be out of reason.  Mr. Montgomery asked if, years from now if Middleton decides not to operate as a residential-rental business, the units could be sold.  Mr. King said that he would look into it. 

Mrs. Yost said that the Village will need to annex a new parcel.  She asked, regarding hydrology of the site, if there has been a study regarding the water table on the east side.  Mr. Badger said that the basin can store the extra runoff, and that the triangle would not require large storage, since the elevation is 2 feet above the flood elevation. 

Mr. Wilken mentioned that he was concerned about the width of the garages, as older drivers might have trouble getting a car into the space.  Mr. Lucks stated that the garage doors are 12 feet wide, and that there is enough room in each garage for a workbench.  Mr. Wilken stated that he didn’t believe that would be a problem.

Mr. Burriss said, regarding the roof rail, that they might consider a wing wall going into the dormer, which would be a clean look.  Mr. Schneider agreed with Mr. Burriss’ point and made reference to Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello.

Mr. Wilken asked if there were any further questions, and hearing none, thanked the gentlemen for their presentation.

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission member, if necessary:  Ms. Hoyt moved to excuse the absence of Mr. Potaracke.  Mr. Klingler seconded.  All were in favor, so the motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve Minutes from May 22, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.   Seconded by Ms. Hoyt.    Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings: 

June 26, 2017

July 10, 2017

July 24, 2017

 

Mr. Wilken asked what was ahead for the Planning Commission.  Mrs. Yost said that they need to have discussions concerning the South Cherry Valley Road area, as the current zoning doesn’t involve businesses.  She added that information would be going out to the commissioners, and she welcomed their thoughts, as she would like the Planning Commission to be proactive.  Mr. Wilken said that the majority of the area cannot be developed because of the flood plain.  Mrs. Yost reiterated that they need to think about the best use for the area.  Ms. Hoyt requested that she get a map of the zoning for that area.  Mrs. Yost said that Jonathan Miller would be putting together a map of the area, so that the Planning Commission can look at what it is expected to be like 5 years in the future.

Mr. Wilken said that he had spoken with Mayor Hartfield about the impact of different areas of development around Granville, and what needs to be addressed “before the dam bursts”, specifically Newark-Granville Road, the west side of Granville, and the proposed apartment complex.  He mentioned these developments impacting traffic, and significantly increasing the population of Granville.  Ms. Hoyt agreed that the Planning Commission needs to be proactive, as things can move ahead quickly.  Mr. Klingler asked, if a task force were developed to look into these issues, if they would need to go through the regulation process.  Mrs. Yost mentioned the possible idea of a moratorium until things are decided, or maybe a “think tank” for 6 months.  Ms. Hoyt asked if there was a legal restriction on the time frame of a moratorium.  Mrs. Yost said that Mr. King would have to decide that.  She added that she likes the proactive approach, and asked the commissioners to think about the Newark-Granville corridor as well as the assets of Cherry Valley Road.  Mr. Wilken suggested looking at the county auditor’s web page to see who owns the properties around the Cherry Valley Road area.  He added that he would forward his spreadsheet of the properties on Cherry Valley Road.  Mrs. Yost highlighted the beauty of Raccoon Creek.  Mr. Montgomery stated that some part of that area belongs to the Licking Land Trust.  Mr. Wilken added that that area is an asset for the community and is a park-like setting.

Mr. Burriss asked, regarding the Middleton Cottages, how they would be able to build in the floodway.  Mrs. Yost replied that they would be able to elevate and use fill.

 

Adjournment: Mr. Wilken, hearing no further business, adjourned the meeting at 7:48p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 22, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Klingler, Ms. Hoyt, Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

Member Absent:  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Potaracke

Staff Present: Michael King, Village Law Director; Jonathan Miller, Assistant Village Planner

 

Also Present:  Steve Pyles, Marjorie Chrysler, Stephen Crysler, Rodger Kessler, Brian Crumley, John Snyder, and Jason Anstall

                            

Citizens’ Comments :  None

 

Mr. Wilken said he wanted to move Application #2017-65 off of the Consent Agenda.

 

New Business:

 

a)      Application #2017-65, submitted by John Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches, for the property located at 115 North Prospect Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of WitnessesMr. Wilken swore in John (Jay) Snyder, 2061 Jones Road, Granville, Ohio.

 

Mr. Wilken mentioned that it was not clear how the hanging of the wall sign would be done and that the drawings were confusing.  Mr. Snyder explained the drawings, that the proposed wall sign would act as a support structure from which the projecting sign would hang.  He thought it was an elegant way of supporting a sign.  Mr. Wilken asked if the v-shaped portion of the wall sign would project, and the projecting sign would hang on it.  Mr. Snyder said, “Yes”.  Mr. Wilken asked Staff to verify that the square footage of the wall sign was within the Village Code.  Mr. King stated that it was.   Mr. Montgomery asked what the distance would be from the face of the building.  Mr. Snyder stated that it would be four (4) feet.  Mr. Montgomery asked what the sign would be anchored to. 

 

Mr. Wilken swore in Jason Anstall, 7300 Birdstone Way, New Albany, Ohio.  Mr. Anstall explained that the wall sign will be attached to the crown molding and fascia of the building, acting as a structural component for the projecting sign.  Mr. Wilken confirmed that the projecting sign and the wall sign are actually one piece, and then asked how far it would be from the sidewalk to the bottom of the projecting sign.  Mr. Snyder stated that it would be over eight (8) feet. 

Mr. Montgomery asked if this would be a right-of-way issue.  Mr. King stated that the projecting sign would be over the right-of-way, but would actually be part of the structure of the building, making it within code regulations. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to                 Application #2017-65, Chapter 1159, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated True, that the renovation is stylistically compatible with similar projects previously approved in the District, and improves the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated True, that she felt this renovation in this location and situation would contribute to the improvement of the neighborhood and neighbor relations. All members agreed. 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt stated ­­­­­True that, as above in item b, the implementation of this renovation in this situation will contribute to the reduction of adverse neighbor interactions and thereby contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members agreed.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Klingler stated True that, the sign has a retro look, but many old signs projected as this proposed sign would do, and by reducing negative or adverse neighbor interactions, we protect the peace in the neighborhood and the physical surroundings in which past generations lived, and it would be an improvement overall.  All members agreed. 

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve Application #2017-65 as submitted.   Second by Ms. Hoyt.       Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-65: Wilken (Yes), Klingler (Yes), Hoyt (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Consent Calendar: 

 

a)         Application #2017-66, submitted by John Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel        Sandwiches, for the property located at 115 North Prospect Street. The request is for       architectural review and approval of a projecting sign.  The property is zoned Village          Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review            Overlay           District (AROD).

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

 

 

 

New Business:

 

a)         Application #2017-67, submitted by John Snyder, on behalf of Steamroller Bagel        Sandwiches, for the property located at 115 North Prospect Street.  The request is for       review and approval of addition of stadium-style café seating.  The property is zoned     Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay            District (AROD).

 

(Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken had already sworn in John Snyder.)

 

Discussion:

Mr. Wilken asked if the seats would be metal or wood.  Mr. Snyder said that the seats (part cast iron and part wood) were from the Beulah Race Track, and dated from the early 1900’s.  The cast iron would be black, and the wood would be blue.  The space where the seats would sit was previously a planter, and the seats would sit in the previous planter’s footprint.  His plan is to pour concrete in the planter’s space, and imbed the seats into the concrete.  He added that the cast iron would be black, and the wood would be blue.  Ms. Hoyt asked what the purpose for the seats would be.  Mr. Snyder said they would be for eaters, passersby, and to accentuate the building.  Again she asked what their purpose would be.  Mr. Snyder said they would be to extend the seating, so that he would have more than 11 seats. 

 

Mr. Montgomery asked if there was an Exhibit A, as mentioned in the staff report, and also if we had a site plan.  Cathy Klingler [working part-time in the Planning Department] mentioned that we did not have either an Exhibit A or a site plan.  Jonathan Miller, Assistant Village Planner, said that there would still be 8’ of pedestrian space.  Mr. Snyder said that, from the back of the seats to the edge of the sidewalk would be 11’5”.  Ms. Hoyt asked if trees would use some of the sidewalk space.  Mr. Snyder said that there are no trees now, but that there were at one time.

Mr. Montgomery asked if the seats would be permanent or temporary.  Law Director King asked if the chairs would be in concrete.  Mr. Snyder said that they would not; the steel element would bolt into concrete, but he didn’t expect to take them up seasonally, although they could be taken up.  Mr. King said that this would require a right-of-way permit, as the proposal would not actually be café seating.  He explained that the Village Council grants right-of-way permits and seating permits, and that Mr. Montgomery might suggest to the Village Council to grant a right-of-way permit.  Mr. Wilken explained that café seating is usually moved indoors after the season, at the request of the Village.  Mr. King added that, because of the beginning and ending dates of café seating, this sounded like it would not be café seating, as in prior requests.  Mr. Snyder said that it would be a decorative element more than seating.  Mr. King said that café seating is temporary, and not intended to be permanent.  He added that, if the Planning Commission wants to require that it be taken up, that matter should be suggested to the Village Council.  Mr. Snyder asked what would happen if the café seating were approved that night (May 22, 2017).  Mr. King added that a request for café seating would be reviewed annually.  Ms. Hoyt asked, if a permit is granted for right-of-way, may it be used for seating.  Mr. King said that it could; he added that it would be like the green benches, which are for however pedestrians want to use them. 

