Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 6/25/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 25, 2007

Minutes

Members Present: Jack Burriss, Tom Mitchell, Chip Blanchard, Jackie O’Keefe, Tim Ryan

Members Absent:  Tim Riffle

Visitors Present:  Christopher Campbell, Wendy Hollinger, Dale Ratcliff, Dan Rodgers, Barbara Franks, George Fackler, Lucas Atwood

Also Present; Mollie Prasher, Clerk of Council; Lauren Repas, Interim Planner

Minutes of June 11:  MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED.  MR. RYAN SECOND. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Citizens Comments:  Dan Rodgers would like us to screen applications and handle minor requests at the Village Planner’s office in order to simplify the procedure.  Ms. Repas stated, the code currently specifically lists tasks that can be handled administratively.

            Ms. O’Keefe will take these concerns to Village Council.

Swearing In:

Old Business:

 

Wendy Hollinger, 444 N. Pearl – Driveway, 07-038

Ms. Hollinger explained the plans underway to create a driveway and 900 sq .ft. parking pad/patio.  Their driveway requires that they must back out onto State Route 661, an unsafe maneuver on the curve.  Most of her neighbors can head out into the street, and they would like to have that privilege as well.  Building a driveway and garage in the back yard proved to be too cost-prohibitive, so a patio and turn-around is planned.  It will have full screening with evergreen shrubs at shoulder height to help keep road dirt from the house. This plan provides privacy to the neighbors also.   They will maintain all existing large trees and plant other vegetation.    On the side where the deck currently is has no access; this plan would allow parking space and stairs and help support the foundation and control runoff. A ramp will enter the house as part of the driveway.  Some excavation or retaining walls may be needed to repair cracked foundation.  This will be determined as they get into the project. 

Dale Ratcliffe added that in the back yard, everybody’s house is graded to allow run-off into their lot.  They will use the same contractor as the Godfreys (next door) used because he knows the concerns about the water.  He said they are going to remove some of the older trees and replace with new trees.  This will be to the neighbor’s benefit as well as theirs.

Mr. Ryan noted that we are considering this because it is in the TCOD.   Ms. Repas said the neighbors have a similar situation and solution.  Cars turn around in the neighbor’s driveway. All the neighbors to the south can access their back yards, and neighbors to the north park in the front.  Ms. Repas said it’s a technicality where you consider the front.     

It seems to Mr. Mitchell that the ordinance says they cannot park in the front, and we will have to construe this as the side, not the front.  Ms. Repas thought part of it would be on the side and part in the front.

Ms. O’Keefe said the safety issue should be considered, and Ms. Hollinger agreed the plan would be safer for cars on the state route.

Mr. Mitchell wondered what surface they will put in and Mr. Ratcliff thought it would be concrete or gravel of darker tone, or blacktop.  Ms. Hollinger added that whatever they do will be determined by price.  They would like to match the existing driveway surface. 

Only one car can park in the drive now, and they would like to park their two vehicles and leave space for a visitor.  There is no street parking.

Mr. Ratcliffe said the existing garage is not useful and has a rotting floor.  They will refurbish it later. The drive flares out at the maple tree.  He noted that there was a fatal accident into the tree several years ago. 

Mr. Mitchell said that since this is not in the AROD, we do not have authority over the driveway, but the Planner can approve it.  He does not like blacktop.   Ms. Hollinger does not like it either, but they want it to look like a patio and want to avoid several different surfaces.  Mr. Mitchell asked whether she has considered driveway pavers with grass.  Mr. Ratcliff said they would have to take them up every six years. They need to be able to shovel snow.

Mr. Blanchard is challenged by the sheer volume of the space.  It exceeds the current size of the drive and parking area.  He is concerned about safety also, but they could take care of that with a turnaround.  Another concern is with the foundation and footings, stating they can achieve all that with the work proposed exclusive of a 20’ parking area and 12’ side drive.  It seems like this is more than merely a turnaround.

Mr. Ratcliffe does not want his mother to have to worry about driving up the driveway.  A family member is in a wheelchair, and he feels they are not asking too much for accomplishing what they want.  They want a patio, not an eyesore.

Ms. Hollinger did look at just remodeling the front, but she found it hard to determine a stopping point.  If they use a curving space with patio, they can make it as nice as possible.

Ms. O’Keefe asked whether they have spoken to the neighbors, and Mr. Ratcliffe said yes, and that they had no objection.  They have had conversations with them about buying a piece of their land. 

Mr. Mitchell said our decision is about whether the parking is appropriate and legal.  The aesthetics are not within our purview, unfortunately, because there will be a lot of paving around the house. 

