Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
May212012

Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 2007

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 10, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).  Tim Riffle (Chair) arrived at 7:37 PM.

Members Absent: Jack Burriss.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Village Manager, Don Holycross.

Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, Constance Barsky, Fred Ashbaugh, Jim and Donna Brooks, Marilyn Keeler, Roger Kessler, Ben Barton, Doug Wagner, Barbara Hammond, Georgia Denune, Bill Heim, J. Drew McFarland, Esq., John Klauder, Chris Bunge, Marcella Kuhn. 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Minutes of November 26, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  The motion passed 3-0.  The minutes of November 26, 2007 are approved as submitted. 

Old Business:

223 East Elm Street, John Noblick for Keith and Courtney McWalter,  Application #07-096 (Previously Tabled)

AROD, VRD

The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new porches..    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr.Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Constance Barsky, Kevin Reiner, and John Noblick.  

Mr. Blanchard made a motion to remove Application #07-096 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to remove Application #07-096 from the Table: Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0.

Ms. Terry explained that the applicant has addressed all of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting.  She stated that they are proposing a metal roof on the back, as well as a new metal roof for the front porch.  Ms. Terry stated that she prefers the gable roof style and Mr. Blanchard also agreed.  Mr. Reiner stated that they reduced the appearance of massing and they also reduced the second floor fire box.  He went on to say that they did change a bathroom window to be a divided light window and this is a change from the previous plan that was presented.  Mr. Blanchard stated that he sees no additional concerns and he stated that he appreciates the efforts on the applicant’s end. 

Constance Barsky, 221 East Elm Street, stated that she is a neighbor on the west side.  She stated that from her view the extended roof line is very pleasing and this also reduces the massing which she appreciates.  She thanked the applicant for their efforts.  

Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application #07-096 as previously submitted, however, incorporating revised elevations reflected for the December 3, 2007 submittal; Any modifications to exterior elevations or colors to be reviewed and approved by the Village Planner; Blueprint full scale plans, Exhibit “A” reflecting gable roofs in lieu of hip roof.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-096 as stated by Mr. Blanchard: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes). Motion carried 3-0.  Application No. 07-096 is approved.  

New Business:

238 East Broadway Street, Jim and Donna Brooks, Application #07-100

AROD, VBD

The request is for approval of additional parking to the rear of the principal structure and a change of use to “C” Business and Professional Offices, specifically for a real estate office that will occupy 30% of the principal structure.  The owner of the property is Marilyn Keeler. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr.Mitchell swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Marilyn Keeler, Fred Ashbaugh, and Jim and Donna Brooks.  

Ms. Terry stated that a change of use is required by the BZBA for the property to be utilized 30% as a real estate office and 70% as residential.  She explained that currently the property does not conform to residential or business because the time elapsed for the previous non-conforming use.  Jim Brooks, 645 Kensington Drive, Heath, stated that this will not be a corporate HER office, but rather a satellite office.  Donna Brooks, 635 Kensington Drive, Heath, stated that she anticipates only people on her team coming and going from the property.  She later stated that it is possible that her clients could occasionally meet with her there.  Fred Ashbaugh, 121 North Pearl Street, stated that he is a neighbor and he has no problem with the conditional use and it appears that parking won’t be a problem.  Mr. Ashbaugh stated that he would not like to see the driveway cut opened.  Ms. Terry stated that this is granted by the Director of Public Services.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has no control over driveway cuts.  Mr. Brooks stated that he does not anticipate a need for an additional driveway cut.  Mr. Blanchard stated that it appears to him that the parking spaces marked 1 & 2 might not be usable if someone is in the driveway.  He stated that he brings this up because they had a similar parking request from a resident on Prospect Street and the Planning Commission did not respond favorably to this request because there was no egress.  Ms Terry stated that the applicant will be living at 238 East Broadway.  Mr. Brooks stated that he owns two vehicles and he has one full time employee that will be parking there.  Mr. Mitchell asked if a garage can be considered a parking space.  Ms. Terry stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that Mr. Blanchard has some valid concerns.  Mr. Blanchard suggested shifting the driveway to the south and extending the existing driveway by three feet in width to ensure that spaces 1 & 2 are actually usable.  He stated that spaces 3 & 4 could then become side by side parking.  Mr. Ashbaugh asked if the hedgerow would remain.  He stated that he would like to see this remain as is.  Mr. Brooks stated that he plans to keep the hedgerow, and get rid of overgrown vegetation near the home.  

Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application #07-100 with the condition that the use Category shall now be “C”, Business and Professional offices, specifically for a Real Estate Office that will occupy 800 square feet of the first floor of the principal structure; That there shall be two (2) additional parking spaces constructed on the property in accordance with the mortgage location survey drawing submitted with the application, shown as Exhibit “A”; With the condition that the BZBA grants a conditional use for the remainder of the principal structure to be used for single family residential; That the existing hedgerow along the side lot line adjacent to Pearl Street be required to remain. Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-100: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes). Motion carried 3-0.  Application No. 07-100 is approved.

Finding of Fact Approvals:

223 East Elm Street, Application #07-096: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria: The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Residential District Chapter 1161, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-096.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Roll Call: Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Riffle abstained.) 

238 East Broadway, Application #07-100: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Business District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-093.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Roll Call: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes).  Motion carried 3-0. (Mr. Riffle abstained.) 

Other Matters

The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Village Gateway District text.  They discussed roof pitches, massing, and overall design of structures located on River Road.  The Commission is still in the process of reviewing the document and will continue these efforts at their next scheduled meeting. 

Mr. Blanchard announced that he will be resigning from the Planning Commission effective December 31, 2007 because he has relocated his primary residence outside of the Village.  He stated that he has had discussions with Ms. Terry about possibly working during the interim of finding his replacement. 

Adjournment: 9:10 PM. 

Mr. Riffle moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Next meetings:

January 14, 2008

January 28, 2008

 

Monday
May212012

Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2007

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 26, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Tim Riffle (Chair), Melissa Hartfield (filling in for Jackie O'Keefe).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director – Brandy Maas. 

Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, Karen Pugh, Lisa McKivergin, Steve Katz, and Constance Barsky.  

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Minutes of November 13, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  The motion passed 4-0.  The minutes of November 12, 2007 are approved as submitted.

New Business:

221 East Elm Street, Steven Katz,  Application #07-085

AROD, VRD

The request is to remove two windows on an accessory structure.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Steve Katz.  

Mr. Blanchard inquired if the existing windows are of any historical significance.  Mr. Katz stated no and that they are aluminum windows.  Ms. Terry asked what the existing siding is made of .  Mr. Katz stated that it is a wood composite material. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-085 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-085 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-085 is approved as submitted.  

124 South Main Street, Elisabeth McKivergin, Application #07-093

AROD, VBD

The request is for approval for a replacement sign panel in an existing freestanding sign. 

Ms. Terry stated that the proposed sign did not meet the three color requirement.  Mr. Riffle stated that traditionally the Planning Commission has not considered white as a color.  Ms. Terry stated that this ought to be clarified in the Code.  Ms. Terry suggested that if the application is approved that it should be on the condition that the sign not be internally illuminated.  Whenever an applicant changes the sign panel the sign is required to conform with the existing code requirements - which does not allow internal illumination. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-093 on the condition that the sign no longer will be approved to be internally illuminated.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-093: Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-093 is approved with the condition that the sign no longer be approved to be internally illuminated.  

1257 Cherry Valley Road, Karen Pugh, Application #07-094

PCD   

The request is for approval of a temporary sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry and Karen Pugh. 

Mr. Terry stated that a variance is needed because the proposed sign exceeds what is allotted - being 4ftx3ft.  She stated that the applicant did not specify the time period.  Ms. Pugh stated that she would like to have the sign in place from December 2nd through December 15th.  Ms. Terry stated that typically she has seen areas in the Code that deal with temporary activities, but there is not an area in Granville’s Code addressing this.  She suggested that this should be looked into.  Ms. Terry stated that she has discussed this matter with Manager Holycross.  

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-094 with the condition that the sign is temporary (December 2nd through December 15th) and that it is in keeping with Section 1189.09 of the Code, and that the sign is removed during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-094 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-094 is approved with the conditions mentioned above.  

418 West Broadway, John Noblick for Barbara Visintine, Application  #07-095

TCOD, SRD-B

The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new deck.

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick. 

Mr. Riffle stated that due to language in the Code, the Planning Commission is really unable to comment on the architecture.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposal is a nice looking structure.  Mr. Blanchard inquired on the outdoor lighting due to the nearest neighbor being only fourteen feet away.  Mr. Noblick stated that the applicant intends to direct this lighting to the parking area. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-095 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-095 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. 

Application No. 07-095 is approved as submitted.  

223 East Elm Street, John Noblick for Keith and Courtney McWalter, Application  #07-096

AROD, VRD

The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new porches.

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry, Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, and Steven Katz. 

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant appears to meet all of the requirements.  She stated that the overall structure will be two feet taller than the existing home.  Mr. Riffle stated that he has concerns over the size of the addition when you compare it to other homes in the area.  Mr. Blanchard stated that with the addition, the length of the home will be approximately 90 feet.  He questioned if the roof structure on the sound end could be eliminated to help with building massing.  Mr. Ryan stated that the depth of the property increases by 9 feet with the proposed addition.   John Noblick stated that he chose a hip style roof so that the addition appears to drop down from the front of the home.  Kevin Reiner, who represents Firmly Planted, stated that the hip style roof allows for flat ceilings, which they felt were more fitting with the inside of the home.  Mr. Riffle stated that it sounds as though the drawings ignore the outside aesthetics of the home to accommodate the inside features.  He stated that he does not see the current designs as fitting the character of the existing home.  Mr. Noblick stated that there is an alley nearby and it is very difficult to view the side of the home from the alley or anywhere on the street.  Mr. Reiner asked if the overall height is reduced– would this be more in keeping with the historical character?  Mr. Noblick stated that a gable roof would be massive from the street view.  Mr. Riffle agreed that it would be massive because the proposed addition is huge.  Mr. Blanchard suggested possibly lining up the windows, lowering the windows, as well as the height of the eaves.  He stated that they could get rid of the hip roof and do a gable end.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he wasn’t sure he agreed with Mr. Blanchard’s suggestions because he fears this would create too long of an unbroken structure.  Mr. Riffle stated that the designs make it appear to be a home that never stops.  He went on to say that the large number of trees that provide privacy could be lost if there was a future ice storm and then nearby neighbors would be forced to look at a massive structure.  Mr. Riffle stated that he is confused why one makes a decision to purchase a home that they know is too small to fit their needs and then want to double it in size.  Mr. Noblick stated that this particular applicant chose this home because of its proximity to downtown Granville and the bike path.  Mr. Noblick asked the Planning Commission members if they prefer to see a hip or gable style roof.  Mr. Blanchard stated that he does not mind the hip roof.  Mr. Blanchard stated that it appears two neighbors are nearby and he questioned if the overall height would be imposing on them when they look out their back door.  Ms. Terry stated that she measured the overall height to be approximately 27 feet.  Mr. Blanchard suggested that the eaves could be lowered two feet and the proposed fire box could also be made smaller to achieve the same goal.  Mr. Riffle stated that there doesn’t appear to be any symmetry with the doors on the sides of the rear elevation.  Mr. Reiner stated that the doors on the sides of the rear elevation were created to create symmetry inside the home and to let light in.  Mr. Riffle noted that the front door on the drawings is different from the existing front door.  He asked if this was being changed.  Mr. Noblick explained that this was simply easier to draw and they are not proposing a new front door.  

