Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

June 23, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors Present: Robert Karaffa, Richard Downs, Dr. Fred Karaffa, Larry Hottle, Vie Hottle, Jim and Andrea DeSapris, David Schnaidt, Don and Jill DeSapri, Dena McKinley, Brian Miller, and Carla Beckerly. 

 

Citizen’s Comments:

David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, stated that his comments are regarding Section 1161.02 of the Code – Criteria.  He stated that he has owned two homes in the AROD district and has lived in the community for 37 years.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he has had various projects presented to the Planning Commission over the years including a recent application to remove deteriorated slate and install dimensional shingles.  He stated that he was later made aware he needed approval to install the shingles even though there was a precedent set with other homes in the Village having this type of shingle.  He stated that he was previously denied a variance for two additional feet to install a garage allowing him to park two vehicles.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that he ended up building a garage that could accommodate one car.  He stated that he also adhered to Planning Commission recommendations to install a window in a closet so the outside appearance of the home would be suitable.  Mr. Schnaidt added that he has implemented changes to various projects to fit the criteria in Section 1161.02 of the Code.  Mr. Schnaidt read aloud the following criteria that the Planning Commission reviews when making a decision on applications for a variance or modifications to a property:

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

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

c)                                          Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District. 

d)                                          Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived

Mr. Schnaidt stated that he understands that there are limitations to living in the AROD district – and some things may not be allowed in the AROD that are allowed in the Township or elsewhere - yet he and his family still choose to live in this district.  Mr. Schnaidt stated that however harmless or eco-friendly a project seems – as a governing body – you will undoubtedly set a precedence for future applicants which will cause a slippery slope affect and lead in to a multitude of unforeseen future architectural issues.  He stated that living in the AROD district far outweighs any limitations and he would encourage the Planning Commission member’s to take the criteria very seriously and to heart when rendering any decisions tonight or in the future. 

 

 

Old Business:

 

311 North Pearl Street, Robert and Tracee Karaffa, Application #08-54

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

The application is submitted by Robert and Tracee Karaffa for architectural review and approval of solar panels to be located on the southern roof exposure. 

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner, Alison Terry, Robert Karaffa, and Richard Downs (called by Mr. Karaffa to testify.)

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-54:

(Mr. Burriss noted that although he was not in attendance at the June 9th Planning Commission meeting, he did listen to the tape and read the meeting minutes regarding Application #08-54).

 

Richard Downs, 11701 Loudon Street, stated that with respect to objective argument and the criteria that Mr. Schnaidt mentioned, he would like to add that solar panels do enhance, preserve, and protect the historical nature of the Village.  He went on to say that solar panels do not create any pollution and current electricity in the Village is received from coal burning power plants.  He stated that there was recent testimony from a gentleman representing the Baptist Church in town and they are researching solar panels as an economic alternative because of the high cost to heat the church.  Mr. Downs stated that he recently overheard a Village employee, Molly Prasher, speak to someone regarding acid rain affecting the local cemetery.  He stated that it is a known fact that there is a relationship between acid rain and coal burning power plants.  Mr. Downs stated that he would argue objectively that by allowing solar panels the environment is protected and therefore the homes in this town are too.  Mr. Downs stated that he would also like to speak to the historical attitude of this country.  He stated that we have historically prized above anything our independence and our ability to innovate in all times of different types of stress.  He stated that he would argue that this effort by the Karaffa’s represents the very best of the American historical spirit and ought to be encouraged in this community.  

 

Mr. Ryan stated that no one on the Planning Commission has used the word “blight.”  He stated that he does not believe that adding solar panels to a property means Granville is “going down a slippery slope.”  He stated that the Planning Commission is not against solar power or green energy.  Mr. Ryan stated that they must go through the set criteria to see if solar panels are approved.  He also stated that a draft of previous comments regarding the criteria has been distributed. 

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to close the discussion regarding Application #08-54.  Second by Mr. Mitchell.

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-54:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “a.”   

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “b.” 

c)       Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “c.” 

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission made no further comments regarding Criteria “d.” 

e)       Roof Shape:  The Planning Commission made no further comments.

f)        Materials and Texture: The Planning Commission made no further comments.

g)      Use of Details: The Planning Commission made no further comments.

 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to approve Application #08-54 as submitted.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to amend Application #08-54 with the following condition: 

1)         That any plant material that dies of natural causes or is removed would be replaced with a similar species with a similar growth size for all trees along North Pearl Street.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves. 

 

Mr. Ryan questioned if a precedent would be set for future applications.  Mr. Mitchell did not believe that the condition of approval would apply to any future applications.  Ms. Terry stated that the solar panels are less intrusive due to the side exposure and part of the review of the criteria has been because they are not as visible – verses on a sloped roof facing North Pearl Street.  The Planning Commission agreed that a precedent would not be set and they would handle each individual request/application accordingly.

 

Roll Call Vote to Amend Application 08-54:  Burriss, Reeves, Mitchell, McClow, Ryan. 

Motion carried 5-0.  Application #08-54 is amended.  

 

Roll Call Vote on Application #08-54 as amended: Reeves, McClow, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 4-1. 

 

Application #08-54 is approved as amended with the above stated condition. 

 

New Business:

(Mr. Mitchell recused himself from discussion regarding Application #08-62 at 7:25 PM and was seated in the audience.)

303 South Main Street, Tom Mitchell, Application #08-62

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

The application is submitted by Tom Mitchell for approval of modifications to the existing enclosed porch. 

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-62:

Tom Mitchell, 303 South Main Street, stated that he would like to restore the porch to look as it did originally.  Mr. McClow asked if there would be any steps.  Mr. Mitchell stated no.  Ms. Terry stated that she noticed that the home was being stripped of paint last Fall and she knocked on the door – not knowing it was Mr. Mitchell’s home.  She stated that Mr. Mitchell showed her the duplicated wood trim he was having made by the Amish.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he and Ms. Terry had conversation regarding whether or not Planning Commission approval was warranted being that he considers the work to be a repair, rather than a modification since he is restoring the home to what was originally there.  He stated that Ms. Terry advised him to having Planning Commission approval.  Mr. Burriss complemented the applicant on the quality of the restoration thus far. 

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-62:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District. The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the modifications will match the other side of the home.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored to the originally intended proportions on the front façade.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored to represent the way it was originally built.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the style is the way it was originally intended to be.

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the home is being restored to the way past generations had lived. 

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant indicates that they want to remove the existing enclosure and restore it to its original condition, consistent with the porch on the other side of the house.  The Planning Commission should require that the applicant replace the enclosure with the same columns, trim and cornice details as the photograph labeled Exhibit “A.” 

f)        Use of Details: The applicant indicates that they want to remove the existing enclosure and restore it to its original condition, consistent with the porch on the other side of the house.  The Planning Commission should require that the applicant replace the enclosure with the same columns, trim and cornice details as the photograph labeled Exhibit “A.” 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion that Application #08-62 be approved as submitted.  Second by Mr. McClow.

 

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

 

Application #08-62 is Approved as submitted. 

 

(Mr. Mitchell returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:40 PM)

 

 

328 East Elm Street, James and Andrea DeSapri, Application #08-63

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

The application is submitted by James and Andrea DeSapri and the request is for a approval of a five-foot rear and side yard privacy fence.

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-63:

Jim DeSapri, 328 East Elm Street, stated that they would like to install a rear and side yard fence that he researched to be historically appropriate.  Mr. McClow asked if the fence would be in the same location as the previous chain link fence.  Mr. DeSapri stated that it would be in the same linear run.  Mr. McClow asked if there have been any issues with the neighbors.  Mr. DeSapri stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the fence would be five foot high – shadow box – “dog ear” style.  Mr. DeSapri confirmed that this is true.

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-63:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed fence is a continuation and replacement of the existing fence.  Mr. Burriss added that the proposed fence of natural material is an improvement from the existing chain link fence already in place.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the newly proposed material is a natural material as opposed to the chain link fence already in place.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell added that by renewing and upgrading the fence it adds to the vitality of the historic district.

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

e)      Materials and Textures: The applicant is proposing a wood “dog ear” shadowbox style fence which is a natural material.

f)        Use of Details: The applicant is proposing construction of a five (5’) foot wood privacy fence – natural finish.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #08-63 as submitted.   Second by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Mitchell, Reeves, McClow, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Application #08-63 is Approved as submitted. 

 

 

314 East Broadway, Anthony Beckerley for the Granville Inn, Application #08-64

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

The application is submitted by Anthony Beckerley and the request is for architectural review and approval of the following modifications: 1) awning replacements above the front patio enclosure, adjacent alcoves, and the offices along the western side of the building; 2) wood garage door replacements facing East Broadway.

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-64:

Carla Beckerley, 210 North Granger Street, stated she is representing Granville Hospitality, LLC.  She stated that a painting in the Granville Inn depicts the original awnings being similar to what they are proposing and it is more historic than what is currently in place.  She stated that they did not have much choice in fabric because they had to use a fire retardant material.  Ms. Beckerley stated that the changes are due to damage in a March storm.  Mr. Burriss asked if the Roman key detail would be on each awning.  Ms. Beckerley stated yes.  Mr. Burriss asked if the material they have chosen is mildew resistant.  Ms. Beckerley stated that the material is the best offered by Sunbrella.  Mr. Ryan stated that he has used their materials in the past and they are mildew resistant.  The Planning Commission discussed whether or not there would be windows in the proposed garage doors.  Ms. Beckerley stated that the circled multiple window option on the application is a mistake and it is their intent to replace the doors as they currently are.  Ms. Terry stated that they do not require approval if they are an exact replacement. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-64:

 

a)      Is stylistically compatible with other new, renovated and old structures in the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the proposed modifications are historically correct for the structure.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed modifications are historically correct for the structure.

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes. Mr. Burriss added that the proposed modifications compliment the recent paint job done by the applicant.

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

e)      Roof Shape:  The applicant is proposing replacement of the outdoor patio awning, alcove awnings and side office awnings.  None of these awnings affect the actual roof shape.  The height of the outdoor patio awnings was limited by the upper story windows, but does provide a pitched appearance, consistent with the building roof form.

f)       Materials and Texture: The applicant has indicated that they want to replace the existing awnings with a Sunbrella material, which is a material that is consistently used for awning construction.  The applicant further indicated that after their original awning was destroyed by the March snowstorm they were required to replace the awning with a new fire coded fabric because the building is used as a hotel.  The proposed garage doors are wood panels with windows – exact replacement of existing garage doors.

g)      Use of Details: The applicant has indicated that they would like to replace the existing awnings with a new design and solid pattern (existing awnings are striped).  The solid colored awnings are more consistent with the style of the building and coordinate with the existing Granville Inn sign.  The applicant is also proposing replacement of the existing garage doors with new wood garage doors – to replicate the doors currently in place.  This is also consistent with the architecture of the building.

 

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to approve Application #08-64 with the following conditions: 

1)                  That the applicant shall be required to replace the garage doors to represent the garage doors currently in place;

2)                  That the Roman key pattern to incorporated in the awnings.

 

Second by Ms. Reeves.   

 

Roll Call Vote:  McClow, Burriss, Mitchell Reeves, Ryan.  Motion carried 5-0. 

 

Application #08-64 is Approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

(Mr. Ryan excused himself from the remainder of the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 PM )

 

Additional Review of the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions:

The Planning Commission resumed review of the Zoning Code Revisions on page 29 Section 1157.14 Accessory Uses and Structures.  The Planning Commission believed that the square footage foot print ought to be changed from 750 square foot to 864 foot.  Mr. Mitchell stated that this would then accommodate a three car garage – 24 x 36.  Ms. Reeves agreed.  The Planning Commission also suggested that 30% should be changed to 40%.  In Section (f):

“The maximum number of accessory buildings or structures on a single lot or parcel shall not exceed two, of which only one may contain more than 144 square feet of gross floor area.”

 

The Planning Commission suggested striking the words “or structures.” 

 

The Planning Commission also suggested adding the PUD (Planned Unit Development) zoning as part of Section 1157.14 Accessory Structures. 

 

Councilmember O’Keefe suggested that the 50% lot coverage allotment for pools ought to also be the same for the SRD (Suburban Residential District) and PUD (Planning Unit Development.)

 

The Planning Commission ended their review at 9:00 PM on page 30 Section 1157.15 ‘Prohibited Uses In A Yard.’

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-62:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-62.  Second by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Burriss, Mitchell (recuse).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Application #08-63:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-63.  Second by Mr. Burriss.

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

 

Application #08-64:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

Mr. Burriss moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-64.  Second by Ms. Reeves.

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

 

Other Matters:

Ms. Terry noted that the July 14th Planning Commission meeting has many applications on the agenda.  She stated that there will likely not be enough time to further review the zoning code changes and she anticipates further review at the July 28th Planning Commission meeting.

 

Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has always required that fencing be finished with either paint or stain.  Ms. Reeves stated that there is nothing in the Code requiring this.  Ms. Terry agreed.  Mr. Burriss stated that the Planning Commission has made this a condition of approval in the past and he stated that if there is nothing in the Code requiring that fencing be finished this ought to be changed.  Assistant Law Director Alison Crites stated that she could review the language in the Code regarding finishing fences. 

 

Motion to Approve absent Planning Commission Members:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from a portion of the June 23rd Planning Commission meeting.  Second by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 4-0.

 

Approval of the Minutes:

 

May 27, 2008

No action taken.

 

June 9, 2008

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the June 9, 2008 meeting minutes as presented.  Second by Mr. McClow. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Reeves, McClow, Burriss (abstain), Mitchell.  Motion carried 3-0.

 

June 16, 2008 – Special Planning Commission Meeting

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve the June 16, 2008 meeting minutes as presented.  Second by Mr. Burriss. 

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, Reeves, McClow, Mitchell (abstain).  Motion carried 3-0.

 

Adjournment: 9:00 PM. 

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

 

Next meetings:

July 14, 2008

July 28, 2008

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.