Source: https://www.granville.oh.us/planning-minutes-2008/2012/8/27/planning-commission-minutes-march-24-2008.html
Timestamp: 2018-10-15 09:25:39
Document Index: 544018943

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 08', 'Application No. 08', 'Application No. 08', 'Application No. 08', 'Application No. 08', 'Application No. 08']

Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 2008 — Village of Granville
Planning Commission Minutes March 24, 2008
Members Present: Gina Reeves, Tim Riffle, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).
Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Tom Mitchell
Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director Crites.
Visitors Present: Mr. and Mrs. Archie Marks, Jeff McInturf, Mike Crommes, George Fackler, Keith Myers, Fred Porcheddu, Richard Downs, Ms. Lechner.
1137 Cherry Valley Road, Archie Marks, Application #08-13
The application is submitted by Archie Marks and the property is owned by Dr. Devin Savage. The applicant is requesting approval of a free-standing sign.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Mr. Marks and Ms. Cargo.
Discussion regarding Application #08-13:
Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there are trees being taken down in this area. Ms. Terry stated that this is taking place on Route 16. Mr. Riffle stated that he would prefer to see a border on the outside edge – which is similar to other signs in the same area. He suggested a two and a half inch border. The Planning Commission preferred to see a more subtle color than the bright yellow background presented by the applicant. The applicant, Mr. Marks, stated that he could make the sign white with red lettering. Ms. Reeves suggested having caps at the top of the posts to match the other signs in the area. She also suggested having the posts themselves be white. Mr. Marks agreed to make these changes.
Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-13 with the following conditions:
1) That the background shall be white;
2) That the lettering and 2 ½” border around the edge of the sign be red in color;
3) That the freestanding posts shall have decorative post caps on each end;
4) That the final design of the sign needs to meet with Staff’s approval.
Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #08-13 with conditions: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-13 is approved with the above stated conditions.
2000 Newark-Granville Road, Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Application #08-19
SBD (Suburban Business District), TCOD (Transportation Corridor Overlay District)
The application was submitted by Signcom for the Offices at Cherrywood. The applicant is requesting approval of a freestanding monument sign at the corner of Newark-Granville Road and Galway Drive.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Jeff McInturf, and Mike Crommes.
Discussion regarding Application #08-19:
Mr. McInturf explained the proposed placement of the signs. Ms. Terry explained that the brick on the proposed signs will match the brick on the building and she stated that the applicant has presented a very attractive sign that will require low maintenance and properly identify the building. She stated that she sees the need to have two signs due to it being a corner lot and that this would require a variance. Ms. Reeves asked how far back the second sign would be. Ms. Terry stated it would be fifteen feet from the right-of-way and not the roadway. Mr. Riffle asked if the sign would have lights shining on it at night. Mr. Commes stated that they intend to use ground lighting. Mr. McInturf stated that they are looking at micro flood lights that do not trespass light. Mr. Riffle stated that he would not want any light to shine on Newark-Granville Road.
The Planning Commission reviewed the following Standards and Criteria for Application #08-19:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The Planning Commission concluded that the front entrance to the building and the parking area for the building faces away from Newark-Granville Road and Galway Drive making it difficult to locate. The building is also located on a corner lot.
b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission concluded that there are other corners lots within the same zoning district (SBD) that do not have the same problem.
c) That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission concluded this to be true.
d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The Planning Commission concluded no.
e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The Planning Commission concluded that it will not affect the health, safety or general welfare of the community.
Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-19 with the following conditions:
1) To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zone lot within the Transportation Corridor Overlay District, General Sign Provisions, from six (6) square feet to eighteen (18) square feet, as allowed under the freestanding sign provisions of the Transportation Corridor Overlay District; and
2) That the lighting cut sheets shall be submitted for review and approval by the Village Planner.
Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-19 with conditions: Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-19 is approved with the above stated conditions.
2000 Newark-Granville Road, Cherry Valley Professional Partners, Application #08-20
SBD (Suburban Business District). The application was submitted by Signcom for the Offices at Cherrywood. The applicant is requesting approval of a freestanding monument sign at the entrance of Galway Drive.
Discussion regarding Application #08-20:
(see discussion of Application #08-19)
The Planning Commission reviewed the following Standards and Criteria for Application #08-20:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The Planning Commission concluded this to be correct.
b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission concluded that a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive the applicants of rights enjoyed by other properties.
d) That the granting of the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The Planning Commission concluded that it will not.
Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-20 with the following conditions:
1) To increase the maximum number of freestanding signs on this zone lot from one (1) to two (2);
Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-20 with conditions: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-20 is approved with the above stated conditions.
Mr. Riffle indicated that Application #08-21 could not be reviewed by the Commission as indicated on the Agenda, because there were not enough Commission members present to discuss it. (Since Ms. Reeves would have to recuse herself and there were only two other Commission members present at the meeting there was not a quorum for the discussion). Ms. Reeves indicated that she would be okay with continuing the Welsh Hills School temporary signage application to the next meeting.
136 Shephardson Court, Cherry, Fred Porcheddu, Application #08-22
SRD-B (Suburban Residential District-B), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District). The applicant is requesting approval of a rear addition, deck, screened porch, and modifications to the exterior of the existing structure.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Fred Porcheddu, Richard Downs, and Ms. Lechner.
Discussion regarding Application #08-22:
Mr. Downs explained that the home is incredibly small. He submitted drawings of the proposed modifications. Ms. Terry stated that the applicant is submitting an application to the BZBA for a variance. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments by neighbors. Ms. Terry stated that a neighbor did come in to review the plans. One neighbor, Ms. Lechner (132 Shepherdson Court), attended the Planning Commission meeting and was sworn in. She stated that her property would be most affected by the proposed renovations and she has no problem with the plans Mr. Porcheddu has presented. Mr. Riffle questioned the architectural style of the home and guessed it might be considered ‘Modern.’ Mr. Downs stated that it is a ‘Classic Salt Box.’ Since neither style is listed in the Code the Planning Commission determined that it would be considered ‘Homestead.’ Mr. Ryan asked if the builder would be matching the existing materials on the home. Mr. Downs stated yes.
Standards and Criteria for Application #08-22:
a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded that the home is stylistically compatible with itself.
b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded that it contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded that it contributes to the continuing vitality.
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded that it protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings.
Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-22 with the following condition:
To approve Application #08-22 as submitted with the condition that the rear yard setback variance be approved by the Board of Zoning & Building Appeals.
Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-22: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-22 is approved with the above stated condition.
229 East College Street, Keith Myers, Application #08-23
VRD (Village Residential District), AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)
The applicant is requesting approval of a rear accessory structure, specifically a 12 foot by 16 foot garden shed.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Keith Myers.
Discussion regarding Application #08-23:
Ms. Terry explained that she did the lot coverage calculation based on one lot, although Mr. Myers owns two adjacent lots. Mr. Myers stated that he plans to use the building for gardening and for personal art projects. Ms. Terry asked if there would be any gutters or downspouts on the building since there were none indicated in the application. Mr. Myers stated that he was not planning to use gutters and downspouts due to the drainage issues in the area. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there have been any comments by neighbors. Mr. Myers stated that he has spoken with his neighbors and Ms. Terry noted that she had received no objections or comments related to the application.
Standards and Criteria for Application #08-23:
a) Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the building is stylistically compatible with the existing home, detached garage and other structures within the area.
b) Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the accessory structure will contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the area.
c) Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the accessory structure will contribute to the continuing vitality of the District.
d) Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived. The Planning Commission concluded yes, that the accessory structure protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings.
Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-23 as submitted.
Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-23 as submitted: Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-23 is approved as submitted.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-13, Archie Marks:
Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-13. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 3-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-19, Mike Crommes:
Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-19. Seconded by Mr. Riffle. Motion carried 3-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-20, Mike Crommes:
Mr. Riffle moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-20. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 3-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-22, Richard Downs:
Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-22. Seconded by Mr. Riffle. Motion carried 3-0.
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-23, Keith Myers:
Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-23. Seconded by Mr. Riffle. Motion carried 3-0.
2326 Newark-Granville Road, George Fackler, Application #08-24
SBD (Suburban Business District). The applicant is requesting approval of two (2) building wall signs.
Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and George Fackler.
