Granville Community Calendar

GPC Minutes 6/11/2001

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 11,2001

Minutes

Members Present: WJailckkeBnfuerlrdiss, Barb Lucier,Keith Myers,Mark Parris,Richard Salvage, Carl

Members Absent: None

Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner

Visitors Present: Ned Roberts, Sherill Mullins, Dan Rogers B&arbara Franks, Sharon Sellitto, Jim Siegel, Frank B. Murphy, Dave Shurtz, Jim Cooper,Art Chonko, Bob Yonka, Brian Miller, Jim Gorry Citizens'Comments: None

The Chair,Keith Myers,swore in all those who planned to speak.

Minutes of May 29,2001:MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

New Business:

Frank Murphy.33 Wexford Drive - Lot Split

Mr. Dorman said the application is to split Lot 101 and divide it between Lots 102 and 100 in

order to increase the size of these two lots. The previous lot split, approved last December, intended to split some of Lot 100 and add to 101, but it did not work out.

Frank Murphy, who lives at Lot 101, said that this proposal would decrease the total number of

lots by one.

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-055 AS SUBMITTED. MR.

SALVAGE SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Sharon Sellito.215 S. Cherry Street A-pplication Modification

Mr. Dorman stated the applicant wants to modify the previously approved fence and build a white

picket fence in a smaller section ofthe yard. He provided details ofthe fence. Last year the owner ofthe

property,Ms. Sellitto, was going to sell it to another person,for whom the previously approved fence was

designed,but he did not buy it after all. Now the owner,Ms. Sellitto,wants a different fence.

Ms. Sellito added that the big tree would be inside the fence. She may be able to paint the fence

before installing it.

MR..SALVAGE MOVED TO CONSIDER THIS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF THE MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION # 00-088

AS PRESENTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY

APPROVED.

9

Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 2

Denison UniversityC -onstruct a restroom building at the soccer field

Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to construct a restroom building near the soccer

field and lacrosse field. It will be splitface concrete block with asphalt shingles. It will have vinyl siding

and louvers.

Art Chonko said it would be similar to the one on the other side ofthe street. Everything is

compliant with the building codes.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-068 AS PRESENTED MR. PARRIS

SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Edward andDonna Jenkins,327 N.Pearl StreetA -ir Conditioner

Mr. Dorman said the unit will be on the south side,38 %from' the property line.

Edward Jenkins added that it would be on the side. Bushes will shield it from the street,and it

won't be visible from the street.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-070 WITH THE CONDITION THAT

APPROPRIATE VEGETATION BE USED TO SCREEN THE UNIT. MR.WILKENFELD

SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLYAPPROVED.

Old Business:

Shurtz Management,204 Mitnson StreetS i-gns

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO TAKE 01-046 OFF THE TABLE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,

AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

At the last meeting GPC wanted to table this because the applicant was not present to answer

questions. Tonight David Shurtz explained the rationale for the No Parking signs,saying that vehicles

from the construction company and others park there in the grassy area. This is private property and they

don't want cars there. One sign is between the two garage doors, and the other is on the parking lot at the

north side.

Mr. Parris observed that this was originally tabled because it was seen as an obscure location, but

Mr. Shurtz said people park there overnight sometimes and he cannot complain to the police ifthere are

no signs prohibiting parking. The building is not being used now except for storage. When asked whether

he would take down a sign when new tenants arrive,Mr. Shurtz said this is up to his father. It's a narrow

drive and cars have smashed into the culvert several times. Ms. Lucier asked whether one sign might be

sufficient, and Mr. Shurtz stated that people probably don't understand where our property line is, and this

would be a gray area without a sign.

There are two tow-away signs and one business sign. Mr. Salvage is not sure whether this signage

would fall under our rules for variances. He thinks we have allowed for some ofthese under the Ohio

Revised Code. He does not see a need for the variance. People see a parking lot and want to park there.

Perhaps they could remove the business sign.

