Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes July 28, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

July 28, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Jack Burriss, Lyle McClow, Tim Ryan (Chair), and Jackie O’Keefe (non-voting).

Members Absent: Gina Reeves.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry, Assistant Law Director Allison Crites, and Acting Law Director Jim Gorry.

Visitors Present: Jack Thornborough, Dennis Cauchon, Ben Rader, Monique Keegan, Jeremy Johnson, Thomas Fuller, Brian Miller, Doug Hoffman, Thomas Hankins, Heidi Bolyard, Art Chonko, Jack Beyer, Charles Taylor, Tim Klinger, Cathy Klinger, Douglas Hoffman,  Jean Ullman, Pete Ullman, Tricia Huber, Seth Patton, Jeff K., Chris Bendinelli, Lance Clark, Ann Lang, Kevin Reiner, Terry Reed, Kevin Kittle, Al Packer, Tom Hankins, Bill Downey, Kelly Swope, Mollie Prasher and Don Contini.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

 

Zoning of 514 acres annexed to the Village in 2007:

Alison Terry explained that the property consisting of 514 acres was annexed to the Village last year.  She stated that the property is currently zoned as ‘Agricultural’ and was part of Granville and Union Townships.  Ms. Terry explained that the closest zoning classification they have and are recommending is ‘Open Space District.’ 

 

Thomas Hankins, 2140 James Road, stated he was there in regards to protecting his hunting and trapping rights.  He stated that they would like to continue to do the things they have already been doing in that area and they want hunting rights protected.  Mr. Hankins stated that he has no problem with the recommended zoning and they don’t want developers able to change their lifestyle.  Councilmember O’Keefe inquired on an existing Ordinance already allowing hunting rights.  Manager Holycross stated that he would assume that what is currently allowed would continue.  He stated that this is not advised by zoning, but rather through general revisions.  Manager Holycross stated that it was not Council’s intent to disallow hunting in this area.

 

Charles Taylor, 88 James Road, stated that he is neighbors with Tom Hankins and although he does not hunt he would not like the current arrangements to change.  Mr. Taylor stated that he is fine with the proposed zoning and the comments made by Manager Holycross regarding hunting/trapping did make him feel better.

 

Members of the Planning Commission agreed that the proposed Ordinance looked straight forward to them. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to recommend to Village Council that the 514 acre annexation be classified as ‘Open Space District’ under the Village zoning regulations.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

(Anyone speaking regarding the zoning for the 514 acre annexation did not need to be sworn in due to it being a legislative hearing.)

 

219 Summit Street, Tim and Cathy Klinger, Application #08-80

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Tim and Cathy Klinger.  The applicant is requesting approval for architectural review and approval of an eastern side yard picket fence and air-conditioning unit to be located along the southern side of the home.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Tim Klinger.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-80:

Mr. Klinger stated that he would like to place the air-conditioning unit in the rear of the home.  He stated that he also would like to install a picket fence.  Mr. Klinger provided an eight foot section as a visual.  He stated that he would like for it to have two four foot gates and the gate would be 42” inches high.  When asked about the finish of the fence by the Planning Commission, Mr. Klinger stated that he likes the weathered gray look, but he would also entertain eventually staining the fence to match the color of the house.  Mr. Klinger stated that he would use antique strap hinges and a 4x4 posts and this will match what is on the existing garage.  Ryan asked if the AC unit would have landscaping around it.  Mr. Klinger stated yes.  Mr. Mitchell said that in the past we have been requiring a finish on fencing and they are aware that letting the wood weather first is a good idea.  Mr. Klinger stated that staining the wood, rather than leaving it weathered, is not a deal-breaker for him.  Mr. Burriss stated that they have required finishing on fences in this particular area and they should remain consistent. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-80:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  Yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the fence resembles other fences in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing pressure treated, wood picket, and 42” high fencing which meet this requirement.  The applicant needs to indicate what color the picket fence will be painted once it is installed.  The air-conditioning unit is not a natural material requirement; therefore the applicant will need to look at screening it with landscaping or fencing.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing the installation of a wood picket fence and a rear air-conditioning unit.  The proposed picket fence is appropriate to the scale and design of the existing home, but paint color should be carefully considered as the home is rustic, natural dark brown color.

g)      Use of Plan Material:  The applicant should choose evergreen screening for the air-conditioning unit or fencing.

h)      Use of Landscape Design:  The applicant needs to consider the addition of landscaping around the air-conditioning unit to screen it from neighboring properties.  This can be done with landscaping or fencing. 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-80 with the condition that the finish on the fence matches the color on the house within one year and that the air-conditioning unit be screened with evergreen landscaping, and that the finished side of the fence face the neighbors.   Second by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-80 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

210 West College Street, Art Chonko for Denison University, Application #08-81

(VID) Village Institutional District, (AROD) Architectural Review Overlay District

The application is submitted by Art Chonko on behalf of Denison University for approval of modifications to Cleveland Hall. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and Art Chonko, Jack Beyer, Jack Thornborough, and Ben Rader.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-81:

(Please refer to the court reporter transcript dated July 28, 2008 – Cleveland Hall for all testimony)

 

Councilmember O’Keefe recused herself from discussion regarding Application #08-81 because her husband is an employee of Denison University. 

 

Art Chonko and Jack Beyer were sworn in and described the proposed modifications to Cleveland Hall. 

 

Jack Thornborough, 13 Donald Ross Drive, was sworn in to give testimony.  He stated that he owns historic property on Mulberry Drive and the proposed renovations could have a negative impact on this historic property.  Mr. Thornborough stated that he was able to offer testimony in previous discussions regarding Cleveland Hall. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, was sworn in to offer testimony.  Mr. Rader indicated that he received a letter of notification regarding modifications to Cleveland Hall from the Village of Granville due the proximity of his home to the structure. 

 

Ms. Terry stated that she received answers to come of her questions today and the staff would prefer to have the application tabled to further review this information.  There was some discussion as to what would become of the previous application for renovations to Cleveland Hall.  Acting Law Director Jim Gorry stated that if Application #08-81 is approved it should be indicated that the previous application no longer stands. 

 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #08-81.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-81 is Tabled. 

 

(Mr. Ryan moved Application #08-89 next on the agenda at 8:50 PM)

 

128 East Broadway, Thomas Fuller, Application #08-89

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Thomas Fuller and the applicant is requesting approval of an exterior modification to the stucco over the existing brick wall within the alley area on the western side of the building.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Thomas Fuller, and Terry Reed

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-89:

Thomas Fuller stated that he does not have much to say about this application and it is apparent that the wall needs attended to.  Mr. Fuller stated that it is apparent to him that stucco seems to be the logical solution to the problem and he feels this would look better than just painting the area. 

 

Terry Reed, 131 Hancock Street, Newark, stated that he had a sample of what the stucco would look like.  He explained that the mortar in between the brick is deteriorating, as well as the brick itself. Mr. Reed stated that he would install a metal lath off of the brick and then coat it with the stucco.  Mr. Burriss stated we are concerned with the materials and visual presentation and this is why we ask for details.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is stucco on the rear of the building.  Mr. Reed stated that there is some stucco that is in the rear and it has been on there a long time.  Mr. Reed stated that the brick is very soft.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked about installing a brick veneer or brick façade.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he loves the look of brick and he is not a big fan of stucco, but he is aware of other buildings that have had to maintain the brick with stucco. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, stated that he owns property at 120 East Broadway.  He stated that the proposed area for stucco is in the alley and not facing Broadway.

 

Mr. Ryan questioned how the stucco would meet the brick façade on the front of the building.  Mr. Reed stated that he believes it would match up with paint.  He went on to say that he has seen good exterior paint last for close to forty years.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be more comfortable if they had details of the corner and the proposed color that the material would be painted and they would be in favor of having the stucco match the front of the building.  Mr. Fuller stated he had no objection to painting the stucco and he stated that he is also concerned about the appearance of Granville and he wants to keep it looking good.  Mr. McClow stated that the stucco is bound to crack.  Mr. Reed stated that the metal lath will help with the cracking.  Mr. Burriss asked how the window sills and detailing of the windows will be preserved.  Mr. Terry stated that he doesn’t believe the detailing on the windows will change because he doesn’t plan to stucco over anything.  He estimated that the lathe and stucco will be 3/8 to ½ inch. 

Mr. Burriss stated he would like to see the detail of how the corner will look. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-89:

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the

Village District.  Yes, because it has been done with several other buildings in the Village.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  Yes, because it would help to maintain a historic building in the Village.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing stucco.

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing stucco to cover the existing brick wall.

 

Ms. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-89 with the following conditions:

1)         That the stucco on the west side be painted to match the upper story on the front the building (a red);

2)                  That the sills and lintels and windows be painted white to match the front of the windows on the front of the building;

3)                  That the beading corner detail be submitted and reviewed by Village Staff.

 

 

Second by Mr. Mitchell.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-89 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

115 East Broadway, Granville Historical Society, Application #08-85

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by the Granville Historical Society and the request is for removal of a doorway facing Broadway.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, and

Lance Clark.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-85:

Lance Clark, 162 Denison Drive, stated that he is on the Board of Managers for the Granville Historical Society.  He explained that a door was removed because they feared that there would be water problems.  He went on to say that the door has not been functionally used since the 1970’s.  Mr. McClow clarified if there were any egress issues inside the building.  Mr. Terry stated no because this area is covered up with historical records.  Mr. Terry stated that he intends to paint the block a sandstone color and they would later like to feather in to the existing sandstone veneer, but they have to do some further checking on this.  He stated that they still need to find some funding – possibly in next year’s budget and he hopes to have a veneer over this area by this time next year.  Mr. Ryan, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. McClow questioned if a fake door would look better than trying to match up the area with a veneer.  Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission preference is to have had approval before the door was removed.  Mr. Terry questioned if he could paint the block to match the sandstone and come back at a later time for approval of a stone veneer.  Mr. Burriss noted that there is another area on the adjacent wall that also doesn’t match the existing sandstone and he would like to see this addressed.  The Planning Commission stated that they can’t let people do these types of changes and then come in and ask forgiveness.  They stated that had approval been sought to begin with – they would have never authorized removal of the door.  Ms. Terry stated that the Planning Commission is charged with looking at the application as though the applicant is requesting to take the door out and how to fill the area in.  Mr. Mitchell suggested placing a door there that is not functional.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant could also amend his application to place a fake door in this area.  Mr. Mitchell and Mr. McClow stated that had the application been submitted prior to doing the work – they likely would have voted no to placing the concrete block.  Mr. Burriss agreed, but he is also in favor of working towards an appropriate solution since the work has already been done.  Ms. Terry stated that a concrete wall was not approved in the AROD so it cannot remain as it is.  Mr. Ryan stated that if they do a veneer at a later time it would need to be approved by the Planning Commission. 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-85:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded it could be compatible if it matches the existing sandstone.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded that a door was removed that was causing structural damage by letting water in.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture: The applicant has installed concrete block which is not an approved material. 

f)        Use of Details:  The Planning Commission questioned if this would come at a later time?  With a proposed veneer?

 

Ms. McClow made a motion to deny Application #08-85.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Mitchell (yes), Burriss (yes), McClow (yes), Ryan (no).  Motion carried 3-1.  

 

Application #08-85 is denied. 

 

(Mr. Ryan explained that painting the block wall and returning in the future to do a veneer is not acceptable.  If you plan to do a veneer or a fake door the Planning Commission is asking that the exact plan be presented.  Mr. Terry stated that they do not have the money to do anything else but paint at this time.  Mr. Ryan stated that the application should have come before the doorway was removed.) 

 

133 East College Street, Granville Township, Application #08-86

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Fire Chief Jeff Hussey and the request if for review and approval of a change of use to Category “C,” Business and Professional Offices, for the entire primary structure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Fire Chief Jeff Hussey, and Ben Rader.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-86:

Fire Chief Jeff Hussey explained that they are out of space and the purchase of this property will free up space in fire station and bunk house.  He stated that they are limited on overnight sleeping facilities and they often do not have space for volunteers to stay overnight.  Mr. Hussey went on to explain that there are a total of seven full time employees, Denison student volunteers, and part-time help.  Mr. Hussey stated that they have had to turn people away at night and with the acquisition of the property they will also gain some off street parking.  Mr. Hussey stated that the property is currently used as ‘Mixed Use Residential’, and they are requesting a change to Category “C” – Business Professional Offices for the entire primary structure.  Ms. Terry stated that the application will go through the Building Code Department and the non-conforming use is not still valid because it hasn’t been used in this capacity for over five years.  Ms. Terry stated that essentially the application does meet all of the requirements – lot coverage, parking spaces, and setback requirements. 

 

Ben Rader, 130 West Broadway, stated that in regards to installing a gate he has asked for a security lock to be installed to reduce pedestrian traffic in this area. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-86:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because there are no changes being proposed for the exterior of the structure and the space was previously used as office space.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because it enhances the operation of the fire department and improves their functionality.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and the fire department improves the entire community.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission noted that gravel will be added.

f)       Use of Details: The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing expanding the existing parking area in the rear of the property to accommodate one (1) additional car.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-86 as submitted.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-86 is approved as submitted. 

 

 

133 East College Street, Granville Township, Application #08-87

VBD (Village Business District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Fire Chief Jeff Hussey and the applicant is requesting approval of a wall sign.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Fire Chief Jeff Hussey.

 

 

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-87:

Fire Chief Jeff Hussey stated that he would like to replace the existing sign with the same size and very similar in design.  Ms. Terry stated that all of the criteria would be met and the size and color would be consistent with what is currently in place.  Mr. Hussey stated that he does not yet know the type of lettering or wording.  Mr. Burriss stated that typically the Planning Commission likes to see an exact design/mockup prior to approving.  Mr. Hussey stated he could get a rendering of the proposed sign back to the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to Table Application #08-87.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-87 is Tabled. 

 

 

224 East College Street, Kevin Kittle, Application #08-88

VRD (Village Residential District) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Kevin Kittle and the applicant is requesting approval of exterior modifications to the accessory structure.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Kevin Kittle.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-88:

Kevin Kittle stated that they want the accessory structure to look like a carriage house.  He proposed raised panel garage doors that resemble bead board.  Mr. Kittle stated that the gutters and downspouts would be replaced with aluminum

Mr. Burriss asked if they propose to change and add/take away any window on the front façade of the structure.  Mr. Kittle stated no and he stated that the windows will be same width, but a little bit longer.  Mr. Burriss applauded the applicant for using board and batten siding.  Mr. Kittle explained that he would install board and baton on the first floor and it will meet the siding on the other sides of the structure. 

Mr. Burriss asked if there are any trim details added.  Mr. Kittle stated just corner trim. 

He added that he could trim out the windows, but you don’t see them from anywhere. 

 

Mr. Kittle stated that he hasn’t been on roof, and at this stage he doesn’t think it needs replaced.  Mr. Ryan asked about the canopy over the door.  Mr. Kittle stated that he may remove it and possible put up a cloth awning.  It was noted that this would need to come in a separate application.  It was also noted that any change in lighting will need to be addressed in a separate application.  Mr. Klinger proposed a light above the door. 

The proposed colors to the accessory structure and – grey and white trim to match the house. Mr. Burriss asked if the basement window will remain.  Mr. Klinger stated he will likely cover it with siding.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the deck will remain.  Mr. Kittle stated yes but with new decking.  Mr. Burriss commented that this is certainly an improvement to what is currently in place and he applauds the board and batten - being appropriate for the period of the original house.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-88:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes and the proposed modifications are more in line with other historical structures in the district.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission stated that the applicant is proposing using vinyl windows to replace the existing wood windows, steel doors to replace the existing wood doors, hardi-plank to replace the existing aluminum siding and steel garage doors to replace the existing wood garage doors. 

f)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission noted that the applicant is proposing replacing the windows in the front, southern elevation with windows that would be sized to match the windows in the front primary structure.  They are also proposing to add hardi-plank to the entire front, southern elevation, which would replace existing aluminum siding and concrete block.  The last modification they are proposing to the front, southern elevation is to remove the existing wood garage doors and replace them with steel carriage style doors.  The applicant is proposing the replacement of wood windows on the western, northern and eastern elevations with vinyl double hung, grid, windows would also be consistent with the style of the primary structure and would complement the existing accessory structure.  The applicant is proposing the replacement of the aluminum siding with hardi-plank siding on the western, northern, and eastern elevation and board and batten on the front elevation.

 

 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-88 with the following conditions:

1)         That the board and batten siding used on the front elevation continue around the entire building on the first story and the second story material will be hardi-plank;

2)         The garage door style be as indicated on Exhibit “A” – Sonoma.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-88 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

 

 

2613 Newark-Granville Road, Jeremy and Cara Johnson, Application #08-90

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Jeremy and Cara Johnson and the applicant is requesting approval of a rear second floor addition, new railing on the front and side porch, removal and replacement of the side porch adjacent to the second floor addition, modification of existing deck and fence to accommodate the second floor addition.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Jeremy Johnson.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-90:

Jeremy Johnson, 2613 Newark-Granville Road, stated that they are proposing an addition over a single story rear porch and re-roofing the entire structure with shingles.

Mr. Johnson proposed vinyl siding with 30 year shingles and vinyl double hung tilt in windows.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant has indicated that the porch roof is leaking

Mr. Ryan confirmed that there are several kinds of shingles and slate currently on the home.  Mr. Johnson stated this was true.  He went on to say that the roof addition will tie in with the existing roof line.  Mr. Johnson stated that the existing siding is aluminum and he would like to replace it with vinyl.  He stated that neighbors to the west, east, and north all have vinyl siding.  The Planning Commission inquired on the foundation of the proposed porch.  Mr. Johnson stated that they will excavate and put a block foundation in for the porch.  He stated that the existing block foundation if a mixture of sandstone and molded cinder block.  Mr. Burriss commended the applicant for the completeness of the application. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-90:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because the changes help maintain the property.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing adding a 2nd story to the rear one-story addition.  The new proposed ridge line will match the height of the existing ridge line for both the east-west and north-south 2nd story roof lines.

f)        Building Massing:  The surrounding existing homes are newer homes in this area of Newark-Granville Road, so the style and height is not consistent with the more modern homes.  The style and height is, however, consistent with the style of this home.  The 2nd story addition on the rear, stepping down to the existing one-story addition is more appropriate in massing than the layout of the existing home.  The applicant is also proposing “bumping out” the eastern wall of the existing addition by an additional “1’7 ¾” to make it even with the eastern wall of the original home.  

g)      Roof Shape: The Planning Commission noted that the applicant is proposing a pitched roof on the 2nd story addition that will be 4.5:12.  The applicant is also proposing modifying the 1st story addition’s roof line to make it a 2.5:12 slope on the eastern elevation only, extending from the existing ridge line and fireplace east to the edge of the home.  The existing one-story addition has a partial sloped roof and a shed roof that is causing water damage within the interior of the home.  The existing 2nd story pitched roofs on the two other ridge lines are 9:12.

h)      Materials and Textures:  The applicant has indicated that they would like to use the following materials for the addition:

  1. a.       Exterior Siding & Trim: Mastic Premium Vinyl Siding by ALCOA, Quest 3 Series; Color- Village Green (Siding) and Cameo (Trim) - Proposed for existing elevations and new 2nd story;
  2. b.      Shingles: Owens Corning Asphalt, Oakridge; Color – Driftwood or Estate Gray, Proposed for existing slate roof on 2nd story roof lines, porches and new addition;
  3. c.       Double-hung & Casement Windows:  Simonton or equal (vinyl windows)
  4. d.      Rail spindles on southern and western porch: New square, wood, rail spindles;
  5. e.       Removal of existing slate roof on 2nd story roof lines, and replacement with Owens Corning Asphalt, Oakridge shingles;
  6. f.        Replacement of existing foundation block: with plain CMU or split face block;
  7. g.       Aluminum gutters and downspouts: new throughout, white, 4” & 5” gutters.

 

i)   Use of Details:

1)         Window fenestration on the western, northern and eastern elevation; and

2)         Modification to the pitch of the roof on the one-story addition

           

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-90 as submitted with the final shingle color (Estate Gray or Driftwood) to be submitted to Village staff.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Mitchell, Burriss Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-80 is Approved as submitted. 

 

 

410-412 West Broadway, Douglas Hoffman, Application #08-91

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A) – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Douglas Hoffman and the applicant is requesting approval of a rear addition and porch.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Heidi Bolyard.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-91:

Heidi Bolyard stated that she is the architect for the proposed changes to 410-412 West Broadway.  She stated that they are looking at taking out an existing car port and replacing it with an existing two car garage with stairs to go up to the second floor.

She also stated that this would add some living space to the second floor.  Ms. Bolyard stated that they would like to remove the single double hung window and replace it with a patio French door.  She stated that there would also be an additional deck. 

Lastly, Ms. Bolyard stated that they are proposing to paint the existing home - Shutters and door/blue (evening hush) and the primary house color – yellow.  Mr. Burriss asked if something could be done with the chimney.  He realized that this was not part of the application.  Mr. Burriss questioned if the addition has a higher level of detail than the existing structure.  Ms. Bolyard stated that they are looking at doing canned lights (it was noted that this was not included in the application).  Mr. Burriss stated that as a neighbor he would like to see consistency and he would prefer to see the shutters that are on the front of the home be added to the four windows on the side of the home.  He stated that he applauds the applicant’s use of shutters over garage doors.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would encourage the use of shutters on this structure because there isn’t much else in terms of detail on the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see shutters at the east elevation of the structure and he noted that the property to the east has spent time and money to develop patio are and tried to bring all facades of that property up to a consistent level of attractiveness - and we should request the same thing.  Mr. Ryan agreed.  The Planning Commission asked Ms. Bolyard if she would be ok with adding shutters to the four windows.  Ms. Bolyard stated yes.  Burriss inquired on the proposed railing in the rear and he commented that he wouldn’t want it to look like a deck railing.  Ms. Bolyard agreed. 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-91:

 

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes it adds character to the home. 

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.   The Planning Commission concluded yes it is enhancing the existing property. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes because it is maintenance and upgrading to the property.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.

e)      Height: The applicant is proposing a 2-story addition to the rear of the structure with a roof line that is just slightly lower than the existing roof.

f)        Building Massing: The applicant is proposing adding a 2-story addition to the rear of the structure.  The proposed addition will increase the length of the north-south building footprint from 28 feet to 60 feet, a difference of 32 feet.  The existing home is 42 feet wide; the addition will be 32 feet for the connector and 25 feet wife for the 2-story garage addition.  The proposed addition is consistent in scale with the neighboring homes, as indicated in the aerial titled “S-1, Site Plan.”

g)      Roof Shape: The applicant has indicated that the existing roof pitch is 4:12 and the three proposed roof pitches will also be 4:12.

h)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission stated that the applicant is proposing the following materials:

  1.                                                               i.      Siding (Addition Only): Hardi-plank 4” lap siding, painted yellow
  2.                                                             ii.      Trim (Addition Only): Hardi-plank, 1x6 painted white and yellow – per plan elevations;
  3.                                                           iii.      Shutters: Molded, Aluminum, Painted Dark Blue
  4.                                                           iv.      Steel Garage Doors: Cloplay, Value series, Plain Window
  5.                                                             v.      Man Doors: Reliabilt Steel Doors with full lite and half light; Windows per cut sheet and elevation plan
  6.                                                           vi.      Cedar Decking: Cedar posts and Cedar railings – all painted white
  7.                                                         vii.      Shingles: Asphalt dimensional shingles – Owens Corning – Oakridge to match existing roof
  8.                                                       viii.      Windows: Double-hung, vinyl clad exterior
  9.                                                           ix.      Exposed Concrete Block foundation
  10.                                                             x.      Gutters and Downspouts: Aluminum, white, to match existing gutters and downspouts

i)        Use of Details: The Planning Commission noted that the applicant is proposing the following:

  1.                                                               i.      Window Fenestration: appropriately scaled on each elevation to blend with the existing elevations in height and width;
  2.                                                             ii.      Garage Doors: appropriately scaled and centered below the upper 2nd story windows.  Separation of the garage doors into individual garage doors versus a double garage door particularly helps the balance and symmetry of the eastern elevation;
  3.                                                           iii.      Siding: Hard-plank siding and trim boards are appropriate in scale, and finish to a wood finish is more historically accurate than the aluminum siding on the main house;
  4.                                                           iv.      Windows: The double-hung windows are consistent with the style of the home
  5.                                                             v.      Shutters: The Planning Commission preferred to see shutters not only on the front of the home, but also at the east elevation and above the garage doors

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-91 with the following conditions:

1)         That the applicant adds shutters to the four windows on the east side of the structure. 

 

Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Mitchell, Burriss, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-91 is Approved with the above stated condition. 

 

 

446 East Broadway, Keith and Monique Keegan, Application #08-92

(VBD) Village Business District – AROD (Architectural Review Overlay District)

The application is submitted by Keith and Monique Keegan and the applicant is requesting approval of a site plan to remove a portion of the parking area and to install additional landscaping.

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry and Monique Keegan.

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-92:

Monique Keegan stated that they are proposing removing approximately 50% of the concrete and doing some landscape design that will tremendously enhance what is currently there.  Ms. Keegan stated that they are keeping the garage doors and big windows.  She stated that they may consider making the property Retail space in the future and she questions if she should apply now for the correct number of parking spaces required for Retail spaces.  Ms. Terry stated that the number of spaces that would be required is twelve (12) and Ms. Keegan would also need to apply for a Change of Use.   

Ms. Keegan stated that there would be no problem fitting twelve parking spaces in.  Ms. Terry also stated that a request for signage on the property will come in a future application.  Ms. Keegan clarified that they would be taking out asphalt and resurfacing. 

Mr. Burriss questioned if a dimensional drawing should be required because they have required that applicants provide this in the past.  Mr. Mitchell noted that a drawing was submitted by the applicant, although it is not to scale.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is just trying to ensure that applications are consistent.  Mr. Ryan stated that he does not feel a site plan is required because the application only requests for the removal of asphalt and landscaping.  Mr. Burriss asked if delivery trucks are able to get off the street and pull into the facility.  Ms. Keegan stated that she has checked into this and it will not be a problem.  Assistant Law Director Crites suggested that if the applicant does want to have twelve parking spaces on the property that she amends her application to say so.  Ms. Keegan agreed to have the application amended to accommodate twelve parking spaces. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-92 as amended by the applicant to place 12 parking spaces on the asphalt.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

Roll Call Vote:  Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Application #08-92 is Approved as amended. 

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-80:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-80.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-85:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-85.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-86:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-86.  Second by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-88:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-88.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-89:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-89.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-90:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-90.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-91:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-91.  Second by Mr. McClow. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Application #08-92:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-92.  Second by Mr. Mitchell. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Burriss, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Mr. Burriss made a motion to excuse Gina Reeves from the July 28th Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Adjournment: 11:35 PM. 

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

 

Next meetings:

August 11, 2008           (Councilmember O’Keefe and Mr. Burriss noted that they will not be able to attend the August 11th meeting)

August 25, 2008           (Councilmember O’Keefe noted that she will not be able to attend the August 25th 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.