Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 7/9/07

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 9, 2007

Minutes

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

Members Absent:  Jack Burriss

Visitors Present:   Dan Rodgers,  George Fackler, John Noblick, Bill Heim, Doug Porack, Cynthia Ferdley, Sam Sagaria

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

Minutes of June 25:  On Page 3, Line 4, add the verb advised.  MR. RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. 

Citizens Comments:  none

Swearing In:

Old Business:

 

Dan Rodgers, 123 S. Prospect St. – Siding

            MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO TAKE 07-042 OFF THE TABLE.  MR. RYAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

            Ms. Repas said at the last meeting Mr. Rodgers brought in two applications, one was tabled because GPC wanted more clarity on locations of doors and windows and type of siding.   He also asked to remove two of the front six doors and to invite the engineer to talk with us.

            Mr. Rodgers said the building will look the same but it will be new and he showed a sample of the siding he intends to use—12”white or red rough- sawn oak vertical panels with moldings. Mr. Rodgers introduced Doug Porack, Scott Engineer, who explained about the sheer wall, the lateral load, and the doors.  The architect talked about shrinkage and he recommended baffles, but Mr. Rodgers liked the straight siding.  The vapor barrier will be black felt and will not be visible.  Mr. Riffle noted that with a vapor barrier, baffles probably would not be needed.

Mr. Blanchard thinks the concept is nice; however, he is still challenged by the lack of information.  We usually receive details on windows, trim, scale, eaves, gutters, floor size, deck shutters, and corner boards.  Mr. Rodgers said what’s in the building is the way it will look.  Shutters will be new.  He wants to get started on the foundation building.

Mr. Riffle thought he should not count on interim walls for exterior rigidity.  It might present problems later.  Mr. Rodgers said he will have to bring the building up to code.

MR.BLANCHARD MOVED TO APPROVE 07-042 WITH CONDITIONS:  (1) THE SIDING IS 1”X12” WHITE OR RED ROUGH-HEWN OAK; (2) CONCEPTUALLY, ALLOWING MR RODGERS TO REMOVE TWO DOORS FURTHER NORTH AND FURTHEST SOUTH; (3) TWO WINDOWS IN A LARGE LOFT DOOR ON EAST ELEVATION; (4) ONE DOOR ON SOUTH; (5) ONE DOOR ON WEST AND ONE WINDOW; (6) APPLICANT TO PREPARE A COMPLETE SET OF EXTERIOR DETAILS WITH REGARD TO WINDOW SIZES, WINDOW LOCATION, EXTERIOR TRIM, DETAIL TRIM, GUTTER--THINGS TYPICAL OF EXTERIOR DETAIL; (7) PROPOSED WINDOW LOCATIONS ARE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING WINDOW LOCATIONS; (8) CONSISTENT STYLING; AND (9) CONCEPTUALLY HE CAN PROCEED PENDING DETAILED DRAWINGS.  MR. RYAN SECONDED AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

New Business:

 

George Fackler, 2326 Newark-Granville Road – New Structure

            For the new barn-like structure, Mr. Fackler has fulfilled GPC recommendations: on the front and they changed the sizes of the second-level windows:  4x4 in the middle with 3x3 on the outside.  The stone veneer goes to foundation; side windows are the same; the small window is barn-like; and there will be 5 3x6 windows.

            Mr. Blanchard noted that we have a concern:  In the Planner’s note she says all roof pitch shall be 8/12, and Mr. Fackler said the plans reflect GPC’s recommendation.    More discussion ensued about the pitch, and members agreed by consensus that the plans should stand.

            Mr. Blanchard was also concerned about other issues brought up by the Village Planner regarding zoning regulations.  Members discussed each one and agreed by consensus with Ms. Repas that this should be approved anyway because of what the applicant has tried to do to comply with GPC recommendations and because GPC never required these things at work sessions. 

            On Page 8 of the Planner’s memo, Mr. Fackler will cover only 34% of the lot; however, our density requirement is 5,000’ maximum gross square feet per acre.  The code offers a density bonus and he is allowed an additional 5,000 feet if he will keep part of it as open space.  Possibly the area in front could be a garden with bench, etc.

            Mr. Blanchard said the other thing needed is a lighting plan, and Mr. Fackler has talked about duplicating the Granville Milling lights.  He would only light the porch.  It has to be less than 25 foot candles.

            Ms. O’Keefe asked about the horizontal windows and Mr. Blanchard said they were made to look like the windows on the rear.

            Regarding landscaping, members felt confident that Mr. Fackler could come up with a presentable appearance. 

            With regard to paint, Ms. Repas said they are trying to get paint chips. Since the zoning code is out of date, it should have said, “Colors that are pre-approved.”

             MR. MITCHELL. MOVED TO APPROVE 07-018 CONTINGENT UPON: (1) DEDICATION OF OPEN SPACE ADEQUATE TO QUALIFY FOR DENSITY BONUS, AND (1) LIGHTING PLAN MUST BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING CODE.  MR.RYAN SECONDED. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.  

 

 

Erin McClellan, 140 East College St - fence

 

Ms. Repas said the applicant lives in Colorado and they asked her to do this.  It’s for a rental property owned by Denison.  They are asking for a white picket fence and location to be chosen from among the 4 listed at three different locations.

Mr. Blanchard said the fence proposed is white vinyl, which is not a consideration for a fence.  He cannot believe the intention of the zoning regulation, which says nothing about vinyl.  It talks about natural material, but this is shiny.

Mr. Riffle said it is maintenance-free; therefore, less expensive in the long run. 

Ms. Repas said they did take this into consideration, and because it is a rental, the owner needs it to be easy to take care of.  The code asks for no chain link, etc.  As far as other materials go, in the AROD it needs to be compatible with other structures.  She thought the vinyl would not be shiny.

Ms. O’Keefe wondered why they need a fence, and Ms. Repas said they have a dog.  The green fence in the picture is preferred.  There is an old stone wall and they would put the fence along there.

Mr. Bill Hein, neighbor, was concerned about where the fence would be located.  The property has a 12” wall and the lawn rises twice, so where will the fence go and how high will it be, and what about materials?  Materials ought to fit in with other materials in the neighborhood.  There are wrought iron fences nearby.  He feels the owner of the property should make a presentation.

Mr. Mitchell noted that they have given us three suggestions for locations, and members preferred the one in the back.  Mr. Riffle said they must measure height from grade. He likes Location Option #2, side yard from back of carport to front of house. 

Mr. Blanchard thinks the concept is pleasing and he is fond of the scallop style; however, he would require it be cedar or wolmanized instead of vinyl

Mr. Mitchell likes wood better but would accept vinyl.

Mr. Riffle said if we find this is not consistent with what the code says, we can vote or table it.

Ms. O’Keefe thinks vinyl should not be allowed, and Mr. Ryan would not consider vinyl in the front yard.

Ms. Repas said they have looked at other materials, and both Denison and Ms. McClellan liked this.  It would be difficult to require wood because the code says nothing about vinyl.  Members discussed this situation and “natural materials” and determined the code should be reviewed.  Ms. Repas wanted to table this and ask the Law Director if we can specify natural materials.

 

MR.RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE 07-047 WITH THE (1) LOCATION TO BE #2, THE BACK YARD AND (2) STYLE TO BE WEYMOUTH SCALLOP, 42” HIGH.    MR.MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS APPROVED BY MAJORITY WITH ONE NAE VOTE (MR. BLANCHARD).   

Karen Semer, 313 North Granger St. - addition

            John Noblick described the plans.  The applicant wishes to add a second-floor master bedroom and add a new steeper roof with gable over existing single-story living area and existing screen porch.  The footprint will remain the same. The porch is not going to last much longer.  Neighbors to the north and south have big two-story additions.

Mr. Blanchard appreciates the attention to detail; he asked whether they can match the materials and was told they will match as closely as they can

 

MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE 07-046 AS SUBMITTED.    MR. RYAN SECONDED.  MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

Other Business:

            Ms. Repas said we approved Jerry Martin’s application for white lettering with conditions that he brings the other signs into compliance.  But the law director said we must revoke our vote from last week and do a new vote. 

Mr. Riffle does not know how the Law Director can do this, and Ms. Repas noted that our code says nothing about abandoned signs.   He thinks the Law Directors are wrong because once you move out of the building, even though you maintain ownership, and reapply for another application, you start over again.

Mr. Blanchard said everyone hoped the neon sign would be removed  

 

MR. BLANCHARD MOVED TO VACATE THE DECISION OF 6-9-07 RE APPLICATION 07-045.  MR. MITCHELL SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

 (WITH MR. RIFFLE VOTING REGRETFULLY).

 

MR. RYAN MOVED TO APPROVE 07-045.  MR.BLANCHARD SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS  APPROVED BY MAJORITY (WITH MR. RIFFLE ABSTAINING)

Mr. Riffle asked how can we make decisions and have the Law Director change them.  Mr. Repas replied that you cannot condition something that otherwise would be illegal {1189.14, Nonconforming signs}.   Mr. Mitchell said then approval of any sign can be revoked.  Mr. Blanchard noted that Jerry Martin’s answer was to remove application for the dumpster.

            We need an Abandonment Clause.

 

Finding of Fact:  MR. MITCHELL MOVED TO APPROVE FINDINGS FOR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND A,B,C,UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE FIND THEM CONSISTENT WITH RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE CODE AS OUTLINED IN THE GPC AGENDA OF JULY 9.  MR. RYAN SECONDED, AND MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

 

Adjournment:   8:57 p.m.

Next Meeting:  July 9 and July 23

Respectfully submitted,

Betty Hullinger

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.