Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 10/1/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

October 1, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes


Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Councilmember Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting), and Tim Riffle (Chair)

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Mollie Prasher – Clerk of Council

Visitors Present: Sharon and Sylvia Sinsabaugh, John Noblick, Kris Harrison, Barbara Franks, Dan Rogers and Dr. Sabato "Sam" Sagaria


Approval of Minutes

Chip Blanchard moved to approve the minutes of September 10 and September 24, 2007. Second by Tom Mitchell. Motion approved. 5-0


Citizen’s Comments:

No Citizen Comments


New Business:

129 West Broadway – Joe and Sharon Sinsabaugh – Application #07-070

AROD and VRD


The request is for the approval of the rebuilding of an accessory structure (garage) on the property. John Noblick submitted the application on behalf of the Sinsabaugh’s. 


Village Planner Terry reported that the original structure was destroyed by fire and the family is requesting to rebuild the structure increasing it by four feet to the south. The Board of Zoning and Building Appeals granted a variance on September 27, 2007 to reduce the western side yard setback to three feet eight inches. The lot coverage will be 37% which is well within the requirement. The proposed style is traditional. The Planning Commission needs to carefully consider the building materials and texture that the applicant proposes for this rebuild and make those materials a condition of approval. The applicant did not indicate the external materials or colors for this project. The exact building materials, texture and colors should be made a condition of approval. 


John Noblick indicated that there would be a second floor attic that would be left unfinished. The space would be used for storage and as an art studio. There will be no other utilities other than electricity as part of the structure. The wall shingles will be shiplap style painted taupe with white trim. The doors selected are insulated, metal, carriage style doors.


Chip Blanchard commented that he would prefer to see cedar used over hardie plank as cedar provides a nicer shadow effect. Mr. Noblick indicated that the hardie plank that was being considered was 5/16 inch. Mr. Riffle indicated that he did not have a problem with either the hardie plank or cedar shingle. 


Mr. Blanchard asked if the proposed trim would be the one inch cedar/redwood. Mr. Noblick answered in the affirmative. 


Mr. Burriss commented that the new garage will be far more decorative and attractive than the previous structure. He asked if the garage roof shingles would match the shingles on the house. Mr. Noblick indicated in the affirmative. Mrs. Sinsabaugh replied that the shingles would be dimensional, shades of gray shingles.


Tom Mitchell moved to approve application #07-070 to rebuild the garage at 129 West Broadway with the following conditions: 1) hardie-plank or cedar shiplap siding with the color to match the house and white trim, 2) to be built per plans submitted, 3) garage doors to be painted per brochure submitted (exhibit A), and 4) shingles to match the shingles on existing rear house addition. Second Mr. Burriss.


Roll call vote for Application #07-070: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. 


Application #07-070 is approved.  


134-136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-071

AROD and VBD


The request is for approval of a window signage to be located on the western most door entrance.


Village Planner Terry reported that the proposed signage is discreet, minimal and oriented toward pedestrian traffic. The sign is appropriate to the architecture of the building. The coloring mirrors that of the door and frame surrounding the window. The coverage of the proposed signage does not exceed the 15% window area coming in at 5%.


Kris Harrison appeared before the Planning Commission for the Corbins. She indicated that the sign would be transparent and allow light through.


Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Terry if the building owner Kristin Darfus was aware of this sign application. Mr. Terry indicated that she had spoken with Ms. Darfus and she had given her approval for the sign. 


Mr. Riffle questioned if the red color in the sign would match the trim color around the door. Mr. Harrison indicated in the affirmative.


Mr. Blanchard moved to approve application #07-071 for 134-136 North Prospect Street for window signage with the condition that the red on the sign match the red on the door and window frame. Second by Mr. Ryan.


Roll call vote for Application #07-071: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. 


Application #07-071 is approved.  


117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria – Application #07-075

AROD and VBD


This application is for the approval of a roof replacement, replacing the slate roof with asphaltic shingles and replacing the tarred roof with a rubber membrane roof.


Village Planner Terry advised that the applicant is proposing a combination of asphalt shingles on one section of the roof and a rubber membrane on the flat section of the roof. There are other structures in the area with asphalt shingles and a portion of the existing roof and garage already have asphalt shingles. The color of the shingles and rubber has not been provided. The Planning Commission needs to carefully consider the building materials, texture, color and historical character of this district, and make them a condition of the approval. 


Mr. Sagaria provided the committee with a packet showing the interior damage due to roofing issues. Water has damaged the attic, second and first floors. The roof currently has four different roofing materials.  The north side of the house, the garage and front porch currently have 3-tab asphalt shingles. Areas that need repair are the south side of the roof, around the chimney and the flat portion of the roof. He would replace the flat portion of the roof with a new rubber membrane. He would rate the condition of the roof as poor to very poor. He intends to install new gutter and downspouts. He would replace the flashing around the chimney and replace or repair the cricket. He did get quotes for repairing the slate portion of the roof of $20,000 or $50,000 to replace the entire roof with slate. He reported that the use of slate would be cost prohibitive. Replacing the roof with asphalt shingles would cost $5,000 to $12,000.   He would ask that the Planning Commission approve his application so he can begin repairs quickly.


Mr. Burriss asked how old was the asphalt section of the roof. Mr. Sagaria thought 5 to 6 years old. Mr. Burris indicated that the committee would recommend replacing the entire roof with a dimensional asphalt shingle that looked like slate. He indicated that as the porch roof and part of the pitched roof portion of the roof are visible from the front of the house, a dimensional shingle would look better. Mr. Burriss asked the condition of the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Sagaria replied that the shingles seem fine except by the chimney. Mr. Riffle indicated that the dimensional slate shingles would only cost 30% to 40% more per bundle. Mr. Mitchell indicated that he would prefer to see the dimensional shingle over the whole house. Mr. Sagaria indicated that he did not intend to reroof the entire house. He only wants to replace the slate portion of the roof with shingles that match the existing asphalt shingles. Mr. Sagaria provided a small sample of the replacement shingle for the committee to view. 


Mr. Blanchard asked Ms. Terry if replacing the gutters was included as part of the application. Ms. Terry indicated that gutters were not included. Mr. Blanchard indicated that Mr. Sagaria had several different gutters styles on the house including K-style and box gutters. He was not comfortable approving gutter replacement as they were not included on the application. Mr. Riffle indicated that the committee cannot vote on gutter replacements as they were not included on the application. Mr. Sagaria stated that if he replaced any of the gutters on his home, he would replace them with like materials.


Mr. Dan Rogers and Ms. Barbara Franks requested to be heard as part of the hearing to discuss the gutter issue. Mr. Riffle indicated that the gutters were not part of this application and the committee would not hear any comments regarding gutter issues. Mr. Rogers became argumentative. Mr. Riffle indicated he would not swear-in the couple. Ms. Terry indicated that they must be sworn in and permitted to speak about issues related to the roof replacement application. Issues involving the gutters could be disallowed. Ms. Terry summoned a police officer to maintain hearing decorum. Mr. Rogers left the hearing. Mr. Riffle swore in Ms. Franks.


Ms. Franks commented that when she applied for a permit to reroof her garage, the committee required her to use the most expensive product, a standing seam roof. Mr. Riffle indicated that her application did not request to use asphalt shingles. Ms. Terry read Ms. Franks approval that indicated their application requested that the roof be replaced with metal materials. Mr. Rogers indicated that he had two products from which to choose—one similar to what was there—a green standing seam—or like the coffee shop on River Road—corrugated roof. He indicated that either product would be fabulous. Council selected the standing seam roof from the products Mr. Rogers provided. Ms. Franks indicated that they could not afford a standing seam roof. She also indicated that she had an issue with the water run-off from the Sagaria’s garage onto her property. Ms. Terry indicated that water run-off would be a civil issue and the Planning Commission could not address that problem.


Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Riffle, Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell all indicated their preference for dimensional shingles that would replicate the look of a slate roof. They also indicated their preference for Mr. Sagaria to reroof the entire house roof. They indicated that his property is a premier property in the historic district of the Village and updates should be reflective of that fact. The flat portion of the roof could be replaced with a rubber membrane. The garage roof would not need to be replaced. The committee estimated that the increased cost of using dimensional shingles could be $700 to $1,100. Mr. Sagaria indicated that the increased cost may not be possible. He also asked how the asphalt shingles that are currently on his roof were approved. Ms. Terry checked the files, but no information was available. Ms. Franks suggested a fiberglass shingle that gave the appearance of slate. The cost of that product was not known, but thought to be relatively inexpensive. Mr. Sagaria indicated that we would be willing to look into the cost of the dimensional shingles; however, if that course of action was too costly, he would only make the necessary repairs using like materials.


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve application #07-075 for 117 South Prospect Street for the roof replacement of the slate roof and the replacement of the tarred roof with the following conditions: 1) the valleys are to be replaced in kind, 2) the existing built-up tar roof areas are to be replaced with EPDM rubbers, and 3) the dimensional asphalt shingles are to be reviewed and approved by staff for the existing slate and shingle roof replacement. Second by Mr. Blanchard.


Roll call vote for Application #07-075: Blanchard, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan and Riffle. Motion carried 5-0. 


Application #07-075 is approved.  


Finding of Fact Approvals


Old Business

426 East College Street - James and Jill Levere - Application #07-059

AROD


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 426 East College Street, Application #07-059, requesting approval of the following items: 1) replacement of worn shingles on the primary structure, 2) replacement of deteriorated particle board siding on detached garage with new siding to match existing siding on the primary structure, 3) replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new screened porch and a second story deck with roof structure; and (4) replacement of existing garage door with the following conditions: 1) replacement of the worn shingles on the primary structure with asphalt shingles, 2) replacement of the particle board siding on the detached garage with vinyl siding to match the vinyl siding on the primary structure, 3) replacement of existing garage door with carriage style doors, 4) replacement of existing (first level) screened porch with new screened porch and a second story deck structure, 5) painting of the exterior of the screened porch to be white including railing, support and T111, 6) division of the screens on the first level porch to be consistent with the submitted photographs labeled exhibits A and B;\, and 7) the soffits would be enclosed consistent with the submitted photographs labeled exhibit C. Second Jack Burriss. Motion approved 5-0.


New Business


129 West Broadway – Joe and Sharon Sinsabaugh – Application #07-070

AROD and VRD


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 129 West Broadway, Application #07-070, to approve the plans to rebuild the detached garage with the following conditions: 1) hardie-plank or cedar shiplap siding color painted to match the house with white trim, 2) built per plans submitted, 3) garage doors to be painted per brochure submitted (exhibit A), and 4) shingles to match existing shingles on rear of house addition. Second Jack Burriss. Motion approved 5-0.


134-136 North Prospect Street – Randy and Tina Corbin – Application #07-071

AROD and VBD


Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 134-136 North Prospect Street, Application #07-071, to approve window signage to be located on the western entrance door with the following conditions that the red on the sign matches the red on the door and window frame. Motion approved 5-0.


117 South Prospect Street – Sabato Sagaria – Application #07-075

AROD and VBD


Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for 117 South Prospect Street, Application #07-075, to approve the roof replacement, replacing the slate roof with shingles and replace the tarred roof with a rubber membrane roof with the following conditions: 1) valleys are to be replaced in kind, 2) existing built-up tar roof areas are to be replaced with EPDM rubber, and 3) dimensional asphalt shingles shall be provided to staff for review and approval of the existing slate and shingle roof. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 5-0.


Next meetings:

October 22, 2007

November 13, 2007 (meeting changed from November 12 due to Veteran’s Day holiday


Mr. Burriss move to adjourn the meeting. Second by Mr. Blanchard. Motion approved 5-0. Meeting Adjourned. 

Employee Payroll / Compensation

The Village has thirty-six (36) full-time employees, 16 regular part-time employees and seaonal employees. Village Personnel Policy

Go to My Pay Stub and login.