GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION February 25, 2002 Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Richard Main, Mark Parris, Richard Salvage Members Absent: Barb Lucier, Carl Wilkenfeld Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Dan Rogers, Barbara Franks, James R. Cooper, Vic Krevinko, Norbert Peiker, L. A. Mead, Clifton Crais, Bruce Westall, Tim Tyler, Lloyd Philipps, Ned Roberts, Melissa Hartfield Citizens’ Comments: None The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Election of Officers to be postponed until the entire Planning Commission is present. Lacking a new chairman, Mr. Salvage chaired the meeting.
Minutes of February 11, 2002: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Dan Rogers, 210 East Maple Street – Two-Story Garage
Once again, due to a lack of quorum this application could not be heard; it remained on the table and will be heard at the March 11, 2002 meeting of the Granville Planning Commission.
Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street – Second Story Addition
Mr. Dorman explained the plans for converting the existing rear addition into a two-story structure over the same footprint. The project involves: (1) raising the roof and adding a new asphalt-shingle roof; (2) repairing and painting; (3) new kitchen and bathrooms; (4) expanding the back yard and adding landscaping; (5) new windows and French door; and (6) demolish the old garage and cement pit. Materials will match those of the existing house. The picket fence will be extended to the house. Clifton Crais appreciated all the assistance the Planning Commission gave him during the work sessions and said he is researching manuals of early 19th century architecture to ensure accuracy. They are not sure about how the addition roof will look on the house, but they want to subordinate it to the existing roof. They will adjust the slope of the roof to fit. They will articulate the primary structure with trim board that matches the existing trim on the west corners of the house. He said they will use the old doors which have been stored in the basement since the former owners renovated the house. He provided details on the plans for windows and roof, etc.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-010 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: (1) THAT ONE OF THE EXISTING DOORS ON THE WEST ELEVATION OR NORTH ELEVATION BE USED FOR THE PROPOSED DOOR ON THE NORTH ELEVATION; 2) THAT THE ROOF ON THE ADDITION DOES NOT GO ANY HIGHER THAN THE ROOF ON THE MAIN PART THAT EXISTS NOW; AND 3) ALL TRIM WILL REPLICATE WHAT IS THERE NOW. MR. PARRIS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Clifton Crais, 234 North Pearl Street - Demolition
The applicant wishes to demolish the existing garage, garage extension, cement pit, and faux roof. None of the structures scheduled to be demolished have any particular historical or architectural features.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-011 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Exempted Village Schools, 248 New Burg Street – Additions
Several additions are planned for the school property: (1) fitness center and locker room; (2) renovation of high school locker bay and TV Production to special education spaces; (3) auditorium, performing arts, administration, commons, kitchen; (4) renovation of middle school classrooms, etc.; and (5) classroom addition at east end of middle school building. The two representatives from MKC explained the details planned for the buildings and showed how they emphasized the new entrance. They are highlighting the fitness center on the north side with glass and low landscaping, incorporating recommendations made by the Planning Commission at a work session. There will be more trees and fewer flower beds. (A report from Tree and Landscape Committee is attached to the application.) Mr. Burriss asked to hear details of the scene shop and was told the door is to be used for deliveries to the shop. There will be access into the scene shop with a rolling door. (Mr. Burriss wondered what would be done with trash and was told it will be picked up on a daily basis and stored inside.) A non-recessed asphalt driveway will allow trucks to get to the building. The door is 12’x14’, perhaps made of metal. Mr. Salvage asked whether there was any thought to disguise the scene shop door and was told it will be a flush panel to be as unobtrusive as possible. The scene shop is in an ideal spot behind the stage. Mr. Parris suggested exchanging the two rooms but was told that would not work. They had to weigh benefits against negatives. Mr. Burriss does not think the scene shop door fits very well. If it must be in the front, facing New Burg Street, maybe it could be articulated differently or downplayed a little more. The applicants have created a rhythm with the spacing of the orchestra room windows, which is not present in the entrance and delivery doors on the other end. Maybe the windows could be shifted a bit toward the door and the door shifted a bit toward the windows. The drawing with the application has only one window, but the applicants want a pair of windows as in the drawing presented to the group. (Jerry Turner, Engineer, has provided his comments for the application, and MKC said they have addressed those.)
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-012, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A REVISED EXTERIOR ELEVATION #10 TO THE VILLAGE PLANNER FOR APPROVAL. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Bryn Du Woods Association, 341 Glyn Tawel Drive – Barn Modifications
Lacking a quorum, Mr. Parris, who was to present the application, requested that the Planning Commission table the application.
Mid-Ohio Development Corporation, 1959 Newark-Granville Road – Signs
Bill Mead, the representative from Mid-Ohio Development Corporation, said they have built 8 buildings at the Offices at Erinwood and now are requesting signage for the ninth building. They want it consistent with the other buildings and are asking for a pair of wall signs at the entrances and an internally lit sign at the north end of the building. While internally lit signs are not permitted, this one would be consistent with the other 8 buildings, but would need a variance. A variance is also needed for the total number of wall signs requested (3), instead of the one that the code allows. The condominium rules specify this type of signage on each building, so that a perspective tenant knows what signage they will get before they lease the space. Mr. Salvage applied the application to the criteria in 1147.03:
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. This is clear. There is not another development like this in the district. It is peculiar to these structures. 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. A literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights allowed on the other buildings. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. We changed the sign code after this was originally approved. D. That the granting of this 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. I do not think anybody else has a situation like this. There is an SBD across the street, but they are not being denied anything. 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.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR APPLICATION #02-015 BECAUSE OF THE CRITERIA STATED PREVIOUSLY. THIS IS TO ALLOW TWO WALL SIGNS AND ONE INTERNALLY LIT SIGN, WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER EIGHT BUILDINGS IN THE DEVELOPMENT. MR.BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-015 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Melissa Hartfield, 220 South Pearl Street – Rear Addition Expansion and Exterior Improvements
Mr. Dorman explained the renovations the applicant is proposing, which are detailed in the application on file. Ms. Hartfield stated that she is not sure the shutters she proposed to reinstall will work. They were going to be an accent, but she may omit them. The Planning Commission members agreed with her. She is trying to convert this duplex back into a single family residence, so she will eventually get rid of the second front door, which was used as access to the second apartment. She described the gable decorations, brackets for the columns and spindles for the railing. She wants to clean up the property without overdoing. The chimney will be removed. Ms. Hartfield described the gable design in detail as well as the window plans. The Planning Commission recommended on either side of the French doors, that she use windows of the same size and with the same spacing. The window pattern will probably be 6 over 6 but should complement the pattern of the French doors. The roof is seamless metal. Mr. Burriss thought she should treat all entry columns the same. There should be fan brackets on both sides of the center column as well. He asked about the skylights in the plan and was told they are no longer apart of the plan.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-016, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) ON THE FRONT ELEVATION, THAT THE FAN BRACKETS BE INCLUDED ON THE CENTER COLUMN OF THE FRONT PORCH; 2) ON THE REAR ELEVATION, THAT THE WINDOWS ON EACH SIDE OF THE FRENCH DOOR BE OF THE SAME SIZE AND SPACING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DOOR; 3) THAT THE NEW REAR WINDOWS WILL HAVE A RECTANGULAR GRID PATTERN, PROBABLY 6 OVER 6, BUT BEING COMPLIMENTARY TO THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL LIGHTS IN THE FRENCH DOOR; 4) THAT THERE WILL BE NO SKYLIGHTS OR SHUTTERS; AND 5) ON THE REAR ELEVATION, THAT THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO INSTALL A GABLE WING ON THE REAR PEAK THAT MATCHES THE ONE ON THE FRONT PEAK AS PROPOSED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian & Leslie Newkirk, 226 East Broadway – Exterior Renovations
Mr. Dorman explained the proposed plans for this project, which has already started. Each of the windows will be replaced with a double-paned window with a 9 over 9 grid pattern. In addition, the replacement doors will have nine lights. The tire tracks of the front parking space will be bricked. An air conditioning unit will be installed near the back steps. The fence will be replaced with a wooden fence. Brian Newkirk said he may come across things as he works which will require further changes. He apologized for not having received the proper permits. He did not realize replacement windows would cause any difficulty. The house has settled and needs to be shored up and plumbed. He will replace side windows later as money becomes available. All the windows will match and be energy efficient. Mr. Salvage asked whether or not the window changes could be done within a year and was told yes. Mr. Burriss’ concern is that this property is in the downtown historic district downtown and asked for details on the bricking of the driveway. It will resemble the Darfus drive across the street and will be a little farther apart to accommodate his truck. Mr. Dorman can review the fence plans.
MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-018, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) THAT THE NEW A/C UNIT WILL BE PLACED UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING BACK PORCH; 2) THAT THE PROPOSED NEW FENCE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING WIRE FENCE WILL BE OF A WOOD DESIGN, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER; AND 3) THAT THE PARKING AREA IN THE FRONT, WHICH IS NOW CONCRETE, WILL BE REPLACED WITH BRICK. THE TRACKS WILL BE THE SAME WIDTH AS THEY ARE NOW, BUT THE SPACING BETWEEN THEM CAN CHANGE NOT MORE THAN THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE EXISTING CONCRETE NOW. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact: MR. PARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR B,C,D,E,F, AND G UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS DETAILED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 22, 2002. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 9:03 p.m. Next Meetings: March 11 and 25
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen