Upcoming Events

Click here for the full Community Calendar.

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes December 13, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

December 13, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson (arrived late), Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Also Present: Dan Ream.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

127 East Broadway – Greg Ream - Application #2010-179

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of two trash enclosure areas.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Dan Ream.

 

Discussion:

Dan Ream, 79 Victoria Drive, indicated that he is the son of the applicant, Greg Ream.  Mr. Burriss asked if any bollards are being proposed?  Mr. Ream stated that he didn’t think there were any in the proposal, but his father did place them behind the coffee shop so he may want to place them at 127 East Broadway as well.  Mr. Burriss stated that the bollards offer protection from refuse haulers and snow plows.  Mr. Mitchell explained that if the applicant wishes to put them in place he would need to come back in.  Mr. Mitchell stated that another option is to have bollards approved this evening and choose whether or not to use them.  Mr. Ream agreed that it would make the most sense to have them approved with the application and they would determine later if they want to install them.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-179:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is consistent with other similar requests.   

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing to cover up trash receptacles and this is preferred. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed modification.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-179 as submitted with the addition of bollards per ‘Exhibit A’.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

224 East Broadway – Anne Sara Odor - Application #2010-178

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sidewalk sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry.

 

Discussion:

Anne Sara Odor, was not present to address questions and/or comments by the Planning Commission.  The Planning Commission indicated that it would be advantageous for them to have the applicant present.  Ms. Terry attempted to call the applicant at 7:15 P.M., but there was no answer.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to Table Application #2010-178 because the applicant was not present to address question/concerns by the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Burriss, Mitchell, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Work Session for Awnings for Village Offices – 141 East Broadway:

Village Planner Terry stated that the Village Offices would like to install new awnings on the outside of the building.  She indicated that she has been working with Mr. Burriss on several options.  The Planning Commission took measurements and discussed various options for awnings outside of the Village offices located at 141 East Broadway.  Ms. Terry indicated that they would also purchase awnings for the police department entrance and Reader’s Garden book store.  Mr. Mitchell suggested getting a quote from an architect of how much a permanent structure would cost that could be framed and shingled.  He indicated that he doesn’t think the presented awnings work because they are not functional.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see the discussion reopened on spending more on the front façade of the building.  Ms. Terry stated that the Village is receiving complaints about the mirrored window in front of the Utility Clerk’s office.  She indicated that this particular office receives glare and heat from sunlight so the reflective lining was placed on the window.  Mr. Burriss stated that he suggests leaving the awning that they have in place if they do not want to look at a permanent fix at this time.  He suggested placing a small awning above the entrance to Reader’s Garden.  Ms. Terry indicated that they most likely will not be able to color match the Village Offices awning – so it may need to be recovered.  Mr. Burriss also suggested blinds in the front windows, instead of an awning along the handicap ramp. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-179: Greg Ream; Trash Enclosures

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village Business District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, 1187, Height, Area and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-179 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-179. Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes from the November 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the minutes from the November 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Approval of Meeting Dates for 2011:

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the 2011 meeting dates as amended for the Planning Commission.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.     

Adjournment:  8:00 PM

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

Next meetings:

Monday, January 3, 2011

Monday, January 24, 2011

 

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes November 22, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 22, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Steven Hawk, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell (Vice-Chair).

Members Absent: Tim Ryan (Chair), Jeremy Johnson, and Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting).

Staff Present: Village Planning Director, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Mackenzie Peterson, James Green, and Steve Mershon.

Citizens’ Comments: No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

110 East Elm Street – Mackenzie Peterson - Application #2010-172

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a three point fifty five (3.55)

square foot freestanding tenant panel sign to be located on East Elm Street.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mackenzie Peterson.

 

Discussion:

Mackenzie Peterson, 1479 West Quail Run Drive, Newark, Ohio 43055, stated that she is applying for signage for her psychology practice.  Ms. Terry indicated that there are no variances needed for this application and it meets all of the requirements. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-172:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has provided signage that is consistent with other signage in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-172 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burris, Mitchell, Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

110 East Elm Street – Mackenzie Peterson - Application #2010-173

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a one point seventy-seven (1.77)

square foot wall sign.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Mackenzie Peterson.

 

Discussion:

Mackenzie Peterson stated that she would like to place a wall sign under the existing Granville Sentinel sign.  Ms. Terry explained that Ms. Peterson’s sign would go under the border on the existing Granville Sentinel signage.  Ms. Peterson indicated that there would not be a border around her portion of the sign and the sign as a whole has a border already around it. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-173:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has provided signage that is consistent with other signage in the Village.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed signage is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-173 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burris, Mitchell, Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

221 North Pearl Street – James Green - Application #2010-174

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the replacement of square           wood

balusters, with original turned style balusters on the front porch.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and James Green.

 

Discussion:  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds the effort of Mr. Green in choosing the style of spindles for the porch.  He questioned if the applicant is adjusting the height of the porch from the ground and if so he may have to also adjust the height of the railing to conform to the Licking County Building Code.

 

James Green, 221 North Pearl Street, explained that the porch was sinking and he does not believe the height will adjust more than one inch.  Mr. Burriss stated that for safety reasons he believes a higher railing is required if the porch is thirty inches or higher from the ground.  He stated that this would have to be confirmed with the Licking County Building Department.  Ms. Terry explained that the height of the railing would be a building department issue, and the Planning Commission reviews the architectural detailing.  She stated that a copy of the zoning permit is sent to the Licking County Building Department.   Mr. Green questioned if he needed to get the building department involved if he is doing an exact replacement of what was already in place.  Ms. Terry stated that a significant amount of the porch has been removed from the structure and that the new structure may need to be inspected.  She stated that she would suggest checking with the building department to determine their code requirements.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Village oversees if an applicant is code compliant.  Ms. Terry stated that the building department receives a copy of the permit so they can determine if a permit is required for code compliance.  She also stated that all applicants are required to meet the building code requirements and they send the Village all of the copies of their approved permits.  Mr. Green asked that the record reflect that he did not take the whole porch down.  He stated that the posts were supporting the roof, which was not touched.  Mr. Burriss stated that the height of the porch from the ground may not be an issue, but he would encourage the applicant to check into this.  He explained that the Planning Commission is charged with ensuring health, safety and welfare and the railing height may or may not need to be addressed.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the existing columns are staying and a higher railing wouldn’t look appropriate with the remaining columns.  Mr. Green agreed and stated that a higher railing would look “horrible.”  He stated that he has put a lot of time, energy, and money into renovating the home and changing the height of the existing railing would undo everything he has done to date.  Mr. Green asked how the Planning Commission qualifies that enough of the porch has been taken down that it is now considered to be a new structure.  Mr. Burriss stated that the majority of the porch has been removed because the floor, railings, and spindles were gone.  Ms. Terry explained that the Licking County Building Department is different from the Planning Commission because the Planning Commission only does architectural review of how the applicant is modifying the structure.  She explained that the applicant could get an amendment to the application if the building department says that the railing has to be raised.  Mr. Burriss stated that the spacing of the spindles would also have building code specifications for safety reasons.  Mr. Green stated that he is aware of this.  Mr. Burriss asked if the spindles will go all the way down to the porch floor or will there be a lower rail?  Mr. Green stated that he expects to have a lower rail just like the original.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the existing spindles went down to the floor.  Mr. Burriss stated that he applauds and supports what the applicant is doing, but he also wants to ensure the improvements are up to code.  Mr. Mitchell stated that it doesn’t look as though the porch is above the maximum height.  Mr. Green asked how he could obtain a copy of the building code.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Licking County Building Code department was in the process of updating and making changes to the building code.  He and Ms. Terry suggested calling them for an updated copy.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-174:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant has provided plans that preserve the historical character.   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed structure is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements. 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-174 as presented.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Hawk, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