Steve Katz, 221 East Elm Street, stated that he is the west next door neighbor.  Mr. Katz stated that when the leaves are off of the trees in the winter season he has a full view of the home on 223 East Elm.  He went on to say that the overall plans for the addition look great and he believes the proposed addition would enhance the applicant’s quality of life.  Mr. Katz questioned if the applicant would be screening in the newly proposed side porch.  Mr. Reiner stated no.  Mr. Katz stated that he would suggest that they consider screening both porches because he has found that without screening his porch would be useless in the summer months due to the mosquitoes.  Mr. Katz asked what the height of the bedroom ceiling would be.  Mr. Reiner answered 9 feet.  Mr. Katz stated that he finds the elevated roof line to be jarring and he would like to see the same roof height maintained throughout the home.  He stated that he would not like to see the back structure significantly bigger than the front of the home because it would appear as though the home is on the lot backwards.  Mr. Katz stated that the columns on the porch addition look too massive and out of scale for a historical porch and he would suggest 6x6 columns instead. 

Mr. Reiner asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed windows on the back side of the addition.  He stated that some of the windows are smaller due to there being a bathroom in that area.  Mr. Riffle stated that the existing windows appear odd that they do not line up, but this is likely the result of several previous additions.  Mr. Reiner questioned if the members of the Planning Commission are comfortable with the proposed materials.  There were no comments on the use of materials presented.  Mayor Hartfield questioned the total square footage of the home before and after the addition and the percentage change in massing.  Ms. Terry stated that the existing home is 2939 square feet and after the addition it would be 3693 square feet – which is 20% massing.    

Mr. Riffle stated that the applicant has two choices.  They can request to have the application tabled for consideration at the next meeting on December 10th, or they can ask the Commission to vote on the application as presented this evening.  Mr. Reiner and Mr. Noblick stated that they would like to request that the application be tabled.  

Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application No. 07-096 per the applicant’s request.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-096: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0.  Application No. 07-096 is Tabled.  

Old Business:

484 South Main Street, Application #07-083: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-083.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

221 East Elm Street, Application #07-085: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria: The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Residential District and Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-085.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

124 South Main Street, Application #07-093: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Business District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-093.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

1257 Cherry Valley Road, Application #07-094: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1171, Planned Development District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, Chapter 1189 regarding Signs, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-094.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

418 West Broadway, Application #07-095: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-095.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Other Matters

Mayor Hartfield asked that any Code oversights be mentioned to Ms. Terry so the appropriate changes can be looked into.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has been doing this via Councilmember O’Keefe and Ms. Terry acknowledged that the has an account of issues that need to be addressed.  

Adjournment: 8:20 pm. 

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Next meetings:

December 3, 2007 – Planning Commission work session to review the Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance

December 10, 2007 – Regularly Scheduled Meeting

Monday
May212012

Planning Commission Minutes November 13, 2007

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 13, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Tim Ryan, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair)

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Law Director - Michael Crites, Assistant Law Director - Allison Crites, Village Planner - Alison Terry, Mollie Prasher – Clerk of Council

Visitors Present: Leta Ross, Kris Harrison, Kirsten Pape, Doug Wagner, Laura Andujar, Jeanne Crumrine, John Klauder, Brian Miller 

Approval of Minutes

Tim Ryan moved to approve the minutes of October 22, 2007.  Second by Jack Burriss.  Motion approved.  4-0

 Citizen’s Comments:

No Citizen Comments 

New Business:

136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-082

AROD and VBD 

Mr. Riffle swore in all witnesses wishing to address this application 

The request is for the approval of a sidewalk, sandwich sign. 

Mr. Ryan asked if a second sandwich board was permitted for this building. 

Planner Terry indicated that the Commission could ask forward this application to the BZBA for a variance; however, under Section 1189.12 the Commission has the authority to approve an additional sign.  

Councilmember O’Keefe asked if Greek Eats had a sandwich board sign.  Mr. Riffle indicated that they did not have a sign. 

Mr. Blanchard asked how much overlap would exist from when Mr. Torabi’s sign and Delmar’s sign would be in use.  An hour or two was suggested. 

Mr. Riffle indicated that the proposed sign meets several of the criteria.

Chip Blanchard moved to approve the sidewalk sign as submitted with the conditions that the sign be moved when closed and during non-business hours, and that the sign’s colors be consistent with the signage on the front of the existing business.  Second Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote for Application #07-082: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle.  Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-082 is approved.  

484 South Main Street – Laura Andujar on behalf of Andy Ross and Ross’ Granville Market – Application #07-083

TCOD and SBD 

Mr. Riffle swore in all witnesses wishing to address this application 

The request is for approval of a site plan and architectural review and approval of a 550 square foot addition and façade renovation.

Laura Andujar, architect, advised the Commission that a variance had been granted by the BZBA for the renovations proposed to the Granville Market.  She presented the Commission with revised drawings and samples materials. 

Mr. Riffle questioned if the roof over the entrance door had been made smaller.  A larger roof would provide more of a colonnade appearance.  Mr. Burriss suggested realigning the columns to improve the tenant face.  One column was located directly in front of the video store entrance.  He also suggested watching where the gutters and the hose bib are located to prevent problems with water run-off during storms and winter’s ice/thaw.  Mr. Blanchard questioned how the brick return would be handled.  He also asked about the siding and shingle color.  The applicant provided samples of each.  Planner Terry advised that the applicant would also be responsible for paying a portion of the construction costs of a five foot (5’) sidewalk in front of the property to provide for continuous access to the pedestrian bridge being constructed. 

Mr. Blanchard moved to approve application #07-083 as submitted with the following conditions:

  • The brick installed on the building will be the Cape Cod Engineered Series as per sample provided,
  • The shingles color replicate Owens Corning Estate Gray as per sample provided,
  • The ends of the flanking roofs have hips consistent with the pitch consistent with the front façade of the building,
  • The columns of the flanking roof lines be consistent with the separation on the main entry,
  • Increase overhang on the flanking roofs by twenty-four inches (24”) with the column relationship with the outside edge remaining the same maintaining a five foot (5’) egress,
  • The siding color will be James Hardie Cobblestone (JH40-10) as per sample – Exhibit B, with the scallops trimmed in James Hardie Country Lane Red (JH90-20),
  • The gutter color be consistent with the trim, and
  • The applicant will be required to pay the proportionate share of the five foot (5’) pathway across the front of the property from the south point of the driveway to the new pedestrian bridge – Exhibit A

Second by Mr. Burris.  Roll call vote for Application #07-083: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 4-0.  Application #07-083 is approved.   

Public Hearing for the Proposed Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance 

Mr. Riffle swore in witnesses who wished to speak during the public hearing. 

John Klauder, 30 Old Farm Road, advised that the River Road steering committee had initially suggested ten (10) units per acre.  After several meetings with the Planning and Zoning Committee, a compromised was reached of six (6) units per acre.  The proposed text now indicates a four (4) units per acre density with an additional two (2) units permitted if open space is provided.  Mr. Klauder asked that the units per acre density be increased back to the agreed upon six (6) units.  Mr. Klauder indicated that at four units per acre, he is unable to make his project work successfully.  Mr. Klauder also questioned the lot coverage issue of not exceeding 50%, while the open space area the lot coverage shall not exceed 70%.  Also, what is dedicated open space? 

Planner Terry indicated that both of these percentages are correct.  If a property is developed at four units per acre, the developer would be permitted 50% lot coverage.  If the density bonus were elected which provides for open space, the development may have six units per acre with a 70% lot coverage.  The open space would have to be accessible to the public, not private green space at the expense of the property owner.  

Doug Wagner, 300 Pinehurst Drive, would like to develop a commercial property.  He expressed concern regarding the density issue of 5,000 total gross square feet per acre.  This density level was reduced substantially form the original level of 10,000 square feet per acre.  This suggested code is too restrictive for commercial development.  The River Road area has a variety of property types.  The zoning needs to allow for more flexibility that can be tailored to a variety of lots styles.  The annexation of this area was to help provide additional tax revenue for the school district.  Restricting development seems to defeat the purpose of the annexation. 

Mr. Riffle indicated that this code is consistent with the current Suburban Business District (SBD).  Developing a code that attempts to tailor the zoning to individual lots is difficult as it does not provide consistency.  The code needs to be consistent so it can be applied fairly and managed efficiently. 

Mr. Ryan questioned why the SBD codes were not being directly applied to this area.  Planner Terry indicated that this district was intended to be a plan district which allows for more flexibility in development.  This district was designed to provide open space with reduced density.  She suggested that a different could be more accessible and still provide dedicated open space.  Mr. Riffle indicated that the current code outlines what needs to be done in order to increase units per acre.  Planner Terry did question the definition of open space and how that area would function. 

Mr. Ryan indicated that this text was the first time the Commission had the opportunity to review this text and had not been included in the process.  There still seemed to be a number of questions regarding what was included in this document.  Mr. Ryan indicated that this document does not encourage development. Planner Terry indicated that the presentation tonight depicted the updated comments from the property owners that had been complied so far.  She suggested that the Commission set-up a separate hearing to more thoroughly address their questions.  The Commission could forward suggestions or questions to her by email. 

Planner Terry indicated that some of the larger issues with this area are environmental issues with the two lakes, the flood plain and the typography of some of the properties.  Development should help preserve these features.  Mr. Ryan asked if these issues would be addressed more satisfactory with a PUD type plan. Planner Terry indicated that our existing PUD text is not written like standard PUD codes.  Our PUD plan could allow for too much flexibility in density and design.  Mr. Blanchard indicated that areas north of River Road, this zoning text could apply while areas on the south side of River Road are not compatible regarding density. 

Mr. Riffle asked what the goal of this ordinance was.  He felt the ordinance was trying to create a false identity.  This district’s proposed zoning is more restrictive than the AROD and VBD.  Is this area intended to be a reproduction of the downtown area?  He understood that it was indicated to be a compliant to downtown Granville.  He indicated that when attempts to build historically accurate communities, the result is to degrade the existing historic areas.  Mr. Blanchard responded that the intent of the regulations were to serve as guidelines to help control development. 

Mr. Ryan asked the origin of this document.  Planner Terry indicated that it was based on the original SBD text.  Mr. Klauder indicated that three years ago the River Road property owners came to Council and presented their ideas for annexation and development of this area.  At that time, Council agreed that these properties were a unique area and would need zoning that was different from any zoning district currently in use.  Council seemed to discard the suggestions made by the property owners and selected the SBD district as their starting point.  However, the SBD template does not seem address the issues in this area. 

Mr. Riffle indicated that the SBD has too many issues currently regarding roof pitch, materials, colors, etc.  Mr. Blanchard indicated that the district needs to maintain some type of control.  

Mr. Klauder asked what the procedure will now be for this process.  He felt the process feels like it is starting over.  Planner Terry indicated that the Planning Commission would hold a hearing and make a formal recommendation to Council.  Council would schedule public hearings, make any revisions, and vote on the ordinance. 

Mr. Burriss suggested that the Planning Commission be provided with the original recommendations from the property owners and all other presentations of this zoning district.  The Commission should have time to review this information and then schedule a public work session develop the Commission’s recommendations.  Planner Terry should also provide her drawings of what the proposed area would like with two different types of development.  

Mr. Ryan moved that the Granville Planning Commission meet on December 3, 2007 at 7:00pm to discuss the proposed Village Gateway District ordinance.  Second by Mr. Burriss.  Roll call vote for the Special Commission meeting: Blanchard, Burriss, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals

New Business

136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-082

AROD and VBD

Mr. Ryan moved to approve the Finding of Facts for application #07-082 as it is consistent with the relevant sections of the AROD and the Granville Codified Ordinances and approve the sign application.  Second Mr. Blanchard.  Motion approved 4-0. 

Next meetings:

  • November 26, 2007
  • Special Meeting – December 3, 2007 – A Public Hearing for the Proposed Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance
  • December 10, 2007

 Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the meeting.  Second by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion approved 4-0.  Meeting Adjourned.  

Monday
May212012

Planning Commission Minutes October 22, 2007

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 22, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Law Director – Mike Crites. 

Visitors Present: Barbara Franks, Dan Rodgers, Tim Hughes, Brian Corbett, Scott Harman, George Fackler, Tom Loomis, James Day, Tim Hughes, Sharon Sellitto, Christopher Avery, and Mr. and Mrs. Sabato Sagaria.

A court reporter was present to transcribe items under Old Business – Application 07-064.  

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Minutes of October 1, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  The motion passed 5-0.  The minutes of October 1, 2007 are approved as submitted.

New Business:

127 South Mulberry Street, Charles Loomis on behalf of Mary Jane Dennison, #07-079

AROD, VRD

The request is for approval for removal and replacement of the front porch. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in those who planned to speak in regards to Application #-07-079. 

Tom Loomis, 870 Church Street, Newark, stated that he is representing Ms. Dennison for the property located at 127 South Mulberry Street.  He stated that she would like to have the old structure removed and replaced with a new structure which does not exceed the boundaries of the old porch.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the roof would be the same pitch.  Mr. Loomis stated that the new roof would be sloped, while the existing roof is a flat roof.  Mr. Burriss inquired on the use of a hip roof.  Mr. Loomis agreed that a hip roof would be architecturally correct, but they really felt that keeping the gable end was best.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the same kind of shingles would be used.  Mr. Loomis stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposed structure looks like a good improvement.  

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-079 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-079 as submitted: Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes) Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application No. 07-079 is approved as submitted.  

237 East College Street, James and Delores Day, #07-080

AROD, VRD

The request is for approval of removal and replacement of the windows. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in those who planned to speak in regards to Application #07-080. 

 James Day, 237 East College Street, stated that he is representing his wife who is the owner of the property located at 237 East College Street.  He stated that they wish to replace the windows for energy efficiency, aesthetics, and to reduce the noise level.  Mr. Day stated that they rent out two units in the home.  Mr. Blanchard asked if the existing shutters would be kept.  Mr. Day stated yes.  Mr. Day provided a sample window for the committee to review.  He stated that the new windows would fit into the space of the existing windows.        

Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application No. 07-080 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-080 as submitted: Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0.Application No. 07-080 is approved as submitted. 

Old Business:

 119 South Prospect  Street, Dan Rodgers, #07-064

AROD, VBD

The request is for approval of a Change in Use for the front, primary structure (121 S. Prospect Street).  The Change of Use requested is from “Business and Professional Offices:  medical and dental offices and clinics, law offices, insurance and real estate offices” to “Food, drug, and beverage businesses:  grocery stores, meat market, drug stores, and bakeries in conjunction with retail sales, restaurants, and tea rooms.”  

A court reporter transcribed discussions regarding Application #07-064.  Please refer to the transcript which is included as part of these minutes (see attachment).  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the application ought to be withdrawn, rather than tabled once again.  Ms. Franks stated that she would not like all of the testimony and work done thus far to be thrown out.  She asked what would be required of her if the application is withdrawn, rather than tabled.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant would need to submit a new application and pay a $50 fee.   Law Director Crites indicated that if the application is tabled, he would prefer to see the applicant make the request for Tabling and have a date associated with hearing the application sometime in the future.  Mr. Rodgers and Barbara Franks agreed to table the application and have it heard on or before the second meeting of May 2008.  With the Tabling of Application #07-064, the applicant also agreed to waive the 45-day time period associated with the application.  The applicants were also told that a separate application would need to be submitted for the Change of Use request for a medical service center in the rear structure of the property located at 121 South Prospect Street.  

The following individuals spoke during discussions of Application No. 07-064

Brian Corbett, 3219 North Street

Sam Sagaria, 117 South Prospect Street

Scott Harman, surveyor, no address given

Dr. Chris Avery, 343 Cedar Street (home), 127 South Prospect Street (business)

Dan Rodgers, 210 East Maple Street

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street

Tim Hughes, 630 Newark-Granville Road 

Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application #07-064 and have it heard by the Planning Commission on or before the second meeting of May 2008.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  

Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-064 to be heard on or before the second Planning Commission of May 2008: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Blanchard (yes),  Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application #07-064 is Tabled and scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on or before the second meeting of May 2008.   

2326 Newark-Granville Road, George Fackler, #07-018

TCOD, SBD

The request is for approval of a deep red color, which is not a pre-approved color under the Suburban Business District regulations, to be used on the roof and trim only for the new commercial building.   

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in those who planned to speak in regards to Application #07-018.  

Mr. Fackler presented a sample of the requested red siding.  He stated that he feels this would give the structure “an old barn look.”  The committee discussed whether or not to have a third color used for the trim, rather than the proposed roof color.  Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Fackler what color he plans to use for the shutters.  Mr. Fackler stated that this has not yet been decided or formally requested.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the color of the shutters might look best if they pick up a color used in the sign.  Mr. Fackler agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that the color of the shutters can be addressed when they are addressing the color of the sign.  Mr. Fackler asked if he needs to come back to the Planning Commission for approval of the shutters and sign colors if they are approved colors.  Ms. Terry stated no.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the building is going to be a glaring red structure.  She stated that some people were unpleased with the bright red color used for Bob Evans Restaurant.  Mr. Fackler stated that it will stand out a bit, but not any more than the structure to the east of his property.    

Mr. Burriss moved to approve Application No. 07-018 as re-submitted with the presented red color from 64 Metals Bright Red used on the roof and 64 Metals Light Stone for the siding.  He stated that approval would also entail that the presented red color be used for the trim to be consistent.  Second by Mr. Ryan.  

Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-080 as submitted: Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Ryan (yes), Burriss (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 5-0. Application No. 07-018 is approved as re-submitted.  

Finding of Fact Approvals: 

Old Business:

2326 Newark-Granville Road, Application 07-018

This application is not in the AROD.  The Planning Commission found the Findings of Fact to be consistent with the regulations in the SBD (Suburban Business District).  The color submitted was not a pre-approved color, therefore the Planning Commission was required to approve the alternate color. 

New Business:

127 South Mulberry Street, Application #07-079

237 East College Street, #07-080 

Mr. Mitchell read aloud the following Findings of Fact pertaining to Application #07-079 and 07-080:

a)   Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.

b)   Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.

c)   Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.

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

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-079 and #07-080.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Mr. Blanchard moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

Next meetings:

November 13, 2007

November 26, 2007

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 10/1/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 1, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes


Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair)

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Mollie Prasher – Clerk of Council

Visitors Present: Sharon and Sylvia Sinsabaugh, John Noblick, Kris Harrison, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers and Dr. Sabato "Sam" Sagaria


Approval of Minutes

Chip Blanchard moved to approve the minutes of September 10 and September 24, 2007. Second by Tom Mitchell. Motion approved. 5-0


Citizen’s Comments:

No Citizen Comments


New Business:

129 West Broadway – Joe and Sharon Sinsabaugh – Application #07-070

AROD and VRD


The request is for the approval of the rebuilding of an accessory structure (garage) on the property. John Noblick submitted the application on behalf of the Sinsabaugh’s. 


