Granville Community Calendar

Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 2009

GRANVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION

February 23, 2009

7:00pm

Minutes

 

Members Present: Tom Mitchell, Lyle McClow, Gina Reeves, Jack Burriss, Councilmember O’Keefe.

Members Absent: Tim Ryan.

Staff Present: Village Planner, Alison Terry.

Visitors Present: Britney Lang, Phil Wince, Erna Holland, Bruce Cramer, Chuck Schwartz, Corey Brokaw, and Edgar Millard.

 

Swearing in of re-appointed member – Jack Burriss

Mr. Burris was previously sworn in at the Village Offices on February 23, 2009 by Mayor Hartfield.

 

Citizen’s Comments:

No one appeared to speak under Citizen’s Comments.

 

New Business:

537 Jones Road/Bryn Du Mansion Property – Buckeye Valley BIA– Application #09-07

SRD-A (Suburban Residential District-A)

The request is for approval of a temporary banner sign on the fence facing the

intersection of Jones Road and Newark-Granville Road.

                                                             

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

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-07:

There was no one at the meeting to represent the applicant for Application #09-07.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant was notified that they needed to attend the meeting.  She went on to explain that an eight foot (8’) by four foot (4’) sign (Total square footage = 32 sq. ft.) is proposed by the applicant.  She stated that the banner would be yellow, white, and green.  Ms. Terry stated that the only stipulation she would recommend on the application is for the approval to be void after the first of April.  Ms. Terry stated that the applicant can put the sign up on March 6th, which is after the ten day appeal period.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the application ought to be tabled for additional comment due to the proposed size of the banner.  Ms. Terry stated that she does not feel the size is necessarily too large, especially when one considers the distance from the roadway. Ms. Terry stated that this is the first time for this particular event and the applicant has not ever requested a banner in the past.  She went on to say that this is not considered a community activity, so a permit from the Planning Commission is required.  Mr. Burriss asked Mr. Cramer if he sees any problem with approving the banner for this event considering other events that are held at the property.  Bruce Cramer, who represented the Bryn Du Mansion property, stated that he does not see any issues with having the temporary banner.  He went on to explain that he wouldn’t mind being allowed to have six (or so) of these types of temporary banners throughout the year.  

 

Ms. Reeves made a motion to approve Application #09-07 with the condition that the temporary banner is removed by April 1, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. McClow.

 

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

 

Application #09-07 is approved with the above stated condition.

 

 

224 East Broadway – Brits Follies – Britney Hayes Lang - Application #09-06 CONTINUED

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

The request is for approval of round fiberglass columns on the first floor and the

replacement of wood railings with vinyl railings on the second floor to the front

elevation of the structure.

                                                             

Swearing in of Witnesses – Mr. Ryan swore in Village Planner Alison Terry, Phil Wince, and Britney Lang at the last hearing.  Erna Holland was sworn in by Mr. Mitchell.

 

Discussion regarding Application #09-06:

Phil Wince, 2350 West Broadway, stated that what the Planning Commission was proposing at the last meeting is in conflict with what he found to be consistent with the historical character of Granville.  Mr. Wince explained how Granville, Ohio was founded from descendants of Granville, Massachusetts.  He stated that one of those descendants is Dr. William Bancroft who in 1852 occupied the property at 224 East Broadway for a hydrotherapy/spa.  Mr. Wince presented a picture of the building in the 1850’s with connecting buildings and he stated that the porch in question was not there at that time.  Mr. Wince stated that the style of architecture on the building in 1852 was Colonial New England and this is known to be plain, dignified, honest, and substantial.  Mr. Wince stated that the porch that was placed on the building many years later is more Victorian and does not fit with the original architecture from 1852.  Mr. Wince stated that he has brought a photo board showing examples of houses up and down Broadway and all over Granville that mimic the Colonial New England style he is referring to.  Mr. Wince stated that in addition to these examples, they have found more than 100+ examples in Granville of architectural detailing that is consistent with what they are proposing.  He stated that they have reviewed the historic homes compiled for the Granville Bicentennial and they are all similar to what he is proposing with square spindles and round columns.  Mr. Wince went on to explain that they clearly comply with the review standards and criteria listed in the Code.  He also stated that they have received numerous comments from residents in Granville stating that they feel they are contributing to the upgrading and historical character of the structure.  Mr. Wince stated that the previous porch was close to falling down and their proposed improvements will greatly enhance the structure.  He also stated that they are contributing to the vitality of the Village by providing residences downtown.  Mr. Wince stated that ultimately they decided to keep the porch, but also blend it in with Granville architecture and style.  He stated that all of the porch materials would be painted white and they have added some square decorative pieces to the front of porch structure betweent the first and second floors.  They hope to put the ‘1852’ date on each end and the name of the original building in the middle.  Mr. Wince stated that it is not visible in the current pictures that have been presented, but there is an additional ring that exists at the top of the column and will be exposed once the cap is permanently secured.  He added that they would like to propose some dental molding above the upstairs porch and downstairs porch to add more interest, and in keeping with the architectural style.

 

Ms. Terry asked that it be clarified for the record that both Jack Burriss and Lyle McClow have listened to the tape of the meeting on February 9, 2009 for Application #09-06, as this is the only way they would be permitted to vote on the application.  Both Mr. Burriss and Mr. McClow verbally indicated that they had listened to the tape and read the meeting minutes. 

 

Mr. Burriss apologized he was not available to be at the previous meeting and hear the comments in person, but he did listen to a cassette tape of the meting.  Mr. Burriss stated that having run a business next door to 224 East Broadway, he is very aware of the building.  He stated that he has a couple things for the applicant to look at and think about.  He stated that one of the things that he felt was put forth in the last discussion was the applicant’s lack of detail in the proposed presentation, even though the detailing wasn’t original to the building - it was detailing with character and it was distinctive to the building.  Mr. Burriss indicated that he tried to take some of the comments made by fellow Planning Commission member’s and come up with a solution that could incorporate some character back into the structure.   He asked Mr. Wince if they are proposing a commercial use on the first floor and the second floor.  Mr. Wince stated that the second floor has two apartments – one in the front and one in the back.  Mr. Burriss asked the applicant if he has considered the style of commercial signage he would like to eventually use because this will be important to the overall character of the building and should be considered at this point.  Mr. Burriss stated that regarding the railing on the second floor with square posts – they are required by law to be a certain height and no one can get around this.  He stated that one thought on this might be to place a planter on the front of the railings , that could be made out of a non-degradable material, to help balance the scale betweent the porche and the railing.  He clarified that the top of the planter would be at the top of the railing and go in front of it.  Mr. Burriss stated that a half railing could be appropriate on the bottom porch that would add some detailing and help bring the two elevations together.  Mr. Wince stated that most structures with railings on the bottom level are raised four inches off the ground, where their porch sits pretty much at ground level.  Mr. Burriss also suggested that lattice could be considered appropriate on the sides of the building.  He encouraged the use of plantings because this enhances the character of the structure along with the detailing the applicant is proposing. 

 

Mr. Mitchell stated Mr. Burriss’s suggestions would certainly be dressing the building up.  He stated that he hears Mr. Wince indicating that the details he currently has on the building are in use in many areas around town and therefore should also be allowed to be used on this building– and Mr. Mitchell stated he does not agree with that assessment.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there was a look to Mr. Wince’s building that was not architecturally correct - it is considered vernacular architecture.  Mr. Mitchell stated that he is asking the applicant to provide examples of architectural detailing that can be added to the structure, but in terms of harder – more permanent details other than lattice and planters.   Mr. Mitchell stated that regarding the proposed use of dental molding – he would like to see it – especially on a drawing of the building along with all of the other details he wants to put on the structure.  Mr. Mitchell stated that in his mind it doesn’t seem like a lot to ask and he is aware of many column manufacturers that could provide detailing for the base and capitals.  Mr. Wince stated that if you go anywhere around the Village - the use of columns, along with the detailing they are proposing, are on various structures throughout the Village.  Mr. Mitchell stated he didn’t mean to suggest that they aren’t in heavy use in Granville, but his point is just because they are in heavy use, doesn’t mean they are ok on this structure.  Mr. McClow asked Mr. Wince if he is opposed to adding the level of detailing the Planning Commission is suggesting.  Mr. Wince stated that there is already a base and capital in place and any more detailing would mean that they dismantle the porch. Mr. Burriss stated that he noticed that the applicant is proposing a single row of dental molding on the top porch and a double row of dental molding on the bottom porch.  He stated that it would be more historically appropriate to have the dental molding on the top porch only.  Other member’s of the Planning Commission agreed. Ms. Terry inquired on how the dental molding would tie into the squares placed on the building between the first and second floors.  Mr. Wince stated that it would meet up to the squares.   Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if there is already some detailing on each column.  Mr. Wince stated yes and when the trim is raised up you will be able to see this more clearly.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant is proposing a Doric column and these were most prevalent during the Colonial Revival period.  Mr. Wince stated that regarding the planter and lattice ideas suggested by Mr. Burriss – he likes the idea but he is a little concerned that the front view could be blocked.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels this could be worked out so it doesn’t block the view anymore than the railing height is going to block it.  He went on to say that visually from the front of the structure they would help the railings appear shorter.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is still hearing from other Commissioner’s that the detailing on the columns is not sufficient.  Ms. Reeves stated that she likes some of the ideas going forward regarding the dental molding and she can let go of some of the other ideas regarding the shape of the spindles.  She stated that for her she needs something that architecturally pulls the bottom porch altogether with the top porch.  Ms. Reeves went on to say that she is sad to see some of the eclectic detailing go away, but she is very willing to find some sort of compromise and ultimately would like a greater understanding of what the applicant proposes for the bottom porch.  Councilmember O’Keefe stated that planters could also be placed on the ground floor/bottom porch.  Mr. Burriss stated that he thought about this and he would encourage a consistency of permanent architectural detailing.  He stated that a planter may not look attractive in the wintertime and he feels a railing is better suited for the bottom level and the half railing idea could deemphasize the four sets of French doors.  Mr. Burriss stated that he would like to see detailing that is permanent - no matter whom the owner of the building is. 

Erna Holland stated that she would like to clarify that one of the things that the Planning Commission doesn’t like is the height of the top railing.  She stated that she would agree because it makes the building look shorter, but she would have concerns with putting the railing on the bottom because it will shorten the building even more.  Mr. Burriss stated that there is no railing restrictions on the bottom and visually the lower and top railing would look at odds, not matching, and this is one reason he proposed the idea of a planter.  Ms. Holland stated that they do have plans for landscaping the front area, as well as planters on the front porch because they really want to make it look nice.  Ms. Holland stated that if they place planters across the top railing, then they are dependent on renters to maintain them.  Mr. Burriss felt that it would not necessarily be a detriment to ask a renter to do this or to incorporate it into their lease agreement.  He stated that this would be an enhancement to the property overall.  Mr. Wince stated that regarding the lattice on the side of the building, he would have concerns because the two front areas are going to be commercial spaces and he would not want any area blocked.  Mr. Burriss stated that another thought would be that it wouldn’t have to be full width lattice panels, and it could be designed with borders to not take up the full width.  Mr. McClow stated that he likes the simple look of what the applicant has proposed here now.  He stated that he would agree he isn’t sure about the double row of dental molding.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would like to see a visual entrance for the bottom floor once it is finished, and she added that she would like the applicant to bring some character back that was taken away with the removal of the sandstone columns.  Ms. Reeves stated that the spindles are a non-issue for her and she appreciates the effort put forth to gather the information presented by the applicant.  Ms. Reeves stated that she would like a visual  to be provided by the applicant that shows whether or not they will see just four doors with a column down the middle or something with more detail and character.  Ms. Holland stated that they would be using the existing sidewalks and they will be determining the landscaping and how this will soften the front entrance.  She went on to say that they are certainly going to put flowers pots out to soften the front porch.  Ms. Holland stated that she would agree that the signage will add to the permanent look of the building.  She went on to say that one potential renter has indicated that they do not want any obstructions to the view of Broadway.  Mr. Mitchell stated that there have been many ideas put forth this evening, but he does not see a drawing depicting anything he would feel comfortable approving tonight.  Councilmember O’Keefe questioned if the Planning Commission is suggesting that the applicant install a second railing and is this something they can mandate.  Mr. Mitchell stated that they are asking the applicant to come back with a drawing that shows more architectural interest and detail and something that adds back - to a good degree - the character that the building had before.  Mr. Mitchell stated that the plans do not have to be drawn by an architect, but they do need to know what the applicant intends to do.  He added that he has a general problem with the Planning Commission designing things for applicants and the ideas they throw out are just suggestions.  Mr. Wince stated that to be honest he has a little bit of a problem with that himself. He stated that if there is “set criteria” that we can work off of then that should give some indication of the guidelines.  He stated that “he has his likes and she has her likes” and exactly what standard is he being held to?  Mr. Mitchell stated that this property had an architectural look that the applicant has removed and that the Planning Commission would like the same level of character put back in.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that there is very little change in the applicant’s submittal from the last meeting and he didn’t want to approve it at the previous meeting because there was not enough architectural detail.  Mr. Wince stated that he is presenting what the character of Granville is and he finds it kind of odd that this is one of the few times he has been before this Board and they are saying they don’t want the structure to look like old Granville, they want it to look like something different.  Mr. Wince stated that we have a historic district that has certain criteria that should be followed.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is hearing that member’s of the Planning Commission would like some enhancements in the detail.  He apologized to Mr. Wince if he felt that his suggestions were trying to design his building.  Mr. Burriss stated that he feels the applicant is leaving without a clear understanding of what the Planning Commission expects.  He also stated that if you look closely at photographs provided, there is a high level of detail in them and we just want to ensure the same level of detailing.  Ms. Holland stated that there is some feeling as though they are being asked to start the approval process over again from what was originally approved in July.  Ms. Terry explained that the July application indicates that all parts of the porch are to be reconstructed identical to what was originally in place on the date of the application.  Ms. Holland clarified that really there are two issues we are talking about and that is the columns on the first floor and the balusters and railing on the second floor.  Ms. Reeves and Mr. Mitchell agreed.  Mr. Wince questioned what guidelines and standards he is to meet when he completes an application.  Mr. Burriss stated that he is going off of the set of drawings the Village has on file and the expectations are to replace what was originally in place.  Mr. Wince stated that the drawings on file, for the July hearing, related only to the replacement of the windows and doors.  Mr. Wince stated that when they spoke in regards to replacing the structure back to its original condition – they meant back to the New England style architecture, not the previous porch detailing.  Mr. Burriss stated that ideally, as soon as the applicant realized the original columns couldn’t be used, he should have approached the Village Planner or Planning Commission.  Mr. Burriss stated that he does not have a problem with the Doric columns and he knows the designer that the applicant is working with and he trusts her ideas.  He went on to say that he thinks there was some unique architectural detailing that existed on that building and “historic Granville architecture” is an idea they have struggled with throughout the years.  Mr. Burriss explained that the Planning Commission does not necessarily need an architectural drawing, but a detailed example of what the building will look like, as well as sample of the spindles, etc.  Ms. Terry stated that for example the applicant could submit information (a cut sheet) stating they would like 4” vinyl spindles with the cap and base detailing.  Mr. Wince asked if the Planning Commission could make a decision on the square or turned spindles and he presented an example of each.  Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Reeves preferred the look of the turned spindle.  Mr. Mitchell indicated that the turned spindle clearly has more detailing.  Mr. Burriss stated that the applicant would also need to indicate whether or not the gutters are going to change.  Councilmember O’Keefe asked if there is already dental molding on the building.  Ms. Terry stated that there is not dental molding currently on the building, and she indicated that the gutters, spindles, and detailing could be specified in an amendment to this application.  Mr. Wince questioned if he could install the spindles at this time.  Ms. Terry stated that no further work is to be done on the structure until the time of approval by the Planning Commission and there is then a 10-day appeal process after approval.  The applicant, Mr. Wince, agreed to tabling the application.

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to Table Application #09-06.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.

 

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

 

Application #09-06 is approved.

 

Other Business:

Review of Ordinance pertaining to Signage, to amend Sections 1189.01, 1189.09, 1189.10, 1189.11, of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to temporary, exempt, and prohibited signs.

 

Discussion:  Ms. Terry stated that the proposed changes by the Planning Commission are highlighted in yellow. 

 

Mr. Burriss made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Council to amend Sections 1189.01, 1189.09, 1189.10, 1189.11, of the Codified Ordinances of the Village of Granville, Ohio pertaining to temporary, exempt, and prohibited signs.  Seconded by Mr. McClow. 

 

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

 

Finding of Fact Approvals:

 

New Business:

Application #09-07:

Approve Findings of Fact and Associated Standards and Criteria.

The Planning Commission found the request to be consistent with The Granville Codified Ordinances Chapter 1189, Signs and hereby approves Application #09-07 with the stipulations that the sign be removed by April 1, 2009.

 

Mr. McClow moved to approve the Findings of Fact for Application #09-07 with the stipulation that the sign be removed by April 1, 2009.  Seconded by Ms. Reeves.   

 

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

 

Approval to excuse absent Planning Commission members:

Ms. Reeves made a motion to excuse Tim Ryan from the Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 2009.  Seconded by Mr. Burriss.  Motion carried 4-0. 

 

Adjournment:  9:20 PM

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

 

Next meetings:

March 9, 2009

March 30, 2009

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.