 

Mr. Klingler asked if Mr. Snyder had considered using a green bench, like the one by the barbershop.  Mr. Snyder said that he had, but his desire is for the esthetic touch with the unique color.  He didn’t want his seating to be like that of the barbershop.  Mr. Wilken asked if he considered a uniform bench being placed where the trees were.  Mr. Snyder said that he would not be unwilling, but that that would be money spent by the Village.  He thought that his proposal would be a way to spruce up a barren look of the building.  Mr. Wilken asked how this proposed seating would allow people to accommodate their drink and plate.  Mr. Snyder said they would have to use their laps, as people do when sitting on the green benches.  He added that tables would be superior, but that there was not enough space, and that he was trying to be responsible concerning the spatial limitations.  Mr. Wilken, in order to give Mr. Snyder something to think about, reminisced about a restaurant in town that was permitted tables a few years ago, but they turned out not to be uniform, and then caused a turmoil.   Mr. Snyder stated that he does own the building, and could remove the seats at any time if they cause a disturbance.  Mr. Snyder also stated that, should he ever vacate the building, he would find a tenant to make good use of the benches or remove them.

 

Ms. Hoyt said that she likes the design of the seating.  Mr. Young said that the seats would match and complement the signage.  Mr. Snyder agreed, because the signs and chairs would both be black and blue.  Mr. Young asked if the seating would be directly under the sign.  Mr. Snyder said that it would.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the seats would be stationery.  Mr. Snyder said that the seats would fold up. 

 

Mr. Klingler confirmed that it would be at least 8’ from the sidewalk to the bottom of the sign.  He added that he could see Mr. Wilken’s opinion, but he likes the design of the seating.  Mr. Snyder said that the seating is currently painted, but that he was not fond of the color.  Mr. Klingler asked Mr. King if the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent.  Mr. King answered that it is not the place of the Planning Commission to set a precedent; he added that they are to consider each application individually.  Mr. Wilken said that the color scheme is controversial, the seating is different, and that the blue color is subject to staining.  Mr. Snyder said that it would be sealed.  Mr. Young admitted that he has been inside, and that he thought it would be a nice addition. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to                 Application #2017-67, Chapter 1159, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated False, that the renovation is not stylistically compatible with similar projects previously approved in the District, but that it has an historical quality that matches that of the Village.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated True, that he felt this renovation in this location and situation would contribute to the improvement of the neighborhood and neighbor relations. All members agreed.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the DistrictMs. Hoyt stated ­­­­­True that, as above in item b, the implementation of this renovation in this situation will contribute to ongoing business and seating and the reduction of adverse neighbor interactions and thereby contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members agreed. 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt stated True that, by reducing negative or adverse neighbor interactions, we protect the peace in the neighborhood and the physical surroundings in which past generations lived, and it would be an improvement overall.  All members agreed. 

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve Application #2017-67 as submitted.   It was Second by no one.       Mr. Wilken stated that, with no second, the motion failed.  He added that the seating should be removed when other restaurants remove their’s for consistency’s sake.  He also recommended to Mr. Snyder that he sit down with Staff to come up with a different option.  Mr. Snyder asked if there could be any clarification to why the application failed.  Mr. Klingler stated, “No comment”.  Mr. Wilken stated that the differences with this application cause heartburn, and that, when there is food and no tables, cleanliness and clean-up is an issue.

 

b)         Application #2016-142 (amended), submitted by Brian Crumley, on behalf of             Donatos Pizza, for the property located at 116 East Broadway.  The request is for          architectural review and approval of a canopy sign.   The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District         (AROD).

 

            Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Brian Crumley and Rodger Kessler.

 

Discussion:

Rodger Kessler, 170 Pinehurst Drive, Granville, Ohio,  stated: 

that he would like to add the letters “est. 1963”, which would be half the size of the letters of “PUB”, in lower case with the same type face and color, and still within the allowable square footage.  Ms. Hoyt asked if he would be changing the orientation.  Mr. Kessler said that it would be only slightly different, still centered, but extended about 8”.  Ms. Hoyt asked how the sign would be amended from the original application of 2016-142.  Mr. Montgomery said that it would just be the text that would be amended.  Mr. King confirmed that the date of Donatos’ establishment is correct at 1963 and that, as a franchise, Mr. Crumley can legally say “est. 1963”. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2016-142 (amended); Chapter 1159, Suburban Residential District (SRD), Chapter 1157, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Ms. Hoyt stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District in size and style.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Ms. Hoyt stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and vast improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Ms. Hoyt 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 in that it helps businesses to have signage.  All members agreed.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Ms. Hoyt 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 members agreed.

 

Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2016-142(amended):  Klingler (Yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

b)         Application #2017-56, submitted by Stephen and Marjorie Chrysler, for the    property located at 212 Sunrise Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal of an existing deck and the replacement of a deck at the rear of   the home.  The property is zoned Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is   located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Marjorie Chrysler and Stephen Chrysler.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Wilken stated that the application seemed compliant, and asked Staff if the application meets Code regulations.  Mr. King said that it meets all codes, but that a setback variance would be needed by the BZBA.  Mr. Wilken stated that it looked like a conventional railing.  Mr. Young asked if it would be at the side of the house.  Mr. Chrysler stated that the deck would be installed at the rear of the house.  Ms. Hoyt said that she had lived previously on that side of Sunrise Street, and that the deck would provide a beautiful view, and that she thought it was a very nice update.  She said it appeared that it was designed to accommodate the slant of the yard, and asked if it would be stained.  Mr. Chrysler said that it would be stained wood.  Mr. King explained that the application would need to go before the BZBA with a variance request because of being closer than the allowed setback to the side property line. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to                 Application #2017-56, Chapter 1159, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Klingler stated True, that the renovation is stylistically compatible with similar projects previously approved in the District, and improves the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Klingler stated True, that he felt this renovation in this location and situation would contribute to the improvement of the neighborhood and neighbor relations. All members agreed.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr.. Klingler stated ­­­­­True that, as above in item b, the implementation of this renovation in this situation will contribute to the reduction of adverse neighbor interactions and thereby contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members agreed.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Klingler stated True that, by reducing negative or adverse neighbor interactions, we protect the peace in the neighborhood and the physical surroundings in which past generations lived, and it would be an improvement overall.  All members agreed .

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve Application #2017-56 as submitted, providing the applicant receives a variance to reduce the side yard serback from the BZBA.   Second by Ms. Hoyt.       Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-56: Hoyt (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Findings of Fact:

 

Application #2016-142; Brian Crumley, for Donatos Pizza; 116 East Broadway; Canopy Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2016-142. Second by Mr. Klingler.  Roll call vote:  Wilken (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes).    Motion Carried 3-0. 

 

Application #2017-56; Stephen and Marjorie Chrysler; 212 Sunrise Street; Removal of Existing Deck and Replacement of Deck at Rear of Home: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-56. Second by     Ms. Hoyt.  Roll call vote:  Wilken (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes).     Motion Carried 3-0. 

 

Application #2017-65; John Snyder, for Steamroller Bagel Sandwiches; 115 North Prospect Street; Wall Sign: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Wilken moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-65. Mr. Wilken asked if there was a unanimous approval.  All said, “Yes”. Motion Carried 3-0. 

 

There was further discussion about the application concerning café seating.  Mr. Wilken addressed Mr. Montgomery saying that, if he thought the Village Council wouldn’t approve an application, he didn’t think the time of the Planning Commission should be wasted.  Ms. Hoyt mentioned that she felt badly that there was no suggestion made to Mr. Snyder about what he could do to improve his application about seating.  Mr. Wilken reiterated his concern about where to put food and drink when sitting at such seats as were proposed by Mr. Snyder;  he added that a cup holder should be added to stadium-style seating.  Mr. Wilken also noted that café seating is reserved for a specific business’s use.  Ms. Hoyt stated that a right-of-way permit could make seating usable by anyone, and again stated she was concerned that an applicant had been sent away.  Mr. Wilken said he didn’t believe that café seating was public seating.  Mr. Montgomery said that the Village Council needs to decide if café seating would be a desired use of a right-of-way permit.  He confirmed that the Planning Commission considers the design aspect and then makes a recommendation to the Village Council.  The Village Council would then decide the use of a right-of-way permit by looking at the site plan.  He added that Mr. Snyder will need to reapply or appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Village Council, or make a new application.

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission members Mr. Burriss and Mr. Potaracke.  Mr. Klingler moved to excuse the absent Planning Commission members.  Ms. Hoyt Second.  Motion carried.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from May 8, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Ms. Hoyt moved to approve the minutes from the May 8, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.   Second by Mr. Klingler.  Motion Carried.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

June 12, 2017

June 26, 2017

July 10, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn Meeting:  Mr. Klingler moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting.  Ms. Hoyt Second.  Motion Carried.