Village Planner Terry reported that the original structure was destroyed by fire and the family is requesting to rebuild the structure increasing it by four feet to the south. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals granted a variance on September 27, 2007 to reduce the western side yard setback to three feet eight inches. The lot coverage will be 37% which is well within the requirement. The proposed style is traditional. The Planning Commission needs to carefully consider the building materials and texture that the applicant proposes for this rebuild and make those materials a condition of approval. The applicant did not indicate the external materials or colors for this project. The exact building materials, texture and colors should be made a condition of approval. 


John Noblick indicated that there would be a second floor attic that would be left unfinished. The space would be used for storage and as an art studio. There will be no other utilities other than electricity as part of the structure. The wall shingles will be shiplap style painted taupe with white trim. The doors selected are insulated, metal, carriage style doors.


Chip Blanchard commented that he would prefer to see cedar used over hardie plank as cedar provides a nicer shadow effect. Mr. Noblick indicated that the hardie plank that was being considered was 5/16 inch. Mr. Riffle indicated that he did not have a problem with either the hardie plank or cedar shingle. 


Mr. Blanchard asked if the proposed trim would be the one inch cedar/redwood. Mr. Noblick answered in the affirmative. 


Mr. Burriss commented that the new garage will be far more decorative and attractive than the previous structure. He asked if the garage roof shingles would match the shingles on the house. Mr. Noblick indicated in the affirmative. Mrs. Sinsabaugh replied that the shingles would be dimensional, shades of gray shingles.


Tom Mitchell moved to approve application #07-070 to rebuild the garage at 129 West Broadway with the following conditions: 1) hardie-plank or cedar shiplap siding with the color to match the house and white trim, 2) to be built per plans submitted, 3) garage doors to be painted per brochure submitted (exhibit A), and 4) shingles to match the shingles on existing rear house addition. Second Mr. Burriss.


Roll call vote for Application #07-070: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. 


Application #07-070 is approved.  


134-136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-071

AROD and VBD


The request is for approval of a window signage to be located on the western most door entrance.


Village Planner Terry reported that the proposed signage is discreet, minimal and oriented toward pedestrian traffic. The sign is appropriate to the architecture of the building. The coloring mirrors that of the door and frame surrounding the window. The coverage of the proposed signage does not exceed the 15% window area coming in at 5%.


Kris Harrison appeared before the Planning Commission for the Corbins. She indicated that the sign would be transparent and allow light through.


Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Terry if the building owner Kristin Darfus was aware of this sign application. Mr. Terry indicated that she had spoken with Ms. Darfus and she had given her approval for the sign. 


Mr. Riffle questioned if the red color in the sign would match the trim color around the door. Mr. Harrison indicated in the affirmative.


Mr. Blanchard moved to approve application #07-071 for 134-136 North Prospect Street for window signage with the condition that the red on the sign match the red on the door and window frame. Second by Mr. Ryan.


Roll call vote for Application #07-071: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. 


Application #07-071 is approved.  


117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria – Application #07-075

AROD and VBD


This application is for the approval of a roof replacement, replacing the slate roof with asphaltic shingles and replacing the tarred roof with a rubber membrane roof.


Village Planner Terry advised that the applicant is proposing a combination of asphalt shingles on one section of the roof and a rubber membrane on the flat section of the roof. There are other structures in the area with asphalt shingles and a portion of the existing roof and garage already have asphalt shingles. The color of the shingles and rubber has not been provided. The Planning Commission needs to carefully consider the building materials, texture, color and historical character of this district, and make them a condition of the approval. 


Mr. Sagaria provided the committee with a packet showing the interior damage due to roofing issues. Water has damaged the attic, second and first floors. The roof currently has four different roofing materials.  The north side of the house, the garage and front porch currently have 3-tab asphalt shingles. Areas that need repair are the south side of the roof, around the chimney and the flat portion of the roof. He would replace the flat portion of the roof with a new rubber membrane. He would rate the condition of the roof as poor to very poor. He intends to install new gutter and downspouts. He would replace the flashing around the chimney and replace or repair the cricket. He did get quotes for repairing the slate portion of the roof of $20,000 or $50,000 to replace the entire roof with slate. He reported that the use of slate would be cost prohibitive. Replacing the roof with asphalt shingles would cost $5,000 to $12,000.   He would ask that the Planning Commission approve his application so he can begin repairs quickly.


Mr. Burriss asked how old was the asphalt section of the roof. Mr. Sagaria thought 5 to 6 years old. Mr. Burris indicated that the committee would recommend replacing the entire roof with a dimensional asphalt shingle that looked like slate. He indicated that as the porch roof and part of the pitched roof portion of the roof are visible from the front of the house, a dimensional shingle would look better. Mr. Burriss asked the condition of the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Sagaria replied that the shingles seem fine except by the chimney. Mr. Riffle indicated that the dimensional slate shingles would only cost 30% to 40% more per bundle. Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would prefer to see the dimensional shingle over the whole house. Mr. Sagaria indicated that he did not intend to reroof the entire house. He only wants to replace the slate portion of the roof with shingles that match the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Sagaria provided a small sample of the replacement shingle for the committee to view. 


Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Terry if replacing the gutters was included as part of the application. Ms. Terry indicated that gutters were not included. Mr. Blanchard indicated that Mr. Sagaria had several different gutters styles on the house including K-style and box gutters. He was not comfortable approving gutter replacement as they were not included on the application. Mr. Riffle indicated that the committee cannot vote on gutter replacements as they were not included on the application. Mr. Sagaria stated that if he replaced any of the gutters on his home, he would replace them with like materials.


Mr. Dan Rogers and Ms. Barbara Franks requested to be heard as part of the hearing to discuss the gutter issue. Mr. Riffle indicated that the gutters were not part of this application and the committee would not hear any comments regarding gutter issues. Mr. Rogers became argumentative. Mr. Riffle indicated he would not swear-in the couple. Ms. Terry indicated that they must be sworn in and permitted to speak about issues related to the roof replacement application. Issues involving the gutters could be disallowed. Ms. Terry summoned a police officer to maintain hearing decorum. Mr. Rogers left the hearing. Mr. Riffle swore in Ms. Franks.


Ms. Franks commented that when she applied for a permit to reroof her garage, the committee required her to use the most expensive product, a standing seam roof. Mr. Riffle indicated that her application did not request to use asphalt shingles. Ms. Terry read Ms. Franks approval that indicated their application requested that the roof be replaced with metal materials. Mr. Rogers indicated that he had two products from which to choose—one similar to what was there—a green standing seam—or like the coffee shop on River Road—corrugated roof. He indicated that either product would be fabulous. Council selected the standing seam roof from the products Mr. Rogers provided. Ms. Franks indicated that they could not afford a standing seam roof. She also indicated that she had an issue with the water run-off from the Sagaria’s garage onto her property. Ms. Terry indicated that water run-off would be a civil issue and the Planning Commission could not address that problem.


Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Riffle, Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell all indicated their preference for dimensional shingles that would replicate the look of a slate roof. They also indicated their preference for Mr. Sagaria to reroof the entire house roof. They indicated that his property is a premier property in the historic district of the Village and updates should be reflective of that fact. The flat portion of the roof could be replaced with a rubber membrane. The garage roof would not need to be replaced. The committee estimated that the increased cost of using dimensional shingles could be $700 to $1,100. Mr. Sagaria indicated that the increased cost may not be possible. He also asked how the asphalt shingles that are currently on his roof were approved. Ms. Terry checked the files, but no information was available. Ms. Franks suggested a fiberglass shingle that gave the appearance of slate. The cost of that product was not known, but thought to be relatively inexpensive. Mr. Sagaria indicated that we would be willing to look into the cost of the dimensional shingles; however, if that course of action was too costly, he would only make the necessary repairs using like materials.


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve application #07-075 for 117 South Prospect Street for the roof replacement of the slate roof and the replacement of the tarred roof with the following conditions: 1) the valleys are to be replaced in kind, 2) the existing built-up tar roof areas are to be replaced with EPDM rubbers, and 3) the dimensional asphalt shingles are to be reviewed and approved by staff for the existing slate and shingle roof replacement. Second by Mr. Blanchard.


Roll call vote for Application #07-075: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. 


Application #07-075 is approved.  


Finding of Fact Approvals


Old Business

426 East College Street - James and Jill Levere - Application #07-059

AROD


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 426 East College Street, Application #07-059, requesting approval of the following items: 1) replacement of worn shingles on the primary structure, 2) replacement of deteriorated particle board siding on detached garage with new siding to match existing siding on the primary structure, 3) replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new screened porch and a second story deck with roof structure; and (4) replacement of existing garage door with the following conditions: 1) replacement of the worn shingles on the primary structure with asphalt shingles, 2) replacement of the particle board siding on the detached garage with vinyl siding to match the vinyl siding on the primary structure, 3) replacement of existing garage door with carriage style doors, 4) replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new screened porch and a second story deck structure, 5) painting of the exterior of the screened porch to be white including railing, support and T111, 6) division of the screens on the first level porch to be consistent with the submitted photographs labeled exhibits A and B;\, and 7) the soffits would be enclosed consistent with the submitted photographs labeled exhibit C. Second Jack Burriss. Motion approved 5-0.


New Business


129 West Broadway – Joe and Sharon Sinsabaugh – Application #07-070

AROD and VRD


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 129 West Broadway, Application #07-070, to approve the plans to rebuild the detached garage with the following conditions: 1) hardie-plank or cedar shiplap siding color painted to match the house with white trim, 2) built per plans submitted, 3) garage doors to be painted per brochure submitted (exhibit A), and 4) shingles to match existing shingles on rear of house addition. Second Jack Burriss. Motion approved 5-0.


134-136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-071

AROD and VBD


Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 134-136 North Prospect Street, Application #07-071, to approve window signage to be located on the western entrance door with the following conditions that the red on the sign matches the red on the door and window frame. Motion approved 5-0.


117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria – Application #07-075

AROD and VBD


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 117 South Prospect Street, Application #07-075, to approve the roof replacement, replacing the slate roof with shingles and replace the tarred roof with a rubber membrane roof with the following conditions: 1) valleys are to be replaced in kind, 2) existing built-up tar roof areas are to be replaced with EPDM rubber, and 3) dimensional asphalt shingles shall be provided to staff for review and approval of the existing slate and shingle roof. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 5-0.


Next meetings:

October 22, 2007

November 13, 2007 (meeting changed from November 12 due to Veteran’s Day holiday


Mr. Burriss move to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting Adjourned.