GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
June 26, 2006
Members Present, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle (Chair),
Members Absent: Tym Tyler, Carl Wilkenfeld
Visitors Present, Doug Wagner, Chris Mays, Mark Clapsadle, Jonathan Wocher, Laura Evans, Jerry Martin, Tom Clark, Ray and Sherry Paprocki, Judith Fisher, Richard Downs
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments: none
Minutes of June 12: MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Doug Wagner, 222 South Main Street, Demolition
Mr. Strayer said we had an informal work session last time because Dr. Wagner could not be present this evening. Dr. Wagner is buying the house next door, and the property was approved for commercial use, 9/13/04, but was never utilized as commercial. This is for demolition of the garage only, as a recommendation to Village Council, to be replaced with parking area to be shared by both lots.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-087 FOR DEMOLITION. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Judith Fisher, 844 Burg Street - Garage and Site Improvements
Mr. Strayer said the variance for setback has been approved by BZBA. The applicant has proposed to relocate the driveway to the south lot line and close the existing access point.
Ms. Fisher said it would be barely visible from the road, maybe just the corner of the building or the roofline. It would have a slab foundation, and there was a need to work with the engineer about run-off. She wants to preserve the front and back space for gardens, and they chose a spot on the east where a retaining wall would not be required. The roof material will be metal shingles. The cottage will be restored to 1938 style, and it will have an identical roof. The driveway is new and will be gravel. The drive to the cottage will be cut off to the left of the service drive to the barn, and they will require a parking pad. They will only have one driveway. She wanted to ask for an extension to the driveway request and keep this driveway open for access at least to the fall because a lot of material will need to be brought in and t would be hard to get it in there with the existing drive. It would be only for deliveries and will have a chain across.
Mr. Burriss asked whether the piers will be removed, and she said they will be relocated. Landscaping will completely close off this stretch and you won't know there is anything back there.
In answer to a question by Mr. Riffle, she said November 1 is the completion date. ADR will oversee the driveway and pad.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-092 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WILL BE PERMANENTLY CLOSED AS OF NOVEMBER 1. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Cheryl Paprocki, 311 East College Street - Deck
Last year she received approval for a 12'x12' patio addition to the back but has decided to put in a deck instead. Also they propose to install a porch stoop off the French doors on west side.
Mr. Riffle asked whether the patio and deck will be the same size and was told Yes.
Richard Downs explained the materials as composite for continuity, and all other railings will be cedar, painted or stained. Roof will have shingles and gable ends.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-093 MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Speedway - Lot Split
The applicant wishes to split the reserve area into 3 separate areas, two of which would be combined into Lots 2 and 3 to increase their lot size in an effort to meet the 40% coverage requirement for any future development. The Law Director said this is of no legal significance as a subdivision without plat, and he should look over our Finding of Fact. This application will simply change ownership. The new parcels will not be buildable.
Mr. Strayer said Arby's is looking at 75% lot coverage, but the maximum is 40%, although in the PCD you can put in whatever you want. Speedway thought they would be wiser to decrease the percentage of lot coverage in this manner. The reserve area is marked in black on the plan along with the amount of acreage involved.
Mr. Burriss asked whether we need to say anything about maintenance, and Mr. Strayer said that would fall under our general maintenance codes. It is not in the ROW-it is a private drive.
Mr. Mitchell wanted to be sure there was mechanism in place to maintain that the area will never be built on.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-096 CONTINGENT UPON: (1) THE LAW DIRECTOR WILL REVIEW AND APPROVE THE DOCUMENT BY WHICH WE ARE APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT AND (2) THE ACREAGE BEING ADDED TO LOTS 2 AND 3 WILL BE FOREVER FREE FROM DEVELOPMENT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Richard Gallagher, 761 Burg Street - new residence
Mr. Strayer said they received a variance from BZBA because they were building into the corner of the lot in the narrowest spot.
A man (Mr. Clapsadle?) said the owners have subsequently purchased more land at the vacant lot next door, which was split between the Gallaghers and the other neighbor, so they are proceeding with the construction. Earlier they received approval for construction, and this is for approval of the two-level house itself. It will be vinyl shake siding, with a hand-sawn look.
MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 06-097 FOR A NEW HOME. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brews. 116 East Broadway - Signs
The application is for two wall signs: (1) across the face of the balcony, 6' long by 6" high saying "Brew's Café" and (2) an internally lit customer convenience sign with hours of business and menu, located where the night drop used to be. The code does not require approval unless it is more than 25% of the total signage, so this does require approval.
Mr. Burriss noted that in the past he has recused himself from considering Brews, but Mr. Strayer said it would not be required in case of a sign.
The code does not allow internally lit signs.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-098 ON THE CONDITION THAT THE SIGN WILL NOT BE INTERNALLY LIT. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Speedway, 1000 Cherry Valley Road - Sign
The applicant wishes approval for the temporary construction sign already in place. It would be up only during construction. GPC has discretion for these types of signs and their timeline. Opening day is to be October 9.
Ms. O'Keefe asked how large the sign is and was told they want 32 sq.ft. Permanent signs are limited to 18 sq.ft.
Jonathan Wocher said the contractor put in the sign before realizing he needed approval, so they are sorry about that. He has also erected a safety sign saying hard hats are required, and Mr. Strayer said this is an exemption
Mr. Mitchell noted that 32 sq.ft. is allowed by the Township, and he does not think it till look out of place. I must be removed when the permanent sign goes up. Mr. Strayer said we have allowed such signs in the past, i.e., NorthStar and realty signs.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-099 ON THE CONDITION THAT THE TEMPORARY SIGN WILL BE REMOVED BEFORE THE PERMANENT SIGN IS ERECTED. MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Timothy Bartlett, 205 S. Prospect Street
The applicant has asked that this be withdrawn for change of use. No action required.
Brews, 116 East Broadway - Balcony Modification
Since Mr. Burriss will have to recuse himself from consideration and we would lack a quorum, Jerry Martin requested tabling until next time.
Christopher Mays, 404 West Broadway - Garage
The application will have to go before BZBA for side yard setback because of a notification error, so GPC cannot grant approval tonight. This will be a work session.
Mr. Mays said at the last meeting GPC was concerned about the overall size, but he is at a loss to enable a smaller garage, and if GPC wants to talk about anything else, he is agreeable. The length of the house concerns Mr. Riffle with so many things being added onto the house. It overwhelms the house and the surrounding areas. He does not have a problem with the design itself, but when you add it to the house it does not flow together as well as it could.
Mr. Mitchell agrees and suggests that it does not conform to A and B of section 1161.02 regarding stylistically compatible structures and contributing to upgrading of the historical character. He does not think it is architecturally compatible with what this commission is mandated to oversee.
Mr. Mays said he has lived in the township 19 years and are doing everything they can to bring this house back to what it was in 1850. A two-car garage would be a necessity for their two cars, rather than street parking. They can't push the plan farther back because there are two huge trees that would have to come down. They want a showplace for Granville. The roofs and trim will all be compatible.
Mr. Burriss asked what they are proposing or hoping to use the second floor for and was told it is for the grandchildren. Mr. Burriss suggested breaking up the front façade of the garage and step one door back to reduce the façade of the garage. He sketched out how it could be improved. He noted that the addition put on awhile ago was poor, and they removed the woodwork. The interior shutters are the only authentic thing left. It's a great house, but we are charged with maintaining integrity.
Mr. Riffle thought Mr. Burriss' plan was better but it was still too big. To give it a better feel, it shouldn't look like an attachment.
Mr. Mays said they are taking off 4' of the front of the existing garage and the rest will become his workshop. There will be a courtyard.
Mr. Burriss has received several calls concerned about the size, and he does not want the addition to overwhelm the original. He recommended another work session.
Mr. Ruffle shows his sketch of possible improvement, separating garage from house, and Mr. Mitchell had a plan also, but it would require removal of a big tree.
APPLICANT WILL RETURN FOR ANOTHER WORK SESSION.
Finding of Fact: MR. BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A THROUGH G UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF JUNE 26, 2006. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Adjournment: 8:30 p.m.
Next Meetings: July 10 AND 24 (Mr. Riffle will be absent on the 24th)