GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 2002 Minutes
Members Present: Jack Burriss, Barb Lucier, Mark Parris (Vice Chair), Carl Wilkenfeld Members Absent: Richard Main, Richard Salvage (Chair) Also Present: Seth Dorman, Village Planner Visitors Present: Frits Rizor, Leta Ross, Kevin Reiner, John Noblick Citizens’ Comments: None The Vice Chair swore in all those who planned to speak.
Minutes of March 11, 2002: Reverse second and third paragraph under Election of Officers. Correct spelling of Mr. Burriss’ name in paragraph 3. Mr. Parris noted under the Rogers’ application that we need to know exactly from the drawings how it will look and he has to adhere to that.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MS LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Kevin Reiner, 215 West Broadway – Install Dormers
Mr. Dorman explained that the applicant is doing work on the third floor and would like to add one dormer to the east side and one to the west side. The flat gable dormers will be 8 ½’ wide x 9’ tall with a 3/12 roof pitch. There will be three 4-light windows on each dormer. The dormers will not be taller than the primary roofline. Mr. Reiner added that he needs to add head room in the third floor, which he wants to finish as loft/office with bathroom. The dormer on the west is where the staircase goes up. Materials will match the house and windows are historic and will be functional. Mr. Burriss asked whether there was a relationship between the new windows and those below. Mr. Reiner thought the west window would be centered north of the chimney, but he was not quite sure; they will have to work with the joists that are there. Mr. Burriss hoped the applicant can make it so it does not look like an arbitrary addition. Mr. Wilkenfeld added that this is such a beautiful house that he would like to see a mock-up or drawing of how it will look when it is finished. Mr. Reiner tried to push the dormers toward the back of the house so as not to be obtrusive. Mr. Burriss suggested making the middle window of each dormer a round top, or one dormer with a center round top and one with the middle window square and the two surrounding windows round top. The window pattern on each dormer need not be the same, but they should be consistent with the house. Mr. Reiner has thought of that. Mr. Burriss wants to see drawings or photos showing locations, existing and proposed windows, and how the round tops will look. The applicant requested tabling the application.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO TABLE APPLICATION #02-027 AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jerry McClain Construction, Inc., 170 Pinehurst Drive – Temporary Contractor’s Sign Mr. Dorman said he came across the sign and told the applicant to come in for a permit. The sign is 7 1/4 square feet, sandblasted wood face, grey and black with black wooden posts. Below this sign is a face that states “170 Pinehurst Drive.” The sign will be relocated 15’ from the right of way, and the applicant showed in the picture where it will be sited. Mr. Burriss wished more contractors’ signs looked as good as this one.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION #02-032 AS PROPOSED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Virginia Abbott, 1098 Newark-Granville Road – Driveway Realignment
Mr. Dorman said the Planning Commission approved landscaping and fencing last summer. The proposed modification is to realign the driveway to remove the exaggerated curve, which will also reclaim more green space. Frits Rizor said they would like to move the mailbox post also. It will be black wrought iron to match the fence better. There will be a gate, and he showed on the photo where the box and fence posts would go. The large trees will stay. The driveway will be gated. Mr. Burriss asked for details of the driveway and was told it would be asphalt. Mr. Burriss wants to be sure there is sufficient space for cars on the asphalt without leaving ruts on the grassed edges. The driveway should not feel tight, since there is sufficient room.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION. MS. LUCIER SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #01-095 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY OPENING NOT BE ANY LARGER THAN WHAT NOW EXISTS. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Granville Ross IGA, 484 South Main Street – Revised Landscape Plan around IGA Sign
Mr. Dorman said the sign had to be moved 10’ to the north and there is less room for the originally approved landscape plan, so the applicant is here for a modification of the plan. Mr. Burriss thanked the Ross Family for this sign, which was a lengthy and difficult process, but he feels it exemplifies what the Planning Commission was hoping for. He wants to be sure the source of the light is covered up by landscaping. Ms. Ross said the fixtures still need to be tilted up more. Ms. Lucier asked whether the Tree and Landscape Commission should take a look at this and was told probably not. MR. WILKENFELD MOVED THAT THIS IS A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO APPLICATION #00-154 AS PRESENTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF FACT FOR B UNDER NEW BUSINESS (McClain) AND A AND B, UNDER OLD BUSINESS (Abbott and Ross IGA) AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE VILLAGE PLANNER’S MEMOS OF MARCH 21 AND 25, 2002. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Closing Comments: A. Mr. Dorman suggested changing the code to allow the Village Planner to approve temporary contractors’ signs because there are so many of them. He could address sign design when the application comes in originally. Mr. Parris asked whether the code stated what you cannot have. No, it does not. Mr. Burriss wants to eliminate unattractive hand painted signs on cardboard or plywood. He would like to give applicants a copy of the Jerry McClain sign as example. He likes a single sign announcing the names of all contractors. B. Ms. Lucier wanted to clarify the history of the Rogers application. Village Council never heard an appeal and was never involved in a decision. She presented a memo of history which will be entered into these minutes.
Adjournment: 8:35 p.m. Next Meetings: April 8 and 22
Respectfully submitted, Betty Allen
To: Fellow members of the Planning Commission From: Barbara Lucier Date: March 12, 2002 Subject: Council action regarding the Dan Roger’s application
During our discussion of compliance and enforcement problems regarding the five year Dan Rogers’ application ordeal, Richard Salvage indicated he believed the council had remanded the case back to the planning commission twice.
Because my recollection differed from Richard’s, and because of my concern that others of you might also believe the council had thrown the “hot potato” back to you, I checked the council minutes on Granville’s web site. The minutes indicate only two references to an appeal to the council. The first reference on August 19, 1999 under Committee reports states “In relation to a particular application involving a garage in the downtown area, Mr. Wernet noted that the owner of the property had filed an appeal with Council following disapproval by the Planning Commission. This appeal was withdrawn . The applicant has since pursued the route of modifying the original application. The Planning Commission is considering whether this modification is appropriately before the Planning Commission. The question has arisen, ‘Is it properly a modification or should it be a new application?’”
The second reference on December 1, 1999 under Appeal Hearing Set states “Council received a request from Dan Rogers and Barbara Franks for an appeal of the BZBA decision regarding setback variances for a garage located at 210 E. Elm St. According to the homeowner’s wishes, Mayor Robertson set the appeal hearing for January 19, 1999(sic).”
Although, the January 19 minutes do not refer to this hearing, I remember that the Council received the appeal information and we came to that meeting with the expectation we would hear the appeal. Upon arrival at the meeting, we were informed by Law Director Hurst that the applicants had withdrawn their appeal.
As you see from the record, this case was never remanded from Council to the Planning Commission. In fact, the Council was precluded from taking any action since the applicants always withdrew their appeals.