Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 3/26/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 26, 2007
Minutes
 
Members Present:  Melissa Hartfield (for Jackie O'Keefe), Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent:  Jack Burriss
Visitors Present:  William Hugus, George Fackler, Gloria Hoover
Others Present:  Lauren Repas, Interim Planner
Minutes of March 12:  MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:  none
Swearing in of Witnesses
New Business: 
 
William Hugus, Architects, 132-142 N. Prospect Street - Remodelling
 Ms. Repas stated that the plans originally distributed have changed slightly, but there is less development on the building now.  The vent on the roof above the middle door is to be removed and another one added to take its place.  There was to be an AC unit on the corner but it will be on the roof.
 For the client, Mr. Hugus described the plans by saying the tall windows have been lowered.  They were not happy with the façade so they would like to redo the front with wood and a wooden door. They will take the awnings off since they are too low  and make the inside too dark. Also, there are two big trees that block the light. They will add one soft green awning at the front door and try to hide the crack in the wall.  Smaller awnings to match the central one will be planned later and signage will be planned later.  One AC/heating unit will be used for the entire space, gas-fired with fresh air intakes.    In the rear a new cooking hood will be installed, 15' from the edge of the roof where the kitchen fumes will exit.  It will not be visible from the street. 
The business is to be a gourmet pizza restaurant with rich furnishings in a neighborhood friendly place. The owner also owns Rossi in the Short North.  
Mr. Riffle asked about the metal color and it was described in detail.   It will match the building. 
Mr. Blanchard noted the transom over the door would disappear and was told it does not match, but they will need to create an opening.   They cannot add the duct up the side because of the tenant's lease.  
Mr. Mitchell noted that by taking off the two side awnings you will make the aluminum more obvious, but Mr. Hugus said they will come back with awning plans later, but they want to agree on signage first, but he also would like to cover up the aluminum.
Mr. Hugus is about at the point to continue more detailed engineering and would like to return in two weeks.  He described the side and rear doors.  Mr. Riffle would prefer to see one door only.  He said this is a major improvement over what was there
Next door neighbor Gloria Hoover spoke for the nearby residents, stating this will be a tremendous addition and a great improvement.  The east wall has full view of everyone on East College, so they are concerned about appearances.  There is also a concern about fumes and noise from the exhaust system, especially in view of the fact the restaurant may be open until 2:30 a.m. and residents want to sit outdoors in the summer without exhaust and fabric softener odors.  They want a pedestrian friendly area.
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE THIS AT APPLICANT'S REQUEST.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
George Fackler, 2326 Newark-Granville Road - Demolition
 
 Ms. Repas said the new standards for TCOD are the ones to be used, not the demolition standards.  GPC members had to problem with the recommendation to demolish the existing building.  It will be replaced with a two-story barn-like structure.
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DEMOLITION.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF MARCH 26.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Adjournment:  7:50 p.m.
 
Next Meetings:  April 9 and 23
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 3/12/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
March 12, 2007
Minutes

Members Present:  Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack Burriss
Members Absent:  none
Visitors Present:  Bill Wernet, Roger Kessler
Others Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner, Lauren Repas, Interim Planner
Minutes of February 26: MR.BURRISS  MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:    none
Swearing in of Witnesses:
New Business:
 
William Lavender, 57 Westgate Drive - Sign

 Mr. Strayer explained that in the past we have approved a free-standing sign for them, and now they want two new signs facing Cherry Valley Road:  (1) 4'x8' on the property and (2) 30"x48" on the building itself.  We have allowed, under temporary sign permit, one 4x8 for commercial properties, and Mr. Strayer does not recommend two signs.  It makes no difference whether it is free-standing or on the side of the building.
Mr. Riffle said we can approve and let them decide where to place it. 
 
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-012 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THEY CAN PUT ONE 4'X8' SIGN EITHER ON THE BUILDING OR ON  THE GROUND.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Other Business
 
River Road Proposed Zoning
 Proposed zoning changes for River Road have been in the works for three years, Mr. Strayer reported, and a property owner now wants water and sewer on River Road, but Village Council was not ready to extend without annexation.  We looked at the entire area and went through a master reviewing process, and Council is asking for GPC input since a PUD would go through GPC.  In the event of phased development, we would have it built out consistently across the board, but it would require new zoning.
 Mr. Blanchard asked whether the majority of the zoning would mirror that of the village, and Mr. Strayer said some of it would, i.e., lighting, design, signage. 
 Ms. O'Keefe asked about greenspace and was told they went with a smaller minimum than the 10% minimum in the past, as per Keith Meyers' recommendation.  Since there are significant water issues there, with the lake and flood plain occupying about 30 acres, those areas cannot be built on anyway.       
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether drive-throughs would be permitted and was told yes, as part of a larger plan, but it must be in the rear. 
 Mr. Strayer said they left things off to allow more flexibility because this is a planned development which would have to be approved by GPC.  There are a lot of details in standards listed while leaving the uses wide open. In the township everything is a conditional use, so they can deny anything based on requirements in the code.  Flexibility provides GPC  and Village Council more discretion for them.  We do not have variances for uses.  You cannot list every possible business that might arise.
 Mr. Riffle noted there are some things we would not think appropriate but which would be OK under these uses, such as Lion's Dens.  Mr. Strayer said it is unconstitutional to prohibit businesses like Lions'  Dens, for which the code would need to be amended.  Mr. Riffle suggested saying "such as…"
 Mr. Wernet represents one of the people impacted by this, and he agrees with Mr. Riffle in that it puts GPC in a difficult position.  You could have a list "including but not limited to…."   Putting things on a list would reduce the need of an applicant to come before GPC.  The more a developer can get rid of uncertainties, the better off everyone is.  Mr. Strayer does not disagree, but in this situation the way our codes are set up everything comes to GPC anyway.  To do what you are talking about is a policy decision to be determined by V.C.  Mr. Mitchell agrees with Mr. Wernet.  It's pro-development to have a strict set of guidelines.  It's anti-developer when it is harder.   Mr. Strayer repeated we tried to make it simple.  Design is a hard to make detailed enough for a code.  It does not say it has to be of historic significance.
 Mr. Riffle asked why  AROD was named and was told for consistency; it does not say this is an AROD, but their standards should be considered and have the same flavor.
But Mr. Riffle thought there is not a lot of architectural significance on River Road, and everything down there is grandfathered.  You can't make it look like Granville.
Roger Kessler noted the concept for the steering committee of the developer is simple.  Around the lake they wanted nice condos.  Along Mr. Barton's property they wanted mixed use-retail, office, apartments above, and along the railroad tracks that would be for restaurants, summing up:  (1) residential, (2) mixed use, (3) services. 
Mr. Mitchell asked about the residential density and was told 10 units per acre would be permitted.  Mr. Mitchell added the trend is to limit the number of new housing to control for fewer children in the schools.  He is concerned that some real numbers ought to be built into the ordinance to create a way to keep these from being single-family residences. 
Mr. Strayer said they are considering fees in lieu of bigger developments
 Mr. Riffle suggested listing the maximum height rather than just 2 stories, but Mr. Strayer said under a PUD we consider the entire area and the height of the neighboring buildings.
   
Zoning Code Amendments

1137.02:  The Village Planner can back-charge the property owner for any repairs we have to make.  He may be asked to tear it down.  A property maintenance code is not in here but could be added someday.

1133.03:  That Village Council can appeal any decision GPC makes was not an idea heartily endorsed by GPC members.

1137.01:    Mr. Wernet is concerned that people do not show up for GPC meetings until the last meeting, when a decision is to be made.  There should be an article in the SENTINEL telling what is going on.  He suggested putting a link on the email list so people can learn what is on the agenda.  Mr. Mitchell noted that the press is not here tonight.

Resolution:  Mr. Wilkenfeld wanted GPC to prepare a Resolution of Thanks to Mr. Strayer for his 3 1/2 years of excellent service.  Mr. Strayer will be moving to Canal Winchester on March 22 to be their Development Director in charge of planning and zoning.  He will have a staff of five, will make more money, and be involved with economic development.
Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF MARCH 12.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD).
 
Adjournment:  8:45 p.m.
Next Meetings:   March  26 and April 9
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 2/26/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 26, 2007
Minutes

Members Present:  Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack Burriss
Members Absent
Visitors Present:  Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Kevin Zeppernick, Art Chonko, Dennis Cauchon, Steven Grisson, Jim and Joy Jung, Bill Wernet, Seth Patton, Marc and Ginny Clemente, Brian Miller, John Thornborough, Ron Allean, Scott Walker, Jim Siegel, George Fackler, Denny Ghiloni, Pauline Kale
Minutes of January 8: MR.BURRISS  MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:    none
Swearing in of Witnesses:
New Business:
 
Kevin Zeppernick, 429 Mt. Parnassus - addition

 Mr. Strayer explained that they are asking an addition plus a new 3-car garage to replace the old one.  Since it is larger than 25%, it needs to come before the GPC. 
 Mr. Zeppernick said the house had mold when they bought it, and a condition of sale was to remove it.  In the process, they plan to give the house a new personality and a French country feel.  Window sizes are all the same, and there will be a new front porch.  The roof will be tied onto a small porch.   
 Mr. Blanchard asked how close it would be to the next building, and Mr. Zeppernick said it will actually be inside the 12' side setback, adding 2' to the existing footprint.  It's a steep hill and  they will regrade the south side.  Mr. Blanchard  asked about the grading and water runoff, and Mr. Zeppernick said there had been a retaining wall there for 55 years.
Mr. Burris asked about the siding material, and was told they will match lapboard with hardy pine or something else.  Ms. O'Keefe asked about the different roof heights and was told it's for the cathedral ceiling inside
Mr. Blanchard thinks it is a fabulous plan and a vast improvement, and with the investment involved, he is sure the materials will be excellent.  Mr. Zeppernick said they have not yet decided on the external material, but he can bring it to the next meeting.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-008 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXTERIOR FINISH PACKAGE IS NOT APPROVED AT THIS MEETING, BUT THE PACKAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APRIL 23 MEETING FOR REVIEW, AND NO FINISHES WILL BE APPLIED TO EXTERIOR UNTIL IT IS APPROVED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Marjorie Eckhart - 3400 Milner Road - Lot Split
 As instructed by our Law Director in a previous application, a lot split of greater than 5 acres is permitted through the ORC; therefore, we must approve.  Although land-locked, the parcels will be accessed through a 20' easement. 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-009 AS SUBMITTED; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Windstream, 131 East Broadway - Sign
Windstream, the new telephone company, is requesting a sign changing Alltel to Windstream above the door. 
 Steve Grissom, District Manager, explained that they will keep the leaded glass and the new sign will be a little smaller than the original. 

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-010 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Old Business: 
 
Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St. - Addition
 Ms. Rettig showed a new design for roof pitch with parallel rooflines on the top, which would look better than matching east and west  but may not be matching pitch. 
 Mr. Riffle noted that the drawings do not accurately match the house.  When you look to the east of the house, the roof is completely different from what is drawn, but, he noted, it's not as bad as he thought it would be.  Ms. Rettig tried to explain the drawings.  Mr. Riffle asked about gable vs. hip and she said they would leave one front quarter as a hip and the back as a hip and leave the gable in front.  Upon being asked why she would want to do a gable, she replied  it would be less obtrusive to the neighbor.  Mr. Burris thought with the height  it is, the hip makes good sense. 
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-170 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT (1) THE HOUSE BE REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS AND (2) EAST SIDE GABLE IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Walter Palasky, 86 Fairview Drive - Addition

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 Originally he wanted to put the addition in the back, but he did not want to put a driveway all the way through the property.  He is meeting setback requirements; it will be 65' in the front and 40' in the side setback.  
 The applicant explained exactly where the building would be located; the front is off Fairview.  After measuring carefully, he promises that the trees will remain.  There will be swing doors and divided sash windows.   
Mr. Riffle noted that it is sitting on concrete footers so they will just bore holes and pour concrete.  

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 06-161 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL GO OUT AND DOUBLECHECK THE LOCATION OF THE PLACE UNDER BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AND (2) THE COLOR SCHEME FOR THE BUILDING IS PER PICTURE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT (WHITE BOARD AND BATTEN).  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage
 The freestanding sign was OK at the previous meeting.  It  will be black and white, placed on existing pole,  and the plastic sidewalk sign will be black, white, and red. 
 Mr. Conkle said the sign will be inside the sidewalk on the lawn of the ROW.   The middle portion will be changeable dry erase, as they are hoping to entice people at the Inn and other places to highlight special events or items  for sale similar to other signs in the village. There is no other way to let people know what is going on in that building; a lattice partially blocks the front window.
 Mr. Burris thought the sign would look better and be more consistent with other signs if it had a black border, and Mr. Conkey said a one-inch border was his intention.    