128 South Main Street – The Lakeholm Company - Application #2010-175

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a four point three seven five (4.375) square foot

freestanding tenant panel sign to replace the existing sign located on South Main Street. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Mitchell swore in Village Planning Director, Alison Terry, and Steve Mershon.

 

Discussion:

Steve Mershon, was present to address any questions/concerns by the Planning Commission.  Ms. Terry explained that the original staff report indicated that a variance was necessary for this sign, however this was inaccurate and there is no variance required.  She indicated that the application meets all of the requirements and is proposed to be white, green, and black.  The Planning Commission agreed that the presented application was for a “nice looking sign.”   Mr. Mershon explained that there is an existing post already in place and he is proposing to shrink the height of the existing sign by approximately three inches.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there is not any lighting proposed for the sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-175:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed sign is of the appropriate historical character for the district.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-175 as submitted. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #2010-172: Mackenzie Peterson; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-172 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-172. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-173: Mackenzie Peterson; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-173 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-173. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-174: James Green; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-174 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-174. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burriss, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-175: The Lakeholm Company; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-175 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-175. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Burris, Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members’:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Jeremy Johnson and Tim Ryan from the November 22, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

Adjournment:  7:40 PM

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, December 13, 2010

Monday, January 3, 2011

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes November 8, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 8, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Jeremy Johnson, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss and Tom Mitchell.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry

Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, Debi Hartfield, Melissa Hartfield, Cheryl Gardner,  Johne Brennan, Steve Katz, Constance Barsky, Tim Klingler, Gail McConnon, Jim and Catherine Jung, and Joy Wujek.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-153 (Previously Tabled), submitted by Debi Hartfield for the property located at 327 West Maple Street.  The request is for architectural review and approval, for the rear accessory structure, of the following:

1)         Siding:  Removing stucco and replacing with engineered wood siding on the second & third stories.  Siding to have 3/8" grooves, 8" on center with a tongue and groove overlap;

2)         Windows:  Removal of existing double hung windows and replacement with wood, double hung windows;

3)         Window trim: Changing the window trim on the south, north, east and west sides and the front door trim to cedar;

4)         Garage Door:  Wood paneled doors with top panels in clear glass;

5)         Lighting:  Exterior carriage lights with sensors on each side of garage doors and beside the front door (north elevation); and

6)         Removal of the southern elevation steel pipe.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Debi Hartfield.

 

Mr. Hawk moved to remove Application #2010-153 from the table.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0. 

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated that she would like to withdraw the previous proposed change to the siding of the accessory structure.  Ms. Hartfield indicated that this would remain stucco. She stated that she would like to add to the application that she is also requesting to remove the big pipe that goes up the back of the accessory structure.  She explained that she would be relocating windows, installing lighting, and installing garage doors.  Mr. Johnson clarified that the applicant was not planning to put anything on top of the stucco.  Ms. Hartfield explained that the stucco will remain as is and she will do repairs as needed with stucco placed on stucco.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission should have received cut sheets for the windows, garage doors, and lighting.  Mr. Ryan asked if there would be grids in the windows.  Ms. Hartfield stated no and the garage doors only come in two panels due to custom order sizing.  Mr. Hawk clarified that the garage door being proposed was the long plain window option on the spec sheet.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be eliminating two windows above the garage door and replacing it with three windows.  Ms. Hartfield explained that there are two banks of windows with three windows total being installed on the lower elevation.  Mr. Johnson asked if the existing windows would be in-filled.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the three windows near the stairs will be eliminated and two windows will be replaced in this area.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the electric service lines are being moved.  Ms. Hartfield stated that according to the code the electric meter had to be moved to the corner of the structure and she has a permit for this already.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant was still proposing to use the same trim that she mentioned at the previous meeting.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-153:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District?  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed improvements are consistent with other structures within the district. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed improvements are an upgrade to the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.   

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-153 as amended by the applicant to include leaving stucco on the accessory structure and doing any repairs to the structure with stucco; the replacement of windows with double hung windows; the replacement of the garage door per submitted spec sheet; the replacement of the exterior lighting with carriage lighting; the installation of trim per option #2 as indicated in ‘Exhibit A’ and the removal of the steel pipe (chimney flue).

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Hawk, Johnson, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0

 

New Business:

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner - Application #2010-160

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the structural demolition of a one-and-a-half story detached garage located in the rear yard.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Sheryl Gardner, Jim and Catherine Jung, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, stated that the accessory structure he is proposing for demolition was built in the 1950’s and is in desperate need of repair.  He stated that it has a 16x20 footprint and it was not used as a garage because there is not a driveway to it.  Mr. Ryan noted that there was a letter from the Historical Society in their packets that stated that the structure is of no historical significance.

 

Sheryl Gardner, 216 West Elm Street, stated that her property and Mr. Reiner’s are back to back properties and she thinks that this is a “wonderful idea” to remove the deteriorated structure.  

 

Catherine Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she lives to the west of Mr. Reiner and she is fine with the idea of tearing down the structure. 

 

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that he whole-heartedly supports the proposed demolition and he sees the safety of the building as being “risky.” 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-160:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the removal of the structure would not have any adverse affects on the property or neighboring properties. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed structure for demolition had no historical significance. 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition for Application #2010-160 to Village Council.

 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

219 West Broadway – Kevin Reiner - Application #2010-161

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a one-and-a- half story detached accessory structure to be located in the rear yard, constructed of the following materials:               

1.         Roof Material:  Dimensional asphaltic shingles;

2.         Siding & Trim:

a.         Siding:  Wood, primed & painted, 5" reveal;

b.         Trim:  Wood trim, fascia, soffits;

3.         Service Doors:

            a.         North Elevation:  Six-panel wood, primed & painted;

b.         South Elevation:  French Doors, wood with true divided lites;

4.         Gutters and Downspouts:  Aluminum, half round;          

5.         Windows:  

a.         North Elevation:  Wood, true divided lite half round window

b.         West & East Elevations:  Wood, true divided lite double hung with sidelights and a half round above on the first floor; Three single hung wood, true divided light windows on the upper floor;

6.         Foundation:  Block with a sandstone veneer (see sample photograph submitted with the application);

7.         Columns:  Round, 8" Fiberglass; and

8.         Chimney:  Block with brick veneer (see sample photograph submitted with the application).

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Sheryl Gardner, Catherine and Jim Jung, and Kevin Reiner.

 

Discussion:

Kevin Reiner, 219 West Broadway, indicated that he would like to replace the demolished structure with a new, slightly larger structure. He described the materials used - lap wood siding, recycled historical door, sandstone, and true divided light windows.  Mr. Hawk asked if the applicant plans to add electric and water services to the structure.  Mr. Reiner stated yes and it will be insulated and treated like a studio.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant would need a Variance for setbacks.  Mr. Johnson asked the height of the structure compared to the house.  Mr. Reiner was unsure of the exact height of his home, but stated that it is a two story home.  Mr. Johnson noted that the proposed structure will be taller than the demolished structure.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the lot coverage is ok.  Ms. Terry explained that a Variance is required and the applicant is already over in lot coverage with the current building. She stated that the applicant is requesting an increase from 50% to 57% lot coverage and the BZBA will hear the application on November 18th

Mr. Johnson asked if both sashes of windows will have true divided light panels.  Mr. Reiner stated yes.  

 

Sheryl Gardner, 216 West Elm Street, stated that she has reviewed the plans for the proposed structure at the Village Offices, as well as looking at the property.  She stated that the structure will be 15 feet from her yard and she feels the applicant is always respectful of neighbors and she wholeheartedly supports the “beautiful structure.” 

 

Catherine Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that she is fine with the proposed structure.

 

Jim Jung, 221 West Broadway, stated that he supports the applicant’s request. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-161:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant has provided plans that preserve the historical character.    

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed structure is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed structure. 

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-161 contingent upon the applicant receiving the required variances from the BZBA.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

126 West Elm Street – Johne and Leigh Brennan - Application #2010-164

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following exterior

modifications:

1)         Replacement of wood double hung, simulated divided lite windows with vinyl double hung windows with no grids, on all elevations of the house;

2)         Replacement of three-tab asphalt shingles with Owens Corning dimensional asphaltic shingles in Estate Grey color; and

3)         Replacement of a vinyl garage door with a vinyl and steel garage door in a carriage house style.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Johne Brennan.

 

Discussion:

Johne Brennan, 126 West Elm Street, stated that the existing windows are inefficient and they are requesting to replace them with vinyl double hung windows.  He stated that they are also requesting to replace the existing 25 year old roof with a similar color and product of asphalt shingles.  Mr. Brennan stated that they would like to replace the carriage house garage door with an updated carriage house door.   Mr. Johnson asked why the applicant chose not to keep the look of the original divided lite windows.  Mr. Brennan stated that they already have four windows that they do not have to replace that aren’t true divided lite and it was a personal preference.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-164:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposed work on the property does not negatively affect the district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-164 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

221 East Elm Street – Steve Katz and Constance Barsky - Application #2010-166

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Replacement of front concrete driveway strips with exposed pea gravel concrete strips;

2)         Removal of brick walkway from the house to the rear driveway and replacement with an exposed pea gravel driveway;

3)         Installation of a concrete drain trough, with steel grating, in front of the garage entrance; and

4)         Installation of a sandstone border along the edge of the back driveway.

 

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

 

Discussion:

Steve Katz and Constance Barky, 221 East Elm Street, stated that there is a correction to the submitted information on ‘Number 2’.  He stated that the driveway replacement with exposed pea gravel concrete is not what they would be using, but instead just pea gravel.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there was an outlet for drainage.  Mr. Katz explained that they are trying to divert the water to a lower grassy area and there wasn’t anything originally built to properly handle the drainage.  Constance Barsky stated that they will be installing a French drain.  

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-164:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-166 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

224 East Broadway – Petali Teas/Joy Wujek - Application #2010-167

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of a Change of Use for 359 square feet from Category "B", Specialty Shops to Categories "B", Specialty Shops and Category "D", Food, Drug and Beverage Businesses, specifically for a retail tea shop and tea room.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Joy Wujek.

 

Discussion:

Joy Wujek, Worthington Road, Alexandria, stated that they would like to be able to sell some tea and cookies and the Change of Use is required to do this.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the requirements have been met.  Ms. Terry stated yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-167 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

222 South Prospect Street – Gail McConnon- Application #2010-168

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Replacement of existing front concrete steps with cedar steps;

2)         Extension of front porch roof, 3-tab asphaltic shingles, twenty-nine (29") inches by seventy-three (73") inches; and

3)        Installation of a wood handrail.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Gail McConnon

 

Discussion:

Gail McConnon, 222 South Prospect Street, stated that the staff report makes mention of a roof being replaced and this is not the case.  Ms. McConnon apologized for work that had already been done on the porch steps.  She stated that she had a friend who began work for her on them.  Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any pickets within the proposed hand rail.  Ms. McConnon stated no.  He later stated that the applicant may want to check if balusters are required by Code because of the twenty-eight inch height.  He stated that he could not estimate the height from the submitted picture.  Mr. Hawk asked if the handrails are already finished.  Ms. McConnon stated no and they ceased work when she realized she needed approval. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-168:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal is consistent with other new, renovated structures in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the proposal is historically accurate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements by making the steps safer.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-168 as with the condition that the sides of the stairs are filled in with lattice work to mask the old stairs and they are painted to match other porch features.  He also clarified that nothing is being done to the roof. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-153: Debi Hartfield; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-153 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-153. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

New Business:

Application #2010-160: Kevin Reiner; Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1162, Structure Demolition and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-160 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-160. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-161: Kevin Reiner; Accessory Structure

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances  Chapter 1157, General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-161 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-161. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-164: Johne and Leigh Brennan; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-164 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-164. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-166: Steve Katz & Constance Barsky; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-166 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-166. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-167: Petali Teas; Change of Use

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1183, Off-Street Parking and Loading, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-167 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-167. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #2010-168: Gail McConnon; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-168 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Johnson moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-168. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Ryan.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Motion to Excuse Absent Planning Commission Members’:

Mr. Hawk moved to excuse Tom Mitchell and Jack Burriss from the November 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

 

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Hawk moved to approve the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 3-0.    

 

Adjournment:  7:55 PM

Mr. Johnson moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 3-0.  

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 22, 2010

Monday, December 12, 2010

 

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes October 12, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 12, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson (arrived late), Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Assistant Law Director, Mike King.

