GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION November 13, 2002 Amended Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Richard Main, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Richard Salvage (Chair) Members Absent: Carl Wilkenfeld Citizens Present: Sharon Sellitto, Joe Hickman, Ned Roberts, Scott Hickey, George Evans, Brian Newkirk Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of October 28, 2002: Ms. Lucier brought up a confusing phrase on Page 3, Line 5, about the fact that Mr. Dorman “has the authority to cite…” This topic will be discussed later in this meeting, so approval of minutes was postponed until next meeting.
George & Mary Evans, 126 S. Cherry Street – Fence
Mr. Dorman has initiated a new video system, whereby he photographs a property on the agenda to clarify what the site looks like. This historic wrought iron fence was previously installed next door and before that it was at the Opera House. The fence is 28 ½” high and is about 1’ from the sidewalk. It is already installed, much to the despair of Sharon Sellitto, who had to return to GPC three times with her own application. She thought everybody should be treated the same, and she was surprised to see how quickly the applicant received a permit. Although Ms. Evans said she wanted to install it before it rusted, Ms. Sellitto said it would not have rusted that quickly. Joe Hickman said Ms. Evans came to speak with him and she did try to go through the process, and he wanted to be sure GPC was aware of this fact. He also wanted GPC to try to find a process by which to streamline the application process. Mr. Parris has no problem with the fence but he does have a concern that the applicant did not go through the correct process. We have a lot of applications where people have not received a permit or where they have put up something other than what was approved. One reason for a hearing is so that neighbors may have an opportunity to express their concerns. Ms. Evans did speak to her neighbors, who had no objections. One reason we see so many after-the-fact applications or divergences is that our Village Planner is conscientious about enforcement of the zoning code. Mr. Salvage thinks the fence is fine but it is unfortunate it went through the process the way it did, but Ms. Evans gets credit for trying to go through the Village Manager.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-142. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian & Leslie Newkirk, 226 East Broadway – Identification Sign
Mr. Dorman said the application is for a 2’x 6” hanging identification sign at the back entrance of the front porch for a separate tenant. It will be off white with green lettering to match the Newkirk sign in front. The chain will be the same only lighter in weight. Mr. Newkirk apologized for applying for an after-the-fact permit, but he has done so many things, he didn’t realize he was remiss in this area. The tenant was anxious to have a sign put up quickly. Mr. Burriss noted there is consistency between the two signs. When Ms. Lucier stated that only name and address signs are permitted and this sign below the originally approved projecting sign has an advertisement hanging from it, Mr. Dorman said he and Mr. Salvage discussed this and decided it was suitable. A projecting sign can have commercial messages.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-143 AS SUBMITTED. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Scott Hickey, 212 S. Main Street – Signs
The application is for several signs: (1) new 9.65 sq.ft. sidewalk plastic sandwich board sign in the ROW with attachable panels; (2) In the front of the Elms, a proposed wall sign to be located under Cricket Hall’s sign; (3) another Bakery wall sign to be attached to stairs at the landing; (4) a valance sign on the canopy over the door. Variances will be needed for the oversized sandwich board and total number of wall signs. Mr. Parris noted that for Sign (1), there are so many sandwich boards in town, couldn’t this one be adjusted to fit within the code. The 4 detachable messages with a little handle bring it over 8 sq.ft., and members discussed ways to bring this under compliance. Mr. Burriss was concerned about visibility by cars leaving the Elms parking lot. He suggested eliminating the word ‘THE’ to allow space for the detachable signs, and Mr. Salvage suggested approving the sign conditionally and allowing the Village Planner to approve final design. Regarding the total number of signs for one business, (2) and (3) are incidental entrance signs and could be combined as one sign and are crucial to direct customers to the Bakery. Mr. Burriss wanted Sign (3) moved farther away from the garbage can. MR. PARRIS MOVED FOR THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR APPLICATION #02-144 TO ALLOW 3 VERSUS 1 WALL SIGN AT THE ESTABLISHMENT. IT IS OUR FINDING THAT TWO OF THE SIGNS MAY FALL INTO THE INCIDENTAL SIGNS CATEGORY, BUT WE ARE APPROVING A VARIANCE JUST TO BE SAFE AND LEGAL. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. MR. PARRIS APPLIED THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE TO THE APPLICATION:
A. That special circumstances or conditions exist which are peculiar to the land or structure(s) involved and which are not applicable to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. The building is unique in that it is of multi levels B. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of this Zoning Ordinance would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning district under the provisions of this Ordinance. N/A C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The building was multi-level when he opened his Bakery. D. That the granting the variance will not confer on the applicant any undue privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands or structures in the same zoning district. That cannot happen. E. That the granting of the variance will in no other manner adversely affect the health, safety, and general welfare of the persons residing or working within the vicinity of the proposed variance. No, it would not.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-144 FOR: (1) THE CANOPY SIGN AS IT EXISTS; (2) THE TWO DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AS PROPOSED WITH ONE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE FACE OF THE BUILDING NEXT TO THE STAIRWELL AND THE OTHER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRWELL DIRECTING THE CUSTOMERS TO THEIR ENTRANCE; AND (3) FOR A SIDEWALK SIGN AND WE ASK THA THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THE VILLAGE PLANNER TO WORK OUT FINAL PLACEMENT OF THE REMOVABLE PANELS. AS OTHER SIDEWALK SIGNS IN TOWN HAVE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE AREAS, IT IS FINE THAT THE REMOVABLE PANELS HAVE VARYING MESSAGES; THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE REGULATIONS FOR SIDEWALK SIGNS. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, 118 S. Main Street – Temporary Change of Use
The church wishes to use a portion of the downstairs to temporarily accommodate a consortium of antique and craft dealers (Nest Feathers) from November 16 to December 28. They would use the front door on the south end of the South Main facade. After that time it would revert back to its current institutional use. Village Council approved the temporary change of use last Wednesday, and final approval will be granted by GPC. Ms. Lucier asked whether it would have any signs, and Mr. Parris thought they might need a sandwich board. Temporary signs under 6 sq.ft. are allowed. Temporary contractor signs should also be approved by GPC. Mr. Parris’s objection is that they did not get their sign application in at this time.
MS. LUCIER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-145. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Ned Roberts, 348 E. Maple Street – Renovations
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant wishes to rebuild an existing two-story rear addition and move the existing shed. He does not have a demolition permit yet. Mr. Roberts explained that the new gable roof replacing the shed roof will tie in to the existing roof. New siding will be added to the structure. The shed was built without permit and is partially in the ROW of South Granger Street. Mr. Roberts has agreed to move the storage shed to meet the 10’ setback requirement. He wants to open up the front of the house and put in a foundation and rebuild the walls. He will use the dirt from the excavation to level the new shed area. He explained window and door details with corner detail and wrap trim on windows for GPC members. The siding will be cream-colored vinyl siding. The shingles will be three-panel shingles to match the porch. Mr. Burriss asked whether the shed could be painted to match the siding, and Mr. Roberts said eventually he wants to get rid of the shed and build a garage, but in the meantime he could paint it to match. Ms. Lucier noted that with all the projects he has brought to GPC for other applicants, it’s nice for him to have one of his own.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-146 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE APPROVAL IS FOR THE DEMOLITION AND ADDITION AS THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED IT; 2) THAT THE ADDITION INCLUDING THE MAIN HOUSE WILL BE SIDED WITH A VINYL CREAM COLOR SIDING; 3) THAT THERE WILL BE CORNERBOARD, WINDOW AND DOOR SURROUND DETAILS; 4) THAT THE ENTIRE ROOF WILL BE SHINGLED TO MATCH THE FRONT PORCH; 5) THAT THE SHED WILL BE MOVED TO THE AGREED UPON LOCATION AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY 2003 TO DO THE RELOCATION OF THE SHED; AND 6) THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PAINT THE SHED IN A COMPLIMENTARY COLOR TO THE HOUSE OR TO STAIN IT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Helmut & Evelyne Poelzing, 126 West Elm Street – Modification
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicants wish to apply for a modification to delete the previously approved side garage and extend existing driveway in gravel straight back to the carriage house and install a one-car garage door on it. The woodpile and chicken wire fence will be eliminated. The overhead garage door would start at the window and there would be a small turnaround. They would like to put in a low picket fence around the turnaround and plant flowers around. Also the applicant wants to enclose the existing sunroom on the rear of the house. Mr. Parris asked whether the proposed garage door could blend in with the historic carriage house, and when Mr. Burriss asked whether the entrance could be on the side, the answer was No. He was very concerned about adding a new door to a historic carriage house. It needs to be done sensitively. Ned Roberts is not sure whether applicants would paint the weathered carriage house, but he thought the door could be sectioned and arched. Mr. Burriss wants to see more detail on windows and wants them to put on batten strips on the garage door so it would not show. He would like to see a window in the garage door. He wondered about the appropriateness of a new fence abutting the rustic garage Mr. Salvage thought we should set aside the proposed garage and deal with the rest of the application. They also wish to convert the sunroom and make a four-season living space there. The footprint and roof will not change but it will be enclosed by windows. Ned Roberts, builder, explained that the porch has footers and insulation and they want this area for living space. The siding will match the house. Mr. Roberts explained the details of the double-hung windows with mullions. The front door is single French door. They will use the existing antique door. All windows are 6 over 6.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO FIND MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICATION #01- 028 TO THE HOUSE ARE MINOR MODIFICATIONS. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #01-028M2 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE PROPOSED WORK TO BE DONE ON THE CARRIAGE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED FENCE BE SUBMITTED TO THE PC IN A SEPARATE APPLICATION AS THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION; 2) THAT FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE SUNROOM, ALL WINDOWS WILL HAVE A 6 OVER 6 GRILL PATTERN AND THE DOORS WILL BE 15- LIGHT DOORS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSE; AND 3) THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE ADDING AN ANTIQUE FRENCH DOUBLE-DOOR TO THE WEST ELEVATION. THAT DOOR IS NOT SHOWN ON THE APPLICATION.
Finding of Fact:
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A, B, C, D, AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND ITEM A UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF NOVEMBER 6. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Closing Comments: Mr. Dorman said when people build things they do not have a permit for or modify what they were given permission for, we do have authority to cite them and call them into Mayor’s Court, where it would be determined if a fine was appropriate. They of course would have to come before GPC as well. He will change the application form to make clear such consequences for varying a permit. He would like to put something in the paper to explain what they will be doing. There already is a disclaimer statement, and he will add to it and put it in the approval letter. Joe Hickman said we try to be fair. Seth goes out and spends time working for these things. It’s challenging for us because contractors show up and can only work at a certain time. He wants to hear how GPC feels about this matter. We do need to advertise that enforcement will take place. MR. Salvage said that change is necessary sometimes. After the fact items can be handled administratively as long as they do not violate the code. There are some times when people want to make changes after construction starts, as long as it does not violate code. But we have to be careful about setting precedents. Mr. Parris said it’s not something to require basic approval. Normally the addition of a window is not a great change unless it is a historic building. Mr. Dorman generally just drives by instead of measuring things as long as they look OK. If there are monetary consequences for violating code, it should put a stop to it. Mr. Salvage said the application must say, “I understand that I will be cited and directed to Mayor’s Court for modifications.” Ms. Lucier thought this issue would have the same effect as a traffic citation. Mr. Burriss had three comments: (1) Does something need to go to Mayor’s Court with comment from us about it’s being widely out of acceptance? It could come from the Planner, but there should be some indication of the degree of violation. Mr. Salvage thought Mr. Dorman could present it at Mayor’s Court. (2) When you buy property in German Village, you are given a set of guidelines saying you need approval and this is what you should do. Could a set be given by realtors to buyers? Mr. Salvage said ordinarily they do get a statement like that where there are recorded restrictions. Can such restrictions on record for the historic district be given to all buyers? Mr. Dorman said he was working with Village Council for businesses to tell them who to go to for what, and we could do that here. (3) We need to do a little bit of PR work. “This is done to preserve the wonderful village we have.” It’s a privilege to live here. He does not think some people are aware of inconsistency. In their eyes it may be improvement, but we have to be careful to preserve what is so special. When we deal with issues in noncompliance, the goal is preserving what we have. We must deal with this positively, not punitively. Mr. Salvage wants to put this into the zoning code with possibly a 90-day grace period. Mr. Hickman wants to run this by the Law Director and also Village Council. Mr. Main will take it to V.C. Mr. Main thought a lot of people do not understand the code and are quick to criticize what we do.
Adjournment: 9:35 p.m. Next Meetings: November 25 and December 9
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen