Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 7/12/1999

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA

July 12,1999

1) CALL TO ORDER

2) ROLL CALL

3) CITIZEN'S COMMENTS

4) REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A)June 28, 1999

5) NEW BUSINESS

A) Kathryn & Earnest Tatham -230 South Mulberrv Street

VRD,AROD

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -addition,air conditioning unit,roofing

6) OLD BUSINESS

A)Vicki &Garret Moore -XX South Prospect Street

VRD,AROD #99065

Zoning A&rchitectural Permit E(#0- 55) fe-nce

Applicant wants a 3.5 ft fence in rear instead of 5 ft.

B) Beniamin N&adine Rader 3-11 East College Street

VRD,AROD #99046-tabled

Zoning & Architectural Permit Application -garage & breezeway

7) FINDING OF FACT approvals

8) WORK SESSION

A)GPC-Off-street parking

B) GPC-General parking

9) MEETING ANNOUNCEMENTS

A) Special Meeting for Sign Code revision -July 22, 1999 -7:3Op.m.V-illage Hall 2(nd flo

B) Next GPC Meeting -July 26, 1999 -7:30 p.m. -Village Council Chambers

C) Following GPC Meeting -August 9, 1999 -7:30 p.m. -Village Council Chambers

10)ADJOURNMENT

Memorandum

To: Granville Planning Commission

From. Kath,yn LFimberger.VillagePlanner7g-iv

LindsayMason.htemPlanlier 111'6

Date: July 7, 1999

Re: GPC Meeting on Monday.July 12,1999,7:30 p.m.

New Business

Administrative Actions:

A) Application:

Location:

Applicant:

Zoning:

Use:

99072 -Zoning and Architectural Permit Application

230 South Mulberry Street

KathrynE &rnest Tatham

VRD,AROD

Single Family Residential

Request: Addition to the back of the house,existing metal roof to be replaced by three- tab

shingles,and an air conditioner are requested for approval.

Relevant Sections:

1159.01

1159.03

1161.01

1161.02

1161.05

Village Residential District P-urpose In&tent

Village Residential District D-evelopment Standards

Architectural Review Overlay District P-urposeB &oundaries

Architectural Review Overlay District A-pplication

Architectural Review Overlay District S-tandards and Criteria

Facts:

The applicants would like to construct a 384 (16' x 24')square foot addition at the rear of their home.

The addition would be a one-story structure with white vinyl siding to match that on the existing house

and garage. Dark gray Fiberglas three-tab shingles matching the existing roof would be used for the

addition. and to replace the metal portion on the east side of the main roof. The windows on the south

side will be Anderson vinyl clad.double-hung.similar to the existing windows. The east and north side

windows would be Anderson vinyl clad. casement.with pane treatments.

The air conditioner unit would be on the south side of the addition.but the exact location is yet to be

decided. The unit will be concealed by plantings similar to those already used in the current landscape

design.

Analysis:

The applicants are attempting to improve the appearance and value of their property with the addition

to their home.while trying to be sensitive to the architectural character of the house, the neighborhood,

and the Village.

a) Other house additions have been constructed in the neighborhood. This one appears that it will

blend very well with the existing house so that it will not be very noticeable.

b) By making improvements to their home,the owners are contributing to the improvement and

upgrading of the historical character of the Village Residential District.

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 12,1999

Minutes

Et

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Bernie Lukco,Carl Wilkenfeld,Richard Salvage,Bill Wernet.

Members Absent: Keith Myers

Also Present: Kathryn Wimberger,Village Planner;Lindsay Mason,Intern;Beverly Adzic,Clerk.

Visitors Present: Tom Mellott,Don Rife,Jennifer Utrevis,Vicki Moore, Scott Rawdon,JoAnn Morey,

Kathy Tatham,Ernie Tatham.

Citizens Comments: None

Minutes of June 28,1999.

Page 1: add a period and remove the " but"

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MR.LUKCO SECONDED.

MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

NEW BUSINESS: 6.-

As all of the issues on tonight's agenda are administrative In nature,Mr. Wilkenfeld noted that

anyone wishing to speak to any of the issues must have standing b(effected by a decisionth)·erefore it is

necessary to swear in all those wishing to make a statement. All those wishing to speak wdre swornnby

Vice Chairman Wilkenfeld.

Kathryn & Earnest Tatam,230 S. Mulberry St. -addition,air conditioning unit,roofing.

V

The Tatham's would like to add an addition to the rear of their house,replace the remaining

existing metal roof, and add an air conditioner. Noting the need and opportunity to expand Mr. Tatham

said the plans are in keeping with the fashion and architecture of the rest of the house. J

Mr. Burriss asked the homeowners to consider moving a window on the south side of the

addition as it is rather close to the corner of the house thus restricting the installation of shutters should

one wish to consider this type of change in the future. He explained that the spacing of the windows on

the east elevation had a more comfortable relationship and tlluelevation,looked awkward with its window spacing. 5>1

h

Following a discussion, the Tatham's agreed to relocate the eastern window on the south

elevation to allow for an additional 30 inches from the corner of the house to the window location. The

remaining windows will be symmetrically adjusted. This will accommodate the Planning Commission's

request for the needs of the exterior in addition to the TathaMiterior plans.

LMR.

SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE

APPLICANT RELOCATING THE WINDOWS ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION SO THAT THE

EASTERN-MOST WINDOW IS LOCATED AT LEAST 30 INCHES FROM THE CORNER OF THE

BUILDING AND THE OTHER TWO WINDOWS SYMETRICALLY RELOCATED. MR.LUKCO

SECONDED. APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

t

Planning Commission Minutes

July 12,1999

Page 2

OLD BUSINESS:

Vicki &GarretMoore,S.Prospect St. -3.5 ftfence instead ofthe required 5 ft.

A

The Moore's received prior approval for this application from the Planning Commission on June

28th . The approval was for a 5 ft.fence in the rearyard. TheMoore's have since decided to install a 3.5

ft fenceoth the front and rearyard instead ofthe 5 ft.fence. p

VMR.

SALVAGE MOVED TO AMEND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. MR.LUKCO

SECONIL APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

BenjaminN &adine Rader,311 E. College St. -garageb &reezeway

Mr. Wernet recused himself from discussion of this application.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO REMOVE THIS APPLICATION REQUEST FROM THE

TABLE. MR.LUKCO SECOND. MOTION CARRIED.

Ms. Wimberger noted that this application was presented to the Planning Commission and tabled

during the meeting ofJune 28. The application has since been revised with the addition ofdormers,and a

height adjustment. No variance is required.

Tom Mellott,attorney for the Rader s,referenced a letter ofconcerns from Mr. Kent ( Granville

InnA)t[tachment Al. The Granville Inn is encroaching upon Mr.Rader's property line by approximately

six feet. He stated that although this is not the place to raise the encroachment issue,there is a need to

address Mr.Kent's concerns. The Village requirement for construction is 10 feet from a property line.

The original application requested that construction be four feet from the Granville Inn ( or 10 feet from

theproplinee*excluding the encroachment by the Granville Inn ofsix feetG)i.v'en Mr.Kent's concern,

the Rader s have agreed to a setback of an additional two feet for a total of six feet from the Granville Inn.

The new setback also is aligned with neighboring garages. Aesthetics of the garage and the breezeway

will enhance the value of the property and add to the community.

Jennifer Utrevis,of Granville Inn,stated that they do not wish to cause problems for their

neighbors. There is a safety concern as to how close the rooms on the top floor ofthe inn as well as the

rear wall are in proximity to theRadgear«age. The Inn was not previously aware ofthe encroachment.

The issue offire protection was discussed. Don Rife,ABA Architects,not-that the Ohio

Building Code requires a fire wall if construction is within five feet. As the Rader s have moved their

garage to six feet from the Granville Inn it is no longer required that there be a fire wall installed on the

garage. It was noted that the kitchen inth'e Inn is not located in the part ofthe building nearest the

RadeVSgarage. -'.

d/+ 2/

Th

r

Planning Commission Minutes

July 12,1999

Page 3 tfulL-E.

jizer;

TE*R f MR. SALVAGE MOVED T APPROVE THE APPLICATION TH THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS; 1)THE SOUTI§12! bOF THE GARAGE EA EAST SIX FEET FROM THE

WALL OF THE INN,THE BREEZEWAY IS TO OPORTIONATELY,2)THE

COLOR OF THE ROOF IS TO BE SPECIFIED WITH ACCEPTANCE BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER

PRIOR TO INSTALLATION3„)S_HE SIDING WILL MATCH THE SIDING ON THE EXISTING

HOUSE. MR.LUKCOO(N@g.b§>

APPLICATION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

FINDING OF FACT:

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE FINDING FOR A UNDER NEW BUSINESS

Tatham)A,ND A,B,UNDER OLD BUSINESS M( oore,Rader)AS FORMAL FINDING OF FACT.

MR. LUKCO SECONDED. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

WORK SESSION:

OFF STREET/ GENERAL PARKING

A preliminary draft of the downtown parking plan was reviewed. Suggestions were: center

median on east end of Broadway to conform with existing median on West Broadway (instead offrom

Main St. to Pearl St as proposedt)h;e use of different paving materials s(uch as cobblestone,brick,etc,)

on Broadway f(rom Main St. to Pearl SL no mediano);ne way streets were mentioned as a possible

solution to creating wider street effects;lhere is also a possible need of areas for bus parking. It was noted

that the Bank First National parking lot on N. Prospect is rarely ever used to capacity. Possibly an

arrangement could be made for the use of those spaces for general parking in the Village.

ADJOURNMENT: Mr.Lukco moved to adjourn at 9:15 pm. Mr.Burri.

NEXT MEETING: July 22 7:30pm -Special Meeting for Sign Code revisions.

Robert N. Kent, Owner

Granville Inn, 314 E. Broadway, Granville, Ohio 43023

July 9, 1999

Re:Architectural Review Application

Ben Rader 311 E. College

RECEIVED '

JUL 1 2 1399

VILLAGE OF GRANVILLE

To: Granville Planning Commission:

Jack Burris, Keith Myers, Carl Wilkenfeld, Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage

Bill Wernet

I apologize for not attending your meeting in person, but loni*found out by accident

that the Rader application might be discussed at your July 12 and had prior plans that

take me out of town for a few days. Jennifer Utrevis is my partner and President of The

Granville Inn and will be in attendance on the Inn's behalf.

Our concern with the proposed Rader garage is that it will be directly behind and

extremely close to 2 of the Granville Inn's sleeping rooms and will have an adverse

impact on room rentals.

We are asking the Planning Commission to deny approval for the proposed Rader

garage as it now is sited because it is too close to the northerly wall of the Granville Inn

building. The site plan does not show the distance from the northerly wall of the

existing building to the proposed Rader garage, but it appears to be a separation of

only about 4 feet between the proposed garage and the northerly wall of the existing

Granville Inn building. In addition, the new garage roof overhang protrudes another2%

feet beyond the proposed Rader garage wall bringing the roof edge to within 1 %feet of

the northerly wall of the Inn building. In effect, we would be left with a clear separation

of only 1 %feet between the proposed garage and the Inn building.

While the Radefs site plan indicates the required separation between the property line

and the new structure of 10 feet, we believe that the building line is a more proper line

to consider. The part of the Granville Inn building in contention was built in 1865 and

has overlapped the property at 311 College approximately 6 feet for the past 135

years. We argue that in the spirit of the law the existing Granville Inn northerly building

line should be recognized as the line from which the Raders must set back their

proposed garage as opposed to the property line shown on the tax map and by survey.

The Granville Inn wall facing the proposed Rader garage is stucco, and it is virtually

impossible to maintain without erecting a4%foot wide scaffolding. A clear separation

of 1%feet as proposed does not give us room to properly do that job.

At a minimum, the proposed Rader garage should be set back 10 feet from the

northerly wall of the Granville Inn building.

Sincerely,

Robert N. Kent

f I

ArrW*EN+T A

Robert N. Kent, Owner

Granville Inn, 314 E. Broadway, Granville, Ohio 43023

July 9, 1999

Re: Architectural Review Application

Ben Rader 311 E. College

RECEIVED

JUL 1 2 1399

VILLAGE OFGRANVILLE

To: Granville Planning Commission:

Jack Burris, Keith Myers, Carl Wilkenfeld, Bernie Lukco, Richard Salvage Bill Wernet

I apologize for not attending your meeting in person, but l onl found out by accident that the Rader application might be discussed at your July 12 and had prior plans that

take me out of town for a few days. Jennifer Utrevis is my partner and President of The

Granville Inn and will be in attendance on the Inn's behalf.

Our concern with the proposed Rader garage is that it will be directly behind and

extremely close to 2 of the Granville Inn's sleeping rooms and will have an adverse

impact on room rentals.

We are asking the Planning Commission to deny approval for the proposed Rader

garage as it now is sited because it is too close to the northerly wall of the Granville Inn

building. The site plan does not show the distance from the northerly wall of the

existing building to the proposed Rader garage, but it appears to be a separation of

only about 4 feet between the proposed garage and the northerly wall of the existing

Granville Inn building. In addition, the new garage roof overhang protrudes another2%

feet beyond the proposed Rader garage wall bringing the roof edge to within 1 %feet of

the northerly wall of the Inn building. In effect, we would be left with a clear separation

of only 1 %feet between the proposed garage and the Inn building.

While the Rader's site plan indicates the required separation between the property line

and the new structure of 10 feet, we believe that the building line is a more proper line

to consider. The part of the Granville Inn building in contention was built in 1865 and

has overlapped the property at 311 College approximately 6 feet for the past 135

years. We argue that in the spirit of the law the existing Granville Inn northerly building

line should be recognized as the line from which the Raders must set back their

proposed garage as opposed to the property line shown on the tax map and by survey.

The Granville Inn wall facing the proposed Rader garage is stucco, and it is virtually

impossible to maintain without erecting a4%foot wide scaffolding. A clear separation

of 1 %feet as proposed does not give us room to properly do that job.

At a minimum, the proposed Rader garage should be set back 10 feet from the

northerly wall of the Granville Inn building.

Sincerely,

Robert N. Kent

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.