Discussion regarding Application #08-24:
Mr. Fackler was not present when discussion of Application #08-24 began. Ms. Terry stated that she would prefer to see the proposed tenant sign have individual borders around each tenant panel. Ms. Reeves stated that she would prefer to see no border at all. Mr. Riffle stated that the history of the Planning Commission encourages the use of borders. Mr. Ryan stated that he is comfortable with all three alternatives suggested for the sign on the front of the building, but he questions the sign for the side of the building. Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if a sign located on the property already lists the tenants. Mr. Ryan explained that there is a free-standing sign on a separate parcel which lists tenants, and the applicant has requested this second sign so customers will know which building houses the power equipment. Mr. Riffle and Ms. Reeves agreed that they do not care for the tenant sign because it does not offer any more direction and it does not properly fit in the space on the building. Ms. Reeves stated that she prefers the third alternative for the sign on the front of the building minus the red line that crosses and separates the logo with the name. (Mr. Fackler later agreed that he would not like the red line to remain.) Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Planning Commission would be denying Mr. Fackler the right to allow his business to function properly if they didn’t approve the tenant sign. Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission has to interpret whether or not the presented signs meet the Code intent, and that the second sign would require several variances. Mr. Ryan asked if Fred Abraham’s business is in the same zoning district. Ms. Terry stated that Mr. Abraham is in a different zoning district and the sign he previously presented did not require a variance. Mr. Riffle stated that his problem with the tenant sign is the height. He stated that he would have a hard time approving a sign that is twice his height (the proposed sign measures 4 feet wide by 12 feet tall). Mr. Ryan and Mr. Riffle stated that they would not be able to vote on a sign that is that big. Mr. Ryan questioned if the Planning Commission could move forward even though Mr. Fackler was not there. Ms. Terry stated that he was notified about the meeting and that he is not required to be present. The Planning Commission has the right to move forward with an application or to continue the application if the applicant is not present. At that point (8:10 PM) Mr. Fackler entered the Planning Commission meeting and was sworn in by Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan explained to Mr. Fackler that the Planning Commission is in agreement with the third alternative presented for the front of the building, but there is not support for the twelve foot high sign. He stated that not only is the size an issue, but also the number of colors. Mr. Fackler asked what it is that he hasn’t been willing to do to accommodate the wishes of the Planning Commission. Mr. Ryan asked what the Planning Commission hasn’t done. Mr. Fackler replied a lot. He went on to say that he is within the Code requirements and he has presented a sign to the Planning Commission that they previously recommended. Mr. Riffle stated that they did not recommend a twelve foot high sign; they discussed potential design of a tenant panel sign instead of individual signs for each tenant. Ms. Reeves stated that there is a free-standing sign already on the property which lists vendors. She questioned what the point of the tenant sign is since it is not directional. Mr. Fackler stated that he would like for his customers to see what equipment types he has to offer. He stated that this sign will not be seen from the street unless someone is rubber-necking or straining to see the sign. He also stated that the style of the sign he presented was suggested by Ms. Terry and this board. Mr. Ryan stated that they are not arguing that point – meaning the style of the tenant sign – but they do question the size and number of colors. Mr. Fackler stated that he has done what this body asked and he cannot believe they are having this conversation. Mr. Riffle asked if Mr. Fackler has checked how this sign will look on his building. Mr. Fackler stated he has and it will fit. Mr. Riffle stated that due to the four foot stone at the bottom – you will have to look up sixteen feet to see the top of the sign. Mr. Riffle stated that in his profession, they do not recommend filling space the way Mr. Fackler is suggesting. He stated that the building is horizontal in nature and the proposed sign does not appropriately fit the horizontal space on the building. Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Fackler if he would have a problem situating the sign to be 6x8 with the long dimension horizontal, rather than 4x12. Mr. Fackler stated that he would request more than eight foot in height. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the manufacturers would be providing the tenant sign inserts. Mr. Fackler stated that he would have to have these tenant panels fabricated, rather than using what the vendor could provide, because this is what the Planning Commission previously recommended and preferred. Mr. Riffle stated that the way the twelve foot high sign is presented – the normal person is six foot tall and wouldn’t want to look up sixteen foot to read it – it would be uncomfortable for the average person. Mr. Fackler stated that he disagrees and sees the sign as an appropriate height for vehicles pulling onto the property. Mr. Riffle stated that if the sign is not approved at eye level – it is a waste of money. Mr. Fackler said to let him waste his money. Mr. Riffle stated that he would be able to get past the number of colors, but not the presented height of the sign. Mr. Fackler stated that his point is that he delivered to the Planning Commission what they asked for. Mr. Ryan stated that the point of the sign is to identify to the customers who the tenants are and not to get customers to come in off the street. Mr. Fackler stated that the sign would be for when the customer pulls onto the property. Mr. Ryan stated that if this is the case – he does not get the argument for a twelve foot sign. Mr. Fackler stated he disagrees. Mr. Riffle suggested making the sign fit the character of the building and stacking the tenants – listed side by side. Mr. Fackler stated that he is “dead in the water” and he did not come here tonight to lose. Ms. Terry questioned if the first sign presented is going to be located as depicted on the original building drawings. Mr. Fackler stated that it will be very close to what is depicted on the drawing. Mr. Fackler went on to say that he has asked for something from this Commission and he would like to know if they would allow him to install something and if it “looks like hell we can talk.” Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission came back and allowed an amendment to the original green roof color to allow for a red roof. Mr. Ryan stated that he has had a comment from a resident who is not in favor of the red roof. Ms. Reeves questioned how much square footage would be used for the first sign on the front of the building. Ms. Terry stated 65 sq. ft.
