GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
April 27, 1998
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Carl Wilkenfeld, Keith Myers,
Richard Salvage, Gary Stansbury, Bill Wernet
Members Absent: Betty Allen
Also Present: Reza Reyazi, Village Planner
Visitors Present: Rochelle Steinberg, Robin Bartlett, David
Bussan, Katie Richards, Beth White, Sam Schnaidt
Minutes of April 13, 1997:
Page 2, Line 3, change "renewal" to removal. Under (A)
under County Savings Bank, change to "in.c.h.aracter with the
building and the Architectural Review District.
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: Rochelle Steinberg showed a blueprint of the
parking lot at the old middle school, showing the architect' s
plan for 13 parking spaces. Their group wants the lot moved
closer to Granger Street and the number of spaces reduced to 8
spaces. They want the line of the lot to be contiguous with the
side of the building and no diagonal parking on Granger. The
superintendent wants to keep one area and neighbors are uncomfortable
with that issue and would like that connected with Lots
2 and 3. Please keep in mind what the neighbors want.
Robin Bartlett and Dave Bussan want the people to know that
just tearing down the building doesn' t necessarily improve the
neighborhood. The brick wall is to protect neighbors from bright
David Bussan, 420 East Broadway
The applicant wishes to replace two double-hung windows in
the kitchen with a double-hung bay window (3 windows).Mr.
Bussan explained the treatment under the window. The application
falls within the code.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED.
AFTER A SECOND, MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Katie and Ken Richards, 1034 West Broadway
The applicants wish to add an 18' x21. 6' two-story addition
to the west side of the house. Mrs. Richards gave more details
of the plan. It' s in the TCOD, and Mr. Reyazi' s concern is that
the house is less than 100' but there are provisions to reduce
setback by GPC. It needs to be consistent with the rest of the
neighborhood. Since they are not encroaching further into the
setback, the impact would seem to be minimal.
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE SUBMITTED. APPLICATION AS MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
James and Beth White, 125 West Elm Street
The applicants with to add a white picket fence, 3' high with 2 gates to the front yard. On the right side of the house it will attach to a cement wall. Mr. Reyazi wants the Whites to check on the exact lot lines. Appicants were told to place the finished side of the fence on the outside.
IT WAS MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
David and Becky Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street
The Schnaidts wish to add a three-story addition to the rear of the house for a two-car garage, facing Mulberry Street. They will remove a one-car garage from the site. It will be 10' from
side lot line. The new roof will be lower than the existing
house because of the grade and will tie in below the fascia of the existing house. They propose a 7"12/" pitch, lower than the existing house.
The Thieles, next door, do not want new windows looking into their house. So the plan provides fixtures with shutters and no windows. They plan extra windows on the other sides. Mr.
Schnaidt explained the plans in detail. It will be offset 4' to
the east in order to have less facing on Mulberry and to allow less of a grade into the garage.
The driveway will have a 15 per cent grade, which will be difficult to drive on. A sidewalk shouldn' t be part of the
grade. Mr. Burriss wants to know the distance from the sidewalk
to edge of the garage. Mr. Schnaidt said it was 16'.
Jake Thiele brought up concerns about the height and how to determine setback. In the VRD side yard setback is 10' and front
setback is determined by other houses. This would appear to be a front yard, but others were uncertain. The height is determined
by other structures, and the question is how does this relate to
the Thiele' s house. The application will have to go to the BZBA
for setback. The Thiele house is about 9' from lot line.
Mr. Burriss was concerned about the slate roof, and Mr.
Schnaidt said it was put on around 1901 and is in solid shape.
Roofing material is needed the application.
Mr. Burriss was concerned about drainage, and where downspouts
will go. Mr. Schnaidt said it' s not a good situation now.
There is a PVC tile but he would not tie into it. He described
how the future rainwater would course down to the street. There
will be a drain inside garage door.
Mr. Schnaidt said there is a 6' ROW for the eastern neighbors'
lawntractor; it is Schnaidt property and the plan will not
go into the ROW.
It is up to GPC whether there should be a variance for height. Mr. Salvage asked for dimensions showing distance from existing and proposed structures to see the drop better. Mr. Burriss wanted such a profile to include height of garage door and where floor of garage is. What is the height of the neighbor' s house. Drainage should be on the drawing. The
Thieles were concerned about the chimney. Mr. Schnaidt said it will be a woodburning brick fireplace within interior walls, groooinfg. out to the stack and capped: Top of chimney is 12' from It would be 18' from the Thiele house.
Mrs. Thiele asked about lights on the side of the garage, and Mr. Schnaidt said there would be a bracket fixture. Granville'
s lighting code would enter in here.
They chose one garage door instead of two in order to avoid taking up room with a support in the middle.
Mr. Myers asked about the trees.
Windows were discussed and Mr. Schnaidt is considering an architectural element under the window.
Mr. Myers suggested tabling until we see a cross-section for the driveway, setback for Mulberry, height, relationship to ex- isting house and Thiele house, Elm Street elevation, drainage. The height would not seem to be a concern for GPC. Mr. Reyazi
will inform BZBA of tonight' s discussion before their special meeting on Thursday.
Mr. SALVAGE MOVED TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION PENDING FURTHER INFORMATION FROM APPLICANT. AFTER A SECOND, IT WAS
Applicant will bring in information by the next meeting.
Finding of Fact:
MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR B, C, AND D.
BUSSAN, RICHARDS, WHITE) UNDER OLD BUSINESS AS FORMAL
FINDING OF FACT. MR. MYERS SECONDED, AND FINDING OF FACT
WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Next Meetings: May 26 and June 11.