 

Adjournment: Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:19p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

May 8, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

Member Absent:  Mr. Burriss

Staff Present: Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner; Michael King, Village Law Director

 

Also Present: Elliott May, Lauren May, Andrew Heathfield, Riccardo Rigoli, Steve Chrysler and Marjorie Chrysler

                            

Swearing in of new Planning Commission member, Jean Hoyt

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None

 

Consent Calendar: 

 

a)         Application #2017-48, submitted by Nate Willison, on behalf of Willison Investment         Strategies, for the property located at 203 East College Street.  The request is for       architectural review and approval of a wall sign. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review         Overlay             District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.         Second by Mr. Klingler.  Roll call vote.   Potaracke (yes),    Klingler (yes),                    Hoyt (yes), Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

b)         Application #2017-62, submitted by Kathy Rose, on behalf of Weathervane Kettle           Corn, for the property located at 226 East Broadway. The request is for architectural review and approval of a projecting sign.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review         Overlay             District (AROD).

 

            Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.         Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote.   Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (yes),                Potaracke (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

c)         Application #2017-63, submitted by Kathy Rose, on behalf of Weathervane Kettle           Corn, for the property located at 226 East Broadway.  The request is for             architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.  The property is zoned Village     Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review             Overlay            District (AROD).

 

            Mr. Klingler moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.            Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll call vote.  Wilken (yes), Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes),          Hoyt (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

d)         Application #2017-64, submitted by Kathy Rose, on behalf of Weathervane Kettle           Corn, for the property located at 226 East Broadway. The request is for architectural review and approval of a wall sign.  The property is zoned Village         Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review         Overlay             District (AROD).

 

            Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.         Second by Mr. Klingler.   Roll call vote.   Potaracke (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes),     Wilken (yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

 

a)         Application #2017-58, submitted by Ed and Donna Jenkins, for the property located       at 327 North Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the       extensive exterior modifications to the east elevation of the home.   The property is zoned            Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B), and is located within the Architectural Review         Overlay District (AROD).

 

            Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Ed Jenkins and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that the property owners’ porch was previously enclosed, but there was no foundation.  They would like to remove the porch, making it smaller in size.

 

Ed Jenkins, 327 North Pearl Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  the reasons why he would like to replace the porch:  the porch is not original to the house, it would help the flow inside, and he doesn’t want to lose any square footage.  He also stated that he would like to add a railing to the upper area, in front of the window, to break up the front façade.

 

Ms. Hoyt stated that she thought the project would be a nice improvement to the property.  Mr. Klingler agreed with Ms. Hoyt that it would be an improvement, and would return the property to the original design.  Mr. Klingler asked if there would be window grids on the old part of the house where the plan is to replace one picture window with two windows.  Mr. Jenkins said there would be snap-in grids.  Mr. Klingler asked if they would be simulated-divided light.  Mr. Jenkins said that the two windows will match the other windows on that façade.  Mr. Potaracke asked if the original window would be aligned with the other window on that side.  Mr. Jenkins said that it would align; it just appeared misaligned in the drawing, as the designer was trying to show the setback. 

 

Mrs. Yost stated that she had determined that there was a snag with the porch.  Because the requirement is, if the setback is less than the required 30’, a variance would be required.  The setback for Mr. Jenkins’ project is 24’6”, and therefore he would need to obtain a variance from the BZBA, unless he would want to alter his plans and pull back the structure by the necessary amount.  Mr. Jenkins said he would just pull the structure back rather than apply for a variance.  Mr. King stated that, if a property owner alters his house, he needs to either conform to the village codified agreement or apply for a variance.  Mr. Jenkins said that he had no time to wait for a variance.  Mrs. Yost noted again that the existing porch is not on a foundation.  Mr. King defended the need for a variance.  Mr. Potaracke asked if the porch would get tighter if Mr. Jenkins lost two feet.  Mrs. Yost stated that the porch would get smaller. 

 

Mr. Wilken suggested that the Planning Commission should proceed with the required questions, despite whether Mr. Jenkins changes his plan or he appeals to the BZBA.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-58; Chapter 1159, Suburban Residential District (SRD), Chapter 1157, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading and vast improvement of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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 members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as proposed, pending an action by the BZBA or a change to meet code.  Second by Ms. Hoyt.   Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-58:  Klingler (Yes), Hoyt (yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

b)         Application #2017-59, submitted by Elliott and Lauren May, for the property      located at 126 West Elm Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of          improvements to an existing barn structure located at the rear of the property.  The           property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the             Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Dan Finkelman, Elliott May and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Debra Walker Yost stated: that she applauded the Mays’ enhancing of the barn structure.  She said the project was a perfect marriage of the intent of the Architectural Review Overlay District and modernizing a facility.

 

Dan Finkelman, 130 South Mulberry Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  that his house looks at the Mays’ barn.  He appreciates what they have done to their property already, and looks forward to the finished barn renovation.

 

Elliott May,  126 West Elm Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  that he is thankful for the opportunity to address the Planning Commission.  He and Lauren moved into the house 2 years ago; they love living in the Village, and one of the things that drew them to the property was the beautiful barn.   Mr. May stated that the barn has been used as a garage for approximately 25 years; it is structurally sound and weathered, and they would like to restore the existing barn so they can use it for more than just storage. He stated that only 12% of the exterior of the barn will be replaced, as there are broken windows.  He added that an application was approved in 2003 to add electricity and water to the barn.  The gravel driveway and concrete could be used for parking, but the Mays want to use it for more play area and garden space.  Mr. Potaracke asked if the gravel would be removed; Mr. May answered that it would not.  Ms. Hoyt said that she applauds the intent to restore the barn rather than demolishing it.  She asked if Mr. May knew when the barn was built.  Mr. May did not know the exact date, but stated that the house was built in 1879, and estimated that the barn was approximately 100 years old.  Mr. Wilken suggested that Mr. May contact the Granville Historical Society, specifically Teresa Overhauser, as the GHS has maps which might show 19th century buildings in town.  Mr. Montgomery applauded the project, and then asked Mr. King when an accessory structure becomes livable.  Mr. King answered that a structure becomes livable when enough has been done to allow people to eat and shower in the structure.  Mr. Klingler stated that the plans for the project are exquisite and detailed, and applauded the presentation.  He then asked if Mr. May would be using bi-fold doors.  Mr. May said that they had decided to use bi-fold doors [instead of a glass-paned garage-door-style way to open the first floor of the barn to the rear yard of the property].  Mr. Wilken agreed that he would have preferred bi-fold doors also, as they would not fight with the lines of the building.  Mr. Potaracke asked about the guttering:  would the barn be guttered from the street or run off into the yard.  Mr. May said that the existing gutter would be replaced and would flow into the yard, defending that the roof is sound.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to                 Application #2017-59, Chapter 1159, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that the renovation is stylistically compatible with similar projects previously approved in the District, and improves the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that he felt this renovation in this location and situation would contribute to the improvement of the neighborhood and neighbor relations. All members agreed. 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke stated ­­­­­True that, as above in item b, the implementation of this renovation in this situation will contribute to the reduction of adverse neighbor interactions and thereby contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members agreed. 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke stated True that, by reducing negative or adverse neighbor interactions, we protect the peace in the neighborhood and the physical surroundings in which past generations lived, and it would be an improvement overall.  All members agreed . 

 

Mr. Klingler moved to approve Application #2017-59 as submitted.   Second by Ms. Hoyt.       Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-59: Hoyt (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Wilken applauded the use of real board and batten instead of using that which imitates board and batten.

 

Discussion Point:  Sidewalk Signs:  Debi Yost stated that, as the code stands, there may be one sign per building in the Village.  She explained that the disadvantage of this is that sometimes there are multiple businesses in one building, and asked the Planning Commission to consider if the regulation should be based on the number of linear feet of each building.  Mr. King added that, when one compares the “Delmar building” [on North Prospect Street] with Whit’s, the frontage of Whit’s is considerably shorter, but it is still considered one building.  He stated that when the Village is trying to stop clutter, but yet allow for advertising, Delmar’s has longer frontage, while Whit’s has shorter frontage.  He asked if the Code should be fixed so that businesses can have flexibility based on their linear footage.  He also added that Whit’s might have to share because of their situation, while Delmar and the businesses around the corner would not have to share.  Mr. Wilken asked when the Village Council last reviewed the policy for sidewalk signs.  Mr. Montgomery said that it had not been since 2011.  Mr. King added that there had been no review since 2008.  Mr. Montgomery stated that maybe businesses should put their sidewalk signs in the right-of-way so that people don’t walk into the signs [if they would be in the pedestrian walking area].  He said he would be happy to bring that up with the Village Council. 

 

Mr. King said that for some businesses the use of sidewalk signs is functional [such as showing the flavor of the week or the daily special] while for other businesses the sidewalk sign is for advertising.  Mrs. Yost added that some businesses have been denied their application for a sidewalk sign.  To that point, Mr. King gave the example of Uberburger [above Whit’s] because the Planning Department was trying to look at the code.  Mr. Wilken asked who would be liable if someone were harmed by a sidewalk sign.  Mr. King stated that liability is not really the issue, but safety is definitely a concern. 

 

Mr. Montgomery asked for the opinions of the commissioners.  Ms. Hoyt said that she doesn’t like the clutter, and thought that businesses should share, giving both businesses in one building equal opportunities, for example one business advertising on one side and one on the other side of a sidewalk sign.  Mr. King gave the example of Whit’s where, because two signs would not be safe, they could share space on one sign.  He stated again that Prospect Street can accommodate more signs because of linear footage.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the Village could make businesses share.  Mr. King said that the Village couldn’t force such a rule, but it was something that could be negotiated with a lease contract.  Mr. Wilken noted that some businesses can’t have street-facing signage, and therefore a sidewalk sign might be a solution for them.  Mrs. Yost noted that some businesses go up to a year with no sign.  Mr. Montgomery said some businesses like changeable signs [using chalk], but that is not effective for all businesses. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked what other communities like Granville do about sidewalk signs, suggesting that places like Worthington, Cuyahoga Falls, Hudson or Medina be contacted.  Mr. King said that he doesn’t agree with the current code, and that one sign per building will be looked at.  Mr. Klingler said he likes the charm of sidewalk signs, although he understands that there are issues to be considered.  Mr. Wilken added that he thought the stripping away of all sidewalk signs would make the town look embalmed.  Mrs. Yost summarized that we need to start thinking about this issue.

 

 

 

Discussion Point:  Improving Communication with the Business Community: 

Mrs. Yost mentioned that a business owner in the Village has a banner sign hanging in front of the business that has become permanent with no approval to do so.  She asked the Planning Commission to think about how to make business owners know to come to the Planning Department first before embarking on changes to the exterior of their business; she wondered if it might best for the Village to approach the Chamber of Commerce.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he thought the property owners should be the ones to explain the process to those who lease business space from them.  Mr. King stated that he thought that might not be in the best interest.  Mr. Montgomery stated that he understands that the property owners are not obligated to do as he had suggested.  Mrs. Yost mentioned that she plans to hold another open house in the fall of 2017, which would be an opportunity for people to ask questions about such issues as the aforementioned. 

 

Mr. King suggested that the Village’s departments need to be contacted, and department heads for the Village Offices could suggest that business owners contact the Planning Department.  Mr. Montgomery suggested that there could be fliers available that community landlords could hand out to their [business] leasers.  Mr. King suggested that a community packet be developed.  Mrs. Yost said that she would ask Mollie Prasher about that suggestion. 

 

Mr. Wilken said he thought that the landlord should be held responsible for violations that occur.  Mr. King stated that the Village has that ability, and Mr. Wilken suggested sending a notice to landlords.  Mr. Montgomery asked what procedure is done currently.  Mrs. Yost said that she learned through The Sentinel about the hanging of a banner when it had not been requested.  She said that she tries to use a gentle approach on a one-to-one basis first; then if that is ignored, a letter would follow. 

 

Mr. King mentioned that, in regard to the 218-unit apartment building that was presented at a previous Planning Commission meeting, he had spoken with Don Plank, an attorney in Columbus, who is working with the applicants on a revised proposal.  He also added that Allison Terry has done an economic analysis, and that the proposed area will look much different in 20 years.  He suggested the Planning Commission think about what zoning should look like so they are prepared. 

 

Mr. Wilken talked about the fact that the State of Ohio is planning upgrades where Thornwood ties in with Cherry Valley Road, and wondered what the implications of the significant reduction of the grade would be.  He also questioned what the future of the Cherry Valley Lodge is, and what impact it will have on the area.  Ms. Hoyt asked if the land could legally be used for apartments.  Mr. King stated that yes, it could.  He explained that the designated area is to be mixed-use, not only apartments.  He also mentioned that people are talking about affordable housing, but the schools are concerned.  He suggested that we control the area while we can, and give the issue some thought.  Mr. Wilken said that 30% of the Redwood subdivision is sending children to Granville Schools.  Mr. King stated that Granville Schools are reliant on property taxes, and the challenge is to allow businesses into Granville.  Mrs. Yost added that the challenge is to ask what we want the area to be, and stated that it is a unique planning opportunity.  Mr. King suggested the possibility of a medical corridor, and asked if the zoning code changes could shape what it will become, applauding mixed use.  Mr. Wilken suggested that the Planning Commission needs to look at different perceptions of the area. 

 

New Business:

 

Application #2017-58; Ed and Donna Jenkins; 327 North Pearl Street; Exterior Modifications: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-58. Second by Mr. Klingler.  Roll call vote:  Potaracke (yes), Wilken (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes).    Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Application #2017-59; Elliott and Lauren May; 126 West Elm Street; Improvements to Existing Barn Structure: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-59. Second by Mr. Klingler.  Roll call vote:  Wilken (yes), Klingler (yes), Hoyt (yes), Potaracke (yes).     Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission member, Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the absence of Mr. Burriss.  Second by Mr. Klingler.   Motion carried 4-0

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 24, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Mr. Klingler moved to approve the minutes from the April 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.   Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Mr. Klingler questioned a detail about the minutes, but agreed that they were correct after hearing an explanation.     Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

May 19, 2017 – Central Ohio Planning and Zoning Workshop, to be held at the Renaissance                                      Hotel in downtown Columbus, Ohio.

May 22, 2017

June 12, 2017

June 26, 2017

 

Adjournment: Mr. Wilken adjourned the meeting at 8:18p.m.

Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 24, 2017

6:30 pm

Minutes

 

Call to Order:  Mr. Wilken (Chair) called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the Bryn Du Mansion.

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, and Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council).

Member Absent:  Mr. Young (GEVSD representative)

Staff Present: Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner; Michael King, Village Law Director

 

Also Present: Steve Pyles, Gerry Bird, Chuck Davis, Bruce Westall, Melissa Hartfield, Melissa DeHart, Jillian Yoder, Joe Mangine, Pam Clements, Bob Johnson, Carolyn Johnson, Steven Katz, Allison Laughbaum, Cynthia Cort, Kevin Reiner, and John Noblick.

                            

Citizens’ Comments :  None

 

Consent Calendar: 

 

a)         Application #2017-53, submitted by Steven Jon Baldwin, for the property located at   210 North Granger Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the                       construction of a cedar fence with gates in the back yard.  The property is zoned Village     Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay      District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

a)         Application #2017-42, submitted by Pam Clements, for the property located at 341     East College Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the removal             of the existing, enclosed back porch to be replaced with a small back porch and a 12’ x      20’ sunroom.   The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located            within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Burriss recused himself from the discussion of Application #2017-42 at 6:32 p.m.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Pam Clements, Jack Burriss, and Debra Walker Yost.

 

 

 

Discussion:

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that the request is to remove the existing back porch addition, and rebuild a sunroom space with a new entrance.  She stated that Staff finds the materials list in keeping with other projects approved within the District. 

Mr. Burriss mentioned that casement windows are shown on the illustration, but they will actually be double-hung windows.  Mr. Klingler asked if, on the south elevation, the windows would remain as 6-over-6, and complimented Ms. Clements on her proposed project.  Mr. Burriss said that the windows will stay as 6-over-6.  He added that the rear porch post will match the posts on the front porch.  Mr. Wilken asked about the guttering.  Mr. Burriss said that the guttering will join that which currently exists.  Mr. Wilken reviewed the project and listed the materials that will be used.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-42; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), Chapter 1157, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)     Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are similar to other projects approved within the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)    Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that the improvements as presented continue the historical character of the historic district.  All members agreed. 

 

c)     Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke stated ­­­­­True, that by contributing to the vitality of a home within the District, we contribute to the continuing vitality of the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

d)    Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that by contributing to the vitality of a home within the District, we protect and enhance examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members agreed.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the application as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Klingler.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-42:  Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Wilken to rejoin the Planning Commission hearing at 6:37pm.

 

b)         Application #2017-50, submitted by Kevin Reiner Design and John Noblick, on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter, for the property located at 207 South Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and recommendation of approval to the Village Council for the demolition of the existing house and garage located at 207 South Pearl Street.  The demolition will allow for renovations and expansion of the house located at 205 South Pearl Street. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Debra Walker Yost mentioned that Mr. McWalter would be contributing to the hearing via the telephone.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, Keith McWalter, and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Debra Walker Yost stated: that Staff had had association with the McWalters and their desired project over the past 2 years.  She explained the addresses of the properties involved, as well as the parts of the project, namely a demolition, a lot split, and finally a renovation.

 

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, Granville, Ohio:  handed out illustrations depicting the project.  He described the history of 205 South Pearl Street, stating that it had been a rental most recently.  The McWalters purchased it in January, 2016 intending to renovate it, but 207 South Pearl Street then came on the market, so they purchased it also in order to pull the 2 properties together.  Mr. Reiner displayed sample materials that will be used in the renovation.  He also explained that the renovation will include:

·         2 porches (on the north and east)

·         The back part:  making it a mudroom and laundry, and rebuilding the foundation

·         The screened-in porch will become a family room

·         The block foundation will be re-veneered with stone similar to the existing foundation

·         A dining room will be added (7’ x 11’), as well as a 1-car garage

·         New windows, doors, an exterior color to be determined, a fence and columns

 

Mr. Reiner added that 207 South Pearl Street will become green space with landscaping, and will tie in with 223 East Elm Street, the McWalters’ residence.  Regarding the demolition, Mr. Reiner described the response from the Granville Historical Society, stating that 207 South Pearl Street was built in the 40’s or 50’s on what was originally the rear part of the 205 South Pearl Street property.  They also stated that there was no historical significance to the 207 South Pearl Street property.  Mr. Reiner added that demolition of 207 South Pearl Street and a lot split would allow the construction of a garage, as the proposal is to move the lot line by 15’6”. 

 

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that if approved as presented, no variances would be needed for the project.  Mr. Reiner stated that the plan is to keep the fence on the alley at 42” instead of 6’, as Mr. McWalter didn’t want it to look like a barricade.  Mr. Reiner also added that proposed plantings had been submitted and shared pictures of such plantings, noting that the fence would be installed outside of the 33’ right-of-way line on the property.

 

Mr. Klingler mentioned that, on the north elevation of the 205 North Pearl Street house that faces Elm Street, the pediment return did not match what was on the drawing.  Mr. Reiner agreed that it was unbalanced and would be corrected.  Mr. Noblick, 372 Shamrock Lane, Newark, Ohio, said that that portion of the house was originally a porch and that there is a change in roof pitch.

Mr. Klingler said that he likes the windows, but that the attic window is not like those on the other elevations.  Mr. Reiner said that the windows will have 4 divides and they are being kept the same as how they currently look.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if there is a basement in the 207 South Pearl Street house and asked what the time frame would be for getting it filled in.  Mr. Reiner said that there is a basement, and then referred to Chuck Davis for a time frame.  Chuck Davis, 12473 Township Road 85, Thornville, Ohio, said that within 3 weeks the basement would be filled in.  Mr. Potaracke asked how long it would be between when the demolition happens and when the lot is presentable.  Mr. Davis said that he was hoping to use the 207 South Pearl Street lot for staging during the whole project.  Mr. Potaracke asked what the estimated time line is for the whole project.  Mr. Davis estimated 7 months.  Mr. Wilken asked what precautions would be taken with respect to “guests” who might be tempted to enter the property.  Mr. Davis said that it would be fenced off, water would be capped, and that it should be safe. 

 

Returning to the renovations on the 205 South Pearl Street structure, Mr. Burriss asked about the placement of posts on the east elevation that are shown on illustrations as being mid-window, whereas posts on the north elevation show a clear view to the windows.  Mr. Reiner admitted that he should reduce the width of the step so that he can accommodate the post location as suggested.  Mr. Burriss applauded everything else about the plan.  Mr. Reiner asked if he should remove the 2 inner posts.  Mr. Burriss said that he agreed to a solution, but did not care for what was shown as the location of the posts on the east elevation.  Mr. Burriss also mentioned that the East Elm Street entry is shown as the main entrance and Pearl Street is the side door, and that it should be corrected as the house has an address of South Pearl Street. 

 

Mr. Wilken was appreciative of the project and said that it was a real enhancement to Granville.  He asked if there were any comments from the public.

 

Bruce Westall, 232 East Elm Street: complimented the McWalters for their transparency in the project over the past few years.  He has witnessed the McWalters’ previous renovation [at 223 East Elm Street] and is pleased with this project as well as Kevin Reiner’s work.  He added that, although this is very costly, it is a good decision and he is appreciative of the improvement to the neighborhood.

 

Steve Katz, 221 East Elm Street: echoed Mr. Westall’s comments and is confident that the McWalters are rescuing 205 South Pearl Street.  He requested that the Planning Commission approve the plans.

 

Allison Laughbaum, 212 South Pearl Street: was concerned with the lot split.  She said she witnessed such a request years ago, and wonders what will happen after the McWalters no longer own the properties in concern.  She used the properties owned by The Buxton Inn as examples of properties that continue to be empty.

 

Bob Johnson, 218 East Elm Street:  echoed previous complimentary comments about the project.  He has worked with Kevin Reiner and applauded his work both in quality and design.  He mentioned that he believed it was most marketable for a house in Granville to have a garage, and would like to see the project advance.  Mr. Wilken responded that it is becoming more popular to place garages where horse barns used to be.

 

Mr. Montgomery asked if, since the garage doors are planned to be facing South Pearl Street, it might be more visually appealing if the entrance were from the alley.

 

Ms. Laughbaum reiterated that her concern is regarding the open lot across from her house, and asked if Granville is starting to create open lots and remove houses.  Mr. Johnson noted that several garages in the 100 block of South Pearl Street face the street.  Mr. Montgomery asked if the garage would be recessed, or if it would be flush with the house.  Mr. Reiner said that the garage would be set back 12’6” from the property line.  Mr. Wilken stated that there are other empty lots in town, specifically on College Street, and that the garage complaint is not foreign to Granville.  He asked if there was a way to reverse the entrance to the garage.  Mr. Burriss said that would remove the possibility of building anything on the 207 South Pearl Street property.  He added that, with a lot split, one structure is more livable and one is still a buildable lot.   Mr. Reiner said that he thought about a 2-car garage, but he doesn’t like those on an historical property; he prefers a single-car garage.

 

Joe Mangine, 204 South Pearl Street, said that saving 205 South Pearl Street is great!  His concern is with the concept of the neighborhood.  He noted that the house on the northeast corner of the Pearl Street/East Elm Street intersection is empty, and he is concerned about the removal of affordable housing [207 South Pearl Street].  Mr. Montgomery said that the Granville Historical Society shared that concern.

 

Melissa Hartfield, 220 South Pearl Street, said that the design is outstanding, and she approves of restoring the property.  She has concerns about the demolition:  staging, children, safety and respect for the neighborhood, dirt in the neighborhood, and the height of the fencing.  She also asked if the green space [207 South Pearl Street] would be a lawn.  Mr. Reiner answered that the green space would be lawn and other landscaping, such as arborvitae.  Ms. Hartfield asked if the fence would be inside the landscaping, as she was concerned about where the two properties come together.  Mr. Reiner answered that yes, the fence would be inside the landscaping, and that more landscaping than just arborvitae might be added later.

 

Mr. Wilken compared the fencing surrounding the construction sites to that used by Denison University with the construction of the Performing Arts Center.  He suggested that screening should be used so as to hide the construction from neighbors.  Ms. Hartfield asked if the hole left after demolition would be screened.  Mr. Reiner said that they plan to screen it as a safety barrier.  Ms. Hartfield commented that Granville is losing some affordable housing with the demolition of 207 South Pearl Street.  Mr. Klingler stated that, compared to historical houses on East Elm Street and South Pearl Street that was renovated, 207 South Pearl Street is “the odd man out.”  Someone built 207 South Pearl Street, as 205 South Pearl Street used to extend to the alley.  Mr. Klingler added that he sympathizes with the affordable housing issue, but 207 South Pearl Street probably was a cow barn. 

 

Ms. Laughbaum asked why the lots are remaining split, instead of being one large lot.  Mr. Reiner said that the price point as a large lot was not feasible.  He added that this project is intended to save the corner property, not to make money for the McWalters.  Mr. Wilken congratulated everyone in the neighborhood who has worked together, especially the McWalters.  He said it appeared that concerns have been worked out.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-50; Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and Chapter 1162.05, Bond.

 

a)            The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse effects on the property or    on neighboring properties, and the removal of the structure shall not interrupt the    continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way?  Mr. Potaracke stated True,      that as presented, the plans illustrate no adverse effects on the property owners or        neighboring properties.  All members agreed.

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  Mr. Potaracke stated          True, with the letter provided by the Historical Society, it appears the structure has little or no historical significance; he further added that we are saddened at the loss of any           home within the District.  All members agreed 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health,          safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  Mr.            Potaracke stated ­­­­­True that, based on descriptions of  the demolition and the safety precautions discussed at the meeting, the tear down of the proposed structure is within        reasonable guidelines.  All members agreed.

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning    requirements of the zoning district and are consistent with the existing structures, sizes,            densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation          schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that     based on the plans that were discussed, the proposed future construction plans meet the             requirements of the zoning district.  All members agreed.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if the application would have a bond.  Mr. McWalter said, “Yes”.  Mr. Wilken also noted that the Staff received an approval from the Granville Historical Society regarding the purposes of the demolition and the lot split.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to recommend approval of Application #2017-50 as submitted to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-50: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

c)         Application #2017-51, submitted by Kevin Reiner Design and John Noblick, on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter, for the property located at 207 South Pearl Street.  The request is for review and approval of a lot split of 207 South Pearl Street.  The lot split will allow for the construction of a new garage on the 205 South Pearl Street property.    The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Discussion:

Law Director King stated that Application 2017-51 is administrative in nature, but must still have a motion and vote.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve Application #2017-51 as submitted.   Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.        Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-50: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

d)         Application #2017-52, submitted by Kevin Reiner Design and John Noblick, on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter, for the property located at 207 South Pearl Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of extensive exterior modifications and a new garage addition.  The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Discussion:  Mr. Wilken asked, for verification, if the guttering would be underground.  Mr. Davis said that it would be underground and they would cut through the curb.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-52; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), Chapter 1157, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that the renovation project is stylistically compatible with similar projects previously approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke stated ­­­­­True, that by contributing to the vitality of this structure to be renovated, including the lot split to allow the addition of a single-car garage, we contribute to the vitality of a home within the District, and the District overall.  All members agreed.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that by protecting and enhancing the state of an historic home within the District, we contribute to the protection of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members agreed.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve Application #2017-52 as submitted, with the stipulation that the porch columns are aligned per the discussion and different from the submitted drawings.   Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-52:  Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Glenshire PresentationGerry Bird, architect, presented a question-and-answer session about the proposed Glenshire development comprised of 19 acres and located at 1536 Newark-Granville Road.  Mr. Bird mentioned other projects he has done in central Ohio (New Albany, Heron Bay, Jerome Village in Dublin, Owens Corning Tech Center, Dublin Schools, and work on the Bryn Du Mansion when Quest was located there).  Mr. Bird proposed Glenshire as being empty-nester housing that would have the following features:

·         Walkability to the Village

·         Sense of community

·         37 cluster homes

·         Low maintenance

·         Living space on 1 floor

·         Open concept

·         1 ½ story houses with space for occasional visitors

·         Small basement for utilities and some storage

·         1800-2400 square feet and priced in the $400,000’s

·         Permanent green space, preserving tree rows and buffers

·         Combination of front and side-load garages

·         Staggered setbacks within a 5-foot range

·         Typical lot of 65’ x 130’

·         Farmhouse architectural style with hardy plank, porches with columns, steep roofs

 

Mr. Bird mentioned that a traffic study had been conducted, looking at the growth projection, and no traffic light nor turn lane would be needed for 20 years.  He suggested aligning the Glenshire entrance with that of The Colony.  He added that landscaping would be done, preserving good trees and supplementing with evergreens.  The water feature located in the green space will be owned by the home owners association, and one landscape company will take care of all the landscaping needs.  He added that the development is not contiguous to the bike path currently, but he would like to purchase the necessary property to make the bike path easily accessible for future residents of Glenshire.

 

Mr. Wilken asked what the impact would be if families were to move into Glenshire, and asked specifically if there would be a parking problem.  Mr. Bird replied that there would be a provision for on-street parking.  Mr. Wilken asked what the ideal timeline would be for Glenshire.  Mr. Bird said that the soonest the project could be started would be mid-2018, with houses completed within 3-4 years.   Mr. Bird mentioned that the dimensions of the two pools of the water feature would be 60’ in diameter, and that they would be shallow, lined and rocky, more like a stream.

 

Mr. Klingler asked if there would be cupolas, lanterns, and dormers.  Mr. Bird said that there would be a variety of dormers, and the cupolas would depend on the house.  He added that there would be 3-4 prototype plans, with 3 exterior configurations, which would result in 12 different iterations.  Glenshire would be more diverse architecturally than The Colony, with garages toward the front of the property and living space toward the rear.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2017-42; Pam Clements; 341 East College Street; Exterior Modifications: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-42. Seconded by Mr. Klingler.   Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Application #2017-50; Kevin Reiner Design and John Noblick, on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter; 207 South Pearl Street; Demolition of Existing House and Garage: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-50. Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Application #2017-51; Kevin Reiner Design and John Noblick, on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter; 207 South Pearl Street; Lot Split: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-51. Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Application #2017-52; Kevin Reiner Design and John Noblick, on behalf of Keith and Courtney McWalter; 207 South Pearl Street; Extensive Exterior Modifications: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-52.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if a resignation from Mr. Jennings had been received.  Mrs. Yost said that it had been received.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from April 10, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the minutes from April 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.   Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Motion Carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

May 8, 2017

May 19, 2017 – Central Ohio Planning and Zoning Workshop, to be held at the Renaissance                                   Hotel in downtown Columbus, Ohio.

May 22, 2017

June 12, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:  Mr. Burriss moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Mr. Potaracke seconded.  Motion carried.  Mr. Wilken declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

 

Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

April 10, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, Mr. Klingler, Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council) and Mr. Young (GEVSD representative).

Member Absent:  Mr. Jennings

Staff Present: Debra Walker Yost, Village Planner; Michael King, Village Law Director

 

Also Present: John Mathis, Steve Pyle, Barbara Franks, Andrew Franks-Rogers, and Chris Avery

                            

Citizens’ Comments:  None

 

Consent Calendar: 

 

a)         Application #2017-36, submitted by Kyle Bartholomew, for the property located at    218 South Mulberry Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a            new patio and stone-walled planting beds.  The property is zoned Village Residential     District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

New Business:

a)         Application #2017-30, submitted by John Mathis, for the property located at 233        East Broadway.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the addition of a      new exterior door at the kitchen and installation of five (5) new windows on the 1999      addition to the home.   The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is     located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

            Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in John Mathis and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

John Mathis, 233 East Broadway, Granville, Ohio, stated:

He is requesting 5 new windows and a new door in the new part of his house.  He stated that the new part of the house is dark, and he wants to open it up and provide more light.  Most of the windows he is requesting are on the second floor, although he is adding a powder room downstairs which needs a new window.  The casement windows are similar in size to the existing windows.  Also, the door being added to the kitchen allows the primary entrance to be in the kitchen instead of access coming through the dining room. 

 

Debra Walker Yost stated:  that she appreciates his desire for more light, and that the proposal is in keeping with the style of the house.

 

Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Mathis if, based on the illustration he was shown, the window for the kitchen could be centered instead of being placed towards the outside corner.  Mr. Mathis said that he tried to keep the window at the same level as the door and above the kitchen cabinets, and that the window is supposed to be centered.  Mr. Burriss reiterated that his concern was not the height of the window, but that it was centered on the wall, and that it needed “breathing space”.  Mr. Burriss also explained that the Planning Commission must approve or disapprove based on drawings that are submitted, and emphasized that they be as accurate as possible.  Mrs. Yost suggested that Mr. Burriss sketch in his suggestion about centering the window on the application’s illustration and have Mr. Mathis approve it.

 

Mr. Burriss asked if the second-story windows would have the same height as the existing second-story windows.  Mr. Mathis said that they would have the same height.  Mr. Burriss asked for clarification on the drawings.

 

Mr. Potaracke expressed a concern about the window beside the downspout, and asked what would be done about that situation.  Mr. Mathis explained that the downspout would be moved to the other side of the door.

 

Mr. Klingler mentioned that the casement window shown with the application doesn’t match the three-dimensional grids of the old house.  Mr. Mathis explained that he wants grids on the outside of the glass, not between the panes of glass.  Mr. Klingler asked if grids would be on the inside as well as the outside.  Mr. Mathis said that they would.  He added that the door would be a fiberglass door, not wood.  He made that choice for its environmental advantages, and so that termites would not be an issue any longer, as they have been in the past.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-30; Chapter 1159, Village Residential District (VRD), Chapter 1157, Village Zoning, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District. 

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall. 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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. 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-30:  Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

b)         Application #2017-34, submitted by Dr. Christopher Avery, for the property located at 127 South Prospect Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of a privacy fence and one (1) bollard along the north property line.  The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Chris Avery, Andrew Franks-Rogers, Barbara Franks and Debra Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Dr. Christopher Avery, (office) 127 South Prospect Street, (home) 343 Cedar Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  that he would like to erect a privacy fence on the north side of the property where his dental office is located, and that it would be the same height as the fence that was erected on the south side of the property a few years ago.  He would like to have it extend to the south property line.  He shared an image with the Commission members and staff, on his iPad, of the site map of the 127 South Prospect property, and added that he had added to the request that he would like to add a post where there is now a steel post.  He confirmed that he was requesting a 6’ fence.

 

Debra Walker Yost stated: that she believed that the fence should look the same on both sides, instead of being stained only on the property owner’s side and left to weather on the neighbor’s side, as was submitted.  She also suggested engaging a surveyor to understand exactly where the property line is, as that is the property owner’s responsibility. 

 

Mr. Wilken asked who installed the rebar which is located at the end of the property.  Dr. Avery replied, “I installed it.”  Dr. Avery explained that the stake shows where the property line is at the southeast corner of his property.  Mr. Wilken suggested that Dr. Avery make the top of the rebar friendlier, as he didn’t want anyone to be hurt by tripping on it in its current condition.

Law Director King mentioned that he had looked at the rebar and immediately considered it a safety concern.  Mr. King advised that he had removed the rebar and laid it on the ground.  Dr. Avery admitted that that was a point well-taken.

 

Mr. Wilken emphasized the importance of knowing exactly where the property line is.  Dr. Avery said that surveyors had surveyed the property earlier, but that it had not been done from the correct point.  Mr. Potaracke confirmed that the existing fence would match the new fence.

Mr. Burriss asked what the posts would be set in, and would they be entirely on Dr. Avery’s property.  Dr. Avery replied that they would be set in cement, and that they would be entirely on his property, and actually 6” from the property line.

 

Andrew Franks-Rogers, 210 East Maple Street, Granville, Ohio, stated:  that he had a concern about the property line, and that he thought the survey line was spray painted on the ground by Dr. Avery.  He also had a concern about the upkeep and maintenance of the fence.  He noted that he wanted the 127 South Prospect Street property owner to stop trespassing on the 121 South Prospect Street property, and had been proposing the fence for years.  He wondered if the maintenance could be done by the person who sees the side of the fence, as he wondered if the proposed 6” setback would allow enough room to do the maintenance.  He requested that the side facing 121 South Prospect Street be stained or sealed.  Another point he made was that the present fence has a larger gap between the bottom and the ground than what he likes.  He requested that it be flush with the ground.  Finally, he said that he would like to erect something to keep cars and vehicles from coming into contact with the proposed fence.

 

Mr. Burriss mentioned that the fence must be finished.  Mr. King also stated that it must be stained within 6-12 months.  Mr. Wilken said that the fence needs to weather one year before staining it, and asked Dr. Avery how he would maintain the neighbor’s side.  Dr. Avery said that it would weather naturally.  Mr. Wilken asked how Dr. Avery would stain the fence.  Dr. Avery said that, if the neighbors want to stain the fence, they could pay for it or give him permission to be on their property.  After all, he said, “The reason for the fence is privacy and safety.”  Mr. Burriss reiterated that the fence is required to be treated.  Mr. Franks-Rogers requested that he have something in writing as to the maintenance of the fence.  Dr. Avery replied, “No, I will finish it in 6 months.”

 

Mr. Burriss stated that it is required to be a specific distance from the ground.  Dr. Avery stated that the present fence is higher because of the neighbor’s request.  Mr. Franks-Rogers requested that they have a rail on their side.  Mr. Wilken stated that they are free to do what they want on their property as long as it meets with Village requirements and that they receive the required permits. 

 

 

 

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, Granville, Ohio stated: that she was requesting that the fence be as close to the ground as possible because of Dr. Avery’s use of Round-Up.  She is concerned because of the proximity of that spray to her vegetable garden, as they grow their own vegetables. 

 

Mr. Wilken addressed the lack of ease of maintenance of the fence, stating that he believed 6” seems inadequate.  He asked what the above-ground height needed to be.  Mrs. Yost stated that 2” or 3” above ground would prevent decay of the wood and should prevent overspray onto Ms. Frank’s vegetable garden.

 

Mr. King stated that Dr. Avery, applicant, must understand the obstacle of this situation, and that he encouraged both neighbors to get along.  He stated that, if approved, Dr. Avery would need to take care of the maintenance of the fence, including treating it in the appropriate timing.  If the property owner [Dr. Avery] cannot do that and the Village is forced to enforce the requirement of treating his fence, the fence might have to be taken down. 

 

Mr. Klingler asked if the fence could possibly be treated before being installed.  Mr. Wilken said that it must weather before it can be treated.

 

Ms. Franks stated that she believed, when the survey was done for the middle point, that the north neighbor at the time [Sam Sagaria] did it himself.  She requested that a surveyor would professionally set the middle pin.  Mrs. Yost stated that, when Mr. Sagaria had the north fence erected, she had watched the process, and would be willing to watch the post holes be cut into the concrete this time, as well.  She also stated that extreme care must be taken of both buildings when digging for post holes.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if all members of the Planning Commission were satisfied with the maintenance issues, survey and height of the proposed fence.  Mr. Potaracke said he was in agreement if the maintenance, survey and height issues were obeyed.

 

Mr. King reiterated that Dr. Avery must take heed to the worst-case scenario that, if the fence isn’t maintained and the Village needs to intervene, Dr. Avery could be forced to take the fence down.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-34), Chapter 1157, Village Zoning, Chapter 1159, Village Business District (VBD), and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that the fencing is stylistically compatible with similar projects previously approved in the District.  All members agreed.

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, that he felt the addition of a fence in this location and situation would contribute to the improvement of the neighborhood and neighbor relations. All members agreed. 

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke stated ­­­­­True that, as above in item b, the implementation of a fence in this situation will contribute to the reduction of adverse neighbor interactions and thereby contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.  All members agreed. 

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke stated True that, by reducing negative or adverse neighbor interactions, we protect the peace in the neighborhood and the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  All members agreed. 

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve Application #2017-34 as submitted.   Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.      Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-34: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Klingler (Yes).  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2017-30; John Mathis; 233 East Broadway; House Addition: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-30. Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #2017-34; Dr. Christopher Avery; 127 South Prospect Street; Privacy Fence: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-34. Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from March 27, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the minutes from March 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.   Seconded by Mr. Burriss.   Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to excuse absent Planning Commission members:  Mr. Burriss moved to excuse the absent Planning Commission member, Mr. Jennings.  Seconded by Mr. Potaracke.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

April 24, 2017 at Bryn Du Mansion – following Planning Commission meeting, the public will     be able to hear about the Glenshire project, proposed to be located at 1536 Newark-          Granville Road.

May 8, 2017

May 19, 2017 – Central Ohio Planning and Zoning Workshop, to be held at the Renaissance         Hotel in downtown Columbus, Ohio.

May 22, 2017

 

Mrs. Yost explained about the April 24, 2017 Planning Commission meeting, including the location (Bryn Du Mansion located at 537 Jones Road), contents and time.  In questioning the Planning Commission members, it was agreed to begin the April 24, 2017 meeting at 6:30p.m.  She said that she would remind each Planning Commission member before the meeting as to the change in location and time. 

 

Motion to Adjourn:  Mr. Potaracke moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  Motion carried.  Mr. Wilken declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m.

 

Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 27, 2017

7:00 pm

Minutes

 

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

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, and Mr. Jennings.

Members Absent:  Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council).

Staff Present: Debi Walker Yost, Village Planner; Michael King, Village Law Director

 

Also Present: Mark Bryan, Steve Matheny, Donna Holycross, Art Chonko, Jerome Scott, Lindsay Conkle

 

Law Director Michael King swore in new members, Tim Klingler and Carl Jennings.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  Steve Matheny, Director of the Granville Area Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Planning Commission to make the members aware that the GACC and the Granville Chamber Alliance (Donna Holycross) would be seeking a grant to conduct a parking study, and were soliciting their support.  Mr. Matheny will request to be on the Village Council’s upcoming agenda, and wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of the pursuit.

 

Consent Calendar: 

 

a)                  Application #2017-31, submitted by Skip Swendryck, on behalf of Kris Weese, for the property located at 128 West Maple Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of two (2) sections of six (6’) foot semi-private, horizontal-board fencing with one (1) gate. One section will be installed at the end of the driveway on the east side of the home, and the second section will be to the west of the home along the western property line. The request also includes the installation of a fifty (50’) foot section of four (4’) foot high, wood-framed two (2) rail fencing with wire-mesh (hog-panel) fields.   The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the Consent Agenda application as proposed.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  All-in-favor voice vote.  Approved 5-0.

 

 

 

New Business:

 

a)         Request to waive bond for Denison Performing Arts Complex

 

Discussion:

Art Chonko, Denison University, requested that the bond associated with the private utility work in the public right-of-way be waived so the university could redirect those funds into the Performing Arts Complex project.

Mr. King, Village Law Director, explained that the Village Codified Agreement requires the guarantee of construction in one (1) of four (4) ways, of which requesting a waiver is an option.  Mr. King stated that, in light of the bonding amount and the fact that Denison University is such a small risk, he would have no problem with the bond being waived.

 

Mr. Jennings moved that the bond be waived.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Mr. Wilken (yes), Mr. Burriss (yes), Mr. Potaracke (yes), Mr. Jennings (yes), Mr. Klingler (yes).  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2017-22, submitted by Jerome M. Scott, Architect, on behalf of Eleni Papaleonardos and Mark Bryan, for the property located at 535 West Broadway, is zoned Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C), and is subject to the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD) as the proposed addition is larger than 20% of the total square footage of the home; and the Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).  The request is for architectural review and approval of a six-hundred-five (605) square foot addition at the rear of the home, on two floors, including a mud room, office space, second-floor laundry, and master suite.  The property is zoned Village Residential District-C (VRD-C), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Mark Bryan, Jerome Scott, Lindsay Conkle, and Debi Walker Yost.

 

Discussion:

Jerome Scott, 1020 Goodale Boulevard, stated:

He first noted that, contrary to what was on the description of the application on the evening’s agenda, what was called “office space” would actually be a private study.  The house was built in 1922 in a bungalow style, and is not really conducive to 21st century family living. He added that, following the Department of the Interior’s recommendations, an addition to such a house should either be a sharp contrast or should blend in with the existing style of the home.  Considering the needs of a modern family, he believed that the contrast approach would be better.  Since the addition would be screened from the street, similar materials would be used, windows would be double-hung and casement, wood trim would be similar, and asphalt shingles would be on the rear, he believed it would blend well.

 

Mr. Potaracke asked if the chimney would be retained, and Mr. Scott said that it would not.

Mr. Wilken asked if it would have a membrane roof, and Mr. Scott said that it would.

 

Mr. Klingler complimented the model that was presented by Lindsay Conkle, and asked if the addition would have a flat roof.  Mr. Scott said that it would.  Mr. Klingler noted that elevations on the plan had not been labeled correctly.  Ms. Conkle admitted her error.  Mr. Klingler noted that the windows on the addition looked different, as if a contemporary style had been added to a cottage.  Mr. Scott said that everything would be painted the same color for the sake of blending.  Mr. Klingler asked whether the pitch on the roof might be changed, or dormers or gables added.  Mr. Scott said that a shed roof was considered, but it would not work with the house.  The proposed addition was compared to the property on West Broadway for which Mr. Scott had designed an addition (420 East Broadway); Mr. Scott said that it was important to focus more on sunlight with this location (535 West Broadway), and added that muntins would be added to windows on the house under consideration.  Mr. Wilken asked about leakage where the two (2) parts of the house come together, but then saw the plan for water drainage.

 

Mr. Burriss applauded the design of the addition on the East Broadway house, and said he liked the delineation between the older and the newer parts of the West Broadway house under question.  He had concerns about functionality, however, which included the design of window locations on the south and east elevations, and said that a few changes would make for a “happy marriage”.  Specifically, Mr. Burriss requested that the horizontal lines of the bottoms of the windows on the first floor and the top lines of the windows on the second floor would be even.

 

Mr. Wilken applauded the preservation of the bungalow, and asked if any neighbors had any questions or concerns.  Mr. Bryan said that they did not.  Mr. Wilken also asked if there had been a radon test on the house, and highly recommended that one be done.  Mr. Bryan said he had not had a radon test done. 

 

Mrs. Yost questioned the kind of guttering that would go on the addition.  Mr. Scott said that it would be similar to the original house.  Mrs. Yost requested that Mr. Scott show on the revised plan (Exhibit A) where the guttering would be placed.  Mr. Burriss also showed on the drawing (Exhibit A) his suggestions about windows.  Mr. Burriss added the request that the trim board remain on the existing bungalow windows.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-22; Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District-C (SRD-C), and Chapter 1176 Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD).

 

a)         Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed improvements are consistent with other projects approved in the District.  Mr. Klingler voted False; Mr. Burriss, Mr. Wilken, and Mr. Jennings concurred with Mr. Potaracke.               

 

b)         Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Mr. Potaracke stated True, the proposed materials, design and appearance are appropriate and contribute to the upgrading of the area and the District overall.  Mr. Klingler stated False.  Mr. Burriss, Mr. Wilken, and Mr. Jennings concurred with Mr. Potaracke. Mr. Burriss added that there is a clear delineation between the original house and the addition.

 

c)         Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  Mr. Potaracke 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.  Mr. Klingler stated False.  Mr. Burriss, Mr. Wilken, and Mr. Jennings concurred with Mr. Potaracke.

 

d)         Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  Mr. Potaracke 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.  Mr. Klingler stated False.  Mr. Burriss, Mr. Wilken, and Mr. Jennings concurred with Mr. Potaracke.  Mr. Burriss added that the plan would keep the frontage view static.

 

Mr. Potaracke moved to approve Application #2017-22 as submitted and modified per Exhibit A.  Second by Mr. Burriss.    Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-22: Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Jennings (Yes), Klingler (No).  Motion Carried 4-1.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2017-22; Jerome Scott on behalf of Eleni Papaleonardos and Mark Bryan; 535 West Broadway; House Addition: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-22. Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Jennings (Yes), Klingler (abstained), Burriss (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Potaracke (Yes). Motion Carried 4-0-1.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from March 13, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Mr. Potaracke moved to approve the minutes from March 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.   All in favor voice vote:  Motion Carried 5-0.

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

April 10, 2017

April 24, 2017 at Bryn Du Mansion – details were given by Mrs. Yost that, following the Planning Commission meeting, an Open House would be held so that the public could hear about the Glenshire project, proposed to be located at 1536 Newark-Granville Road.

 

May 8, 2017

 

May 19, 2017 – Mrs. Yost mentioned that the annual Central Ohio Planning and Zoning Workshop will be upcoming, to be held at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Columbus, Ohio, and the Village will cover expenses of any Planning Commission or BZBA member who wishes to attend.

 

Motion to Adjourn:  Mr. Potaracke moved that the meeting be adjourned.  Mr. Jennings Second.  Mr. Wilken declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.

 

 

Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2017

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

March 13, 2017

7:00pm

 

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

 

Members Present: Mr. Wilken, Mr. Burriss, Mr. Potaracke, and Mr. Montgomery (ex-officio member, Village Council, Non-Voting).

Members Absent:  Mr. Jennings.

Staff Present: Debi Walker Yost, Village Planner

 

Also Present: ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Richard Downs, Jordan Katz, Maureen Clark, Tim Klingler and Steve Pyles.

 

Citizens’ Comments:  None.

 

Consent Agenda:

 

            a)         Application #2017-23, submitted by Nancy Graham.  The property is located at                            123 South Mulberry Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval                                   of a black, iron fence in the rear yard.  The property is zoned Village Residential                             District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural Review Overlay District                              (AROD).

 

Mr. Potaracke made a motion to approve Application #2017-23 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  All-in-favor Voice-Vote to Approve Application #2017-23:  (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0

 

New Business:

 

            a)         Application #2017-21, submitted by Richard Downs on behalf of Jordan                                  Katz.  The property is located at 229 South Cherry Street.  The request is for                                 architectural review and approval of roof-mounted solar panels.  The property is                             zoned             Village Residential District (VRD), and is located within the Architectural                         Review Overlay District (AROD).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses:  Mr. Wilken swore in Jordan Katz, Richard Downs, and Debi Walker Yost.

 

 

 

 

Discussion:

Richard Downs, 414 Loudon Street:  explained Mr. Katz’ desire for solar energy, and said that he is responsible for the design of the proposed unit.  As it must be exposed to sunlight, and solar diagnostics were performed, he believed that the unit would do well in the proposed location.  Mr. Downs added that he contacted the Granville Fire Department to make sure that the location on the roof would not impact the ability to respond quickly in case of a fire, nor would the location impact the safety of any service people.  He was pleased that the Fire Department believed the location to be a good choice.

 

Jordan Katz, 229 South Cherry Street, Granville, Ohio stated: The photographs show visibility of the solar panel from the sidewalk for about 50 feet; otherwise, the solar panel will be blocked by foliage.  He also confirmed that the solar panel will be installed on the south side of the roof.

 

Debi Walker Yost:  said that she applauds Mr. Downs and Mr. Katz for contacting the Granville Fire Department, and she agreed that there would be limited visibility.

 

Mr. Wilken asked if the Village Code required a property owner to contact the Fire Department prior to installing a solar panel.  Mrs. Yost said it did not, but she believed that it should.  Mr. Wilken also suggested that, when the unit is no longer making solar energy, it should be dismantled and removed.  Mr. Downs said that dismantling is easy, and no permanent damage to a structure would take place.  Mr. Downs also noted that the character of the community has changed with progress, but he believes that progress is necessary, especially since solar energy is improving all the time.  Finally, Mr. Downs commended the Village for responsibly considering the permission for property owners to install solar energy units to their homes.

 

Mr. Montgomery asked if the Village Code included a limitation concerning square footage necessary in order to install solar energy on a house.  Mrs. Yost replied that there is not currently, but that it is being worked on.  Mr. Wilken suggested that the Village be selective about units that are approved, noting specifically mounting units on the ground versus installing units on roofs.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Chapter 11611.02  standards and criteria pertaining to Application #2017-21; Mr. Potaracke mentioned that the lack of visibility would make the structure compatible; Mr. Potaracke mentioned that the limited upgrade does not detract from the historical character of the village; Mr. Potaracke said that the exterior modification would contribute to the vitality of the District; Mr. Potaracke said that the modification would contribute to protecting and enhancing physical surroundings in which past generations lived.

 

 

 

Mr. Potaracke made a motion to approve Application #2017-21 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #2017-21: Burriss (Yes), Potaracke (Yes), Wilken (Yes).  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

 

Application #2017-21; Richard Downs on behalf of Jordan Katz; 229 South Cherry Street; Solar Panels: Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2017-21.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.  Potaracke (Yes), Wilken (Yes), Burriss (Yes). Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve absent Commission Members: Mr. Wilken moved to approve the absence of Mr. Jennings.  Second by Mr. Potaracke.  All in favor voice-vote.  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Motion to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from February 27, 2017 Planning Commission hearing:  Mr. Potaracke made a motion to approve the minutes from
February 27, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting.  Mr. Burriss seconded.  All in favor voice vote:  Motion Carried 3-0.

 

Meeting Announcements – next meetings:

March 27, 2017

April 10, 2017

April 24, 2017

 

Motion to Adjourn:  Mr. Wilken declared the Planning Commission meeting adjourned seeing as there was no further business before the Commission.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:19 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.