The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the Standards and Criteria as follows:
Standards and Criteria for Application #08-24:
a) That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning districts. The Planning Commission concluded that there are multiple buildings within the complex on two different parcels and that there are no special circumstances.
b) That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. The Planning Commission agreed that they have approved other signs for people in the same area. Mr. Terry stated that other businesses in the SBD include: Ross’s Market, Cherrywood Offices, Certified Gas, Wendy’s, and the Offices at Erinwood.
c) That special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant has built a second building that enhances the neighborhood and his business. They agreed that they would not weight Standard “c” as heavily as “a” and “b.”
e) That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. The Planning Commission concluded that it will not.
The Planning Commission reviewed the Staff Recommendation and agreed on Items 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Ryan stated that variances are generally granted due to a practical difficulty. He stated that since the Planning Commission is in agreement on the variances, the issue now comes down to the way the sign is oriented. Mr. Riffle stated that he would be ok with the number of colors requested because it is for brand logos. Ms. Reeves stated that the height and straight look of the sign does not appeal to her. Councilmember O’Keefe stated that aesthetically the sign can be very subjective – whether it is vertical or horizontal. She stated that one person’s perception might be that the sign is too high. Ms. Reeves stated that a twelve foot high sign bothers her. Mr. Riffle stated that a building horizontal in nature should not put emphasis on verticality.
Mr. Riffle made a motion to approve Application #08-24 with the following conditions:
1) To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 70 square feet to 113 square feet for both wall signs;
2) To increase the maximum number of wall signs per building from one (1) to two (2);
3) To increase the maximum number of colors in any sign from three (3) to four (4) for the northern wall sign, and from three (3) to seven (7) for the western wall sign, as proposed in Exhibit “A”; and
4) A stipulation to change the presented twelve foot (12’) vertical sign to be stacked and to be more horizontal in nature with panels, for the sign to be placed at a lower level, 48 sq. ft. total per Exhibit “B.”
There was no second to the motion. Motion fails.
Mr. Riffle moved to amend the previous motion and include the following:
5) “Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A “
Ms. Reeves seconded the motion to amend.
Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend Mr. Riffle’s motion pertaining to Application #08-24: Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion to amend carried 3-0.
Mr. Fackler stated that before the Planning Commission proceeds he would like to note that he feels terrible about this decision and if you do the math the sign will not fit. He stated that he needs more square footage to increase the size of his logo.
Mr. Riffle made a motion to amend his previous motion a second time to increase the 113 sq. foot maximum to 120 sq. ft. for both wall signs.
Roll Call Vote on the motion to amend the second time: Reeves (yes), Riffle (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion to amend a second time carried 3-0.
Mr. Fackler thanked the Planning Commission and stated that although he is not in agreement he does appreciate all of the effort put forward for this project. He stated that his building opening is scheduled for April 17th. Ms. Terry stated that there will be a ten day appeal process and then the permits will be issued.
Roll Call Vote to approve Application #08-24 as amended: Riffle (yes), Reeves (yes), Ryan (yes). Motion carried 3-0.
Application No. 08-24 is approved as amended with the following conditions:
1) To increase the maximum total square footage of all signs on this zoned lot from 70 square feet to 120 square feet for both wall signs;
5) Per sign three (3) on Exhibit A.
Finding of Fact Approval:
Finding of Fact Approvals for Application #08-24, George Fackler:
Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Finding of Facts for Application #08-24. Seconded by Mr. Riffle. Motion carried 3-0.
Minutes of March 10, 2008 – Ms. Reeves moved to approve the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Riffle. The motion passed 3-0. The minutes of March 10, 2008 were approved as presented.
Motion to excuse Planning Commission member’s absence:
Mr. Riffle made a motion to excuse Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Burriss from the Planning Commission meeting. Seconded by Ms. Reeves. The motion carried 3-0.
Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Ms. Reeves. Motion carried 3-0.
Adjournment: 9:30 PM.
Newer PostPlanning Commission Minutes April 7, 2008
Older PostPlanning Commission Minutes March 10, 2008