MR. SALVAGE MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-046 WITH THE CONDITION THAT

Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 3

THE CURRENT BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGN BE REMOVED. SECONDED, MR.WILKENFELD AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Granville Schools.248 New Burg StreetT -woS-torv Addition

Mr. Salvage recused himselffrom this application and presented the application on behalf ofthe school. }

MR..PARRIS MOVED TO TAKE THE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. WILKENFELD

SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

Mr. Dorman said the school would like to have a two-story addition,brick with a metal roof In addition to the high school addition,the first phase would be to extend the asphalt driveway in front of the middle school to the front ofthe high school, which would require a new curb cut. Phase II would be a new addition between the two schools.

Mr. Salvage explained that as part ofthe construction program,the school wants to add to their

science space and to add nine new teaching rooms because of a tremendous growth in the high school

population. There is adequate parking, and the storm water has been planned for.

Ms. Lucier asked whether the parking,in the front driveway extension,was for teachers,students,

drop-offs,or visitors;and Mr. Salvage replied the intention was not to have busses circle around the

building. Some of the additional parking will be for visitors and some for staff. They are encouraging

drop-offs in the rear. With an extra curb cut,Ms. Lucier was concerned about safety for bikers crossing

the road Mr. Salvage said the school wants to increase security after hours so they can only use the main

entrance. The architect said they want to isolate busses from cars. AA*1 46#-

Mr. Dorman said the Tree and Landscape Committee would meet tomorrow night and make their

recommendations to GPC. Jim Siegel added that he had an opportunity to review the plans with Mr.

Dorman and then he went out and paced off some of the area. He had a few concerns about some of the

trees that will be lost as well as some ofthe trees along New Burg where the new curb cut will be.

Regarding some of the species that the landscapers chose,he is concerned about the over proliferation of

ash because of illnesses or insects. He recommends finding a good balance between hardwoods and

ornamentals, adding good color. He said they would lose one and maybe two 5-6-year-old ash trees with

the new curb cut.

Mr. Salvage said the timeline starts this summer, although the construction schedule has not been

finalized. The new intermediate and high school should be ready for the 2002-2003 school year. They will

keep the modular units for another year.

Mr. Salvage requested that GPC consider the addition and the driveway extension separately from

the landscape plan. The architect was told a landscape plan was required and quickly drew one up,

although he would rather have delayed it until a more thorough study could be made. Mr. Myers was

concerned about the foundation plantings around the building and recommended clustering with a rain

strip plan, rather than little bushes,which would require much maintenance. Mr. Siegel agreed.

MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION # 01-054 WITH THE FOLLOWING

CONDITIONS:

1. THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS SEPARATED FROM THIS APPLICATION AND WILL

BE CONSIDERED LATER.

2. THAT MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE POSITION OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY BE

ALLOWED IN ORDER TO SAVE AS MANY EXISTING TREES AS POSSIBLE.

MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED,AND THE MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY. ( MR.

1

SALVAGE HAD RECUSED HIMSELF.)

Work Session:

Dan RogersN -onc-ompliant garage

Mr. Salvage recused himself from this discussion. }

Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 4

Mr. Rogers has filed an application,but this is a work session,said Mr. Dorman. He showed

pictures ofthe current garage and the planned garage.

Ned Roberts,builder,said the main difference is to change to more of a saltbox style and getting

rid of the hip roof idea. The overhang has been redesigned,and the rear windows were changed. The door

will be six-paneled and recessed.

Ms. Franks objected to the roofline. Ned Roberts said they have agreed to do this,and they want

something on paper so they can move on.

