GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2006
Members Present, Tom Mitchell (Vice Chair), Jackie O'Keefe, Tim Riffle (Chair)
Tym Tyler, Carl Wilkenfeld
Members Absent: Jack Burriss
Visitors Present, Chris Mays, Debi Walker, Daren Ward, Linda Clark, John E Clark, Deane Cecedin, Scott Klingensmith, Kevin Reiner, Michele Walker, Jeff MacInturf
Also Present: Chris Strayer, Village Planner
The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak
Citizens Comments: none
Minutes of July 24: Page 2, 10th line up: "this proposed setback would be 90…"
Page 2, 2d line up, "...thought more internal sidewalks…" MR.TYLER TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Brian Miller, 204 East College Street - Retaining Wall
The applicant wishes to build a retaining wall with more landscaping, and he provided a sample of material tonight.
Deborah Walker spoke on behalf of the Millers with Darin Ward, contractor.
Mr. Mitchell asked whether they are replacing the wall with this stone and Ms. Walker said the old barn stone will be used, and this will go from the sidewalk to the new front stairs.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked are the stones on the sidewalk and was told No, they are 18" in and they will push it back and it will function as a retaining wall. No trees are coming down.
Ms. O'Keefe asked about the neighbor's sidewalk, and was told the sidewalk was partially the Millers' inspiration, and although this will run along the front property line, it will not abut the neighbor's fence. There are several examples of this stone through the village, i.e., at the Fine Arts Quad.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 06-116 FOR RETAINING WALL AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. MR.WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Day Spa- Freestanding Sign
Mr. Strayer said the applicant wishes to build an aluminum, yellow, purple and black sign of 18 sq.ft. to be located in front of the brick house, not the New Day Spa. It will be set back from the roadway similar to the north side sign location. It will not be lit. An unidentified man said if it is lit, it will be externally. The material is aluminum, textured to look like stone-like a big huge slab. The sign is recessed back into it.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE 06-119 FOR SIGN AS SUBMITTED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Christopher Mays, 404 West Broadway - Garage
Mr. Strayer said the variance for the two-car garage was denied by BZBA and tonight they are submitting new drawings. This falls within the confined of the code and will not require a variance.
Mr. Mitchell asked if he is adding a peak roof, and Mr. Mays said the section between the kitchen and garage will break the flat line. He thought the pitch would be 4 or 5. The roof on the left did not get into the plan, but there is supposed to be a one-foot bump-out on the left side. He said the roof will be gray standing seam.
Brad Schneider, next-door neighbor, voiced his concern about appearance and size and felt Mr. Mays had address these somewhat. It looks like the same dimension but moved 2' over. The square footage has not changed. Mr. Mays has done an excellent job as far as appearance lies, but it still is awfully big. He wrote a position paper on the subject and fears the pleasure of his home will be negatively influenced. A big window in the den and a kitchen window look to the south and their view would be greatly hindered.
Mr. Strayer noted the applicant reduced it by 2', and Mr. Mays said they lost 1½' in the garage, but can't reduce it further since they want to be able to use the upstairs.
Ms. O'Keefe asked whether this will increase the size by 40% and was told Yes. Mr. Strayer said setback is not an issue. The garage will adjoin a one-car garage already on site, but Mr. Mays said they will cut 5' off the old garage and use the structure for lawnmower and wheelbarrow.
Mr. Tyler asked if the garage sits on the same side as the neighbor's garage and Mr. Mays said it is right on the property line and about 40' from the street.
Mr. Tyler asked about the height restrictions and Mr. Strayer said it is 30'; however, in the AROD the restriction is that it be a height consistent with other heights in the area. The highest it can be is 10% higher than the highest structure in the neighborhood. This one is 28" high
Ms. O'Keefe asked if this would be consistent with other houses in the neighborhood as far as massing is concerned, since the intent of the massing ordinance is to have consistency within the neighborhood, and Mr. Strayer said there is a menagerie of different sizes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Wilkenfeld would like to find a way to make the neighbor and the owner happy.
An unidentified woman explained there are a huge tree and a big pine tree, so it would not be totally standing out there by itself. Landscaping has been there for many years and softens the appearance a lot. And the man added there is also a 10' tall hedge.
Mr. Mitchell asked whether the garage floor is on the same elevation as the house floor and was told No, it is lower.
Mr. Wilkenfeld asked whether all material will match, and Mr. Mays said the roof will not be the same material. They originally planned a material to match the roof with it was not economical. The siding and trim will match. Battens and all will match.
Mr. Mitchell asked about the windows and was told the window is already there and one will be relocated to the back of the addition, 6 over 6. The new window will be at the front top of the garage
The size could go over 25%, said Mr. Strayer, but this is already in the AROD so the maximum size is unrelated.
Mr. Mitchell noted references to 1161.02 in the Staff Report which seeks to preserve and encourage good architectural styles: A. It is not stylistically compatible with other structures; B. Does not contribute to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character; C. Does not protect and enhance physical surroundings in which past generations lived.
But Mr. Riffle noted any time you add to a building it cannot upgrade the historical character, and other houses in the area were compared. In this case they are suffering the sins of previous additions
Mr. Mitchell thought you can match what is already there or they can contrast, by way of roofing, etc. With a large mass at one end of this proposal, it is awkward. However, they have done an outstanding job of adopting it to fit within code.
Mr. Tyler thought aesthetically if they comply with all the rules they should be approved, but Mr. Strayer thought differently.
MR. TYLER MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-118 AS SUBMITTED. MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
New Building, South Galway and Newark-Granville Road
Jeff MacInturf presented a revised sketch of a building they propose for a new 16,000 sq.ft. office/medical facility. It's a 2 1/2 story building on a 1.8 acre site. The small 21"windows have been replaced by larger 37" windows to break up the massing.
Mr. Burriss had provided his opinions earlier to Mr. Strayer and they largely had to do with making more interesting the south, or back, side facing the roadway. Mr. MacInturf has talked to Mr. Burriss and explained the plan for the inside and they did not want a faux entrance in the back. They don't want people walking back there. With extensive landscaping it won't be a massive blank wall, and there will be shadow lines and bump-outs, you will see variations.
Mr. Mitchell said if we all had our way we would want that to be the front, but that is the back and the front door is off the parking lot, and for a doctor's office you need the entrance near the parking lot.
Mr. Wilkenfeld liked the larger windows and asked whether there was anything else they could add. Mr. MacInturf said Yes, but it would not conform to the design elements in the community.
Mr. Mitchell asked them to come in with a prospective and was told they are working with the tenant and will get on CAD eventually.
Mr. Riffle wanted to see what people will se when they drive by.
Finding of Fact: MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS FOR ITEMS A,B, AND C. UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE VILLAGE PLANNER'S MEMO OF AUGUST 12, 2006. MR. TYLER SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Next Meetings: August 28 and September 11