Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 2008

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

September 22, 2008

7:00pm

Minutes

 

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

Members Absent: None.

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

Visitors Present: Todd Naille, Robert Parsley, Dennis Cauchon, and Jim Hartzler.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

414 East College Street – Robert and Ruth Ann Parsley, Application #08-122

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

The request was for architectural review and approval of the following items:

                                    1)         New covered front porch;

                                    2)         New front walkways; and

                                    3)         Replacement of stone work at the front of house.

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-122:

Mr. Parsley stated that the new steps will be on the south side and the porch area that is depicted on the submitted paperwork will be the stoop.  He stated that the original block under the existing porch is made of tile and it will be replaced with new brick.  Mr. Parsley stated that anything with the old sandstone on it on the front of the house will come off and he provided a sample of the proposed brick he would like to use as a replacement.  Mr. Burriss asked for a more detailed architectural drawing of the proposed posts and he stated that he would like to know if they are going to be square or round and he asked for the details on the base and capital.  Mr. Parsley distributed further information depicting what the proposed materials would be.  He stated that the columns will be round (8”) with wooden balusters or they will be made from a composite wood.  Mr. Burriss asked if the posts would be smooth or fluted.  Mr. Parsley stated smooth.  Mr. Burriss asked about the details for the base of the posts.  Mr. Parsley stated that he would like to use metal if he can, but he is not completely sure.  Mr. Burriss stated that the details on the columns and railings are critical when restoring an old home.  Mr. Ryan asked what dictates if a railing is even required.  Mr. Burriss stated that it looks as though one will be required because the railings look to be about thirty inches.  Ms. Terry stated that the building department would make the final determination.  Mr. Parsley stated that it will be close on whether or not a railing is required by the building department.  He stated that he was unsure if the required height is 30” for railings as indicated by Mr. Burriss.  Mr. Parsley indicated that he would choose to have a metal railing, but he believes the Planning Commission might prefer to see a wooden railing.   Mr. Burriss asked if the existing concrete walk would be removed.  Mr. Parsley stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would be willing to approve the application if the Village staff had final approval on the columns and railings.  Mr. Burriss stated that the right capitals and base of the columns can be considered an architectural jewel and he encouraged that they go with the style of the house.  He stated that the base and cap, and the size and taper of the columns are important architectural details.  Mr. Burriss also stated that he would prefer to see the smooth columns used.  Mr. McClow asked how much weight will be beared by the columns. Mr. Parsley stated not much at all.  The rest of the Planning Commission agreed that they would be willing to approve the application so long as the Village staff had final approval.  Mr. Burriss explained that the Planning Commission needs to be consistent in what they approve.  He suggested that the applicant bring in a cut sheet of the final column, cap, and base he intends to use.  Mr. Ryan asked if the Planning Commission is in agreement with the proposed 8” columns or do they suggest 10” or 12” columns.  Mr. Burriss suggested that the Village staff approve the final size of the columns as well.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if the applicant is doing the work himself.  Mr. Parsley stated no that he would be hiring a contractor.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the Planning Commission will be approving the concept, while Ms. Terry will hold the final approval.  Mr. Ryan asked if the Village staff would be making the final decision on railings, balusters, and size of the columns.  Mr. Burriss agreed that this would be appropriate.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant indicated square balusters on the application.  Mr. Burriss asked if there would be new gutters and downspouts.  Mr. Parsley stated no.  Mr. Ryan asked if the roof would match the existing roof.  Mr. Parsley indicated that the existing roof is from 2002 and they will make every effort to match it.  Mr. Parsley presented a sample of the bluestone proposed to be used for the walkway.  Mr. McClow asked if this will have a sand base.  Mr. Parsley stated yes and Bill Schneider will do the work and he has made recommendations on how to do the walkway.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if it is typical for applicants to come in without the exact plans from their contractor.  Furthermore, she questioned if the Planning Commission usually has more concrete plans.  Mr. Burriss stated no - not necessarily something on this size and scale and that this application is actually more detailed than a lot of the previous applications they’ve received.  Ms. Terry, when asked, indicated that the application was submitted with sufficiet information.  Ms. Reeves asked for the exact location of the pavers.  Mr. Parsley showed her on the drawings.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the pavers are going to be a gray color.  Mr. Parsley stated that the stone will be gray in color and he listed two sizes of stone on the materials list because one is thinner than the other in depth. 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-122:

 

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 restoration of a porch is always consistent.

b)      Contributes to the improvement and upgrading of the historical character of the Village District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that this is achieved by improving the historical character. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that the character is being enhanced.

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 placing a roof over the front stoop, that will be built to just under the windows on the second level, to meet this requirement.

f)        Building Massing: The applicant is proposing a roof structure over the existing front porch which will help the scale and massing on the front of the home. 

g)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded that the applicant is proposing to remove the existing sandstone around the base of the foundation and replace it with brick.  The shingles on the new porch roof structure will be Owens Corning (Onyx Black Oak Ridge 2 or Duration) roof asphalt shingles to match the shingles on the existing house.  The walkways will be replaced with some concrete, but primarily with bluestone pavers.  There will be four (4) new support posts added that will be at least 8” in diameter.  The applicant has chosen to use round columns with the exact size to be determined by Village Staff.

 

Mr. Mitchell made a motion that Application #08-122 be approved on the condition that:

1)      The columns, railings, and balusters be approved by Village staff prior to installation for size, style, and material; and

2)      That the sidewalk pavers be bluestone; and

3)      The Owens Corning shingles match the existing roof;

4)      And the proposed brick will be the same as the submitted sample. 

 

Seconded by Mr. Burriss.

 

Roll Call Vote: Burriss, McClow, Mitchell, Reeves, Ryan (No).  Motion carried 4-1.

(Mr. Ryan indicated that he is voting “No” because he does not feel there is enough information provided by the applicant and too much of the final approval relies on staff.)

 

Application #08-122 is approved as submitted with the above listed conditions. 

 

203 North Plum Street – Jim Hartzler & Meg Ginther, Application #08-123

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

The request was for architectural review and approval of the following items:

             1)        Removal of non-historic kitchen window to be converted to clapboard siding;

2)         Replacement of existing door on the north entry with a twelve-light wooden entry door; and

3)         Replacement of tarpaper roof sheathing over north entry with a steel roof.

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #08-123:

Mr. Hartzler stated that his home was built in 1867 and he believes there may have been an addition around 1908 and renovations during the 1940’s or 1950’s.  Mr. Hartzler explained that there are three components to the total project.  He stated that the first component entails replacing a window on the side of the north home with the exact same placard siding that he believes was originally on the home.  He stated that the second component involves installing a metal roof on a north entry porch.  He stated that this roof currently has tar paper and he is not able to use slate, asphalt shingles, or rolled roofing material – due to the shape of the roof.  He stated that a metal roof is his only option.  He stated that he could use copper, but this would be costly.  Mr. Hartzler stated that instead he has chosen to use either a dark brown (that would simulate the look of a copper roof) or green.  He stated that he would like to use a twenty gauge steel.  Mr. McClow asked the color of the roof on the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated that the current roof needs to be replaced at some point and he believes it is from 1982 – light gray.  Ms. Reeves asked if the shape of the roof will remain the same.  Mr. Hartzler stated yes.  Mr. Hartzler stated that the third component that needs attended to is the replacement of a door.  He listed five reasons why the door ought to be replaced. Mr. Hartzler stated that the door is not visible from any public view and the door is not functional.  He stated that it would take a considerable amount of money to make the door functional from the current layout on the inside of the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated that he does not believe this particular door was originally on the house when it was built and it is not energy efficient.  He went on to say that there has been a metal storm door attached to help with heating/cooling efficiency and he later clarified that he would permanently remove the storm door if a new door is put in place.  Mr. Hartzler stated that the door he would like to put in replacement of the deteriorating door is similar in size and style to doors replaced on the home in the 1908 addition/remodel.  He stated that the proposed door would match a true divided light wooden door on the south side of the home.  Mr. Hartzler also stated that he would like to keep the old door and possibly use it in future remodeling efforts.  Mr. Burriss asked if the existing kitchen first floor window is in line with the second floor windows on the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated yes.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would not be in favor of obliterating the original fenestration pattern of the windows.  He asked Mr. Hartzler if he considered doing a blind window and he stated that this is a commonly used practice to maintain symmetry and balance.  He stated for instance that the Planning Commission required David Schnaidt, 139 West Elm Street, to make four windows blind windows – rather than removing them from the home.  He went on to say that the window could appear to have shutters that are closed.  Mr. Hartzler stated that any fake window will be readily perceptible and finding shutters that would work would be difficult.  Mr. McClow stated that they would most likely have to be custom-made.  Mr. Burriss asked how other members of the Planning Commission felt regarding the window.  Mr. Ryan stated that he can see what Mr. Burriss is saying and he cannot answer if it is feasible or not.  He stated that this area is visible by the neighbors and more importantly it is located in the Architectural Review Overlay District.  Mr. Mitchell stated that if Mr. Hartzler does not wish to keep the window he does not feel they are losing any architectural component by replacing it with siding.  He stated that this would make it “no uglier than it currently is.”  Mr. Mitchell also stated that he would not want to require something that is costly and something that Mr. Hartzler doesn’t want to do.  Ms. Reeves agreed, and stated that she would like to see that the proposed door match the existing door on the other side of the home.  Mr. Burriss and Mr. Mitchell agreed that the proposed door ought to match the door on the south side of the home.  Mr. Hartzler stated that he has purchased a true divided light wooden door from Cellar Lumber Company and it may not be two insulated panes of glass, but is capable of keeping heat in.  Mr. Hartzler was unsure as to how many divides the door he purchased has.

 

 

The Planning Commission reviewed the Standards and Criteria pertaining to Application #08-122:

 

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 existing window is not characteristic of the original 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 this is true provided that the new door matches other doors on the home.  She added that getting rid of the existing storm door is also beneficial. 

c)      Contributes to the continuing vitality of the District.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Ryan stated that it is upgrading the non-working door that is on the property and it replaces a deteriorating roof system.    

d)      Protects and enhances examples of the physical surroundings in which past generations lived.  The Planning Commission concluded yes.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the old house will be protected.

e)      Materials and Texture:  The Planning Commission concluded the following:

  1. a.      Removal of non-historic kitchen window to be converted to clapboard siding;
  2. b.      Replacement of existing door on the north entry with a twelve light wooden entry door; and
  3. c.       Replacement of tarpaper roof sheathing over north entry with a steel roof.

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion that Application #08-123 be approved on the condition that:

1)                                          The north side door match the existing door on the south side of the home and the door be a wood true divided light door; and

2)                                          The color of the steel roof is to be dark green to match the shutters or dark brown or taupe to match simulated copper.

 

Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. 

 

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

 

Application #08-123 is approved with the above stated conditions. 

 

 

Old Business:

 

            Note:  This agenda item is open to the public and is a public hearing.  All individuals are permitted to speak regarding the review of the proposed Zoning Code revisions.

 

            Additional Review of the Proposed Zoning Code Revisions, to amend Sections 1109.11, 1133.03, 1135.01, 1137.01, 1137.02, 1137.05, 1137.07, 1137.08, 1139.05, 1139.06, 1141.04, 1141.05, 1141.06, 1143.04, 1145.03, 1145.04, 1147.03,  1147.04, 1149.01, 1149.02, 1149.03, 1159.02, 1159.03, 1159.04, 1159.05, 1161.01, 1161.02, 1161.03, 1163.01, 1163.02, 1163.03, 1167.02, 1167.03, 1175.02, 1175.04, 1175.05,  1183.01, 1183.03, and 1189.03, and to amend and change the section number of Sections 1137.03, 1137.04, 1137.05, 1137.06, 1137.07 and 1137.08, and To Enact New Sections 1137.03, 1137.10, 1157.14, 1157.15 Of The Codified Ordinances Of The Village Of Granville, Ohio.   

 

Discussion:  Ms. Terry explained that the changes made so far are highlighted in the document.  She asked the Planning Commission to review the final version of the changes they have proposed to present to Council. 

 

Mr. Burriss stated that he would like language added to the definition of driveway “used for vehicular traffic.” – page 4

 

Ms. Terry noted an error on page 30 – Section 1157.14…the word “thirty” should be changed to “forty” – to make 40%.

 

Dennis Cauchon asked if he could comment on the purpose listed for the Architectural Review Overlay District since this is a public hearing.  The Planning Commission stated yes. 

 

The purpose of the AROD is listed on page 37 of the zoning code revisions and states the following:

            “The purpose of the Architectural Review Overlay District is to maintain a high character of community development, to protect and preserve property, to promote stability of property vales and to protect real estate from impairment or destruction of value for the general community welfare by regulating the exterior architectural characteristics of structures and preservation and protection of buildings of architectural and historical significance throughout the Architectural Review Overlay District.  It is the further purpose of this Chapter to recognize and preserve the unique historical and architectural character of this community, reflecting the distinct phases of the Village’s history.”

 

Mr. Cauchon stated that he feels that the sentence pertaining to “character of community development” is too extraneous and it has no meaning that he can figure out.  He also emphasized that the Planning Commission shouldn’t consider when people come in promoting that the way they do something will improve their property values because this is irrelevant when the focus should be on the historical character.  Ms. Terry clarified that the language - “promote property values” – could be removed if the Planning Commission wishes to do so.  She stated that promoting property values will be an economic decision as well as an historic preservation issue.  Ms. Reeves commented that this is getting off on a tangent and she has no problem with the referral to the value of homes.  Mr. McClow agreed.  Mr. Ryan stated that they hear all the time from people at Planning Commission meetings that certain things will devalue property.  He went on to say that he gets Mr. Cauchon’s point and we (the Planning Commission) are not going to be slaves to approve something because someone feels it will pump up property values.  Mr. Burriss questioned if they ought to do away with language pertaining to promoting property values.  Mr. Mitchell stated that what strikes him is that they are trying to preserve historical structures and promote good architecture and the language should be stated as simple as this.   Mr. Ryan stated that the Planning Commission asked for a better definition in this area pertaining to the purpose of the AROD because it leads into the set Criteria we as a Commission have to review for each application.  He went on to say that he feels better having some more language here.  Mr. Mitchell questioned if this language as it is currently written would have allowed for the first application to go through for Cleveland Hall.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he does not think it would have allowed it.  Mr. Cauchon stated that he would agree.  Mr. Ryan agreed with Mr. Mitchell’s assessment.  Mr. Burriss stated that he believes that the first application for Cleveland Hall could be approved with the new language because he sees it as being subjective language.  The Planning Commission left the language as is.

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #08-122:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-122 with the following conditions:

1)                  The columns, railings, and balusters be approved by Village staff prior to the installation for size, style and material; and

2)                  The sidewalk pavers are to be bluestone; and

3)                  The shingles are to match the existing roof; and

4)                  The brick will be the same as the submitted sample

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-122.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

Roll Call Vote: McClow, Reeves, Mitchell, Burriss, Ryan (no).  Motion carried 4-1.

 

Application #08-123:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1161, Architectural Review Overlay District and Chapter 1163, Suburban Residential District and hereby gives their approval of Application #08-123, with the following conditions:

1)                  The new door matches the existing door on the south side of the home and the door be a wood true divided light door;

2)                  The color of the steel roof to be dark green to match the shutters or dark brown.

 

Mr. Mitchell moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #08-123.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves. 

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

 

Approval of the Minutes:

September 8, 2008

Ms. Reeves moved to approve the September 8, 2008 minutes as presented.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.  Motion carried 5-0.

 

Adjournment:  8:50 PM. 

Mr. Burriss moved to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Mr. Mitchell.  Motion carried 5-0.  

 

 

Next meetings:

October 14, 2008 (Mr. Mitchell will not be able to attend)

October 27, 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.