 

MR.BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 07-38 WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE FINAL PLANS ARE APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE PLANNER.  MR. RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAE VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD).

 

New Business:

 

Jerry Martin, 128 E. Broadway - signage  – 07- 045

Mr. Martin is applying to add white vinyl sign in the front window of Nona’s, saying “Nona Enoteca/Ristorante.” Ms. Repas said he has met all the applicable sections of the code.  Mr. Mitchell asked is Mr. Martin was in compliance with everything else on his building.  Ms. Repas responded in the negative.  She advised the Commission that his restaurant has the non-compling neon sign above the door.  She informed the Commission that they can make a condition of the approval to remove any non-conforming parts of the signage.  Mr. Martin was advised by legal counsel that the sign had been there long enough for it to remain.  However, Ms. Repas reported that with the new application package, all signs can be reviewed as part of the condition of the new approval.  Lucas Atwood asked for clarification regarding the “grandfathering in” of the sign. Ms. Repas said there is a difference between allowing something to stay versus a sign being approved.  Tim Ryan further explained that an application to install the neon open sign was not brought before the Commission, the sign existed prior to the code being updated so the sign was “grandfathered in.”  Now that a new application for signage has been brought to the Planning Commission, the Commission may now review all signage and make a decision that includes signs that are non-compliant.

Mr. Ryan asked whether they will remove the neon “open” sign.  Mr. Martin’s daughter could not answer for her father.  She did indicate that the building was still under the same ownership and that there had been no other changes.  Mr. Ryan asked whether it is more important to have the new sign or the “open” sign.  She again did not have an answer for her father.

 

MR. RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE 07-045 FOR THE NEW WHITE VINYL WINDOW SIGN WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE NEON “OPEN” SIGN BE TAKEN DOWN.  MR. BLANCHARD SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.     

 

Jerry Martin, 116 E. Broadway – Dumpster   07-06-100

Mr. Martin has requested that this be tabled.  Ms. Repas does not feel comfortable talking about this without him present.    He is requesting a change in the dumpster, but it has been built as it was approved.

 

MR. BURRISS MOVED TO TABLE 07-06-100 AS PER APPLICANT’S REQUEST.     MR.RYAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.   

 

Christopher Campbell, 215 N. Pearl Street – deck – 07-44

            The applicant wishes to add a 10’x18’ deck with 4’ railing and stairs leading to the stone patio.    The deck will match existing siding and the white railing will have posts.  Ms. Repas found all standards were met with possible exception of lot coverage, but the lot lines do not line up; they go through the houses.  She estimates the drawing seems to be fine. 

            Mr. Blanchard asked whether he is continuing with the same design as on the front, and Mr. Campbell said on the front there are columns, but it will match the house.  The deck will be similar to the front with no synthetic material.

 

MR BURRISS MOVED TO APPROVE 07-044 AS SUBMITTED.    MR. RYAN SECONDED.  MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

Dan Rodgers, 123 S. Prospect St, remodel – 07-042 (siding) and  07-043 (roof)

            The applicant would like to restore the barn siding on the building to a more historically accurate representation.  They will replace the roof with a metal roof consistent with the building.  They would like to change all the siding to match and be consistent to with wooden panels on all 4 sides.  They will replace all the windows and doors under the siding once it is determined where they were, since the previous owner covered them up.

            Mr. Rodgers said they plan a restoration to an old 1850s barn style look for what was once a blacksmith’s shop.  He has two products from which to choose—one similar to what’s there—green standing seam—or like the coffee shop on River Road—corrugated roof.  Both would be fabulous.

            Barbara Franks added that there is no roof on the front. 

            Ms. O’Keefe asked about the door, and Mr. Rodgers is not proposing to put in the door yet; he wants to decide where it will go. Chris Strayer had told him there would be no problem.  They will take pictures from the inside, and applicants will restore them to their original positions.  Now he is only seeking approval for the siding and roof.

            They will put plywood on the entire structure and cover it with double black paper under the siding.  It will be insulated.

            Regarding the garage doors, the engineer will determine how to assure support.  They will put in a new beam.  The storm windows will open.

            Mr. Blanchard asked whether there will be false doors, and Mr. Rodgers will take out the left and right ones.  Mr. Blanchard said if you don’t know what the siding is, you don’t know the roof and overall plan.  We need more information.

            Mr. Rodgers said that (1) the roof will be corrugated or flat standing seam. GPC members preferred the standing seam.  (2) The siding will be old barn siding, either new or stained or old.  (3) Window trim will be solid wood with raised molding on the corner and around doors and windows.  The way the siding is now will be the same type of thing but the wood will be over it.

            Mr. Mitchell thought that since we have so little definite idea on doors and windows, could this be considered a work session?   He thinks we have enough information as to siding, though, and the roof is OK.   

            Mr. Rodgers said that things change.  He changes things, depending on how he thinks it should look.  The standing seam would work better.  He wants approval on the roof and vertical siding so he can get the paper on, and then he can come back later with future plans.   He will not remove the clapboard; he wants it all to look the same.

            Mr. Burriss asked about the lower door on the east.  Is he proposing both loft doors to be closed, and Mr. Rodgers showed where they would be removed.  The windows will probably be the same kind of window.  The window will open.  He removed the second floor because it was unsafe.

            Mr. Blanchard is all for steering Mr. Rodgers in the right direction and making his time constructive; however, he is apprehensive to giving a green light on exterior finishes about window placement, sizes, trim detail, but he can put in the plywood.  We rely on documentation when we make decisions, but we could make a recommendation for him to continue work. We can ask that the roof be similar to the house’s roof, and Ms. Franks said it will be similar, and they can show a color sample to the Village Planner.

 

MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-043, WHICH STATES THE APPLICANT PUTS NEW METAL ROOF ON THE GARAGE STRUCTURE WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT (1) IT BE STANDING SEAM ROOF; (2) IT WILL HAVE A SIMILAR APPEARANCE TO THE EXISTING STANDING SEAM ROOF OF THE GARAGE AND HOUSE; AND (3) THE VILLAGE PLANNER WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FINAL COLOR AND MATERIAL SELECTION PRIOR TO INSTALLTION.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED.  IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

            07-042:  For the vertical siding Mr. Rodgers wants plywood and paper.  When the roof is on, he can compare what type of barn siding would look good.

            Ms. Repas knows he does not have exact measurements, and questions whether he is going to do it plywood on face?  The answer was Yes.  Then she had a suggestion that he get approval for moving forward with the plywood and weatherproofing and make this contingent on gaining approval on window location, siding, and trim choices.

            Mr. Rodgers said his engineer is waiting for GPC approval for the wall so the contractors can put in the beam and secure the building.  He is asking for floor, door and siding.  The engineer says he has to take out two doors.  The foundation has been under each post.  Walls are turned 2x4s sitting on stone, so he is going to dig a new foundation on three sides.

            Ms. O’Keefe thought it sounds like there are a lot of variables.  It might be simpler for a real plan.

            Ms. Franks said they cannot get that until we have GPC approval.  They need to have the engineer give that information to Newark.  This is the first step.  He wants vertical siding.

Mr. Burriss thinks there is a picture of the blacksmith shop in the museum

Mr. Blanchard suspects that when he talks with Scott, the engineer, he will enable him to leave those 6 doors in. The addition of second-floor deck with solid board on board substrate will give him all the stability needed. The scale of 6 doors is more pleasing than 4.  He does not know he can approve the siding without more information.

            Mr. Rodgers is looking for approval for wrapping the building and allow him to go ahead with the removal.

            Ms. Franks asked whether they could tell him we prefer the 6, and if he can’t, it would be OK?

            Mr. Burriss suggested taking out one door of the 5, which would allow structural stability of the façade.  If that meant the double-hung windows needed to change somehow, that would be OK.  It was suggested that Scott come and talk with us at the next meeting, and Mr. Blanchard suggested tabling the application until then. 

 

MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO TABLE 07-042 AT THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST PENDING CONVERSATION WITH THE ENGINEER.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

Work Session:

 

George Fackler

            Mr. Fackler wants to be on the agenda next time, and tonight he showed new designs for roofline, windows, posts.  Two things are missing:  louvers and lights.  Windows are a little narrower.  The upstairs windows are functional with awnings.

            Mr. Blanchard said the light design needs to be 1/3.  The earlier lighting drawing was more pleasing.  By increasing the roof pitch it reduces the height of windows.

            Mr. Burriss is OK on the rear elevation.  The two windows could be made into three.  He thinks for the hierarchy of the building, the center cupola needs to be bigger with a weathervane, and the two side cupolas should have lightning rods.  

            Mr. Mitchell doesn’t know whether it makes a difference whether there are glass or louvred lanterns.  Mr. Blanchard likes the appearance of a painted panel. With the corrugated steel, the glass lantern is something we don’t want to draw so much attention to.  He thinks it can be a painted piece of wood.

            Mr. Fackler asked about stone on the bottom and was told to consider stick-on stone.

 

Finding of Fact:  MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A,C, AND E UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE GPC AGENDA OF JUNE 25.  MR. BURRISS SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

Adjournment:   8:55 p.m.

Next Meeting:  July 9 and July 23

Respectfully submitted,

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.