Granville Community Calendar

Planning Minutes 8/27/07


 August 27, 2007



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

Members Absent: None.

Staff Present: Law Director - Mike Crites, Village Planner - Alison Terry, Planning Intern – Lauren Repas.

Visitors Present: Michelle Steinberg, James and Jill Levere, Fred Ashbaugh, Butch Mills, Todd Hultgren, Don Moxley, Tom and Linda Clark. 

The Chair swore in all those who planned to speak. 

Approval of Minutes from July 23, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to accept the minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The motion passed 5-0. The minutes of July 23, 2007 are approved as submitted.

Citizen’s Comments:

Michelle Steinberg, 425 East College Street, inquired if there are any Ordinances or rules regarding property maintenance in the Village Charter. Ms. Terry stated that there are Ordinances relating to weeds/grass height, but nothing regarding structural maintenance. Ms. Steinberg asked if piles of junk are considered a safety issue. Ms. Terry explained that the Licking County Health Department does have some provisions that may apply and it would all depend on the particular complaint. Law Director Crites stated that the Village can file an abatement of nuisance in Common Pleas Court if the issue warrants. Ms. Steinberg asked what the definition of “nuisance” is. Law Director Crites stated that he would be happy to get this definition from the Village Code to her. Ms. Terry stated that if Ms. Steinberg could provide a specific complaint and address of the property, she could look into the matter. Ms. Steinberg asked if the Village has ever considered having rules pertaining to the maintenance of property. Law Director Crites explained that there has been some consideration regarding property maintenance and they are waiting on some specific case law addressing the matter.

Barbara Franks, 121 South Prospect Street, stated that she will be having a blood drive at Footloose on September 17th and is inviting everyone to participate.  

New Business:

121 North Pearl Street, Fred Ashbaugh, #07-053


 The request is for approval to remove an old entry enclosure and to add a handrail to the porch on the north elevation of the existing residential structure. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD). 

 Mr. Ashbaugh explained that the old structure was not original to the home and was added some time later. Mr. Blanchard stated that he had been by the home to look at the foundation and he had no problem approving the application. No other members of the Planning Commission showed objection to the application.   

 Mr. Burris moved to approve application #07-053 as submitted. Second by Mr. Blanchard. 

 Roll Call Vote for Application #07-053: Riffle, Mitchell, Burris, Ryan, Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0. 

 Application #07-053 is approved. 

222 East Broadway, Huntington Bank, #07-054


Mr. Butch Mills stated that he was representing Huntington Bank to request approval to repair the fascia on the drive-through canopy, to remove the trim from the base of the seven existing drive-through columns, and to replace with limestone cladding. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD). 

Mr. Mills stated that he plans to reconstruct the structure exactly as it is, but with new materials. Mr. Riffle asked the proposed height. Mr. Mills stated that the columns will remain at the existing elevation. Mr. Blanchard asked if the columns would increase in size. Mr. Mills stated that they will be 14 inches across the base with the decorative piece. He stated that it is their intent to miter the corners and have a slight overhang. Mr. Blanchard asked if the columns are only located in the drive through area. Mr. Mills stated yes. Mr. Blanchard questioned how they are anchored. Mr. Mills stated that they had a structural engineer investigate this and they are unsure, but they will make sure that the new columns are properly secured.   

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application #07-054 as submitted. Second by Mr. Blanchard. 

Roll Call Vote for Application #07-054: Mitchell, Blanchard, Ryan, Burris, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0.

Application #07-054 is approved.  

Application #07-055 listed on the Agenda for August 27, 2007 was withdrawn by the applicant.

404 West Broadway, Thomas and Linda Clark, #07-056


The request is for approval to replace an existing fence on the west side of the property with a new 42” high white picket, red cedar fence and to remove the existing asphalt driveway and replace with pavers, expanding the driveway at the entrance to the primary structure. The property is zoned Suburban Residential District (SRD-B).

Ms. Terry stated that there is an existing fence that the applicant would like to replace. An example of the proposed fence was included with the application. Ms. Terry stated that the Code does call for blunt edges on the pickets, rather than sharp points that could be dangerous. Mr. Burris stated that the degree of the picket angle should not be sharp, but angled enough to allow water to run off so that they do not rot. Mr. Clark brought an example of the proposed pavers for the driveway. It was stated that these are concrete pavers made to look like granite. Mr. Blanchard inquired on the large pine tree located near the driveway. Mr. Riffle stated that new concrete is notorious for killing nearby trees. Mr. Clark explained that it was his intent to keep the driveway pavers as far away from this tree as possible. Mr. Blanchard stated that the work being done at 404 West Broadway is impressive and he is encouraged with any application wanting to use a wood fence. Other members of the Planning Commission agreed. Ms. Terry stated that as with all cases, she would be inspecting the installation after it is completed to verify that the applicant installed what was approved by the Planning Commission. 

Mr. Blanchard moved to approve Application #07-056 with the condition that the Village Planner inspect an example of the picket fence prior to installing it and that her recommendation on the degree of the angle of the point on the individual picket be adhered to. Second by Mr. Burris. 

Roll Call Vote for Application #07-056: Burris, Blanchard, Ryan, Mitchell, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0.

Application #07-056 is approved. 

205 South Prospect Street, Don Moxley, #07-057


The request is for approval of a single freestanding sign to be positioned at the southwest corner of South Prospect Street and Elm Street. The property is zoned Village Business District (VBD).

Mr. Moxley brought in the sign he intends to use. He explained that he would like to relocate it from the front porch to be a free-standing sign in the front yard.  

Mr. Ryan moved to approve Application #07-057 with the condition that the sign not be placed over 8 feet from the ground. Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote for Application #07-057: Ryan, Burris, Mitchell, Riffle, Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0.

Application #07-057 is approved with the above stated condition.

423 East College Street, Todd Hultgren, #07-058


The request is for approval to install fencing on the northwest corner of the rear yard and for approval to install a paver patio and walkway in the rear yard. The property is zoned Village Residential District (VRD). 

Mr. Hultgren stated that there are already four panels of a fence in place that he would like to extend. Several photos were submitted and the committee agreed that the fence would be best if it matched what was displayed in Exhibit A – with an angled fence. Mr. Hultgren agreed that an angled fence would look best and he would have no problem constructing it in this way. Mr. Steve Mershon, a neighbor, stated that he has no objections to the proposed work Mr. Hultgren would like to do.  

Mr. Burris moved to approve Application #07-058 with the condition that the proposed fence be constructed at a 45 degree angle (as in Exhibit A) and not to exceed 72 inches in height. He also stated that the newly constructed fence should have matching lattice as in the picture (Exhibit A).  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote for Application #07-058: Riffle, Ryan, Mitchell, Burris, Blanchard. Motion carried 5-0.

Application #07-058 is approved with the above stated condition (Exhibit A).  

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


The request is for approval of the following items:

1)      Replacement of worn shingles on the primary structure;

2)      Replacement of deteriorated particleboard 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 (first level) screened porch and second story deck with roof structure;

4)      Replacement of existing garage door. 

The property is zoned in the Village Residential District (VRD). 

Mr. Levere stated that sometime during the last week of May or the first week of June he called the Village Offices and spoke with a female regarding work he planned to do at 426 East College Street. He stated that he was told he didn’t need a permit because he was not expanding the lot coverage and he was using the existing foundation. Councilmember O’Keefe later stated that she doesn’t believe someone from the Planning Office would say that a permit is not required. Mr. Levere went ahead with work at 426 East College Street and the work is now completed. Ms. Terry stated that some of the materials used are not listed on the application. The staff recommendation is to provide additional information relative to the materials used for the screened porch for review and approval by the Planning Commission. She went on to say that approximately 50% of the homes in the area do have vinyl siding. Mr. Blanchard stated that he has some concerns over the situation being that Mr. Levere has done work in the Village in the past and as a responsible business man he should have known better than to proceed without some kind of approval. He went on to say that the material choice does not seem to fit with what is already located in the area. He stated that they also do not encourage the use of vinyl in the AROD district. Mr. Riffle asked if the vinyl is approved or excluded. Ms. Terry stated that the code states that natural material should be encouraged. Mr. Levere stated that he only put vinyl on the garage and there was already vinyl on the home before he purchased it. He stated that a nearby back porch is also made of wood (as his) and it is not protected with paint or polyurethane. Mr. Blanchard, Mr. Riffle, and Mr. Mitchell all stated that they really had no significant problems with the vinyl and it was a good match to the primary structure. Mr. Burris stated that this is a situation that they need to look at as if it is prior to the construction – what would the Planning Commission have approved. He stated that the back porch structure is totally different from the look of the home. Mr. Riffle agreed and stated that they would have asked for the back structure to not stand out as much and match the rest of the home, not just in color, but also in style. Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the structure has been illegally built. Law Director Crites stated that the structure does violate the code without the proper permits. He went on to say that filing a complaint in Common Pleas Court is generally a last result and the Commission can work with the applicant to resolve the matter.    Mr. Levere stated that he has learned his lesson and will work to fix the situation. Mr. Mitchell suggested that they ought to Table the Application and have a work session. The committee discussed the second floor of the porch and stated that it is a new structure. Mr. Blanchard stated that the existing foundation is now supporting a second story and he feels some additional research needs to be done to see if the foundation can actually support this. Mr. Levere answered that he believed the foundation was a frost slab with footing. Mr. Riffle agreed the second level of the porch is an attractive structure, but not on this particular home. He stated that they encourage structures to blend in, rather than stand out. Mr. Levere stated that during the construction, he was made aware by State Farm insurance that railings needed to be installed for insurance purposes because a door opens out onto the roof of the porch. Mr. Levere submitted the letter from State Farm with his application. Mr. Burris stated that the committee seems to have no problem with the garage and he questioned if they could go ahead and approve it and have a work session to work on the back porch. Mr. Ryan suggested tabling the entire application, rather than breaking it up. Law Director Crites was asked if the two matters (garage and back porch) could be separated. He answered that this is not typical, but allowable. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would like to see the applicant resubmit the application with ideas on how to make it match the rest of the primary structure. He stated that he fears this structure could someday come before them for a request to make the structure primary living space – as in a bedroom or kitchen addition.   Mr. Levere asked for suggestions on how to make the structure better match the home. The applicant and the Planning Commission agreed to a work session at the September 10, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Blanchard stated that it is not their intent to halt the restoration process of Mr. Levere. Mr. Levere stated that he is basically done with work on the outside of the home.   

Mr. Mitchell moved to Table Application #07-059. Second by Mr. Burris. 

Roll Call Vote for Application #07-059: Mitchell, Blanchard, Ryan, Burris, Riffle. Motion carried 5-0.

Application #07-059 was tabled.  

Finding of Fact Approvals

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Items A, B, D, E, F, G on the Agenda, and he stated that we find them consistent with the relevant sections of the zoning code as outlined by the Village Planner. Second by Mr. Blanchard. The motion was unanimously approved 5-0. 

Next meeting:

September 10, 2007

Adjournment: 8:35 pm. 

Respectfully submitted by:

Melanie Schott


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.