Mr. Myers wanted to deal with the roofline. Options are ( 1)hip roofthat matches house or ( 2)a

gable saltbox. Mr. Burriss felt the saltbox was more in keeping with a carriage house for the time period

of the house. In the historic context for a home of the size of the Rogers's, the garage would have been an

out-building;more of a service structure and a saltbox is more in keeping with that. A hip roof is more ,

massive. Lt*<

There 0 was discussion at one point of adding a cornice,and Dan Rogers said that has been in tha

,/'plans from the beginning;he wanted the building to look like the house. There will be brackets to match

the house. Mr.M- pesa»id the structure should be subordinate to the house. Ned Roberts understands about massing They suggested an awning roof like an eyebrow, over

Vt»the sliding garage doors,and that would break up the massing either with a saltbox or hipped roof. Mr. Rogers explained the guttear-ndd-ownspout plan,and it was found acceptable.

Mr. Parris was concerned about windows,setting precedents,and about variances needed. Mr.

Dorman stated that BZBA granted variances-imtialty and they would have to apply for setback and lot

coverage again,depending on what GPC approves. d>ALUL4 /f»4-*.'Z . 0.-2 Z*c1* 4- - Members discussed the issues of deadlines passed and about noncompliance, and the fact that this

property has gone from one Board to another for a long time. The Legal Advisor said they could apply

and apply and apply if nobody approves it. He said he would check into this issue.

Mr. Myers thought the roof was fairly big and he hopes that the roof with brackets and window

detail will improve the odds with a new application and decrease the massing

Mr. Burris said at one point we had an application for the second roof over garage doors and

pedestrian entrance and he is hoping for consistency. They could be detailed more. Let the pedestrian

entrance and the vehicle entrance each stand on their own. Mr. Myers added that if we were to consider

a hip roof and bracket,the doors themselves would need to be brought into the same vernacular and match

the house more. He thought the design was too big for alhed=xeef. n . E* **ry 4«-f L/ -,d-+'' -

Mr. Burris liked the initial plans and considered them more appropriate for the historic elements of

the village, but he is willing to look at any proposal.

Mr. Wilkenfeld said that when you look down the driveway,you don't see the space between the

garage and the house so it almost looks like the garage is an extension from the house and there is nothing

to differentiate them. He also said the existing shed should be removed as part ofthe application.

Mr. Burriss wants to match brackets to those on the house. The more options you can explore in

the drawing, the better offwe will all be. He prefers a hip roof and two windows together and two little

windows on the sides on the second fioor. Paired windows are a good feature and a stronger tie than four

Granville Planning Commission,6/11/ 01, 5

broken up windows.

Mr.Myers summarizes: What he is hearing is that ( 1)GC is Willing appropriate detailing and ( to entertain a hip roofwith probably preferred; 2)a small roofover the garage doors3) )(window patterning on the proposal is aterial on the new hip roofovegr-afa2g2«5§h=au§ld=be=me5t)w*e*need

to see plantings and site plan. Mr. Burriss added 6 etailing ot garage doors,because ifwe are moving towards a complementary structure,we need to look at this;and ( 7)architectural eaves and brackets] ed

Roberts agreed with this summary. 01, U.Cts-Y L_6,4954

Finding of Fact:

MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A, B, C, D (Murphyrr Sellito, Denison, Jenkins)UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A UNDER OLD BUSINESS S·(hultz),

AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE

PLANNER'S MEMO OF JUNE 7, 2001. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

UNDER OLD BUSINESS MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDING OF FACT FOR

ITEM B (School)AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE

VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF JUNE 7, 2001. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE

MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY (MR. SALVAGE WAS RECUSED).

Mr. Wilkenfeld asked the Legal Advisor whether there was anything that could be done by

Village Council or us to prevent setting a precedent in the future. The Legal Advisor said short of

disapproving the application and prosecuting them, and that is about all you could do. Village Council

would have to do that. Punitive aspects have to come from Village Administration. More discussion

ensued on inspection and enforcement, and Mr. Dorman said he does do inspections. The Village did

issue a desist order on Dan Rogers to halt construction, but there was no further penalty.

Adiournment: 9:30 p.m.

Next Meetings: June 25 and July 9

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.