Visitors Present: Sharon Sellito, Todd Feil, Tim Hughes, Debi Hartfield, Douglas Hoyt, Scott and Martha Keyes, Sam Sagaria, James Crates, Greg Wasiloff, Mike and Wendy Duffey, Brian Miller, Eleanor Cohen, John Noblick, Chip Gordon, John Cassell, Bryon Reed, Herach Nazarian, Jurgen Pape, and Dennis Cauchon.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-126, submitted by Terra Nova Partners, LLC. for the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment within the Village Business District zoning classification which would expand the existing Conditional Use section "E. Single family residential." to read "E. Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses."  If the proposed amendment is approved, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be permitted as Conditional Uses within the Village Business District (VBD).  This property located at 384 East Broadway is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), however, the requested zoning amendment would affect all properties within the Village Business District (VBD) zoning category. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to remove Application #2010-126 from the Table.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Original Motion: That Application #2010-126 requesting an amendment to the zoning be recommended for approval to the Village Council (Motion by Steven Hawk); (Second by Jack Burriss).

 

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would like to revise the motion as it currently stands.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion To amend the original motion with the following language: “That language be added to the end of Item (b) Conditional Uses, (2) Village Business District, (E) Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses, as follows:

Two-family and multi-family residential uses may be allowed within the Core Business District only on the upper floors of structures and only when the first floor of the same structure is designated for a commercial use.   For the purposes of this conditional use, the Core Business District area is defined as:

1.         East Broadway, on the north and south sides, from Main Street to Pearl Street;

2.         North and South Prospect Streets, on the west and east sides, from College Street to Elm Street; and

3.         South Main Street from Broadway to Elm Street.

 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Mr. Johnson arrived at 7:07 PM. 

 

Mr. Hawk stated that this amendment would require that a structure have commercial use on the first floor if it were to ever be destroyed.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he sees the grandfathering issue of particular uses as a separate matter that Council would need to create a separate Ordinance for.  He stated that he thinks grandfathered uses should be allowed in the Code to still exist if they were ever destroyed.  Mr. Mitchell explained that this amendment would not allow a business that was destroyed in the core business district to be completely used as a multi-family dwelling.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the business district boundaries are being redefined.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.  Mr. Ryan stated that Mr. Mitchell’s amendment says that in certain areas of the business district a residential conditional use request would not be allowed on the first floor, while in other areas it could be. He asked the Assistant Law Director to clarify whether this would constitute spot zoning?  Assistant Law Director King stated no and that the research they found shows that they would have to have singled out a small individual lot to constitute spot zoning.  Mr. Burriss stated that they would be breaking down areas of the Village Business District and does this mean that anything outside of the core business district would not have multi-family use listed as a ‘Conditional Use’.  Mr. King stated that Mr. Mitchell’s amendment would still allow multi-family use to be listed as a ‘Conditional Use’ in areas outside of the core business district.  He stated that within the core business district the first floor would be committed to commercial use.  Mr. Burriss stated that they would in essence be defining an area in the core business district where multi-family or two family dwellings would be allowed, but he wants to ensure that they are not limiting areas outside the core area to prohibit multi-family and two-family uses.  Mr. King stated that the amendment does not have this distinction.  Mr. Johnson questioned if there is a need to clarify “outside of the core business district.”  Mr. King stated that it depends if you wanted more clarification, and he has not seen anything that suggests that this is an issue.  Mr. Johnson stated that the Planning Commission wants to ensure that they are clear to Council as to their intent of the amendment to the motion.  He stated that the area known as the core business district would be the only area that would require a first floor commercial use. 

 

Roll Call Vote on the amendment to the original motion for Application #2010-126:  Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Hawk (no), Johnson (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

Roll Call Vote on Application #2010-126 as Amended:  Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Burriss (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2. 

New Business:

215 South Cherry Street – Sharon Sellitto - Application #2010-145

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the installation of a wooden, scalloped, white picket fence along the western rear property line.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Sharon Sellitto.

 

Discussion:

Sharon Sellitto, 215 South Cherry Street, stated that she would like to install more of the same fencing that she already has in the rear yard because the new owners of the neighboring property want to take down the existing chain link fence.  Ms. Sellitto explained that there is no change to the fence that already exists and she will match the existing fence.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing any gates in the fence.  Ms. Sellitto stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-145:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the new fence is an upgrade from a chain link fence.  

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed fence is an upgrade to the historical character.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements and what was previously in place.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-145 as submitted.

 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2010-146

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for review and approval of the demolition of a one car detached garage located in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Greg Wasiloff and Michael and Wendy Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, indicated that they are requesting demolition of the existing garage and they found nothing of historical significance when researching the history of the garage.  Mr. Burriss indicated that the Village would not be negatively impacted from losing this structure.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Demolition Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-146:

 

a)         The location of the proposed structure will not create adverse affects on the property or on neighboring properties.  The removal of the structure shall not interrupt the continuous built edge of any adjacent street or right of way.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the removal of the structure would not have any adverse affects on the property or neighboring properties. 

 

b)         The proposed structure is of no or little historical significance.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the proposed structure for demolition had no historical significance. 

 

c)         The demolition of the proposed structure will in no way adversely affect the health, safety or general welfare of the neighboring properties or community in general.  The Planning Commission unanimously agreed TRUE.   

 

d)         The proposed future construction plans for the demolished area meet the zoning requirements of the zoning district and area consistent with the existing structures, sizes, densities, and development styles of the surrounding areas, and that an implementation schedule is submitted and committed to by the applicant.  (Refer to Zoning Permit Application #2010-147 for the review of a new one and a half story detached garage.)

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to recommend approval of Demolition for Application #2010-146 to the Village Council.  Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

335 West Elm Street – Michael and Wendy Duffey - Application #2010-147

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a new two-car detached garage to be located in the rear yard.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Greg Wasiloff and Michael and Wendy Duffey.