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-002 FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AND A SIDEWALK SIGN AS PRESENTED. THE FREESTANDING SIGN WILL INCLUDE A ONE-INCH BORDER AROUND THE EDGE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Denison University - Cleveland Hall
 Art Chonko said Denison wants to put an addition onto the 100-year-old Cleveland Hall, starting in May. 
 The architect explained the Greenwich Village firm's history and some of the buildings they have built.  The direction they are planning has 4 components:  (1) Adapt and reuse the historic building; (2) addition of new studio space; (3) addition of new administrative wing; and (4) a foundry.  There will be exterior and interior contrast between the old building and the addition floating on the masonry.  They envision lots of light, transparent, translucent with channel glass, on a stone base.  They will plant the building into the landscape and build into the hill.  On the rear side, stairs will up the building, so it will be a real rear elevation.  Four floors are joined together inside.
  To a question by Ms. O'Keefe about the stark contrast, he said the contrast is appropriate to the existing building and highlights it.  Architects no longer replicate what's there previously.  He described the materials, saying the glass has a calming, soothing effect. 
 Mr. Riffle was concerned about the amount of light from inside coming off the building, thinking the building will glow, even with some diffusion from the channel. The architect reassured him it would not.
 Mr. Chonko said they will keep as many original materials as they can.
 Mr. Riffle asked how are they going to keep things off the windows, and was told there is not much wall space so they will add screens and pin-up walls.
 Mr. Burris thinks this would be an exciting place for an art student, but it's hard to be excited about the flashcube, although he is in favor of the plan.
 Upon being asked whether College Street will be made into a promenade, he answered No, they will take it to the Streets and Sidewalks Committee, said Mr. Chonko. Consensus of the group was not in favor of closing off College Street.  But Mr. Burriss would consider College Street being paved in a different way.   
 Mr. Burriss asked whether there was lighting control in the studio and was told not currently, but it works at Sarah Lawrence well.  He asked whether the night lighting would be equal elements or glow, with consistency of lighting or a band of light.  The man said the lighting plan will be the same on both floors and depend on how the studios are set up.  He thinks the two floors will be about even with an R-4 value. 
 Mr. Riffle would like to see a sample of glass and of siding.  It would be helpful to see a cut sheet of lighting.  Mr. Chonko said there will be lighting outside, directed down and made very subtle. 
 There will be no landscaping, noted Mr. Chonko; some trees will be removed and then replaced.
 Mr. Blanchard finds the west elevation the most pleasing.    The architect said they have a very appropriate solution to dealing with this historic building in this location.  The program they wanted was a challenge, and they have solved it very well.
 Law Director Gorey explained the public hearing process, as described in 1141.05 and the categories of persons who may be heard:  (1) applicant; (2) owner of property that is the subject of the application; (3) owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous; and (4) another person who claims that an injury or prejudice to him or his property if approved or denied.    On appeal one of these criteria must be applicable. 
 Mr. Chonko provided a lighting plan with fixtures, all of which meet criteria.  He described the lights and showed where on the building they would be. To see how much light diffuses from the sample, the lights were turned off and a flashlight was beamed through the glass.
 Mr. Riffle asked about materials and Mr. Chonko provided a sample of the glass wall.   He said the frame is grey and has zinc material which will age in time. 
 Jack Thornborough (Category 4) is eager to maintain the village's historic district and feels this plan would damage the character of the village.  He thinks this is a good plan but does not belong in downtown Granville and does not adhere to the code
Joy Jung said they came before GPC for a porch and were told to make changes and move the skylights.  They spent a lot of money to ensure the building would abide by the historic district and feels Denison should adhere to the code, for the lights will shine onto her house at a 90° angle.  They will not live long enough for the trees which Mr. Chonko promised to mature.
 Jim Jung seconded his wife's concerns, saying he was told that the west side lights were not acceptable because they are in the historic district and would cause light pollution on Broadway.  How can Denison avoid light pollution in the historic district with this plan? 
 Dennis Couchon said the real issue is does it comply with the law, and it clearly does not, particularly in the list of styles in the code.
 Mark Clemante and his wife Ginny moved to the village because they knew that Granville had strict architectural rules.  He was before GPC with plans to add onto his house and was told GPC had concerns about the fact that his window was not centered.   He does not think trees will cover up the Cleveland light, which will shine in his bedroom window.  He feels it will hurt his property value.
 Ron Abram, chairman of the Art Department, said one of the things they wanted their students to learn is to know they are not creating art in a small studio but to the world at large.  The architect thought there should be light beaming out and more transparency.  Students will always be conscientious about the world at large outside the windows.,  He feels they were lucky to have architects who recognize and connect the past and the future in their plans.
 Bill Wernet (Category 3 and 4)  wants to make sure Jack Thornborough's letter is part of the record, since it talks about stylistic compatibility and improving historic character .  He is concerned about his property value since he spent a lot of money on his house and does not like the proposed plan and feels it does not meet 1161 restrictions.
 Mr. Chonko said one of the goals of historic reconstruction is that they do not want the building to look like the old part, and they went to a lot of effort to keep the historic integrity of the original building.  So it does meet the historic character because they do not want them to compete.  It may not be well received, but some believe that it is OK.
 Mr. Riffle noted that most of the styles in Granville are considered not appropriate for buildings, and Mr. Thornborough countered that the code was written after they were built.  In the AROD we should make an attempt top keep on with the style.  Why not put this up on the college campus?  What Denison has built recently has been in the style of the college.  In this plan students cannot commune with nature anyhow because they can't see through the windows.
 Mr. Gorey said the code is ambiguous but fairly clear that given the specifications, GPC is not bound by the styles in 1161 but should be compatible.
 Mr. Mitchell noted that if a resident came to us with a "flashcube" request, he suspects GPC would say No.  It does not seem like a hardship case to him.
 Although he likes the plan, Mr. Wilkenfeld expressed doubts tonight after listening to the residents.  This is a great departure and feels Mr. Thornborough's comments are sensible. Isn't there another way to design this plan to everyone's satisfaction?  There are many other ways, noted Mr. Riffle, but this is what we are presented with tonight.
 Ms. Clemente said Denison is very powerful  and this structure is right across the street, so she pleads emotionally for  good neighbors who appreciate what their neighbors want and not change the character of the neighborhood. 
 Paul Jakob thinks this plan is bizarre and does not agree with the ordinances.
 Jim Siegel and his wife Nancy have been part of the village for 56 years and he supports all the comments with the exception of Mr. Abram.  He would hate to see this construction added to this great building.
 Mr. Thornborough thinks there are other possibilities architecturally to build a building that that lets in a lot of light that matches besides this stark modern glass use.
 Ms. O'keefe thinks this is a very hard decision, and she understands Denison's philosophy, but we have to follow the code. Mr. Blanchard has expressed specific concerns before and does not feel they have been addressed.
 Mr. Wilkenfeld added this is not an easy decision.  He likes it but GPC is charged with interpreting the code.  "We are good at what we do and this flies in the face of what we do."  He owes it to the people of Granville to deny the application.
 Mr. Burriss appreciates folks telling us their feelings and he wishes we had people show up at other projects.  There are times when decisions are difficult, and part of what we do as a commission is not always going with our personal opinions but together with what we feel is appropriate for the code.
 Mr. Mitchell also feels it's a tough decision.  He does not like the building but thinks he will vote for it because it does not dilute or damage the integrity of this design.  If it was across the street from him, he would vote for it.  He is well aware of the historic character and this seems to meet the code because of his interpretation of maintaining the character but not having it match.
 Mr. Riffle does not like the building and modern architecture.  He has worked with historic preservation people and a decision is difficult.  Personal feelings aside, we are bound by the code and our attorney's comments.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-003 WITH CONDITIONS:  (1) FOR SIDING, USE THOSE FURNISHED TONIGHT AND (2) USE THE LIGHTING PLAN SUBMITTED TONIGHT.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A 3-2 VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD AND MR. WILKENFELD VOTED NAY). 
Finding of Fact: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 26.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD).
 
