GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION
February 26, 2007
Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Jackie O'Keefe, Tom Mitchell, Tim Riffle, Carl Wilkenfeld, Jack Burriss
Visitors Present: Jessica Rettig, Walter Palasky, Kevin Zeppernick, Art Chonko, Dennis Cauchon, Steven Grisson, Jim and Joy Jung, Bill Wernet, Seth Patton, Marc and Ginny Clemente, Brian Miller, John Thornborough, Ron Allean, Scott Walker, Jim Siegel, George Fackler, Denny Ghiloni, Pauline Kale
Minutes of January 8: MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Citizens Comments: none
Swearing in of Witnesses:
Kevin Zeppernick, 429 Mt. Parnassus - addition
Mr. Strayer explained that they are asking an addition plus a new 3-car garage to replace the old one. Since it is larger than 25%, it needs to come before the GPC.
Mr. Zeppernick said the house had mold when they bought it, and a condition of sale was to remove it. In the process, they plan to give the house a new personality and a French country feel. Window sizes are all the same, and there will be a new front porch. The roof will be tied onto a small porch.
Mr. Blanchard asked how close it would be to the next building, and Mr. Zeppernick said it will actually be inside the 12' side setback, adding 2' to the existing footprint. It's a steep hill and they will regrade the south side. Mr. Blanchard asked about the grading and water runoff, and Mr. Zeppernick said there had been a retaining wall there for 55 years.
Mr. Burris asked about the siding material, and was told they will match lapboard with hardy pine or something else. Ms. O'Keefe asked about the different roof heights and was told it's for the cathedral ceiling inside
Mr. Blanchard thinks it is a fabulous plan and a vast improvement, and with the investment involved, he is sure the materials will be excellent. Mr. Zeppernick said they have not yet decided on the external material, but he can bring it to the next meeting.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-008 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE EXTERIOR FINISH PACKAGE IS NOT APPROVED AT THIS MEETING, BUT THE PACKAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED BY THE APRIL 23 MEETING FOR REVIEW, AND NO FINISHES WILL BE APPLIED TO EXTERIOR UNTIL IT IS APPROVED. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Marjorie Eckhart - 3400 Milner Road - Lot Split
As instructed by our Law Director in a previous application, a lot split of greater than 5 acres is permitted through the ORC; therefore, we must approve. Although land-locked, the parcels will be accessed through a 20' easement.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-009 AS SUBMITTED; MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Windstream, 131 East Broadway - Sign
Windstream, the new telephone company, is requesting a sign changing Alltel to Windstream above the door.
Steve Grissom, District Manager, explained that they will keep the leaded glass and the new sign will be a little smaller than the original.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-010 AS SUBMITTED. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Jessica Rettig, 111 West College St. - Addition
Ms. Rettig showed a new design for roof pitch with parallel rooflines on the top, which would look better than matching east and west but may not be matching pitch.
Mr. Riffle noted that the drawings do not accurately match the house. When you look to the east of the house, the roof is completely different from what is drawn, but, he noted, it's not as bad as he thought it would be. Ms. Rettig tried to explain the drawings. Mr. Riffle asked about gable vs. hip and she said they would leave one front quarter as a hip and the back as a hip and leave the gable in front. Upon being asked why she would want to do a gable, she replied it would be less obtrusive to the neighbor. Mr. Burris thought with the height it is, the hip makes good sense.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION 06-170 AS PROPOSED WITH THE CONDITION THAT (1) THE HOUSE BE REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING COLORS AND (2) EAST SIDE GABLE IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Walter Palasky, 86 Fairview Drive - Addition
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE APPLICATION OFF THE TABLE. MR. BURRISS SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Originally he wanted to put the addition in the back, but he did not want to put a driveway all the way through the property. He is meeting setback requirements; it will be 65' in the front and 40' in the side setback.
The applicant explained exactly where the building would be located; the front is off Fairview. After measuring carefully, he promises that the trees will remain. There will be swing doors and divided sash windows.
Mr. Riffle noted that it is sitting on concrete footers so they will just bore holes and pour concrete.
MR. WILKENFELD MOVED TO APPROVE 06-161 WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL GO OUT AND DOUBLECHECK THE LOCATION OF THE PLACE UNDER BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AND (2) THE COLOR SCHEME FOR THE BUILDING IS PER PICTURE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT (WHITE BOARD AND BATTEN). MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Benjamin Burton, 224 East Broadway - Signage
The freestanding sign was OK at the previous meeting. It will be black and white, placed on existing pole, and the plastic sidewalk sign will be black, white, and red.
Mr. Conkle said the sign will be inside the sidewalk on the lawn of the ROW. The middle portion will be changeable dry erase, as they are hoping to entice people at the Inn and other places to highlight special events or items for sale similar to other signs in the village. There is no other way to let people know what is going on in that building; a lattice partially blocks the front window.
Mr. Burris thought the sign would look better and be more consistent with other signs if it had a black border, and Mr. Conkey said a one-inch border was his intention.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-002 FOR A FREESTANDING SIGN AND A SIDEWALK SIGN AS PRESENTED. THE FREESTANDING SIGN WILL INCLUDE A ONE-INCH BORDER AROUND THE EDGE. MR. WILKENFELD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
Denison University - Cleveland Hall
Art Chonko said Denison wants to put an addition onto the 100-year-old Cleveland Hall, starting in May.
The architect explained the Greenwich Village firm's history and some of the buildings they have built. The direction they are planning has 4 components: (1) Adapt and reuse the historic building; (2) addition of new studio space; (3) addition of new administrative wing; and (4) a foundry. There will be exterior and interior contrast between the old building and the addition floating on the masonry. They envision lots of light, transparent, translucent with channel glass, on a stone base. They will plant the building into the landscape and build into the hill. On the rear side, stairs will up the building, so it will be a real rear elevation. Four floors are joined together inside.
To a question by Ms. O'Keefe about the stark contrast, he said the contrast is appropriate to the existing building and highlights it. Architects no longer replicate what's there previously. He described the materials, saying the glass has a calming, soothing effect.
Mr. Riffle was concerned about the amount of light from inside coming off the building, thinking the building will glow, even with some diffusion from the channel. The architect reassured him it would not.
Mr. Chonko said they will keep as many original materials as they can.
Mr. Riffle asked how are they going to keep things off the windows, and was told there is not much wall space so they will add screens and pin-up walls.
Mr. Burris thinks this would be an exciting place for an art student, but it's hard to be excited about the flashcube, although he is in favor of the plan.
Upon being asked whether College Street will be made into a promenade, he answered No, they will take it to the Streets and Sidewalks Committee, said Mr. Chonko. Consensus of the group was not in favor of closing off College Street. But Mr. Burriss would consider College Street being paved in a different way.
Mr. Burriss asked whether there was lighting control in the studio and was told not currently, but it works at Sarah Lawrence well. He asked whether the night lighting would be equal elements or glow, with consistency of lighting or a band of light. The man said the lighting plan will be the same on both floors and depend on how the studios are set up. He thinks the two floors will be about even with an R-4 value.
Mr. Riffle would like to see a sample of glass and of siding. It would be helpful to see a cut sheet of lighting. Mr. Chonko said there will be lighting outside, directed down and made very subtle.
There will be no landscaping, noted Mr. Chonko; some trees will be removed and then replaced.
Mr. Blanchard finds the west elevation the most pleasing. The architect said they have a very appropriate solution to dealing with this historic building in this location. The program they wanted was a challenge, and they have solved it very well.
Law Director Gorey explained the public hearing process, as described in 1141.05 and the categories of persons who may be heard: (1) applicant; (2) owner of property that is the subject of the application; (3) owner of property that is adjacent or contiguous; and (4) another person who claims that an injury or prejudice to him or his property if approved or denied. On appeal one of these criteria must be applicable.
Mr. Chonko provided a lighting plan with fixtures, all of which meet criteria. He described the lights and showed where on the building they would be. To see how much light diffuses from the sample, the lights were turned off and a flashlight was beamed through the glass.
Mr. Riffle asked about materials and Mr. Chonko provided a sample of the glass wall. He said the frame is grey and has zinc material which will age in time.
Jack Thornborough (Category 4) is eager to maintain the village's historic district and feels this plan would damage the character of the village. He thinks this is a good plan but does not belong in downtown Granville and does not adhere to the code
Joy Jung said they came before GPC for a porch and were told to make changes and move the skylights. They spent a lot of money to ensure the building would abide by the historic district and feels Denison should adhere to the code, for the lights will shine onto her house at a 90° angle. They will not live long enough for the trees which Mr. Chonko promised to mature.
Jim Jung seconded his wife's concerns, saying he was told that the west side lights were not acceptable because they are in the historic district and would cause light pollution on Broadway. How can Denison avoid light pollution in the historic district with this plan?
Dennis Couchon said the real issue is does it comply with the law, and it clearly does not, particularly in the list of styles in the code.
Mark Clemante and his wife Ginny moved to the village because they knew that Granville had strict architectural rules. He was before GPC with plans to add onto his house and was told GPC had concerns about the fact that his window was not centered. He does not think trees will cover up the Cleveland light, which will shine in his bedroom window. He feels it will hurt his property value.
Ron Abram, chairman of the Art Department, said one of the things they wanted their students to learn is to know they are not creating art in a small studio but to the world at large. The architect thought there should be light beaming out and more transparency. Students will always be conscientious about the world at large outside the windows., He feels they were lucky to have architects who recognize and connect the past and the future in their plans.
Bill Wernet (Category 3 and 4) wants to make sure Jack Thornborough's letter is part of the record, since it talks about stylistic compatibility and improving historic character . He is concerned about his property value since he spent a lot of money on his house and does not like the proposed plan and feels it does not meet 1161 restrictions.
Mr. Chonko said one of the goals of historic reconstruction is that they do not want the building to look like the old part, and they went to a lot of effort to keep the historic integrity of the original building. So it does meet the historic character because they do not want them to compete. It may not be well received, but some believe that it is OK.
Mr. Riffle noted that most of the styles in Granville are considered not appropriate for buildings, and Mr. Thornborough countered that the code was written after they were built. In the AROD we should make an attempt top keep on with the style. Why not put this up on the college campus? What Denison has built recently has been in the style of the college. In this plan students cannot commune with nature anyhow because they can't see through the windows.
Mr. Gorey said the code is ambiguous but fairly clear that given the specifications, GPC is not bound by the styles in 1161 but should be compatible.
Mr. Mitchell noted that if a resident came to us with a "flashcube" request, he suspects GPC would say No. It does not seem like a hardship case to him.
Although he likes the plan, Mr. Wilkenfeld expressed doubts tonight after listening to the residents. This is a great departure and feels Mr. Thornborough's comments are sensible. Isn't there another way to design this plan to everyone's satisfaction? There are many other ways, noted Mr. Riffle, but this is what we are presented with tonight.
Ms. Clemente said Denison is very powerful and this structure is right across the street, so she pleads emotionally for good neighbors who appreciate what their neighbors want and not change the character of the neighborhood.
Paul Jakob thinks this plan is bizarre and does not agree with the ordinances.
Jim Siegel and his wife Nancy have been part of the village for 56 years and he supports all the comments with the exception of Mr. Abram. He would hate to see this construction added to this great building.
Mr. Thornborough thinks there are other possibilities architecturally to build a building that that lets in a lot of light that matches besides this stark modern glass use.
Ms. O'keefe thinks this is a very hard decision, and she understands Denison's philosophy, but we have to follow the code. Mr. Blanchard has expressed specific concerns before and does not feel they have been addressed.
Mr. Wilkenfeld added this is not an easy decision. He likes it but GPC is charged with interpreting the code. "We are good at what we do and this flies in the face of what we do." He owes it to the people of Granville to deny the application.
Mr. Burriss appreciates folks telling us their feelings and he wishes we had people show up at other projects. There are times when decisions are difficult, and part of what we do as a commission is not always going with our personal opinions but together with what we feel is appropriate for the code.
Mr. Mitchell also feels it's a tough decision. He does not like the building but thinks he will vote for it because it does not dilute or damage the integrity of this design. If it was across the street from him, he would vote for it. He is well aware of the historic character and this seems to meet the code because of his interpretation of maintaining the character but not having it match.
Mr. Riffle does not like the building and modern architecture. He has worked with historic preservation people and a decision is difficult. Personal feelings aside, we are bound by the code and our attorney's comments.
MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-003 WITH CONDITIONS: (1) FOR SIDING, USE THOSE FURNISHED TONIGHT AND (2) USE THE LIGHTING PLAN SUBMITTED TONIGHT. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A 3-2 VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD AND MR. WILKENFELD VOTED NAY).
Finding of Fact: MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A,B,C,D UNDER NEW BUSINESS AND A,B, AND C UNDER OLD BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN MR. STRAYER'S MEMO OF FEBRUARY 26. MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAY VOTE (MR. WILKENFELD).
Work Session: George Fackler, Newark-Granville Road
Their power equipment is a big seller and they propose a new barn-like structure to the east of their main building. They will be selling wine. They want to separate the store from the power equipment, and the store will have an awning. For the building it is designed at 4800 s.f., and the maximum is 4000. The second floor is for offices, and there will be an office on the first floor as well.
Mr. Burris said we would be interested in seeing material samples and placement , and he likes the barn-like idea. He feels there should be a more obvious front entrance.
Mr. Strayer said the Village Council needs to approve the demolition, but since it is outside the AROD and building a new building in the exact location, it may not be necessary.
Mr. Fackler will come back on March 26, and we could have another work session before that.
Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.
Next Meetings: March 12 and 26