 

Discussion:

Michael Duffey, 335 West Elm Street, stated that their yard is terraced and there is a steep drop off.  He stated that from the front of the house the proposed garage will appear to be a one-story garage, but it is actually a two-story garage.  He explained that the appearance would be minimal from the house view.  Mr. Duffey stated that the height will be 21 feet high at the ridgeline and you will be able to see that it is a two-story garage from the alley.  Mr. Hawk asked how the storage area would be accessed.  Mr. Duffey stated that they would put in an internal staircase that will turn and rise to the second story.  Mr. Hawk asked if the floor would be concrete.  Mr. Duffey stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the sewer line goes under the garage.  Mr. Duffey stated that he thought it was to the side of the existing garage.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the sewer lines goes under the neighbor’s garage (to the south) and the sewer line in that area is in a very unusual location.  He went on to say that he thinks it could be located under the new garage.  Ms. Terry stated that this may be something that the applicant looks at having moved prior to building the new garage.  Mr. Burriss commented that the proposed door on the east doesn’t seem to match the proposed front door.  Mr. Duffey stated that they chose this particular side door because of weather issues on that side of the home, financial reasons, and because the door won’t be seen.  Mr. Johnson asked if the back cement block wall would be water proofed.  Mr. Wasiloff stated yes.  Mr. Johnson asked if the downspout on the left of the alley would turn back to the east.  Mr. Wasiloff stated yes.  Mr. Burriss questioned the double hung window next to the proposed door on the west side.  Mr. Duffey stated that they wanted tri-light tops.  He stated that they could consider looking at matching the door to this window.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would prefer to see the applicant create similarity in the window and door given that they have spent so much time and energy in architectural review.  He stated that he would like to see consistency.  Mr. Duffey stated that this is a good suggestion and he will do this.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there have been any comments regarding the application from the neighbors.  Ms. Terry stated no.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-147:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is consistent with other structures approved in this area.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed level of detailing by the applicant contributes to the district.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed garage is more architecturally appealing than the structure that it is replacing. 

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion to approve Application #2010-147 with changes to the east elevation window and door as depicted in ‘Exhibit A.’  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

418 West Broadway – Scott and Martha Keyes - Application #2010-148

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Transportation Corridor Overlay District (TCOD)

The request is for review and approval of conversion of a gravel driveway to a concrete driveway. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and John Noblick.

 

Discussion:

John Noblick, Jerry McClain Construction, stated that he is representing the homeowner as the contractor for the proposed project.  He stated that they are requesting to change a gravel driveway to concrete.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant’s request does require a variance from the BZBA.  She stated that the Code requirement says that a driveway should not come within five feet of the property line and the proposed driveway is located one foot from the property line.  Mr. Noblick stated that the one foot is at the closest point up near the street.  Mr. Johnson asked if saw cut joints would be used.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.   Mr. Johnson asked if the driveway would be flush at the approach.  Mr. Noblick stated yes.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the contractor will have to do a fair amount of excavating.  Mr. Noblick stated that he didn’t believe so because it’s a fairly level lot. Mr. Mitchell stated that this is a good question to ask because they wouldn’t want to see anything done that could create a problem for the neighboring properties and this is gravel moving to an impervious structure.  Mr. Noblick stated that there would not be a significant amount of water that they will be dealing with and there is landscaping nearby and the property raises as it goes back.  Mr. Johnson stated that he thinks the contractor will have to dig it down to flush out.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is a sandstone walkway that may need to be cleared out.  He questioned if curb detailing can be done to encourage the movement of water to the street and not towards the neighbor.  Mr. Noblick stated that the sidewalk in this area was replaced and there has been a widened curb cut put in.  Mr. Burriss stated that the ariel view of the neighbor’s downspouts depict that their water is draining on the surface and the applicant’s house shows all of the water being taken away from the house underground.  He questioned that if the surface drainage isn’t a problem for that neighbor, then the driveway run-off most likely won’t be an issue. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-148 with the condition the applicant receive a variance from the BZBA.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

 

 

 

 

575 West Broadway – Todd and Robin Feil - Application #2010-151

Suburban Residential District (SRD-C) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

(The AROD Criteria applies because the expansion is more than twenty (20%) of the gross livable area of the structure.)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following:

1)         Construction of a new two-car attached garage to be located on the eastern side of the home;

2)         Expansion of basement in rear of home;

3)         Screened porch addition on the rear of the home, above the expanded basement;          and

4)         New deck on the rear of the home, above the expanded basement. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Todd Feil.

 

Discussion:

Todd Feil, 575 West Broadway, stated that they went through the BZBA for approval for the required variances.  He stated that their lot is narrow and the area just behind the house slopes down drastically to the rear of their property.  He stated that they want to install a French drain on the side where the garage will be located and drain the roof to this area.  Mr. Johnson asked if the drain would be within a foot from the surface.  Mr. Feil stated yes.  He went on to say that they want the driveway to slope away from the house for water drainage.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is proposing standing seam metal roofing.  Mr. Feil stated that they will add a standing seam metal roof and he was unsure if it will be screwed down or a true standing metal seam.  Mr. Burriss stated that on the south elevation or rear elevation – there are two windows and a basement door.  He asked if those are new or are they being covered up.  Mr. Feil stated that their builder drew these in the wrong way and they will be added to the structure.  Mr. Johnson asked if the existing block retaining wall would stay.  Mr. Field stated that it would be excavated and replaced.  Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant is adding on to the basement.  Mr. Feil stated yes and that the add-on will not be heated, it is a glorified potting shed.  Mr. Johnson asked about the right rear elevation down spouting and what will be done with it?  Mr. Feil stated that they would be replacing all of the gutters on the house and this rear right drain will daylight drain on top of the garage.  Mr. Johnson stated that on the east and west elevation of the garage there are no gutters depicted.  Mr. Feil stated that these would be added if they find they are needed.  Mr. Johnson asked what would happen to the water near the screened in porch?  Mr. Feil stated that if you look at the west gutter, it breaks to the right and continues to the end of the screened in porch.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if the applicant tried to match the existing slope on the house.  Mr. Feil stated that they did as much as they could without having to excavate too deeply.  He explained that the slope is like it is because of where they are starting the garage.  Mr. Burriss commented that the hip roof is reminiscent of what is on the porch.  Mr. Burriss stated that he wondered about the exposed glazed ceramic block that is unique to the home.  Mr. Feil stated that if it still existed they would try to match it with the new garage, but it's unlikely that they will find this type of glazed block tile.  He stated that it is their intent to cover the cement block with vines.

Mr. Burriss suggested that the cement block should at least match the color of the glazed block foundation on the home because it is a strong distinct feature of the house.  He stated that the applicant could consider a concrete dye.  Mr. Burriss also questioned the number of division panels on the garage door.  Mr. Feil stated that they are not sure right now what this will be and he would prefer to see less divisions.  Mr. Ryan questioned if much of the original foundation block would be showing.  Mr. Burriss stated yes to the west and east.  Mr. Mitchell stated that from the street one wouldn't see much because other homes are so close.  Mr. Hawk asked if there have been any comments from neighboring properties.  Ms. Terry stated no. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-151:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed structure is consistent with other structures approved in the same district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed structure uses historically appropriate materials in the district. 

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that some of the proposed work on the main house is more appropriate appearance wise than what is currently in place. 

 

Mr. Johnson made a motion to approve Application #2010-151 with the condition that the applicant matches the proposed foundation concrete block to the existing foundation color on the home.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

316 West Elm Street – Douglas and Maria Hoyt - Application #2010-152

Village Residential District (VRD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the following items:

1)         Front porch:  Replace the existing charcoal roof with a standing seam metal roof; and

2)         Northern elevation, rear window:  Removal of single pane window and replacement with three colonial style Anderson 200 Series double hung windows with interior grids.  Replace trim around windows to match existing trim.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Douglas Hoyt.

 

Discussion:

Douglas Hoyt, 316 West Elm Street, stated that they would like to take out the smaller window and put in a big window so they can see in their back yard.  He stated that they have chosen a colonial window to match the rest of the house and he will match the existing trim on the home.  Mr. Hoyt stated that they are proposing a standing seam screwed down metal roof in charcoal gray.  Mr. Hoyt also stated that he would be taking out the electrical box used for knob and tube wiring. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-152:

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is consistent with other new and renovated structures in this district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposal is historically accurate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-152 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

327 West Maple Street – Debi Hartfield - Application #2010-153

Suburban Residential District-B (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval, for the rear accessory structure, of the following:

1)         Siding:  Removing stucco and replacing with engineered wood siding on the second & third stories; and

2)         Window trim: Changing the window trim on the south, east and west sides.

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Debi Hartfield.

 

Discussion:

Debi Hartfield, 327 West Maple Street, stated that there is no side on this accessory structure that matches and all of the sides are different.  She stated that she would like to bring the structure back to something more beautiful.  She stated that she will eventually pull off the asbestos siding on the primary structure to expose the lap siding underneath and the siding she is proposing for the accessory structure would be more congruent with the primary structure.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the house just needs someone to love it and bring it back – restore it.  She stated that she is proposing a material that is durable, but won’t break the bank.  Mr. Burriss questioned which direction the applicant is proposing hanging the siding.  Ms. Hartfield stated horizontally because the primary structure’s siding underneath is horizontal.  Mr. Burriss asked what the applicant is proposing to use for the corner trim.  Ms. Hartfield stated painted cedar would be used for the corners and the trim around the garage door, which may also need to be repaired.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the entire structure would get painted yellow and soft ivory trim.  Some of the stucco will be removed and some areas will have the siding wrapped over it.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the south side stucco on the accessory structure is in good shape and she will leave this as is.   She explained that they will put house wrap around the structure and the siding will be on top.  Mr. Johnson asked what the applicant is proposing to do with the depth they will be adding where they are and are not removing stucco.  He was concerned with the depth of siding in relation to the existing windows.  Ms. Hartfield stated that this will be filled in behind the house wrap and siding.  Mr. Ryan asked if all of the windows would be replaced.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes with JELD-WEN windows.  Mr. Burriss asked if the stovepipe would remain? Ms. Hartfield stated no it will be removed.  Mr. Burriss questioned the proposed curved top of the windows and the reason this was chose.  Ms. Hartfield stated that she wanted a softer, wider, and elongated look.  Mr. Ryan asked if the applicant is proposing any exterior lighting.  Ms. Hartfield stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the applicant choose their lighting and bring this back for the Planning Commission to review.  He questioned if the application should be tabled because they really need additional information for review.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is not familiar with the type of siding material proposed by the applicant.  He questioned if it is a type of plywood or T111.  Ms. Hartfield stated that it imitates lap siding nicely and it essentially is a type of plywood or T111.  She stated that it has a fifty-year warranty.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the warranty would be in affect if it has stucco and lathe behind it.  He stated that the applicant may want to check into this.  He also questioned if it can be applied easily and securely with the lathe underneath.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the product appears to be only 3/8 inches thick.  Mr. Ryan suggested that the applicant provide a sample of the material for the Planning Commission to review.  He stated that they are fully in favor of this structure being renovated, but there is not enough clarity and documentation on approving the application with what they have in front of them.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have required this type of information from other applicants with similar proposals.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see a sample of the proposed material and he would not be in favor of anything resembling T111.  He questioned what the applicant had in mind for the trim – specifically for the trim around the door.  Ms. Hartfield stated that this will remain as is, but she may need to replace the deteriorated wood with the same look.  She stated that the front of the structure has zero windows.

 

Mr. Mitchell stated that the applicant had provided two examples for the trim.  Ms. Hartfield stated that she prefers the look of the second option she presented.  Ms. Hartfield stated that the windows will be flush with the frame and sloped to prevent water settling on them.  Mr. Burriss asked if the applicant is proposing that the ends of the piece to the window trim be sloped?  He stated that he is not sure how he feels on significantly changing the lintel of the window.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn’t have a significant problem with it.  Mr. Mitchell agreed that the trim would have to be replaced because the existing is deteriorating.  Mr. Johnson agreed that the application overall is a bit difficult to interpret without all of the details in place and he suggests tabling the application.  Mr. Johnson stated that given what they have in front of them, the horizontal trim seems more appropriate for the house.  He stated that it is a tall structure from that elevation.  Mr. Burriss stated that he could be talked into changing the window trim, but he would like to see this illustrated on the proposed overall elevation.     

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #2010-153.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

339 East Maple Street – James Crates - Application #2010-154

Suburban Residential District (SRD-B) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of the construction of a porch roof over an existing porch on the eastern side of the home. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and James Crates.

 

Discussion:

James Crates, 327 West Maple Street, stated that this existing porch is almost impassible with snow on it, so he would like to add a roof.  He stated that this proposal is architecturally consistent with the roof on the west side.  Mr. Crates stated that he is proposing a standing seam metal roof and he would eventually like to replace all of the porch roofs with the same metal roofing.  Mr. Crates stated that the addition would be painted to match other porches with six by six-fluted posts.  Mr. Burriss asked the proposed width of the new roof.  Mr. Crates stated that it is going the length of the whole bay and will go the length from the corner to the end corner so it also covers the air conditioning compressor.  Mr. Johnson questioned if the roof will impede the existing window.  Mr. Crates stated that the contractor has indicated that this window will not be impacted. Mr. Johnson asked if there would be any fascia and gutter.  Mr. Crates stated yes and the gutter will run into a rain barrel.  Mr. Burriss stated that the other two porches have multiple columns and he questioned what supports the new roof.  Mr. Crates stated that as you face westward the southern support will butt against the existing 4x4 and the header will be 2x6 with 2x6 stringers.  Mr. Crates guessed that the roof would be twelve foot long.  Mr. Johnson asked if the roof would stop at the porch.  Mr. Crates stated yes.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the posts for support should match other supports on the other porches.  He suggested the use of detailed fencing to cover trash bins.  Mr. Crates stated that this would be a relatively inexpensive addition and he would agree to match this. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-154:

 

a)                  Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the improvement is consistent with other approvals in the district.

b)                  Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed detailing of the proposed changes are historically accurate.

c)                  Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed improvements.

d)                  Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that a covered porch is more historically appropriate for this structure than an open deck.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #2010-154 with the modifications per ‘Exhibit A.’  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

Old Business:

Application #2010-126: Terra Nova Homes; Zoning Amendment

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Amendments.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-126. 

Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson (yes), Hawk (no), Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-2.

 

New Business:

Application #2010-145: Sharon Sellito; Fencing

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, Chapter 1187 Height, Area, and Yard Modifications, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-145 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-145.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-146: Michael and Wendy Duffey; Structural Demolition

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1162, Structural Demolition, and hereby recommends approval of Application #2010-146 to the Village Council, as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-146.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-147: Michael and Wendy Duffey; New Garage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1157 General Zoning Regulations, Chapter 1159, Village District, and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-147 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-147.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-148: Scott and Martha Keyes; Driveway

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District, Chapter 1176, Transportation  Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-148 as indicated in the motion.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-148.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-151: Todd and Robin Feil; Addition, Screened Porch, Deck

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-151 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-151.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

Application #2010-152: Douglas and Maria Hoyt; Exterior Modifications

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1159, Village District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-152 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-152.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #2010-154: James Crates; Exterior Modification

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-154 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-154.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Hawk.  Motion carried 5-0.    

 

Adjournment:  9:30 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Monday, November 8, 2010

Monday, November 22, 2010

 

Thursday
Jun282012

GPC Minutes September 27, 2010

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 27, 2010

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jeremy Johnson, Jack Burriss, Steven Hawk, Councilmember O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Ryan (Chair).

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry; Law Director, Michael Crites.

Visitors Present: Dana Landrum, Dennis Cauchon, Sharon Sellito, Steve Mershon, Mary Lee Van Meter, Richard Van Meter, Paul Jenks, Barbara Franks, John Compton, Wes Sargent, Lisa McKivergin, Eleanor Cohen, Ben Rader, Brian Miller, Bill York, Dan Rogers, Sam Sagaria, Tony Beckerley, Herach Nazarian, C. David Johnson, Bryon Reed, Georgia Denune, John Denune, David Goldblatt, John Ulmer, Ed Vance, C.B. Spencer, Ray Paprocki, Sherry Paprocki, Joel Richeiner, Gene Agan, Dena McKinley, Kirsten Pape, Sheryl Gardner, Robert Gardner, Cynthia Feidler.

 

Citizens’ Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

Public Hearing:

A Court Reporter was present to transcribe the hearing.  A copy of the testimony and discussion during the hearing is included as a part of these minutes. 

 

Application #2010-126, submitted by Terra Nova Partners, LLC. for the property located at 384 East Broadway.  The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment within the Village Business District zoning classification which would expand the existing Conditional Use section "E. Single family residential." to read "E. Single family, two-family and multi-family residential uses."  If the proposed amendment is approved, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be permitted as Conditional Uses within the Village Business District (VBD).  This property located at 384 East Broadway is zoned Village Business District (VBD) and is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD), however, the requested zoning amendment would affect all properties within the Village Business District (VBD) zoning category.  Any person wishing to testify regarding this application will be permitted to do so.

 

Discussion:

Mr. Bryon Reed, 134 Stone Valley Drive went through a power point presentation of the proposal. (A hard copy of the presentation was also submitted to Staff for the official record).  Mr. Herach Nazarian, 2897 Cambria Mill Road, also assisted in the applicant presentation.  The applicants discussed their background and how their proposal was consistent with the draft Comprehensive Plan.

 

 

 

Ms. Sharon Sellito, 215 Cherry Street, stated that she doesn't agree with the zoning amendment.  She thinks it will cause a parking problem for this area.  She also thinks that the proposed structures are placed poorly on the submitted site plan.  She thinks this property should be developed as a single family residence.

 

Mr. Bill York, 100 Pren Tal Way, stated that he owns the Granger Street Apartments adjacent to 384 East Broadway and that parking is a big concern to him.  He thinks the Village needs a formula to determine that they meet a parking minimum on-site.

 

Barbara Franks, 210 East Maple Street, stated she is a business owner and a property owner in the Village Business District.  She feels that the existing parking lot should not be changed, that it should be kept for future parking.  She stated that the Planning Commission and the Village Council have discussed the parking situation in this District numerous times and that it is a serious concern.

 

John Compton, 341 East Broadway, stated that he feels there is a shortage of parking in the downtown area.

 

Dennis Cauchon, 327 East Broadway, stated that the proposed project is not relevant to this zoning change.  He further stated that the draft Comprehensive Plan is also not relevant, only the 1998 Comprehensive Plan is valid.  He stated that he would love to see this property redeveloped into a single family house or a business.  He stated that student housing was a major problem in the Village District in the past.  He stated that the proposed language is too broad.  He submitted a hard copy of his comments to the Staff for the official record.

 

Eleanor Cohen, 331 East Broadway, stated she is unclear what this proposal means and that there should be some clarification.  She wants a tighter package presented rather than just an indication of apartments or condominiums.

 

Ed Vance, 233 East Broadway, stated that he agrees with most everything that has been said at this hearing.  He stated that he thinks there should be zoning specifically for this property only.

 

Lisa McKivergin, 329 East College Street, stated that she is in support of this zoning request as a property owner in the Village Business District.

 

Discussion by the Planning Commission:

Mr. Hawk asked if there is an opportunity to rezone just a single property with these proposed regulations.  Mr. Crites indicated that this was not an option.  Mr. Crites went on to review the three options the Planning Commission has available to them when making a recommendation tot the Village Council.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that he feels that a mixture of residential and business makes sense in the Village Business District.  He does not feel that a first floor residential use makes sense in this District.  Mr. Johnson asked if the Planning Commission could recommend adding additional language to this proposed text change to make it more palatable.  Mr. Crites again indicated that the Planning Commission has an option to make a recommendation to the Council with modifications.  Mr. Ryan discussed the issue of existing non-conforming structures in this District and how this text change would address some of those grandfathered properties.  He stated that he also agrees with Mr. Mitchell's assessment regarding residential uses in combination with other business uses.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the criteria pertaining to Application #2010-126 for a Zoning Amendment:

 

a)         Compatibility of the proposed amendment to adjacent land use, adjacent zoning and to appropriate plans for the area.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't feel that a multi-family use would be compatible and that it should be limited to the second floor.

b)         Relationship of the proposed amendment to access and traffic flow.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he doesn't see any issues with access and traffic flow.  Mr. Ryan stated that parking is a consideration for the zoning change.

c)         Relationship of the amendment requested to the public health, safety and general welfare.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he feels that having businesses on the first floor and residential on the second floor is better.  Mr. Johnson stated that he doesn't think multi-family should be allowed wholesale and would agree with second floor residential.

d)         Relationship of the proposed use to the adequacy of available services and to general expansion plans and the capital improvement schedule.  Mr. Ryan stated that he doesn't feel that it would affect available services or general expansion plans.

 

Mr. Hawk made a motion that Application #2010-126 requesting an amendment to the zoning be recommended for approval to the Village Council.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

The Planning Commission discussed whether there should be an amendment to this motion to further limit two-family and multi-family residential to the second or third floors of buildings.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend the original motion adding the following language:  to allow two-family or multi-family residential uses when the first floor is occupied by commercial.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

The Planning Commission further discussed whether this additional language was a fit when the entire Village Business District is considered, or does it make more sense in only some of the areas.

 

Roll Call Vote on motion to amend:  Mitchell - yes, Burriss - no, Johnson- yes, Hawk - no, Ryan - no.  Motion failed 2-3.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made another motion to amend the original motion adding the following language:  with the condition that for the core Business District from Main Street to Pearl Street, on the north and south sides of Broadway, two-family and multi-family residential uses would be allowed only on the upper floors when the first floor is occupied by commercial.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

Roll Call vote on motion to amend:  Mitchell - yes, Burriss - no, Johnson - yes, Hawk - no, Ryan - no.  Motion failed 2-3.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to table Application #2010-126.  Seconded by Jack Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote on motion to table:  Mitchell - yes, Burriss - yes, Johnson - yes, Hawk - yes, Ryan - yes.  Motion passed 5-0.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-126 with the following stipulations:

 

Old Business:

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-140 (Previously Tabled)

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square wall sign. 

 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Dana Landrum.

 

Discussion:

Mrs. Dana Landrum, 642 Chateaugay Drive, S.W., Pataskala, Ohio  43062 stated that she would like to propose a compromise regarding the concerns that the Planning Commission had over her request to have two additional signs on her building.  She suggested that she do away with the ‘Landrum Cottage’ sign and just place a ‘Bistro’ sign where the former ‘Antique’ sign was located.  She added that she would eliminate the sign over the door.  Ms. Landrum stated that the Planner had suggested, based on the Planning Commission's discussion at the last hearing for her sign application, replacing the wall sign with a projecting sign, but she questions if this would be effective since she is so far set off from the street.  Mr. Ryan stated that the applicant does have a sidewalk sign in place closer to the street.  He went on to say that he prefers the look of a projecting sign.  Mr. Johnson asked what would tell a customer to go to the Bistro versus the Bakery.  He questioned if adding a ‘Bistro’ sign will solve the problem because people don’t know where the bistro is.  Mr. Hawk stated that no retail is going on where the current signage is located, so why have a bakery sign located on the building?  Ms. Landrum stated that she often gives patrons a tour of the bakery.  Mr. Hawk asked if there is any retail going on in the bakery.  Ms. Landrum stated no.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he has the same question as Mr. Hawk on why there is a need to have a bakery sign on the building if there isn’t retail occurring there.  Ms. Landrum explained that when she started the business the bakery was in this building and she had spent over $1,000 having the sign put up and she doesn’t want to take it down now.  Ms. Landrum stated that two matching signs would look very nice back there.  She explained that the idea to open the bistro came after she had already opened the bakery.  Ms. Landrum stated that the Planning Commission suggested having a ‘Bakery' sign instead of what she proposed – ‘Landrum Cottage.’  Mr. Ryan stated that he feels as though there is a sign that would fit in better for the proposed location.  Mr. Mitchell questioned why there was a second application for signage.  Ms. Terry explained that the applicant is requesting that a second sign say ‘Landrum Cottage’  Mr. Hawk questioned if the ‘Bakery’ sign had already been approved by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ryan stated yes.  Mr. Johnson stated that the signage proposed by the applicant will cause additional confusion and he doesn’t see how this will eliminate any current confusion that exists with there being “a lot of signage on some little buildings.”  Mr. Burriss stated that his thought in having a projecting sign with ‘Bistro’ on both sides and placed by the entrance door is that this would offer promotion and clarification for a business with one sign rather than two signs.  He added that the vocabulary of the projecting wall sign hasn’t been used with Ms. Landrum’s business.  He stated that projecting signage has been recommended by the Planning Commission for promoting other businesses in town.  Mr. Burriss stated that when one goes past the proposed wall ‘Bistro’ sign they may not be sure which door is for the bistro.  He explained that the projecting sign could have signage on both sides and would clearly indicate once someone goes back there which door is for the bistro.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he had no problem if the signage said the words ‘Bistro’ and ‘Landrum Cottage.’ Mr. Burriss stated that he wants people to utilize Ms. Landrum’s business and go back there, but he doesn’t feel as though the proposed ‘Bistro’ wall sign on the building will clarify the usage.  Ms. Landrum questioned if she would have to have a drawing made up and come back to the Planning Commission for approval for a projecting sign.   Mr. Ryan stated that if the projecting sign matched the existing signage in terms of color and font – he would have no problem approving the sign this evening.   Mr. Burriss stated that this applicant has spent a great deal of time and money on their existing signage and he would want to make sure that the bracket they choose for the projecting sign is historically appropriate.  He suggested that this could be something that they ask the Village Planner to review before installation.  Mr. Ryan stated that he is not able to approve the proposed wall sign because he feels that it will not fit the criteria that the Planning Commission uses for review.  The remaining member’s of the Planning Commission agreed with Mr. Ryan.  Ms. Landrum indicated that she would be willing to place a projecting sign on the building.  The Planning Commission agreed that their review of the Criteria should pertain to Ms. Landrum’s change in signage to a projecting sign.  Ms. Landrum also indicated that she would be withdrawing her second application (Application #2010-141) from the agenda because she will just need the one projecting sign. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #2010-140 for a Projecting Sign:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

 

 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the projecting sign is consistent with other signage in the Village District and historically appropriate.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the vitality of the district is enhanced by the proposed signage.   

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed projecting sign is historically appropriate for the district.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #2010-140 with the following stipulations:

1)      That the proposed sign should be a two-sided projecting hanging wall sign; and

2)      That the graphics, color, and font be consistent with the approved sidewalk signage; and

3)      That the sign say ‘Landrum Cottage Bistro’; and

4)      That the bracket for the projecting sign be approved by the Village Planner prior to installation; and

5)      That the location of the sign be in facing to the elevation to the north of the door in front of the historical bronze marker – facing East Broadway – (Per ‘Exhibit A’).

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Mitchell, Hawk, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

221 East Broadway – Dana Landrum – Landrum Cottage - Application #2010-141

Village Business District (VBD) – Architectural Review Overlay District (AROD)

The request is for architectural review and approval of a sixteen (16) square foot wall sign. 

 

Discussion:

Dana Landrum requested that the application (Application #2101-141) be Withdrawn.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

New Business:

Application #2010-140: Dana Landrum/Landrum Cottage; Signage

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signage, Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval of Application #2010-140 as submitted by the applicant.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #2010-140. 

Seconded by Mr. Hawk.

Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Hawk, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Motion to Approve Minutes:

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the September 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.  Seconded by Mr. Johnson.  Motion carried 5-0.    

 

Adjournment:  9:25 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Monday, November 14, 2010