Work Session: George Fackler, Newark-Granville Road
 Their power equipment is a big seller and they propose a new barn-like structure to the east of their main building.  They will be selling wine.  They want to separate the store from the power equipment, and the store will have an awning.  For the building it is designed at 4800 s.f., and the maximum is 4000.  The second floor is for offices, and there will be an office on the first floor as well.
 Mr. Burris said we would be interested in seeing material samples and placement , and he likes the barn-like idea.  He feels there should be a more obvious front entrance. 
 Mr. Strayer said the Village Council needs to approve the demolition, but since it is outside the AROD  and building a new building in the exact location, it may not be necessary.
 Mr. Fackler will come back on March 26, and we could have another work session before that.

Adjournment:   9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings:   March 12 and 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger 

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 1/22/07

(Editor's Note: The decisions on Planning Commission applications that were made at this meeting were later invalidated because notice of the meeting had not been published in the Granville Sentinel.)


GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 22, 1907
Draft Minutes
 
Members Present:  Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent:  none
Visitors Present:  Kevin Zeppernick, Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Art Chonko,  Dennis Cauchon
Also Present:  Chris Strayer, Village Planner
Minutes of January 8:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:  none
Swearing In:
Old Business:
 
Jessica Rettig, 111 West College Street - Addition
 At the last meeting we took a vote, which came out 2-1, and since it needed three votes for a decision, it was tabled.
 Ms. Rettig said the only concern was matching slope and pitch of the existing home and height between east and west side.  She showed a new design for the roof pitch with parallel rooflines on top, which would look better than matching east and west.
 Mr. Riffle noted the drawings do not accurately match the house.  Ms. Rettig explained the discrepancy and described the roof as being hip and gable.  Mr. Burriss thought with the height it is, the hip makes good sense.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT (1) THE HOUSE BE REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS AND (2) EAST SIDE GABLE IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH.  MR WILKENFELD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Walter Palasky
 The application continues to be tabled at applicant's request.
 
Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage
 The freestanding sign was approved at the last meeting, but we wanted to see the sidewalk sign design.
 Mr. Conkle said it will be inside the sidewalk on the lawn of the ROW.  Mr.Blanchard asked the purpose of the sign and was told the changeable middle portion of the dry erase board is to highlight special events  for visitors in town.  The sign is to let people know what is going on in that building.
 Mr. Burriss thought it would look better to have a border around the sign, and Mr. Conkey said that was his intention.
 
 MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FREE-STANDING SIGN AND SIDEWALK SIGN. THE FREE-STANDING SIGN WILL INCLUDE A ONE-INCH BORDER AROUND THE EDGE.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 
 
New Business:
 
Kevin Zeppernick, 429 Mt. Parnassus - Addition
 
 The applicant wishes to remove the existing garage and replace it with a new structure. Since it's larger than 25% more, it needs to come before the GPC.
 Mr. Zeppernick said the house had mold when they bought it, and a condition of sale was to remove it.  In the process, they plan to give the house a new personality and a French country feel.  Window sizes are all the same, and there will be a new front porch.  The roof will be tied onto a small porch. Mr. Blanchard asked how close it would be to the next building, and Mr Zeppernick said it will actually be inside the 12' side setback, adding 2' to the existing footprint.  It's a steep hill and they will regrade the south side.  Mr. Blanchard asked about the grading and water runoff, and Mr. Zeppernick said there has been a retaining wall there for 55 years.
 Mr. Burriss asked about the siding material and was told they will match lapboard with hardy pine board and batten or something else.  Ms. O'Keefe asked about the different roof heights and was told it's for the cathedral ceiling inside.  Mr. Burriss thinks the higher height works better. 
 There will be a gas fireplace, the duct work for which will go up the existing chimney.
 They will have the final engineering plans prepared soon. Mr. Riffle said we need to know the siding and roof material. Mr. Strayer thought it could be approved contingent upon exterior material.
 Mr. Blanchard thinks it is a fabulous plan and a vast improvement, and with the investment involved, he is sure the materials will be excellent.  Mr. Zeppernick said they have not yet decided on the external material, but he can bring it to the next meeting.
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-008 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXTERIOR FINISH PACKAGE IS NOT APPROVED AT THIS MEETING, BUT THE PACKAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APRIL 23 MEETING FOR REVIEW, AND NO FINISHES WILL BE APPLIED TO EXTERIOR UNTIL IT IS APPROVED.  MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Denison University - Cleveland Hall Addition
 
 Mr. Chonko explained the addition planned for the 100-year-old Cleveland to be started in May. 
 Mr. Maxwell(?), architect, explained the Greenwich Village firm's history and some of the buildings they have built.  The direction they are planning has 4 components:  (1) adapt and reuse the historic building; (2) addition of new studio space; (3) addition of new administrative wing; and (4) a foundry.  There will be exterior and interior contrast between the old building and the addition, which floats on the masonry.  They envision lots of light, transparent, translucent with channel glass, on a stone base.  They will plant the building into the landscape and build into the hill.  On the rear, stairs will go up the building, so it will be a real rear elevation.  Four floors are joined together inside.
 To a question by Ms. O'Keefe about the stark contrast, he said the contrast is appropriate to the existing building and highlights it.  Architects no longer replicate what's there previously.  He described the materials, saying the glass has a calming, soothing effect.
 Mr. Riffle was concerned about the amount of light from inside coming off the building, thinking the building will glow, even with some diffusion from the channel.  The architect reassured him it would not.
 Mr. Chonko said they will keep as many original materials as they can.
 Mr. Riffle asked how are they going to keep paintings and other paper off the windows and was told there is not much wall space so they will add screens and pin-up walls.
 Mr. Burriss thinks this would be an exciting place for an art student, but it's hard to be excited about the flashcube, although he is in favor of the plan.
 Upon being asked whether College Street will be made into a promenade, Mr. Chonko answered No, they will take it to the Streets and Sidewalks Committee.  Consensus of the group was not in favor of closing off College Street.  But Mr. Burriss would consider College Street being paved in a different way.
 Mr. Burriss asked whether there was lighting control in the studio and was told not currently, but it works at Sarah Lawrence well.  He asked whether the night lighting would be equal elements or glow, with consistency of lighting or a band of light.  The architect said the lighting plan will be the same on both floors and depend on how the studios are set up.  He thinks the two floors will be about even with an R-4 value.
 Mr. Riffle would like to see a sample of glass and of siding.  It would be helpful to see a cut sheet of lighting.  Mr. Chonko said there will be lighting outside, directed down and made very subtle.
 There will be no landscaping, noted Mr. Chonko; some trees will be removed and then replaced.
 Mr. Blanchard finds the west elevation the most pleasing, but he wishes he felt better about the other sides.  The architect said they have a very appropriate solution to dealing with this historic building in this location.  The program Denison wanted was a challenge, and they have solved it very well.
 Citizen Dennis Couchon stated that this could be very controversial, and there should be a hearing followed.  Mr. Strayer said they cannot tell the SENTINEL what to run.  There is legislation before Village Council about increased notification. Ms. O'Keefe thought a lot of people would be very upset, but it is not something you can put out to the village for a vote.  Mr. Wilkenfeld thinks Denison should go to the SENTINEL, but Mr. Chonko thinks the community does know about this, and there was an article about it a while ago.  He wants to move ahead.  Mr. Riffle said it's not fair to Denison to follow the process and then delay and give people time to object.  We are following normal procedures and Denison is too.
 
 MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING DESIGN CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL OF EXTERIOR AND FINISH PACKAGE AND SITE LIGHTING BY MARCH 26.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. BLANCHARD VOTED NAE).
 
Finding of Fact:  MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR B UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF JANUARY 22.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Work Session:
 
Wendy Hollinger, North Pearl - Garage
 The garage is wobbly and needs to be replaced.  It is close to the property line, and they need to look at their options:  (1 ) Take the garage down and build a new one farther down the back yard; (2) make an addition onto the back of the house with garage; (3) build a carport out of the existing structure with parking in front; or (4) acquire some land from next door.  It's too steep with a grade of 17° to build it on the other side of the house.
 Mr. Mitchell suggested checking with a surveyor to design something that will work grade-wise, and she said she would do that.
Adjournment:  9:00 p.m.
Next Meetings:  February 12 and 26
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Monday
Jan302012

Planning Minutes 1/8/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
January 8, 2007
Minutes

Members Present:  Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle
Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack Burriss
Visitors Present:  Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Michael Novak
Minutes of December 18: Page 2, paragraph starting "Mr. Strayer" should be Mr. Riffle…   Under the motion, No. B is True; No. D. is True .  Last line under Rettig, should be Ms. Rettig.
 Page 3, Kevin Kittle's address is 224 E. College. 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments:    none
Swearing in of Witnesses:
New Business:

 Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St. - Addition
 Mr. Strayer said the variance application for a 2-story garage was approved by BZBA.  At our work session, members wanted to see a rear elevation drawing and more consistency with the house.  The height of roofs should match.
 Ms. Rettig said the roofline of the main house is a 9/12 slope   Her goal is to keep that slope to make the existing roof flow and look as if it were an extension of the house, built at the same time.  Mr. Riffle disagreed and discussion ensued about the roofline, eave height, and whether a flat roof would be feasible.  Mr. Riffle said with the roofline at 4 different points it lacks consistency. Ms. Rettig thought it was usual to have many rooflines and pitches in Granville's old houses.  She preferred to table the application rather than receive a denial. 
 
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-170.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND THE VOTE WAS 2 YESSES AND ONE NO (MR. RIFFLE), WHICH AMOUNTS TO NO VOTE, AS THREE VOTES ARE REQUIRED FOR A MAJORITY.

Walter Palasky, l86 Fairview Drive - Addition

 The applicant wishes to build a 48x24 carriage house as accessory use building, and Mr. Riffle asked for more details.  Mr. Palasky said it will be white board and batten, with same roof style, a 24' cupola with gray prefab shingles.  The windows are wood divided, and it has transom lighting.   It will be used for cars and equipment.  He showed a brochure with a small picture and said it will match more of the garage than the house.
 Mr. Blanchard asked what was the reason for placing it closer to the road, and Mr. Palasky said the front door faces Newark/Granville Road, so it's appropriate to place it in that quadrant.  No other location seemed to fit.
 Mr. Blanchard asked about trees, and Mr. Palasky said none of the trees will be removed. The structure will have minimal foundation and will be put on concrete piers.  Mr. Mitchell thought it was appropriate as long as it is not in the drip line or canopy of the trees and wanted him to come back with more details. 

MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION 06-171.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Don Hunter, 226 South Mulberry - Driveway

 We agreed with him verbally at the last meeting, and this is a formal application for the shared driveway with 222 S. Mulberry.  Mr. Blanchard asked about the curb cut, apron, and approach being built to regulations, and Mr. Strayer said the Service Director will take care of that.  The property owners will take care of assuring the easement agreement is permanent.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-167 AS PRESENTED.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage
 Mr. Strayer explained that they are asking for a free-standing sign and a sidewalk sign for the old Studio 37, replacing the sign already there.  They were supposed to bring in the design, but they are absent tonight.
 Mr. Riffle can see what the free-standing sign will say, but he wants to see the sidewalk sign. 

MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION; MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Michael Novak, 204 Munson Street - freestanding sign

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 Mr. Novak brought in new pictures of the sign, which will be 6'3" tall.  They won't know what will be printed on the lower sign until they have a tenant.
 GPC was OK with leaving the bottom panel blank for now.  There will be no ball at the top of the post.

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-154 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:  (1) STYLE TO MATCH THE GRANVILLE LUMBER SIGN; (2) IT WILL HAVE BORDER AS SHOWN IN THE ADVANTAGE HEALTH SIGN; (3) TWO COLORS, GRAY AND WHITE.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
 
Work Session:  Michael Novak - Siding
 They are going to have to match siding where the old garage was removed and wanted approval to fill it in.  There will be siding all the way down.
 Ms. O'Keefe asked about a brick façade, and Mr. Mitchell thought landscaping would be the answer. 
 Mr. Strayer said if GPC wishes, he can approve their plans administratively, and GPC agreed with this idea.

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR C UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF JANUARY 8.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Adjournment:   7:55 p.m.
Next Meetings:  January 22 and February 12 (We will have a meeting this Wednesday at 6 p.m. to discuss Amendments to the Ordinances.)
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Hullinger

Page 1 ... 1 2 3 4