Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes November 26, 2007

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

November 26, 2007

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Chip Blanchard, Tom Mitchell, Tim Ryan, Tim Riffle (Chair), Melissa Hartfield (filling in for Jackie O'Keefe).

Members Absent: Jack Burriss, Jackie O’Keefe.

Staff Present: Village Planner - Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director – Brandy Maas. 

Visitors Present: Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, Karen Pugh, Lisa McKivergin, Steve Katz, and Constance Barsky.  

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments. 

Minutes of November 13, 2007 – Mr. Blanchard moved to approve the minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan.  The motion passed 4-0.  The minutes of November 12, 2007 are approved as submitted.

New Business:

221 East Elm Street, Steven Katz,  Application #07-085

AROD, VRD

The request is to remove two windows on an accessory structure.    

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Riffle swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Steve Katz.  

Mr. Blanchard inquired if the existing windows are of any historical significance.  Mr. Katz stated no and that they are aluminum windows.  Ms. Terry asked what the existing siding is made of .  Mr. Katz stated that it is a wood composite material. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-085 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-085 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-085 is approved as submitted.  

124 South Main Street, Elisabeth McKivergin, Application #07-093

AROD, VBD

The request is for approval for a replacement sign panel in an existing freestanding sign. 

Ms. Terry stated that the proposed sign did not meet the three color requirement.  Mr. Riffle stated that traditionally the Planning Commission has not considered white as a color.  Ms. Terry stated that this ought to be clarified in the Code.  Ms. Terry suggested that if the application is approved that it should be on the condition that the sign not be internally illuminated.  Whenever an applicant changes the sign panel the sign is required to conform with the existing code requirements - which does not allow internal illumination. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-093 on the condition that the sign no longer will be approved to be internally illuminated.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-093: Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-093 is approved with the condition that the sign no longer be approved to be internally illuminated.  

1257 Cherry Valley Road, Karen Pugh, Application #07-094

PCD   

The request is for approval of a temporary sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry and Karen Pugh. 

Mr. Terry stated that a variance is needed because the proposed sign exceeds what is allotted - being 4ftx3ft.  She stated that the applicant did not specify the time period.  Ms. Pugh stated that she would like to have the sign in place from December 2nd through December 15th.  Ms. Terry stated that typically she has seen areas in the Code that deal with temporary activities, but there is not an area in Granville’s Code addressing this.  She suggested that this should be looked into.  Ms. Terry stated that she has discussed this matter with Manager Holycross.  

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-094 with the condition that the sign is temporary (December 2nd through December 15th) and that it is in keeping with Section 1189.09 of the Code, and that the sign is removed during non-business hours.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-094 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Mitchell (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. Application No. 07-094 is approved with the conditions mentioned above.  

418 West Broadway, John Noblick for Barbara Visintine, Application  #07-095

TCOD, SRD-B

The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new deck.

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry and John Noblick. 

Mr. Riffle stated that due to language in the Code, the Planning Commission is really unable to comment on the architecture.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the proposal is a nice looking structure.  Mr. Blanchard inquired on the outdoor lighting due to the nearest neighbor being only fourteen feet away.  Mr. Noblick stated that the applicant intends to direct this lighting to the parking area. 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve Application No. 07-095 as submitted.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard. Roll Call Vote to Approve Application #07-095 as submitted: Ryan (yes), Mitchell (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0. 

Application No. 07-095 is approved as submitted.  

223 East Elm Street, John Noblick for Keith and Courtney McWalter, Application  #07-096

AROD, VRD

The request is for approval of a two-story addition and new porches.

Swearing in of Witnesses: Mr. Riffle swore in Alison Terry, Kevin Reiner, John Noblick, and Steven Katz. 

Ms. Terry stated that the applicant appears to meet all of the requirements.  She stated that the overall structure will be two feet taller than the existing home.  Mr. Riffle stated that he has concerns over the size of the addition when you compare it to other homes in the area.  Mr. Blanchard stated that with the addition, the length of the home will be approximately 90 feet.  He questioned if the roof structure on the sound end could be eliminated to help with building massing.  Mr. Ryan stated that the depth of the property increases by 9 feet with the proposed addition.   John Noblick stated that he chose a hip style roof so that the addition appears to drop down from the front of the home.  Kevin Reiner, who represents Firmly Planted, stated that the hip style roof allows for flat ceilings, which they felt were more fitting with the inside of the home.  Mr. Riffle stated that it sounds as though the drawings ignore the outside aesthetics of the home to accommodate the inside features.  He stated that he does not see the current designs as fitting the character of the existing home.  Mr. Noblick stated that there is an alley nearby and it is very difficult to view the side of the home from the alley or anywhere on the street.  Mr. Reiner asked if the overall height is reduced– would this be more in keeping with the historical character?  Mr. Noblick stated that a gable roof would be massive from the street view.  Mr. Riffle agreed that it would be massive because the proposed addition is huge.  Mr. Blanchard suggested possibly lining up the windows, lowering the windows, as well as the height of the eaves.  He stated that they could get rid of the hip roof and do a gable end.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he wasn’t sure he agreed with Mr. Blanchard’s suggestions because he fears this would create too long of an unbroken structure.  Mr. Riffle stated that the designs make it appear to be a home that never stops.  He went on to say that the large number of trees that provide privacy could be lost if there was a future ice storm and then nearby neighbors would be forced to look at a massive structure.  Mr. Riffle stated that he is confused why one makes a decision to purchase a home that they know is too small to fit their needs and then want to double it in size.  Mr. Noblick stated that this particular applicant chose this home because of its proximity to downtown Granville and the bike path.  Mr. Noblick asked the Planning Commission members if they prefer to see a hip or gable style roof.  Mr. Blanchard stated that he does not mind the hip roof.  Mr. Blanchard stated that it appears two neighbors are nearby and he questioned if the overall height would be imposing on them when they look out their back door.  Ms. Terry stated that she measured the overall height to be approximately 27 feet.  Mr. Blanchard suggested that the eaves could be lowered two feet and the proposed fire box could also be made smaller to achieve the same goal.  Mr. Riffle stated that there doesn’t appear to be any symmetry with the doors on the sides of the rear elevation.  Mr. Reiner stated that the doors on the sides of the rear elevation were created to create symmetry inside the home and to let light in.  Mr. Riffle noted that the front door on the drawings is different from the existing front door.  He asked if this was being changed.  Mr. Noblick explained that this was simply easier to draw and they are not proposing a new front door.  

Steve Katz, 221 East Elm Street, stated that he is the west next door neighbor.  Mr. Katz stated that when the leaves are off of the trees in the winter season he has a full view of the home on 223 East Elm.  He went on to say that the overall plans for the addition look great and he believes the proposed addition would enhance the applicant’s quality of life.  Mr. Katz questioned if the applicant would be screening in the newly proposed side porch.  Mr. Reiner stated no.  Mr. Katz stated that he would suggest that they consider screening both porches because he has found that without screening his porch would be useless in the summer months due to the mosquitoes.  Mr. Katz asked what the height of the bedroom ceiling would be.  Mr. Reiner answered 9 feet.  Mr. Katz stated that he finds the elevated roof line to be jarring and he would like to see the same roof height maintained throughout the home.  He stated that he would not like to see the back structure significantly bigger than the front of the home because it would appear as though the home is on the lot backwards.  Mr. Katz stated that the columns on the porch addition look too massive and out of scale for a historical porch and he would suggest 6x6 columns instead. 

Mr. Reiner asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the proposed windows on the back side of the addition.  He stated that some of the windows are smaller due to there being a bathroom in that area.  Mr. Riffle stated that the existing windows appear odd that they do not line up, but this is likely the result of several previous additions.  Mr. Reiner questioned if the members of the Planning Commission are comfortable with the proposed materials.  There were no comments on the use of materials presented.  Mayor Hartfield questioned the total square footage of the home before and after the addition and the percentage change in massing.  Ms. Terry stated that the existing home is 2939 square feet and after the addition it would be 3693 square feet – which is 20% massing.    

Mr. Riffle stated that the applicant has two choices.  They can request to have the application tabled for consideration at the next meeting on December 10th, or they can ask the Commission to vote on the application as presented this evening.  Mr. Reiner and Mr. Noblick stated that they would like to request that the application be tabled.  

Mr. Blanchard moved to Table Application No. 07-096 per the applicant’s request.  Seconded by Mr. Ryan. Roll Call Vote to Table Application #07-096: Mitchell (yes), Ryan (yes), Blanchard (yes), Riffle (yes). Motion carried 4-0.  Application No. 07-096 is Tabled.  

Old Business:

484 South Main Street, Application #07-083: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-083.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

221 East Elm Street, Application #07-085: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria: The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Residential District and Chapter 1175, Suburban Business District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-085.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

124 South Main Street, Application #07-093: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1159, Village Business District and Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-093.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

1257 Cherry Valley Road, Application #07-094: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria.  The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1171, Planned Development District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, Chapter 1189 regarding Signs, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-094.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

418 West Broadway, Application #07-095: Review and approval of the Findings of Fact and associated Standards and Criteria. The Planning Commission finds the request to be consistent with the Granville Codified Ordinance Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and Chapter 1176, Transportation Corridor Overlay District, and hereby gives their approval for the application.  Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Facts as being true for Application #07-095.  Seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0. 

Other Matters

Mayor Hartfield asked that any Code oversights be mentioned to Ms. Terry so the appropriate changes can be looked into.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission has been doing this via Councilmember O’Keefe and Ms. Terry acknowledged that the has an account of issues that need to be addressed.  

Adjournment: 8:20 pm. 

Mr. Ryan moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Blanchard.  Motion carried 4-0.  

Next meetings:

December 3, 2007 – Planning Commission work session to review the Village Gateway District Zoning Ordinance

December 10, 2007 – Regularly Scheduled Meeting

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.