GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 11, 1997
Members Present: Maxine Richard Montgomery)K, eith Myers, Lyn Robertson, Members Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Carl Wilkenfeld Absent:
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Scott Rawdon (Sentinel)B, ob Seith, Bob Rutherford, Matthew Kocsis, Mike Kocsis, Bob Pitt, Dave Lipphardt, Steve Miller, Bill Acklin, Joyce and Robert Munro, Matt McGowan, John Reagan, Frank B. Murphy, Janet Park, Thomas and Mary Annette Salpietra, Robert Lyon
Minutes of July 28, 1997:
Page 2, last two lines, delete "double" and add "different door with lots of glass in order to get..." MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED AND MR. MYERS SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: None.
1st Presbyterian Church
Architect John Reagan presented his findings following meet- ings with church members and with Steve Miller, church architect. Mr. Reagan' s firm does a lot of historical jobs, and in a small town it is important to protect what people value. This project requires people working together to meet the needs of the church and of the community, and he appreciates the enormous amount of work the church people have done. This is an extremely difficult site; whereas it is positive that a church needs to expand, the location is a focal point in a small town.
1) His main concern is with the massing and the configuration A bOuf iltdhaebbleuilding outside the lines of the church. Thee--nly feasible 1 / make area is between the two buildings, but it' s important to puritya borfeathkebetween the buildings to maintain the historical church. Granville needs to be very clear what it expects of an applicant.
2) He discussed with church members how the portico would reenforce or detract from the design. A two-story portico is Probably too high; the church would consider a one-story portico.
3) There may be ways to reduce the primary footprint of the baeddiditieonnt,ifiaendd. spaces which could be reduced or reassigned need to He believes that a compromise addition is possible.
Mr. Reagan suggested (1) providing a sketch or a three- pdrimopeonsseiodn. al modeling or CAD drawings so it is easier to see what is 2) GPC needs to make a firm determination about how much control they have and what they will require. They need to
guard against setting a precedent. Consider intensity relative location to the r·'M·ore control can be· exercised because of the location«in' ' town.
Mr. Acklin found the discussion with Mr. Reagan helpful, and his group will return to the drawing board; however, he is con- cerned about the added expense of this step. He said that many focus groups expressed their needs and Mr. Miller fitted them into the general plan. Mr. Myers thought that a front elevation was necessary. A computer-generated model or sketch would be nice, but a simple line drawing might help GPC understand how it will look.
Mr. Reagan further explained his ideas for improving the design of the building, looking at reproducing architecture, etc. It would be easier, he said, to make the whole plan smaller. He
wPaesrhatopsld that &third story or a basement were not .possarble. Educationthey should have considered a reworking of the Chris ian Building. There are locations within this plan that can be rethought to consider how the form of the building addresses the street, the corners, and the existing building. That has not been
driving the scheme. Given the location and historical aspect, these things are critical.
9 05W-o1 0/ CL to theCoEndcuecpattuioanllyB, uMilsd. inRgo,bebretstonththeinfekfss- ot-hf ethp-erobplleamn was itahn _addition 1 aigain9t,1* Mr. Salvage would like the church the , that would take advantage of both buildings. TtohecEondsuicdaetriona plan r -,/C./
building does not have much architecture to represent, and he wthoouuldght that bringing those buildings together architecturally be valid. Mr. Reagan thought either idea could achieve a solution, but a third building would bea- £cordual-between the two -4-#- ecnlehaanrclyedewxiisthtinlogtsforomfsw. indHoewtsh.ought a third floor could be used and FIAA,
Mr. Stansbury summed up the problems and requirements: 1)
the massing, which would also include lot coverage; (2) maintain the original building; (3) parking, but that isn' t a big problem; 4) front view is needed; and (5) provide more sketches. 6)
Consider lowering the portico.'E' hould be two stories high; Mr. RReeaaggaann tthhoouugghhtt it was too grad*for 'Ohat is here. In general, Mr. the amount of programs filled up the space and the building just surrounds the space like a mouse in a maze.
Mr. Salvage did not think this plan was unusual for a church and it was not unusual for Granville, but he wants to see an attractive view as one enters the Village. When one talks about
reducing the massing, how much of a percentage is meant?
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION PENDING RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FROM THE APPLICANT. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
The Glen at Erinwood Phase II, Lots 46, 47, and 48, Frank Murphy
The applicant wishes 47, to re-plat the No Build Zone in Lots 46, and 48, which are located around the cul-de-sac at the northernmost portion of Brennan Drive on the hillside. GPC needs
to decide whether this plan is a minor modification. If so, they can approve this change. Or does it significantly change the
original character of the plan. Mr. Murphy explained his request
for the new line. The owner of Lot 46 would like to move the house baallcokwaway from the hill. Moving the no-build line for Lot 48 would more room. Lot 47 is the main concern, and in changing that line, the other two were changed also.
Janet Park, Lot 48, related that they are about to build on Lot 48 and might need some more room for a deck or patio, but they bmuigilhdt be able to shift the siting to remain within the existing no- zone.
Ms. Robertson stated that buildings need to be sited in breorlahotioodn. to each other; otherwise, you lose your sense of neigh-
Mr. Salvage thought the plan would not change the essential character of the lot line and that GPC can act upon it.
Omar Whisman neighbor to the north, read aloud a letter he had written to the GPC, expressing the fact that the application is unacceptable to him as is because a house would potentially block his view, decrease the value of his property, and amount to a loss of greenspace. Mr. Murphy thought a compromise could be possible, as did Ms. Park. Mr. Salpietra explained the location of his house on Lot 49.
Robert Lyon, owner of Lot 46, stated that from the relative
viewpoint of the houses being close together, on 46 it won' t change where he can locate his house because of the easement. He can' t
move any farther back, but the plan would allow him to build a vpaaltuioe.. He does not believe it would change the view or aesthetic
More discussion ensued on tree lines and no-build zones, and ultimately the parties directly involved were able to come to agreement. Since a patiod/eck is not a structure, it can extend 4o6utwanadrd and then Lot 48 can stay with original no-build line while 47 move back according to plan.
Ms. Robertson reminded the group that "no build" means more than just "no structure. " It includes not doing gardens and mowing. It is to preserve a natural state and protect what is there. Mr. Wilkenfeld agreed and said that changing 40 per cent of that area was not the original plan and did not think this zone should become lawns and patios. Mr. Myers thought the issue less crucial in this location than it might be on a major roadway.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO MODIFY NO-
BUILD LINE ON LOTS 46 AND 47 BUT NOT APPROVE IT ON LOT 48.
MR. MYERS SECONDED, 'AND-IT· WAS UNANIMOUSLY ·APPROVED.
Mr. Wilkenfeld was excused to go home and nurse his bad back.}
Rules and Regulations for GPC. "
Some minor changes were discussed the main consideration on the latest update, and individuals directly was on VIII. F. in regard to the meaning of in affected.W" hen there are a bunch of people affethcetedro.om who want to speak, it' s hard to determine who is Mr. Myers stated that in Columbus there is a rule that
Only six people can speak on an issue, and that forces them to Organize. Mr. Salvage thinks anyone who feels affected should be allowed to speak.
Mr. Myers added that ex parte communication should not be allowed.
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
GRANVILLE· PLANNING COMMISSION AS AMENDED. MR. MYERS SECONDED,
AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE GLEN AT
ERINWOOD PHASE II AS AMENDED AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT; MS.
ROBERTSON SECONDED AND FINDING OF FACT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
10: 15 p. m.
August 25 AND September 8.
GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION